Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 02, 2014

OTP - June 2014: Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war’s death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

Bitter Mouse Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:48 AM | 4613 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics, stupid ideas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 12 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1101. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4720951)
President Obama: "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. You can keep your doctor; and under my plan you'll save an average of $2500 per family a year."

All politicians paint the rosiest possible scenario to help controversial legislation get passed. Don't know what you hope to achieve by continuously pointing this out. It's done, it's over. the law will not be repealed nor significantly altered over his gross exaggeration. Every time you post that quote, I picture you as Nelson Muntz pointing his finger and yelling "Ha, ha."

Although the Obama apologists here may be untroubled by Obama breaking the promises that got his healthcare legislation passed, the American electorate has yet to speak on the matter. I believe that the ObamaCare bait & switch will be politically costly.
   1102. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 07, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4720952)
I gotta say too that I'm constantly amazed and dismayed by the attitude clapper and others take with regard to news like this:

Analysts have said that large premium increases could reflect the fact that insurers got a sicker-than-expected mix of patients during the first enrollment period . .



They react like this is horrible news, and yet another reason the system is flawed/bad/doomed. Isn't the point of the entire program is to get health insurance for the people who need it? More sick people using the system is good news, not bad.



   1103. Mefisto Posted: June 07, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4720957)
There have been many price increases, and notwithstanding Gonfalon's experience in #1093, no one is seriously contending that we are seeing an average savings of $2500 per family a year. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.


Careful there: moving both goalposts at the same time can be really hard on your back.
   1104. Howie Menckel Posted: June 07, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4720960)
"All politicians paint the rosiest possible scenario to help controversial legislation get passed."

True, but this one not only promised "change you can believe in," he made it the central theme of his candidacy. If Hillary gets elected and she paints a "rosiest possible scenario" and people then ##### about it, now that would be much sillier, no?...

   1105. spike Posted: June 07, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4720970)
Meanwhile, back at Berghazi....



Senators Admit Leaving Classified Briefing On Bowe Bergdahl Early

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), ranking member on the Select Committee on Intelligence, appeared on Fox News to criticize the administration while the briefing was still underway.

"In fact, the briefing is still going on, but I don't see how anybody can walk out of there with any kind of comfortable feeling that the administration from a notification standpoint -- and I emphasize that -- did what they should have done or what they had the opportunity to do," he said. "I mean, it was like they didn't trust [Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)] and me. And, yet, the two of us knew about the bin Laden event for -- leading up to the takedown of bin Laden -- for months and months and months. And it's just very puzzling as to why they didn't notify anybody in Congress as to what was going on."

But Chambliss wasn't alone. NBC News host Chuck Todd noted on Twitter earlier Thursday that many senators decided to do the same.

"So many of my NBC colleagues are tracking down senators who were at classified briefing last night and many are admitting they left early," Todd said. "Amazing that so many senators from both parties didn't stay for the briefing until the end."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stayed long enough to ask a question, but he walked out shortly after shouting at an official over an unsatisfactory answer, according to a Senate aide familiar with the process.

"I learned nothing," McCain told reporters afterward.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who criticized President Barack Obama for breaking the law, skipped the briefing entirely.




   1106. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4720973)
There have been many price increases, and notwithstanding Gonfalon's experience in #1093, no one is seriously contending that we are seeing an average savings of $2500 per family a year. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Careful there: moving both goalposts at the same time can be really hard on your back.

In #1092, Mefisto suggested that ObamaCare's promised $2500 annual savings per family might be achievable. In the quote above, I pointed out that is laughable. I believe even the Obama Administration has abandoned the claim. I'm certainly not moving any goalposts, but keep your eye on Mefisto - I don't think he's going to be able to demonstrate that $2500 savings.
   1107. Mefisto Posted: June 07, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4720981)
In #1092, Mefisto suggested that ObamaCare's promised $2500 annual savings per family might be achievable.


False. All I did was point out that your attempt to DISprove that savings was inadequate.
   1108. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4720987)
In #1092, Mefisto suggested that ObamaCare's promised $2500 annual savings per family might be achievable.

False. All I did was point out that your attempt to DISprove that savings was inadequate.

So you agree that Obama lied about families saving $2500 a year under ObamaCare, but just don't like my proof? Seems a rather petty quibble, but good to know everyone is finally on the same page about Obama breaking his promise.
   1109. Mefisto Posted: June 07, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4720990)
So you agree that Obama lied about families saving $2500 a year under ObamaCare, but just don't like my proof
?

No, I'm agnostic on whether he was right or wrong. If you have some actual evidence, I'll consider it.
   1110. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4720991)
Isn't the point of the entire program is to get health insurance for the people who need it? More sick people using the system is good news, not bad.


Was ObamaCare sold on the premise that those who currently had health insurance would have to pay significantly higher premiums under ObamaCare in order to cover the uninsured & those with pre-existing conditions? I don't think so, just the opposite was the case, in fact. Where is that $2500 savings?
   1111. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 07, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4720995)
Was ObamaCare sold on the premise that those who currently had health insurance would have to pay significantly higher premiums under ObamaCare in order to cover the uninsured & those with pre-existing conditions? I don't think so, just the opposite was the case, in fact. Where is that $2500 savings?


So you are pissed off that sick people now have access to health care and are using it. Is that just you, or all Republicans? If that's such a winning position, I'm surprised more Republicans aren't running on it. "The sick and previously uninsured in this country: #### them."
   1112. Mefisto Posted: June 07, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4721002)
Where is that $2500 savings?


I don't know or care. If you care, you should research it.
   1113. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4721003)
Was ObamaCare sold on the premise that those who currently had health insurance would have to pay significantly higher premiums under ObamaCare in order to cover the uninsured & those with pre-existing conditions? I don't think so, just the opposite was the case, in fact. Where is that $2500 savings?

So you are pissed off that sick people now have access to health care and are using it. Is that just you, or all Republicans? If that's such a winning position, I'm surprised more Republicans aren't running on it. "The sick and previously uninsured in this country: #### them."

No, I just don't think Obama can blatantly lie to the American people about what his healthcare legislation would entail & what it would cost. I'm surprised so many Obama backers here think that doesn't matter, but you can't just hand-wave away the differences between what Obama promised and what people are getting. Suggesting the end justifies the means is usually a losing argument, but apparently not to some here.
   1114. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4721005)
Why would many people switch? Although those with CareFirst are getting whacked by a rate hike, the premium is still only a few dollars difference (based on the examples in the Post article) from Kaiser & Evergreen, the two plans that trimmed the cost of their apparently high-priced plans. Even if CareFirst customers switch, they still get most of the rate hike. Given all the reports of plans narrowing provider networks to hold down costs, switching plans may be more problematic than ever for those who want to keep their doctor. The "new competition" from Cigna & United Healthcare, apparently hasn't even started in Maryland yet, so it seems a bit much to assume that competition will offset the price increases already in the pipeline. The fact is that most people in the Maryland individual market have CareFirst, and based on what was in the article, there doesn't appear to be any way for those folks to avoid a sharp price hike. That certainly seems like the most important information in the article, even if some find it politically troubling to admit it.

