It's Official: Liberals Lie To Get What They Want

[Cow Poke]

That's not snark. It's setting a bar, albeit very low.

You are still trying to argue that even though the historical fact is that Saddam Hussein allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq in 2002 and even though those weapons inspectors found that Iraq was not producing or stockpiling WMDs, we should take Hussein's talk about not allowing weapons inspectors back into Iraq (which refers to the period between 1998 and 2002, anyway) as more authoritative. That baffles any rational response.

No, I'm not. Try reading the whole thread, and if there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask, rather than attack.

And "allowing" inspectors is not the same as "opening up"... there was still quite a bit of cat and mouse being played.

[Sam]

No, I'm not. Try reading the whole thread, and if there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask, rather than attack. And "allowing" inspectors is not the same as "opening up"... there was still quite a bit of cat and mouse being played.

I read it. MM claimed that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction; you linked to the NYT piece reporting about chemical weapons from the Iraq/Iran war, writing "Interestingly enough, Saddam could have AT ANY MOMENT come clean and let inspectors in, instead of constantly playing cat and mouse, and giving all appearances that he was hiding something big."Saddam Hussein did allow weapons inspectors in in 2002 and those inspectors reported that Iraq was not producing or stockpiling WMDs. You're citing a interview with Hussein that pretty clearly references the period when weapons inspectors were not allowed into Iraq, between 1998 and 2002. So arguing that Hussein could have avoided the Iraq War by "coming clean" and "let[ting] inspectors in" is fallacious: he did both "come clean" and allowed weapons inspectors into the country to perform through inspections. You simply can't use that line as justifying the invasion. It's counter to historical fact.

[Cow Poke]

Sam, feel free to Wiki on, full speed ahead. I really honestly don't give a flip.

[Mountain Man]

So, Sam, any comment on the fact that the architect of Obamacare admitted to depending on obfuscation and the stupidity of Democrat voters to get the bill passed?

[robrecht]

Cow Poke, what do you think of this point:

... You're citing a interview with Hussein that pretty clearly references the period when weapons inspectors were not allowed into Iraq, between 1998 and 2002. ...

[Cow Poke]

Cow Poke, what do you think of this point:

I'm serious, Robrecht... I really don't care --- that was so long ago, and we're arguing side points... the POINT was that the liberals were hailing the same dangers from WMD as Bush was. I think Sam just loves being in the weeds, and would rather be right than civil.

I have a lot more important things to do --- Jobs for Life class starts in 2 hours!

[seer]

I read it. MM claimed that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction; you linked to the NYT piece reporting about chemical weapons from the Iraq/Iran war, writing "Interestingly enough, Saddam could have AT ANY MOMENT come clean and let inspectors in, instead of constantly playing cat and mouse, and giving all appearances that he was hiding something big."Saddam Hussein did allow weapons inspectors in in 2002 and those inspectors reported that Iraq was not producing or stockpiling WMDs. You're citing a interview with Hussein that pretty clearly references the period when weapons inspectors were not allowed into Iraq, between 1998 and 2002. So arguing that Hussein could have avoided the Iraq War by "coming clean" and "let[ting] inspectors in" is fallacious: he did both "come clean" and allowed weapons inspectors into the country to perform through inspections. You simply can't use that line as justifying the invasion. It's counter to historical fact.

Anyways Sam that thread is about liberals lying to get the ACA through. I suspect that you agree with that deception for the greater good.

[robrecht]

I'm serious, Robrecht... I really don't care --- that was so long ago, and we're arguing side points... the POINT was that the liberals were hailing the same dangers from WMD as Bush was. I think Sam just loves being in the weeds, and would rather be right than civil.

I have a lot more important things to do --- Jobs for Life class starts in 2 hours!

I think most Dems in Congress shirked their responsibility in 2003 and went along for the popular political ride. Others, perhaps the better liberals, were asking tougher questions that largely went unanswered.

Good luck with your class!

[Sam]

Anyways Sam that thread is about liberals lying to get the ACA through. I suspect that you agree with that deception for the greater good.

Oh, I'll let Scott Lemieux take on the latest outrage du jour. After dealing with the distinction without a difference regarding taxes and penalties (and noting that House Republicans are about to push for dynamic scoring in order to institutionalize this kind of CBO gaming), Lemieux cuts to the heart:

Source: “If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the asinine right-wing talking points.” Scott Lemieux. LGM Blog. 2014.11.11

The second point Gruber is making isn’t really coherent enough to make sense of, but what Gruber seems to be describing here is not the Affordable Care Act per se, but “all public health care provision and all health care insurance.” Having the healthy pay for the sick is how all provision of health care works. Even in the absence of a mandate to purchase health insurance, this is how it works — Medicare is paid for by taxes on the more healthy, private insurance “overcharges” the more healthy to pay for the sick, and people who forego insurance voluntarily are covered by guarantees of emergency care that are paid for by taxes of the more healthy. I’m honestly baffled as to what Gruber is even getting at here; this aspect of essentially all health care provision is also common to the ACA, as is entirely transparent. The mandate was designed to prevent younger and healthier people from free riding, as was not only not a secret but the well-understood point. The fact that Medicare remains enormously popular despite having this feature would seem to suggest that this “news” “getting out” would not be fatal to the ACA. Taken at face value, Gruber’s assertion is bizarre.

