Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[sunmaster14]

I think this is going to become a major headache for Obama. Most GOP "outrage" is laughably ginned up nonsense (Benghazi, Fast and Furious), but this one bugs me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Benghazi and Fast&Furious were "laughably ginned up nonsense?" Do you think Watergate was nonsense? If not, then I'd be interested to see you explain why Watergate was a more serious issue.

 

[DDWW]

Benghazi and Fast&Furious were "laughably ginned up nonsense?" Do you think Watergate was nonsense? If not, then I'd be interested to see you explain why Watergate was a more serious issue.

Not to mention the IRS scandal.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not to mention the IRS scandal.

Yeah, well let's not bring up the VA abuse scandal or the AP phone records subpoena or the scandal involving Lisa Jackson at the EPA, either.

I like me some apophasis.

 

[Puppycow]

Boy, this guy would make a bad politician.

Gruber has made controversial comments in the past, but they don’t compare to the comments that came to light this week, six videos in total and counting – including one where he refers to the “stupidity of the American voter.” In another, when talking about Obamacare tax credits, he said, “American voters are too stupid to understand the difference.”

“If you have a law that makes explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it wouldn’t have passed,” Gruber said in a video from 2013. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

In yet another from 2012, Gruber said in a speech at the University of Rhode Island: “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

Why? Is he trying to sabotage his own creation?

He may understand economics, but he clearly doesn't have a clue about politics.

 

[Puppycow]

The only thing good about this is the timing. Thank god it didn't come out 3 weeks ago. The Democrats got their tails handed to them, but maybe it could have been even worse.

 

[Leftus]

For the sake of argument, if ever "Obamacare" were to be repealed, what would happen to everybody who signed up for it?

Repealed? Probably nothing. If they are subsidized they will be on the hook for the total bill going forward, but they could drop coverage without penalty.

If the subsidies portion is ruled invalid, or only valid to those who signed up under a state exchange, the money paid incorrectly would likely be seen as a overpayment and the Fed would seek to get the money back. Since it was made on the individuals behalf, under the same idea that if you made more money and weren't eligible for a subsidy, the Fed would seek the money back from the individual. The individual would then be on the hook for the full bill and dropping it would make them subject to the penalty.

 

[DavidJames]

Boy, this guy would make a bad politician.





Why? Is he trying to sabotage his own creation?

He may understand economics, but he clearly doesn't have a clue about politics.

He clearly doesn't understand the verbal aspect of politics.

What, to me, is hilarious, is the Republicans, who pretty much base their entire political agenda assuming the stupidity of the American electorate, are outraged at this.

 

[twinstead]

Repealed? Probably nothing. If they are subsidized they will be on the hook for the total bill going forward, but they could drop coverage without penalty.

If the subsidies portion is ruled invalid, or only valid to those who signed up under a state exchange, the money paid incorrectly would likely be seen as a overpayment and the Fed would seek to get the money back. Since it was made on the individuals behalf, under the same idea that if you made more money and weren't eligible for a subsidy, the Fed would seek the money back from the individual. The individual would then be on the hook for the full bill and dropping it would make them subject to the penalty.

So wouldn't an appeal subject millions of people to possibly loosing their coverage?

 

[Leftus]

So wouldn't an appeal subject millions of people to possibly loosing their coverage?

Only as a result of not being able to afford it without the subsidies.

Of course, if enforcing the law as written, where only individuals who signed up during open enrollment in state run exchanges are entitled to the subsidies and nobody else, then who is at fault for the "lost" subsidies?

 

[xjx388]

He clearly doesn't understand the verbal aspect of politics.

What, to me, is hilarious, is the Republicans, who pretty much base their entire political agenda assuming the stupidity of the American electorate, are outraged at this.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't see any video evidence of Republicans actually saying this out loud.

 

[Ziggurat]

He may understand economics, but he clearly doesn't have a clue about politics.

Indeed, he committed the cardinal sin: he told the truth.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Indeed, he committed the cardinal sin: he told the truth.

You mean that he feels American voters are stupid?

 

[DavidJames]

As for the voters’ intelligence, Gruber’s remarks threaten to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. To treat them as important really is stupid. If anyone’s counting on the stupidity of the American voters, it’s the ACA’s opponents...

From here.

 

[ehcks]

You mean that he feels American voters are stupid?

Is he wrong?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Is he wrong?

I would say yes, he is wrong.

American voter's intelligence would follow a bell curve, from genius to mentally deficient, with the majority in the fat part of the curve, spanning "normal" intelligence.

Maybe not as smart as he is, but clearly what he may have in smarts he lacks in common sense.

 

[Kestrel]

Voters are often misinformed. The resulting behavior is hard to distinguish from stupidity.

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean that he feels American voters are stupid?

Yes, that too, but the damning truth he told is that their entire strategy was to deliberately lie.

 

[The_Animus]

Yes, that too, but the damning truth he told is that their entire strategy was to deliberately lie.

Not dismissing your comment but I couldn't help but laugh because so many republican positions are based on deliberately lying about what they are doing.

Photo ID, reducing voting times, Intelligent design, requirements for admitting privileges for abortion doctors, to name just a few.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Since this is a skeptic's forum, let me say that...

Especially in light of your sig line, do you not know what the "tu quoque" fallacy is?

 

[The_Animus]

Since this is a skeptic's forum, let me say that...

Especially in light of your sig line, do you not know what the "tu quoque" fallacy is?

I do. From wikipedia....

The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position

Not dismissing your comment but I couldn't help but laugh because so many republican positions are based on deliberately lying about what they are doing.

Photo ID, reducing voting times, Intelligent design, requirements for admitting privileges for abortion doctors, to name just a few.

It doesn't apply as I wasn't making an argument. It just made me laugh. I even included that I wasn't dismissing the post I replied to specifically in the hopes that my comment wouldn't be confused as a tu quoque argument.

All for naught!