The most important information you've presented is simply providing the original link to the entire article. When we see where those requested rates actually wind up; when we see the effect that competition from Cigna and United Healthcare have on CareFirst's dominance, not just this year but in the years to come; and when we see the overall effect of the ACA on both cost and coverage extension to the previously uninsured----then we'll be able to make a judgment on the ACA that's not affected by politics.** What's amusing is that you seem to exempt yourself from any sort of political bias.

And about that $2500 savings per family promise: Obviously it amounted to little more than wishful thinking on Obama's part. If echoes of that promise cost the Dems in November, hopefully that'll be a lesson learned. If I were in the Republicans' position, I'm sure I'd be resurrecting that quote at every opportunity. And if the ACA winds up being seen as a natural complement to Medicare and Social Security, people might also remember which party tried to repeal it over 50 times.

**Although political preferences are going to affect our viewpoints in any case, since there's a fundamental split between those who favor subsidies to those who can't afford health insurance, and those who see the entire enterprise as "socialism". That division isn't going to disappear no matter what, because it's based upon diametrically opposing ideas of what we are, or should be, as a country.

   1115. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4721009)
No, I just don't think Obama can blatantly lie to the American people about what his healthcare legislation would entail & what it would cost.


OK, fine. So what do you propose be done about it? If all you want is your Nelson Muntz moment you've had that. What do you think should be done? Personally, i stopped caring about political spin long ago. probably around the time Bush's free Iraq war topped its first $1 trillion in cost.
   1116. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4721013)
And about that $2500 savings per family promise: Obviously it amounted to little more than wishful thinking on Obama's part. If echoes of that promise cost the Dems in November, hopefully that'll be a lesson learned. If I were in the Republicans' position, I'm sure I'd be resurrecting that quote at every opportunity.

Good to see an honest admission, even if it is against political interest. I'm pretty sure Obama's healthcare promises are going to come up frequently, although not from Democrats. I'll try to do my part.
   1117. Lassus Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4721014)
Good to see an honest admission, even if it is against political interest.

When you manage one of these, let us know.
   1118. steagles Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4721018)
Good to see an honest admission, even if it is against political interest. I'm pretty sure Obama's healthcare promises are going to come up frequently, although not from Democrats. I'll try to do my part.
speaking of broken promises, i'm really pissed off about michelle bachman and the rest of the tea party caucus. they said obamacare was gonna kill old people and brainwash republicans and i'm still waiting for that to happen. where's my apology, goddamnit!
   1119. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4721019)
So I am confused and I have a serious question. Why is random insurance company raising rates seen by YC (and others) as bad news?


Because when we were promised cost savings, people said "No, that won't happen" and were attacked. Turns out these people were right since on average costs are going up. Shocker there.

Anyone involved with, for example, health care decisions for employers knows that costs for these plans have gone up. But there appears to be no limit to the dishonesty of Obamacare supporters on this score.
   1120. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4721021)
Isn't the point of the entire program is to get health insurance for the people who need it?


Well, no, the point of the entire program is wealth redistribution.

But putting that aside, yes, the "point" of the entire program was to sacrifice quality and cost of the people who were already paying -- which was most people in the country -- so that people who weren't paying could get into the system, on the backs of those who were paying. Liberals talk about fundamental "fairness" but that to me was fundamentally unfair.

We had ER services already, and if that wasn't good enough, there was no shortage of liberals able to pay for the uninsured. Unfortunately, there was indeed a shortage of liberals willing to pay for the uninsured.
   1121. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4721023)
USA Today Fact Checker, so not some right wing hack site:

Even the president now acknowledges that his promise went too far.

In an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC News on Nov. 7, Obama offered an apology to the many Americans who have been notified that they are, in fact, losing the health plans they previously had and wanted to keep.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," Obama said. "We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we're going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/11/fact-check-keeping-your-health-plan/3500187/


And again, people saw this lie for what it was the moment he said it. And each time he repeated it. And each time one of his lackeys like Reid or Durbin repeated it.
   1122. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4721024)
Same USA Today link:

President Obama, Aug. 15, 2009: At the same time — I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. (Source: Remarks from town hall on health care.)

President Obama, March 25, 2010: From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers — they're going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn't. They'll have to finally acknowledge this isn't a government takeover of our health care system. They'll see that if Americans like their doctor, they'll be keeping their doctor. You like your plan? You'll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you. (Source: Remarks in Iowa City, Iowa.)

President Obama, June 28, 2012: First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. (Source: Remarks on Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.)

White House web page, accessed Nov. 11, 2013: If you like your plan you can keep it and you don't have to change a thing due to the health care law. The President addressed concerns from Americans who have received letters of policy cancellations or changes from their insurance companies in an interview with NBC News, watch the video or read a transcript. (Source: White House website.)

   1123. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4721027)
I may have missed it, but no discussion of Bond v. U.S.?
This was a fun case: a woman tried to injure her husband's mistress by putting brightly-colored goop around the mistress's house (like on her doorknob); the mistress was slightly burned; the DOJ tried to prosecute this as a federal criminal case because the goop violated a U.S. chemical-weapons treaty.
9-0, the Supreme Court said "This is stupid. No way."

I do not know what the record is for unanimous losses in the Supreme Court, but I think the Obama Administration must be getting close.

EDIT: also, I don't see anything wrong with fake-leaking names of potential Supreme Court nominees, or helping them prepare for confirmation hearings. Who cares, and why?
   1124. bobm Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4721028)
They react like this is horrible news, and yet another reason the system is flawed/bad/doomed. Isn't the point of the entire program is to get health insurance for the people who need it? More sick people using the system is good news, not bad.

More sick people isn't necessarily bad, but a sicker than expected mix can be. Remember, the idea was for young healthy people to be compelled to buy insurance for health care they wouldn't need or use to subsidize the enrollment of sick insureds or the previously uninsured old, sick or poor, the cost of whose health care consumption would exceed the revenue coming in from their subsidized (by government or modified community rating) premiums.

The analogy would be to a social security pension system with too few young workers paying in to support the current payments out to too many retirees.
   1125. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4721031)
I do not know what the record is for unanimous losses in the Supreme Court, but I think the Obama Administration must be getting close.