My guess is that what Gruber is getting at is that proponents of the ACA reemphasized its redistributive aspects and emphasized its benefits. Which…cue Claude Rains. I mean, this idea that people proposing legislation are responsible for making the case for it and an (exceedingly stupid) case against is just ludicrous bad faith.

But this does bring us to a further layer of derp. If the ACA must be discredited because the public didn’t know that…it functioned like all forms of insurance, what does that say about the opposition? If one can only make a case against the ACA by talking about DEATH PANELS and NATIONALIZING ONE SEVENTH OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY and THE MOOPS INVADED SPAIN etc. etc. etc. then opposition to the ACA is super-ultra-extra discredited and clearly we must all concede that the Affordable Care Act is the greatest legislative enactment in known human history.

© Copyright Original Source

The idea that young, healthy people would be paying for more than what they end up using is called insurance. If someone thought that increasing access to health insurance would somehow negate the essential function of insurance, I'm not sure why we're supposed to have a real sympathy for that lack of thought. More likely, this is all storm-in-a-tea-party-pot about the evilness of taxes.

Don't have the forum buttons and have forgotten the coding for HTTP links so source here:http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...talking-points

[Cow Poke]

I think most Dems in Congress shirked their responsibility in 2003 and went along for the popular political ride. Others, perhaps the better liberals, were asking tougher questions that largely went unanswered.

Yeah, unfortunately, many (on both sides) wet their finger and put it up in the air to see which way the wind blows, and can be downright hawkish or dovish depending.

Good luck with your class!

Thanks - we're working on resume writing tonight!

[Truthseeker]

The idea that young, healthy people would be paying for more than what they end up using is called insurance. If someone thought that increasing access to health insurance would somehow negate the essential function of insurance, I'm not sure why we're supposed to have a real sympathy for that lack of thought.

Maybe someone called that insurance, but once upon a time something quite different was called insurance and nothing else was called that. An individual or entity ("the client" or "the insured") enters into a contract with an insurance company (that is, the old fashioned kind), called "a policy," whereby the client is promised reimbursement by the insurance company for losses that are specified in the policy. All such clients make payments ("premiums," plural) so as to satisfy the terms of the contract. In exchange, the company pools the premiums after deducting fees or charges so that there would be some likelihood that clients that suffer losses of the kind spelled out in the contract will be reimbursed without the company going out of business for lack of profits. Please bear in mind that this is supposed to be purely voluntary exchange of money or some barter item for the service of insurance. Examples are flood, private property damage, theft, automobile collision.

What about those things that the government provides and calls them insurance? Social Security, Medicare, maybe others (I think so, but I can't think of something other than bank bailouts). They are not voluntary. They are paid for by tax payers, whether they want to or not. Also, in the case of ACA, people have to get health care "insurance" whether they want or not, or pay some penalty (funnily called "tax" by the SCOTUS). Then there is automobile insurance, which is a legal requirement in most if not all of the states in the USA.

Here, Sam, I think you should be asked: "Do you approve of slavery by the government? For example, making young taxpayers pay for Social Security, Medicare, ACA, whether they want to or not."

[Cow Poke]

The idea that young, healthy people would be paying for more than what they end up using is called insurance.

EGGzackly. Which is why it's kinda dumb to keep young people on their parents' insurance until they're TWENTY SIX, cause we need all them young people paying their own premium. That's called how insurance works.

If someone thought that increasing access to health insurance would somehow negate the essential function of insurance,

You mean like having a provision that eliminates a whole bunch of the healthy younger folk from paying premiums?

I'm not sure why we're supposed to have a real sympathy for that lack of thought.

Right on! I mean, it makes SENSE, right, to have an insurance program that depends on the younger healthier folks, but exempt them from actually PAYING?


ETA: It's worse than I thought!
From Healthcare.gov's own website...

If a plan covers children, they can be added to or kept on a parent's health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old.

Children can join or remain on a parent's plan even if they are:

Married
Not living with their parents
Attending school
Not financially dependent on their parents
Eligible to enroll in their employer’s plan


So WHY ON EARTH would these healthy young people pay their OWN premiums when they can simply be added to their parents' policy?

[Sam]

EGGzackly. Which is why it's kinda dumb to keep young people on their parents' insurance until they're TWENTY SIX, cause we need all them young people paying their own premium. That's called how insurance works.You mean like having a provision that eliminates a whole bunch of the healthy younger folk from paying premiums?Right on! I mean, it makes SENSE, right, to have an insurance program that depends on the younger healthier folks, but exempt them from actually PAYING?ETA: It's worse than I thought!From Healthcare.gov's own website

If they are on their parents' insurance, they're not free loading. The insurer is still getting money from the parents' premium, which includes dependents.

[Mountain Man]

Source: �If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the asinine right-wing talking points.� Scott Lemieux. LGM Blog. 2014.11.11

I know what Gruber said, but what he meant was blah blah blah...

© Copyright Original Source

said. The healthy pay, the sick get a free ride, and the only reason it passed is because they hid the truth, and Democrat voters are stupid.

[Sam]

said. The healthy pay, the sick get a free ride, and the only reason it passed is because they hid the truth, and Democrat voters are stupid.

As mentioned earlier, healthy people paying in and sick people getting money is how health insurance operates. How it operated before the ACA, how it operates now, and how it will operate forever. Anyone who thinks that's a shocking or secret formula in health reform may well have stupidity to blame.