Almalieque wrote:
To prevent me from wasting too much time engaging in another long drawn out argument that you will just result in a lame cop out, I will assume some questions are rhetorical and/or hit the highlights. If there is a specific comment that you want me to answer, feel free to address it as such.
Gbaji wrote:
The GOP? No. I'll ask again for you to show me actual elected members of the national Republican party who said those two things.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/the-daily-show-rips-rokita-s-obamacare-claim/article_95f2532f-bd06-5c65-918b-1e8c2aaf3e5a.html
Excuse me? Was there a quote from an elected member of the national Republican party saying that the ACA was "worse than slavery" and "literally kills people"? Quoting other people saying that's what he said isn't the same thing.
Also, are you seriously trying to argue that his statement is why people oppose the ACA? Cause I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of people who oppose Oamacare today also opposed it prior to like 2 weeks ago. So... want to try again? Where are these lies that were told that made people oppose the ACA. Remember, the law was passed (and opposed) back in 2009/2010. So at least try to limit this to things actually said during the process of writing/passing the law itself.
Quote:
In any case, your comment was that the people weren't lied to, whether or not you think people believe it is irrelevant. You can't assume other intellect based off of your own.
Let's not forget the context:
gbaji wrote:
I think both sides were told to support or oppose it. The difference being that one side was convinced to support it by misleading them into thinking it would benefit them (ie: playing on their greed). The other was told to oppose it because it violated their principles *and* would hurt more people than it helped. The second group was at least not lied to.
I'm not saying that the second group was not lied to
ever by
anyone about
any subject. I'm saying that the reasons they were told to oppose Obamacare were not lies, in specific contrast to those who were urged to support Obamcare who were told that was about reducing the cost of health care and that no one's taxes would go up as a result. These statements were at best misleading and at worst out right lies.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Or, we can say that Obama (you know, an actual elected member of the Democratic party) repeated over and over that "Under the ACA, if you want to keep your existing health care, you can" was a lie. See how that works? Actual statement by actual elected representative of a party (head of said party even!) that is not true. Which is the point of the ad.
Besides the point that you can keep your existing health care, even if it were a lie, those commercials do not state that.
Huh? Who cares about some commercial? I'm talking about words spoken over and over by our president when he was actively working to convince people to support the ACA. And those words were false. And not just a little bit false, but the kind of false that anyone who thought about how our health care system works should have known were false. The entire point of the ACA is to push people off their existing health care and into the government managed exchanges. The only way the financial math even comes remotely close to working is if literally millions (tens of millions actually) of people are forced to participate in those exchanges.
(in order to work) The law actually requires that large numbers of people lose their current coverage and go onto those exchanges. Something that we conservatives warned about repeatedly. The claim that if you like your health care you will get to keep it was a lie back then, and is still a lie today. Sure, the law doesn't force anyone to change their health care, but it creates massive financial incentives for them or their employers to change. It's like passing a law that forces you to pay twice as much money for ham sandwiches, while subsidizing turkey, and claiming "if you like your ham sandwiches, you can still buy them". Sure. Technically true, but the whole point of the law is to try to get people to eat turkey instead of ham, right?
Same thing here. The whole point of the law is to try to get people to purchase insurance through the exchanges and not directly (or though their employers). There are a host of taxes and incentives in place to do this.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Except that every person working for certain businesses (and the government) are exempted. So if we're to treat everyone the same, isn't it wrong to treat some people one way and some another? For example: Since I work for a private non-union company and receive high quality health coverage, I'm required to treat that coverage as income under Obamacare (so I pay income taxes on it now). But if I were employed by the government, or worked for a union, even if my pay and coverage were otherwise identical, I would not.
Is that fair? Is that treating every person the same? No. It's not.
That doesn't address mandates, which is the argument.
No, it's not. You said that as long as every person is treated the same, then the system is fair. Specifically, it didn't matter if businesses were treated differently because the people working for them were all treated the same. I countered with a specific example showing that this is not true. Individuals are rewarded or punished under Obamacare based on what can only be viewed as alignment with political agenda. Which kinda brings up another problem with Obamacare (and ties back into that commercial you keep harping on about): The law gives far too much leeway to the executive branch (HHS) in terms of execution. It allows for precisely this kind of favorite playing that we're seeing. We're seeing the Obama administration handing out exemptions in some incredibly questionable ways (which I'm sure just only happen to benefit their own political allies). So yeah, that's a major point of contention and it's why the GOP keeps bringing up the need to extend exemptions and exceptions for everyone. If the law is so broken that it can't be applied to government employees or union workers, then how can it be fine for everyone else?
Quote:
The argument made was that businesses get an additional year before being mandated.
It's more than that, but that's part of it. We should hold off implementing any portion of Obamacare for which we're providing exemptions. Which is most of it. Again, if it's so great, why do some employers not have to comply with it?
Quote:
So providing a budget close to the Ryan budget isn't good enough? President Obama originally asked for 1.203 Trillion dollars. The 2014 Ryan Budget is $967 Billion. The CR bill, proposed by the Dems is $986 Billion, which is lower than the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. That's $217 Billion less than what Dems originally wanted and $19 Billion closer to what the GOP proposed.
Where the hell did you get those numbers? You are, at a minimum, looking at only part of the budget picture.
Quote:
I'm just repeating the lies made.
Well. At least you're admitting finally that your argument consists of repeating lies you were told. We're getting somewhere!
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
But not sold to the majority on that though.
Maybe not on Fox news, but it has every where else. President Obama's main talking point is and has always been that there are 30 million uninsured people that has a chance to get more affordable health care. Last time I checked, that's less than 10% of the population.
And? How many times has he said "If you like the health care you have, you will get to keep it" (or some variation of that)? No one's arguing that he didn't talk about some number of people who could not afford health care. We're arguing that he convinced people to agree to help that group obtain health care by claiming that it would not cost them anything and their own health care cost/coverage would not be impacted.
Both of those were lies. A large percentage of people who currently have health insurance will see their premiums rise and/or the coverage by their employers cut (or dropped entirely) and/or higher tax bills to pay for them. I would say at least a majority of the set of people who had health insurance prior to the passage of Obamacare will see one or all of those effects.
[quote]President Obama and President Clinton made it very clear that this can be only successful if people partake in it or prices will increase. Furthermore, that it'll be challenge to win the "young and healthy", as the fine might be more tempting.[/quote]
Yes. By deliberately misleading them about whether this meant that *they* would have to pay more out of pocket. Please tell me you can see the underlying deception of telling people who currently choose not to buy health insurance (because they're healthy, single, 20 somethings) that their costs will not go up, their taxes will not go up, and only "the rich" will have to pay more for this, and then adding "we all have to do our parts" to that list. You get that those same young folks all think that the people doing their parts will be
other people and
not them.
Hell, I remember repeatedly trying to drum it into all the young people on this forum that they were the ones who were going to get most screwed by this. I don't recall a single person responding with "Oh. I know that I'll have to pay hundreds of more dollars a year that I can't afford to help pay for care for other people and I'm fine with it!". What I got was either silence, or a quick change of subject.
And that's not counting all the folks who have health insurance, and will see their premiums go up as a result of the need to subsidize that group. You don't honestly think they thought they they were the ones Obama was speaking about as having to "do their part". Doubly so when this is included with constant claims that current costs wont go up. How can you reconcile that?
Also. Please stop using youtube videos as sources. Link to a transcript and provide quotes please.
Edited, Oct 8th 2013 6:00pm by gbaji