Not counting the 9th Circuit? Maybe.

But on Bond, I don't know why the Administration was so gung-ho on turning a garden variety state-level attempted murder or poisoning case into a violation of the chemical weapons treaty. Maybe an Assistant U.S. Attorney owed the Postal Service a favor? And then no one up the line had the sense to say this is not a good case to bring?
   1126. Mefisto Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4721032)
I do not know what the record is for unanimous losses in the Supreme Court, but I think the Obama Administration must be getting close.


I'm pretty sure the charges were filed under the Bush Administration. The case was silly, but Obama didn't bring it. That said, the Bush Justice Dept. should never have filed the treaty charges and the Obama Justice Dept. should have dropped the treaty charges.
   1127. bobm Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4721034)
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/fighting-premium-spin-with-more-spin/

We first questioned Obama’s claim five years ago. He said on the campaign trail in 2008 that his health plan would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year,” a prediction we called “overly optimistic” and “misleading.” More than half of his projected savings would come from widespread use of electronic health records, his camp said, and he’d get there by the end of his first term, a claim one expert we consulted called “pie in the sky.”

We also explained the “bit of misleading math” the campaign used: It divided an estimate for national health care savings by the U.S. population and, as an Obama adviser told us, “consider[ed] a 4 person family.” The president said he would “lower premiums,” but the Obama camp was counting on trickle-down savings that would affect families in the form of reduced taxes, higher wages or lower premiums. As we said at the time: “Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they won’t see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either.”

Obama was talking about a reduction in health care spending compared with what would have happened without his health plan — not a straight reduction, though he didn’t explain that in his comments.

In 2009, before health care legislation had taken shape in Congress, Obama offered a new version of the claim, saying “comprehensive reform,” plus some effort to reduce costs from labor unions, and insurance, drug and medical industries, “could save families $2,500 in the coming years — $2,500 per family.” We called it “still optimistic.” When experts told us the big 9 percent jump in employer-sponsored family premiums in 2011 was primarily due to rising medical costs — with 1 percent to 3 percent caused by the Affordable Care Act — we pointed out that an increase still wasn’t a decrease. And in 2012, we dissected a new shaky White House claim that “[f]amilies who purchase private health insurance through state-based exchanges could save up to $2,300 on their health care each year.”

We haven’t heard the president continue to make the $2,500-in-savings claim recently. When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney resurrected the claim in the first presidential debate last year, Obama only said “the fact of the matter is that when Obamacare is fully implemented, we’re going to be in a position to show that costs are going down.”

CMS doesn’t expect that to happen through 2022.
   1128. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 07, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4721038)
But on Bond, I don't know why the Administration was so gung-ho on turning a garden variety state-level attempted murder or poisoning case into a violation of the chemical weapons treaty. Maybe an Assistant U.S. Attorney owed the Postal Service a favor? And then no one up the line had the sense to say this is not a good case to bring?

But you also have to wonder what was in the minds of the local police. It wasn't as if the mistress went straight to the federal government trying to get redress against this homicidal maniac. Here's NPR's summary of the background to that case:

A Toxic Love Triangle Heads To The Supreme Court

In 2005, Carol Anne Bond was a 34-year-old Philadelphia suburbanite living with her husband of 14 years. But when she found out that her best friend was pregnant and that her own husband was the father, she became enraged and began threatening her friend, by phone and in writing.

Bond pleaded guilty to harassment charges in state court, but was not deterred. She quickly moved on to more dangerous conduct. Over the next eight months, Bond stole toxic chemicals from the chemical manufacturing company where she worked and ordered other chemicals over the Internet. She combined the chemicals into a compound that is potentially lethal in small amounts — and is also bright orange. Bond spread the toxic material on her rival's mail, mailbox, front doorknob, car door and other surfaces.

But because of the orange color, the mistress, Myrlinda Haynes, easily spotted the chemicals and avoided any injury except a thumb burn.

Haynes complained more than a dozen times to the local police, who refused to take any action. Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times....


I also love the way that Bonds's lawyer described her actions as "peaceful".
   1129. bobm Posted: June 07, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4721042)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/

PROMISE BROKEN


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100800092.html

Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year."

-- Barack Obama, presidential debate [...]

Even if the changes proposed by Obama resulted in significant savings for doctors and health insurance companies, there is no guarantee that the savings would be passed on to consumers. The promised $2,500 cut in health premiums is a best-case scenario based on assumptions that are very questionable.

TWO PINOCCHIOS: Significant omissions or exaggerations.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-claim-that-insurance-premiums-will-go-down/2012/08/09/424048f2-e245-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_blog.html

The president asserted that because of the law, small business and individual premiums “will go down.” But the reality is much more complicated than that.

The law’s provisions, especially the requirement for essential benefits, will almost certainly increase premiums, though tax subsidies will help mitigate the impact for a little over half of the people in the exchanges. But a lot of other people — such as a young male who currently has a plan that does not include all of the required benefits — are likely going to have sticker shock when they see what happens to their premiums starting in 2014.

As we said, you don’t get something for nothing. And the president should be more careful about suggesting that is the case, especially when discussing a complex law with still-uncertain ramifications.

Three Pinocchios

   1130. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 07, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4721044)
I'm pretty sure the charges were filed under the Bush Administration. The case was silly, but Obama didn't bring it. That said, the Bush Justice Dept. should never have filed the treaty charges and the Obama Justice Dept. should have dropped the treaty charges.
Remember when Allen Iverson, following a domestic violence incident, was charged with "making terroristic threats?"

If you put such tools in the law's toolbox, prosecutors will use them.
   1131. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4721049)
Say bobm, you can turn those web addresses into links if you use the <a> button & paste them into the box that appears. Can give them whatever title you want by putting it in the second box that appears after you click OK on the first. Not sure why BBTF doesn't have any instructions - maybe all the cool kids learn this in middle school now - but I wouldn't have known without someone else posting the info a while back.
   1132. Mefisto Posted: June 07, 2014 at 07:02 PM (#4721078)
If you put such tools in the law's toolbox, prosecutors will use them.


Yeah, overcharging is one of those things that happens regardless of party affiliation.
   1133. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 07, 2014 at 07:57 PM (#4721115)
The Washington Post has an interesting article on the Maryland Attorney General race. They seem to go a bit out the way to set forth one candidate's deficiencies, but he gives them a lot of ammunition - Candidate Welcomes Then Rejects Rapper Support:
The Baltimore rapper known as Ski Money seemed to have just the right stuff to help Del. Jon S. Cardin (D-Baltimore County) grab a piece of the youth vote in the Maryland attorney general’s race. When he sidled up to Cardin during a fundraiser this week, the hip-hop artist offered not just a social media shout-out and some street cred, but a $100 campaign donation, too. By Friday, Cardin was scrambling to distance himself from Ski Money after learning that the rapper came with a rap sheet that includes charges of human trafficking.
. . .
The fundraiser where the rapper met Cardin was held in the office of former entertainment lawyer Paul W. Gardner, who represented White House party crashers Tareq and Michaele Salahi in 2009 and was disbarred in 2011 for mishandling thousands of dollars of client money. Former Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon (D), who was convicted of embezzlement in 2009, attended the catered party, according to Gardner’s Twitter account.
. . .
Early polls showed Cardin as the front-runner in the three-way Democratic primary, based at least in part on name recognition as the nephew of U.S. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md). But Jon Cardin has come in for criticism about his ethics and legislative attendance record. He had to apologize for using a Baltimore City police boat and helicopter to stage a marriage proposal in 2009 and was dinged for absenteeism during the General Assembly session in Annapolis — but seeking reimbursement for most of his meals anyway.

Some lessons there about how NOT to run for office.
   1134. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 07, 2014 at 11:09 PM (#4721172)
When GWB made his SotU case for invasion, was it a lie or was he just wrong?

When GHWB made the case that Iraq was massing a quarter million troops up on Saudi Arabia in 1990, was it a lie or was he just wrong?

When Reagan claimed his 1981 tax cuts would generate new jobs and the jobless rate hit 10.1, was he lying or just wrong?

The word "lie" is being used pretty easily around here right now. Was Obama wrong? Clearly. Did he lie knowingly? "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Usually, these guys are just wrong.
   1135. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 07, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4721174)
When folks are digging up moldy quotes from years ago and re-re-re-discussing Obama's original ACA promises things have gotten pretty sad. I guess now that ACA is pretty much established and working, with millions of people insured and otherwise benefiting you have to stretch to proposed future cost increases and long ago presidential speeches.

Many GOP politicians are slowly but steadily moving away from the repeal root and branch, but the stalwart few will still be beating the drum in 2016 I am sure. Good luck with that.
   1136. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:12 AM (#4721187)
When folks are digging up moldy quotes from years ago and re-re-re-discussing Obama's original ACA promises things have gotten pretty sad. I guess now that ACA is pretty much established and working, with millions of people insured and otherwise benefiting you have to stretch to proposed future cost increases and long ago presidential speeches.

ObamaCare just kicked in last fall, when it quickly became apparent that contrary to Obama's promises: (1) some people who liked their healthcare plan wouldn't be allowed to keep it; (2) some people that wanted to wouldn't be able to keep their doctor; and (3) there wouldn't be a $2500 per family average annual savings. Some had predicted all this, but Obama and his supporters dismissed those concerns. Now Bitter Mouse tells us it is too late to raise such concerns? Really? Because it is inconvenient for the Administration? Embarrassing to the Administration? Makes Bitter Mouse sad? Sorry, the idea that Obama can't be held to account for his promises is absurd. But make the argument and see how the voters react.
   1137. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4721189)
ObamaCare just kicked in last fall, when it quickly became apparent that contrary to Obama's promises: (1) some people who liked their healthcare plan wouldn't be allowed to keep it; (2) some people that wanted to wouldn't be able to keep their doctor; and (3) there wouldn't be a $2500 per family average annual savings. Now some had predicted all this, but Obama and his supporters dismissed those concerns. Now Bitter Mouse tells us it is too late to raise such concerns? Really? Because it is inconvenient for the Administration? Embarrassing to the Administration? Makes Bitter Mouse sad? Sorry, the idea that Obama can't be held to account for his promises is absurd. But make the argument and see how the voters react.

I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable for ACA opponents to quote Obama's words back on him, just as it's perfectly fair and reasonable for ACA supporters to demand exactly which parts of Obamacare its opponents would repeal, and what they'd replace it with other than the pre-existing system that left tens of millions of people uninsured.

The bottom line is that every health care expert without an emotional stake in the issue one way or the other has stated that the ACA is going to be an ongoing work in progress, and that it's stupid to make grand proclamations about its future success or failure based on barely half a year's results. And polls that say that people don't like "Obamacare" are less than meaningless when the same polls shown even greater support for nearly all of its key provisions.
   1138. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 08, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4721250)
Now Bitter Mouse tells us it is too late to raise such concerns?


Not what I said. I said going over moldy quotes from multiple years ago is a bit sad. As I have said numerous times I think ACA is a good law. I think it is going to stick around for a long while and help millions of people. I am willing to have Democrats pay a political price in exchange for the law being present.

Plus I think the lies/exaggerations of Obama are more than offset by the lies and exaggerations of the GOP. If you compare the statements of the GOP versus Obama, I think Obama and his story around ACA and its impact is MUCH closer than that of the GOP. I get that you think GOP misstatements are unimportant and only Obama misstatements matter, but hey.
   1139. Mefisto Posted: June 08, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4721255)
Plus I think the lies/exaggerations of Obama are more than offset by the lies and exaggerations of the GOP.


Somehow "death panels" seems like a much more significant lie than either "you can keep your policy" or "you might save $2500/year".
   1140. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 08, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4721258)
I get that you think GOP misstatements are unimportant

You mean like the Koch Brothers anti-Obamacare ad in Michigan that featured a woman who was lying through her teeth about the out-of-pockets costs under her new plan? And then when she was informed that she was actually going to be saving $1200 a year, her response was "I personally do not believe that."
   1141. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4721268)
The word "lie" is being used pretty easily around here right now. Was Obama wrong? Clearly. Did he lie knowingly?


Yes.
   1142. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4721271)
I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable for ACA opponents to quote Obama's words back on him, just as it's perfectly fair and reasonable for ACA supporters to demand exactly which parts of Obamacare its opponents would repeal, and what they'd replace it with other than the pre-existing system that left tens of millions of people uninsured.


Why is replacing it with the pre-existing system invalid? The pre-existing system was better in many ways. And it signaled a country with greater freedoms.
   1143. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4721275)
Why is replacing it with the pre-existing system invalid? The pre-existing system was better in many ways. And it signaled a country with greater freedoms.


The GOP is of course free to run on a platform of a return to the previous system. It is somewhat telling that the GOP has had years to come up with a plan to "replace" after repealing and they have consistently failed to come out with anything but some platitudes. No real plan they are willing to vote on in the House (which they control and can bring up something they are proud to run on at any time).
   1144. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4721279)
Somehow "death panels" seems like a much more significant lie


I want my death panels darn it. And my extreme rationing. Where is my end to capitalism? All these things were there, right on the table (next to FEMA death camps, black helicopters and Agenda 21), but <sob>, I guess Obama is not the real deal after all.

We need someone with the real deal. Like a Murderess and schemer. With brain trauma.
   1145. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4721280)
Why is replacing it with the pre-existing system invalid?

I only said that it's perfectly fair and reasonable for Obamacare supporters to ask their opponents what they'd replace it with. I didn't say that one of those answers couldn't be "nothing", but that answer should be put on the record if that's what they truly believe.

EDIT: coke to the Strychnine-laced rodent.

The previous system wasn't invalid if you don't mind leaving tens of millions of people uninsured for reasons ranging from lack of affordability to the presence of pre-existing conditions. But you might notice that nowadays even few Republicans are calling for a return to that.

The pre-existing system was better in many ways.

If you could afford it, I'm sure it was the best of all possible worlds.

And it signaled a country with greater freedoms.

Of course by your standards so did the lack of an FDA, an SEC, and pretty much any government agency or program instituted since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, so I'm not sure we have much of a common ground when it comes to that word's meaning.
   1146. bobm Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4721281)
NY Post: "Obama to free Gitmo terrorist ‘because he took up yoga’"

The Periodic Review Board already helped clear 78 of the remaining 149 prisoners for release, documents show, and has scheduled more hearings for this summer.

Many of these men were dubbed “forever prisoners” because of the threat they posed to the US — with intelligence officials warning that, if free, they would return to the jihad to kill Americans.

Based on past cases, that’s a good bet.

In a report on detainee recidivism, Obama’s own director of national intelligence this year documented that 178, or 29 percent, of the 614 prisoners already transferred from the prison have been confirmed to have, or are suspected of having, re-engaged in terrorism.

That means for every three freed from Gitmo, one has rejoined the war against us. Intelligence analysts admit their ability to track all former detainees is limited, so the recidivism rate may, in fact, be much higher. [...]

As defense lawyer David Remes explained to Al Jazeera news network, “The Periodic Review Board is likely to be predisposed to approval to transfer because the idea here is to close down Guantanamo.”


ETA: More nuanced take here: ABC News: Deals for Guantanamo Detainee Transfers Held Up by Political Fear
   1147. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4721291)
I want my death panels darn it. And my extreme rationing.


Sadly, if you were a veteran, you'd have had that, as people died while waiting in line.
   1148. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4721296)
Sadly, if you were a veteran, you'd have had that, as people died while waiting in line.


And the way to solve the problem was to hire more doctors and staff. And when that happened, you dismissed it in a condescending way with "They threw more money at it." So you don't get to say another ####### word about this issue.
   1149. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4721298)
And the way to solve the problem was to hire more doctors and staff. And when that happened, you dismissed it in a condescending way with "They threw more money at it." So you don't get to say another ####### word about this issue.


Well, sure. Any system can be improved with money. We'll throw a lot of money at Obamacare too. But we were promised cost savings.
   1150. zenbitz Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4721300)
I am no Obama-wanna-be but it seems to me that the $2500 lie is irrelevant as everyone who supported the ACA would still support it if it was never spoken, and everyone who's opposed to the ACA would still oppose it even if it were closer to the truth.

In point of fact, it's a lie just as advertisements lie like this 1000s of times a day. It's a fact or figure based on certain assumptions that are not revealed straight off. Of course, all the brainiacs (yours truely included) on this site recognized *instantly* that he could not really KNOW how much (if anything) would be saved by the ACA.

He didn't even say "Read my Lips".


Sadly, if you were a veteran, you'd have had that, as people died while waiting in line.


Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but the ACA did not actually change andy VA medical rules either directly or indirectly. I mean, it's still Obama's fault but it's not the ACAs fault. Finally, it's my understanding that RANDOM veterans died waiting in line. Which isn't really the "panels" we were promised.
   1151. zenbitz Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4721302)
Many of these men were dubbed “forever prisoners” because of the threat they posed to the US — with intelligence officials warning that, if free, they would return to the jihad to kill Americans.


This is just weird to me. If they DID kill Americans... and the USG has evidence to this effect then either
a) they killed as honest acts of war (i.e, "legally" targeting uniformed military personnel)
b) they killled as war criminals and should be tried
c) they killed as common criminals and should be tried.

Not sure how one can morally hold someone "Forever" without trial. Very medieval.
   1152. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4721304)
I am no Obama-wanna-be


Tee. Hee.

Thanks for that, Zenbitz. I needed a good laugh today.

All of these people who fervently support and defend the vast majority of Obama's policies are not "Obama-wanna-bes." Good to know.

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but the ACA did not actually change andy VA medical rules either directly or indirectly.


Correct. But that wasn't my point.
   1153. caprules Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4721306)
Any system can be improved with money.


So you believe that education can be improved with more money?
   1154. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4721319)
The word "lie" is being used pretty easily around here right now. Was Obama wrong? Clearly. Did he lie knowingly?

Yes.
Then what about the other guys?
   1155. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4721321)


Sadly, if you were a veteran, you'd have had that, as people died while waiting in line.


Serves those moochers right for looking for a government handout rather than prudently saving for their own medical expenses. And if they couldn't afford them, they should have simply asked for donations from those who support the military. I'm sure they would have been given plenty of money.
   1156. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4721323)
So you believe that education can be improved with more money?

It could, theoretically, but it hasn't. Over the last generation, we've double real per pupil spending, with no improvement in student performance.
   1157. Howie Menckel Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4721326)

"I am no Obama-wanna-be but it seems to me that the $2500 lie is irrelevant as everyone who supported the ACA would still support it if it was never spoken, and everyone who's opposed to the ACA would still oppose it even if it were closer to the truth."

That takes care of MSNBC and Fox TV viewers, sure.

hello, is there anyone else out there?
   1158. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4721331)
Sadly, if you were a veteran, you'd have had that, as people died while waiting in line.

And the way to solve the problem was to hire more doctors and staff. And when that happened, you dismissed it in a condescending way with "They threw more money at it." So you don't get to say another ####### word about this issue.

The VA had the money to hire more doctors. VA spending has gone up dramatically, even as the number of veterans decreased. There was some info on this in the last thread and it is readily available with a quick Internet search. It's not like there was a hiring freeze, the bureaucracy just wasn't very good at filling vacancies. Although I bet the HR office managed to fill its own slots just fine.
   1159. bobm Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4721332)
Sadly, if you were a veteran, you'd have had that, as people died while waiting in line.


And the way to solve the problem was to hire more doctors and staff.


The recent legislation also eased firing work rules and provided for a "VA Choice Card" to allow veterans to go to non-VA facilities where distance or delay is a hardship. Not every problem is solved by more money alone.

Nor is it unreasonable to say that while the Government should pay for veterans' medical care it has promised, the Government does not necessarily have to run a hospital system for veterans just because it has historically done so (when there were fewer alternatives).

   1160. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4721333)
I get that you think GOP misstatements are unimportant and only Obama misstatements matter . . .

Talk about the pot calling the kettle back. The leader of the "It Doesn't Matter" & "No One Cares" chorus really shouldn't lecture others about overlooking "misstatements" by politicians playing for their "team".
   1161. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4721334)
You guys are really misinformed* about the VA scandal. Lot's of half truths and the normal conservative talking points.

It is a scandal, funny how I said that even as Ray was suggesting it was not at all a scandal (repeatedly). But just because it is a scandal doesn't mean every random thing you have heard or feel like saying about it is true. The truth is bad enough without embellishment, you just look silly trying to make this an indictment for every single libertarian conservative anti-government fantasy.

* You might just be spreading lies or not care what is true and what isn't I guess.
   1162. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4721336)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle back. The leader of the "It Doesn't Matter" & "No One Cares" chorus really shouldn't lecture others about overlooking "misstatements" by politicians playing for their "team".


Way to miss the point big guy. PR crap doesn't matter no matter which side does it. Things like the Rose Garden SCANDAL! are total BS. However, I never said lies were fine, just that there were plenty of those on both sides, and the GOP had bigger and more brazen lies, by far. No that you care, but some of us have noticed.
   1163. caprules Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4721337)
Serves those moochers right for looking for a government handout rather than prudently saving for their own medical expenses. And if they couldn't afford them, they should have simply asked for donations from those who support the military. I'm sure they would have been given plenty of money


Are there a lot of people here who believe that veterans shouldn't be covered by the government? I don't recall seeing that.



   1164. bobm Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4721338)
Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but the ACA did not actually change andy [sic] VA medical rules either directly or indirectly.

It hardly would have helped to sell the ACA legislation (and increased government participation in the health care sector) if the Obama Administration had simultaneously brought the tremendous attention we now see to the VA's struggles and management failures in providing health care to veterans. Maybe apples and oranges, but both are round fruit, ie appearances matter.
   1165. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4721339)
I am no Obama-wanna-be but it seems to me that the $2500 lie is irrelevant as everyone who supported the ACA would still support it if it was never spoken, and everyone who's opposed to the ACA would still oppose it even if it were closer to the truth.

That completely overlooks the fact that there was a large group in the middle - open to improvements to the current system but mindful of costs and wary about disruptions to the existing system. Obama conned those folks by lying through his teeth.

If Obama had said existing plans would have to change to meet new standards, some folks wouldn't be able to keep their doctor(s), and many would have to pay more, ObamaCare would not have passed.
   1166. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4721347)
All of these people who fervently support and defend the vast majority of Obama's policies are not "Obama-wanna-bes." Good to know.

Right, just like you're an "independent" in spite of your parroting the Republicans' rhetoric about "Obama the socialist" about fifty times a week.

-------------------------------------------------

That completely overlooks the fact that there was a large group in the middle - open to improvements to the current system but mindful of costs and wary about disruptions to the existing system. Obama conned those folks by lying through his teeth.

Who, exactly, were those folks "in the middle" whom Obama conned into voting for the ACA? Not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate voted in favor of it. Those people were dead set against the whole concept of subsidized universal coverage both before and after that Obama promise of savings.

Of course you might have merely been acknowledging that there aren't any Republicans in the "middle" of anything these days, other than being in the middle of Mitt Romney and Ted Cruz.
   1167. Mefisto Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4721348)
Can I just say that a contest to determine which side's politicians say the most untrue things is very much like a contest over which toxic waste dump is worse?
   1168. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4721350)
Serves those moochers right for looking for a government handout rather than prudently saving for their own medical expenses. And if they couldn't afford them, they should have simply asked for donations from those who support the military. I'm sure they would have been given plenty of money.


Thank you for arguing against a point nobody made.
   1169. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4721351)
Any system can be improved with money.

So you believe that education can be improved with more money?


I thought we were talking about health care.

Education could be, but not in the way we've been doing it, clearly, since that hasn't helped much.
   1170. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4721353)
The VA had the money to hire more doctors. VA spending has gone up dramatically, even as the number of veterans decreased.


Right. The VA was well funded. And wasn't controversial; it's not like Republicans were trying to sabotage it, as claimed with Obamacare.

And yet we see the problems it had.
   1171. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4721354)
Can I just say that a contest to determine which side's politicians say the most untrue things is very much like a contest over which toxic waste dump is worse?


Sure, but this isn't any such "contest"; it's simply a pointing out of the fact that Obama lied about the "you can keep your plan" thing, and yet his boot lickers on this board and everywhere else can't bring themselves to acknowledge that.

Not only were those pointing out AT THE TIME that it was a lie dismissed, they were attacked.
   1172. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4721355)

Thank you for arguing against a point nobody made.


You make that point weekly. You made it just a few posts ago.
   1173. tshipman Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4721356)
Right. The VA was well funded.


Speaking of lies ...
   1174. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4721362)
That completely overlooks the fact that there was a large group in the middle - open to improvements to the current system but mindful of costs and wary about disruptions to the existing system. Obama conned those folks by lying through his teeth.

Who, exactly, were those folks "in the middle" whom Obama conned into voting for the ACA?

They are called "constituents". Some members of Congress pay heed to their views. And, of course, some members of Congress misled their constituents by repeating Obama's "misstatements" in order to obtain their votes. But since Bitter Mouse assures us that such "misstatements" are unimportant, Democrats probably aren't the least bit concerned.
   1175. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4721365)
Right. The VA was well funded.


Speaking of lies ...


Yes, you should stop lying. It was well funded.

Obama: "We have made progress over the last five years. We've made historic investments in our veterans. We've boosted VA funding to record levels."

Was Obama lying this time? Nope. Here's a fact check from AZ Central on it:

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT: Whether Obama accurately described the level of funding to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

ANALYSIS: The president is correct in saying the United States has "made historic investments" in veterans, if those investments are measured as funding for the VA.

The VA's funding increased by nearly 68percent from fiscal 2009 through 2015, according to a fact sheet that accompanied the VA's 2015 budget request.

The only dip during that period was from 2010 to 2011, but funding has eclipsed the 2010 mark since then, according to the document.

Funding was as follows:

2009:$97.7 billion;

2010:$127.2 billion;

2011: $125.5 billion;

2012: $126.8 billion;

2013: $139.1 billion;

2014: $153.8 billion;

2015: $163.9 billion.

A few years ago, a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service used slightly different figures for the VA's funding than the VA published. Still, the research service concluded the VA's funding in 2012 was more than 200 times as much as in 1940 as measured in real dollars, and more than 14 times as much in inflation-adjusted dollars.

...

VA funding followed a general upward trajectory from 1940 through 2012, according to the report. As might be expected, funding spiked following World War II and Vietnam and again since 2001.

...

THE FINDING: Four stars: true.

Despite the uncertainty of whether Obama was referring to the five-year period ending in fiscal 2014 or fiscal 2015, he was right on both counts.

The VA's funding has risen by tens of billions of dollars, and it has reached record or historic levels.



   1176. Mefisto Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4721366)
yet his boot lickers on this board and everywhere else can't bring themselves to acknowledge that.


That isn't even in the running for worst form of denialism here.
   1177. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4721368)
How much of this are we going to see? Healthcare Plan Cuts 700 Physicians From Network:
National insurance giant UnitedHealthcare plans to cut up to 700 Massachusetts doctors from its physician network for seniors enrolled in its private Medicare plan as a way to control costs, according to company officials. For elderly patients enrolled in the plan, the cuts mean they will have to find a new doctor or eventually switch to a new health plan that covers their current doctor.

The move, effective Sept. 1, follows similar cuts made by the insurer to its Medicare Advantage provider networks in 11 other states, including in Rhode Island and Connecticut, where the reductions drew outrage from patients, doctors, and lawmakers earlier this year.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain why this doesn't matter.
   1178. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4721369)
Who, exactly, were those folks "in the middle" whom Obama conned into voting for the ACA?


When a president tells a blatant lie such as the "you can keep your plan" lie, it's pretty safe to assume that he told the blatant lie because he thought the blatant lie needed to be told in order to secure what he wanted.
   1179. bobm Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4721372)
   1180. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4721373)
When a president tells a blatant lie such as the "you can keep your plan" lie, it's pretty safe to assume that he told the blatant lie because he thought the blatant lie needed to be told in order to secure what he wanted.
I'm still looking to know what the threshold is for "lie." Did the Bushes and Reagan lie as well, or were they simply wrong?
   1181. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4721374)
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain why this doesn't matter.
Standard operating procedure. When WellPoint bought my wife's company a few years ago, the fear running through their office was that WellPoint was known for slicing and dicing physician networks in order to control costs. Private health plans are, after all, a capital enterprise. To make your point, you'd have to show that health plans did NOT pare down physician networks before the ACA.
   1182. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4721377)
I'm still looking to know what the threshold is for "lie." Did the Bushes and Reagan lie as well, or were they simply wrong?


The Bushes and Reagan likely lied several times over. Many, many times. I'm happy to acknowledge specific lies by them if you provide items for discussion. Not that I see why that's relevant. "But they lied too!!!!!" is not a rebuttal. It doesn't show that Obama's statement wasn't a lie.

At any rate, the threshold for a lie to me is "misleading people by telling them something you know is either not true or will not be true."

But I love how all of a sudden liberals need definitions of common words. Here, this from dictionary.com does pretty well:


lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA

noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.

2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4.
the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

verb (used without object), lied, ly·ing.
5.
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.

6.
to express what is false; convey a false impression.


Obama knew full well when he said "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" that it was a lie; he told the lie in order to deceive stupid or uninformed people, as a means to an end. If I know you're stupid and want to take advantage of that fact, so I tell you "if you play the lottery, you will win the lottery," knowing damned well that you have almost no chance of winning the lottery, I have lied to you.

A lie. Such a difficult concept, I know. We need definitions. We need to know what the "threshold" for a lie is, before we can admit that our guy told one, before we can admit that the program we support was passed into law in significant part because the proponents of the program were lying about it. Sure.
   1183. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4721378)
To make your point, you'd have to show that health plans did NOT pare down physician networks before the ACA.

No, just that the current cuts to provider networks are caused by ObamaCare. President Obama promised that wouldn't happen.
   1184. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4721379)
The Bushes and Reagan likely lied several times over. I'm happy to acknowledge specific lies by them if you provide items for discussion. Not that I see why that's relevant. "But they lied too!!!!!" is not a rebuttal.
I'm not trying to rebut anything; I want to see what your threshold is for "lie."

So would you call the justifications for Iraq (both 1 and 2) lies?
   1185. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4721380)
No, just that the current cuts to provider networks are caused by ObamaCare. President Obama promised that wouldn't happen.
President Obama promised providers wouldn't pare down physician networks?
   1186. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4721381)
So would you call the justifications for Iraq (both 1 and 2) lies?


I didn't think so at the time, and to some extent the WMD issue was unknowable, but the decade since has told us that, yes, Bush so vastly overstated the case that Iraq had WMD that he lied.
   1187. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4721383)
I didn't think so at the time, and to some extent the WMD issue was unknowable, but the decade since has told us that, yes, Bush so vastly overstated the case that Iraq had WMD that he lied.
Thanks. That's all I wanted to know.
   1188. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4721385)
I'm not sure why folks think harking back to the Bush Administration is an effective rebuttal to Obama's broken healthcare promises. While I may have a different view of Bush than the Obama fans here, I don't think there is any question that Bush, and Republicans generally, paid a political price when realities didn't match expectations. That's likely to happen to Obama & Democrats in 2014.
   1189. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4721387)
While I may have a different view of Bush than the Obama fans here, I don't think there is any question that Bush, and Republicans generally, paid a political price when realities didn't match expectations. That's likely to happen to Obama & Democrats in 2014.
I have no doubt that'll happen in 2014, and like I said to Ray, I'm not trying to rebut anything. I don't think Obama lied, but I also don't think Bush (1 or 2) outright knowingly lied, either. These guys have plans, and they interpret what happens around them in a way that lets them go forward with their plans in a way that lets them sleep at night. I think the first Bush really believed it was possible Iraq was about to invade Saudi Arabia, I think the second Bush really thought Iraq had a nuclear program and that they had something to do with 9/11, and I think Obama — despite warnings from his own people — really thought people were going to be able to keep their old plans. I try not to assume evil on the part of people I disagree with.
   1190. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4721390)
When a president tells a blatant lie such as the "you can keep your plan" lie, it's pretty safe to assume that he told the blatant lie because he thought the blatant lie needed to be told in order to secure what he wanted.


Kind of like "the Iraq war will pay for itself?" Tell you what. I'll support a wholesale repeal of Obamacare as soon as George Bush gives us our $2 trillion back.
   1191. Mefisto Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4721391)
I'm not sure why folks think harking back to the Bush Administration is an effective rebuttal to Obama's broken healthcare promises.


I suspect it's because the consequences differ so much. Bush's lies about Iraq led us into an expensive and destructive war. Obama's misstatements* (may have) led us to adopt a law which has improved the health care situation for millions of people, reduced the cost curve significantly, and made millions more people more free. That doesn't make the misstatements right -- it's wrong to lie even to achieve a benefit -- but it does explain why the 2 situations would be treated differently.

*The bit about $2500 hasn't been shown yet to be a lie, so I've used the more general term.
   1192. GregD Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4721394)
I don't think there is any question that Bush, and Republicans generally, paid a political price when realities didn't match expectations. That's likely to happen to Obama & Democrats in 2014.


I think--everyone here thinks--that the Dems are going to take a licking in 2014, though there are people who think it'll be 5 in the Senate and people who think it'll be 7 or 8. I think almost all of that was essentially inevitable, so I don't think it's inherently the price for a lie, if that's the word people want to use.

The price the Republicans paid was different from anything in 2014 in two key ways:
1) the price was extracted not for the false statement but for its consequences.
2) Republicans paid that price not just in 2006 but in 2008 and 2012.

If the health-care plan makes people's lives worse--a different question than whether it lives up to inflated promises--then the Dems will no doubt pay a price that keeps on going through 2016 and beyond.

If it's a mixed-bag, then likely 2016 will depend on other factors.

If it is a resounding success by 2016--something I think is practically unlikely--then no one will remember how it was sold.

My own guess is door #2. Mixed-bag, Republican primary voters flare up around marginal candidates driving the establishment candidate into backflips, and Democrats win a solid but unspectacular 2016 victory and claw back some of their expected 2014 Senate losses. But who knows?
   1193. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4721395)
reduced the cost curve significantly

Yeah, there's no evidence of this.

Healthcare inflation was falling long before Obamacare took effect. The decline started in 2007-08.

And, it's completely counter-intuitive. How is providing increased insurance subsidies going to reduce costs?
   1194. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4721396)
reduced the cost curve significantly

Yeah, there's no evidence of this.
How long did it take people to decide Iraq wasn't a resounding success? I think the ACA should be given at least as long.
   1195. Mefisto Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4721399)
How is providing increased insurance subsidies going to reduce costs?


Because (a) more people are now paying premiums; (b) emergency room treatment is more expensive; and (c) there are a number of cost control mechanisms included in the ACA (e.g., lower insurance company administrative costs).

Yeah, there's no evidence of this.


There's evidence of it -- the CBO says so. You, of course, are free not to accept their judgment.
   1196. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4721400)
President Obama promised providers wouldn't pare down physician networks?

He promised that ObamaCare wouldn't cause plans to cut doctors - "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, you can keep your doctor".
   1197. GregD Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4721401)
I didn't think so at the time, and to some extent the WMD issue was unknowable, but the decade since has told us that, yes, Bush so vastly overstated the case that Iraq had WMD that he lied.
This gets into hairsplitting, but I might even be softer than Ray. If I had to bet, I would guess Bush did not intentionally deceive; he believed what he was saying. People around Bush lied like crazy to convince him of that, some of them with complete intention to deceive. And Bush deserves criticism for lack of critical judgment.

In the end, lying is not my main concern, since someone who honestly leads people to disaster is obviously a worse leader than someone who deceitfully leads someone to better outcomes. And every political statement is a mixture of strategy and wish-fulfillment that any politician can be made to look like a liar. Very few, though, go full Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and below that level the differences are marginal and mostly seen through partisan lenses.

   1198. bobm Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4721402)
   1199. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4721410)
In the end, lying is not my main concern, since someone who honestly leads people to disaster is obviously a worse leader than someone who deceitfully leads someone to better outcomes. And every political statement is a mixture of strategy and wish-fulfillment that any politician can be made to look like a liar. Very few, though, go full Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and below that level the differences are marginal and mostly seen through partisan lenses.
This is where I'm at as well. Assuming evil is all to easy when talking about political and ideological opponents, easy and lazy. it's why I hate the "liar, liar" accusations that get thrown around so often. If Obamacare fails, it fails, but it didn't get passed because Obama and liberals want to destroy America or usher in socialism, just like Bush didn't invade Iraq to enrish Halliburton.

And for those who think the VA scandal is a major issue, perhaps you might spend some time wondering why there's a flood of new combat vets.
   1200. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 08, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4721411)
I have no doubt that'll happen in 2014, and like I said to Ray, I'm not trying to rebut anything. I don't think Obama lied, but I also don't think Bush (1 or 2) outright knowingly lied, either. These guys have plans, and they interpret what happens around them in a way that lets them go forward with their plans in a way that lets them sleep at night. I think the first Bush really believed it was possible Iraq was about to invade Saudi Arabia, I think the second Bush really thought Iraq had a nuclear program and that they had something to do with 9/11, and I think Obama — despite warnings from his own people — really thought people were going to be able to keep their old plans. I try not to assume evil on the part of people I disagree with.


The problem here is the false equivalency between WMD lie and the Obama healthcare lie. And it's why the immature and irrelevant "rebuttal" of "Oh, well, maybe my guy did that, but your guy did this and this and this!!!!" is so silly in these discussions. ("Did my guy lie.... hey, look over here! And look there! And look there!!!")

Again, the WMD issue to an extent was inherently unknowable. Bush severely overstated the case that Iraq had WMD and thus he lied, but there _was_ a case to be made. But that is not the situation with Obama's health care promise, which everyone (except for Obamacare supporters) shouted at the time was a lie. It couldn't have been true. And no, I do not think that Obama really thought it was true. Because even after it was pointed out that it not true he doubled down on it, repeating it at various points along the way and even literally adding "You can keep your plan, PERIOD." to the end of it. How could they keep their old plans, with all of the changes that were being made? It simply wasn't going to happen.
Page 12 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(1 - 6:32pm, Oct 22)
Last: Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3122 - 6:29pm, Oct 22)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(51 - 6:25pm, Oct 22)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(20 - 6:07pm, Oct 22)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(8 - 6:05pm, Oct 22)
Last: Kurt

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(872 - 6:04pm, Oct 22)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(25 - 5:52pm, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(166 - 5:48pm, Oct 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(18 - 5:40pm, Oct 22)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(11 - 5:31pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(38 - 5:28pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(1 - 5:17pm, Oct 22)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(339 - 5:16pm, Oct 22)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(5 - 5:00pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-22-2014
(13 - 4:49pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.0645 seconds
53 querie(s) executed