Headline:

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has billed federal and state governments at least $5.9 million for advice, as more videos surface showing him undercutting the landmark law

That's a lot of money for someone that no Democrat seems to know.

And, let's talk about lying:

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes," Gruber admitted in 2013. Does any serious person really contest that this is true? Fortunately for Obamacare partisans, that did not stop the Supreme Court from ruling that the individual mandate was permissible under Congress' taxing power, since any other constitutional justification was a stretch.

"In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," Gruber added. "You can't do it politically, you just literally cannot do it."

Imagine trying to sell the ACA as it actually exists. It could not be done. It would not even garner Obama's approval rating.

I would have thought it was politically untenable not to cover the poor when the federal government offers to pay for it. I guess I am not getting the link between Medicaid and tax credits -- perhaps you could explain the connection.
I really think that Republicans are having a hard time keeping a straight face when they claim the people were mislead about the law. Come on, Republicans were there to repeat over and over to people any perceived negative of the ACA (real and imagined). Should there have been a warning sent out to every one in their 20s and 30s that they because they were healthy that they would be in effect subsidizing older people and those with pre-existing conditions? There is a difference between lying and packaging or spinning things . Not being a politician , Gruber thought he could talk about such things but you can't do it. His 5.9 million was definitely not earned.
Anyway, I can't see how a court would look to a technical consultant on a bill for determining legislative intent and otherwise Gruber's comments are those of a political neophyte who is mistaking political packaging that goes on all the time and is perfectly acceptable for deception which is not (saying that someone will pay a penalty if they don't buy insurance is fine and accurate; if Republicans want they are free to call it a tax as well; what is not fine is saying that Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks or that he had WMDs )

What was it that Danivon called this? Hmmm, Whataboutery, was it?

Webster's does not have an entry but I think whataboutery is trying to minimize present sins of your own party by making reference to something done even worse by the other party. I am merely providing examples to illustrate a definition, so I don't believe my reference to past sins of the other party qualifies...

freeman3 wrote:Webster's does not have an entry but I think whataboutery is trying to minimize present sins of your own party by making reference to something done even worse by the other party. I am merely providing examples to illustrate a definition, so I don't believe my reference to past sins of the other party qualifies...

Indeed. It may not be on crusty old Webster, but Wiktionary has a definition http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery:

whataboutery (plural whatabouteries) (informal, pejorative)

[1] Protesting at hypocrisy; responding to criticism by accusing one's opponent of similar or worse faults.  [quotations ▲]
1998 Gerry Fitt, House of Lords debates Vol.591 col.457 (29 June 1998):

As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, we have in Northern Ireland what we have referred to over the years as "whataboutery". When one talks about the atrocities of the IRA, someone from the other side will say, "Ah, but what about?" I have lived with that for 30 years in Northern Ireland. There is a lot of "whataboutery".

2011 Graham Spencer, Forgiving and Remembering in Northern Ireland: Approaches to Conflict Resolution (Continuum) ISBN 1441195475 p.101:

The danger is that remembrance is used for self-righteousness, self-justification, point-scoring and what-about-ery.

[2] Protesting at inconsistency; refusing to act in one instance unless similar action is taken in other similar instances.  [quotations ▲]
1984 Andrew Kakabadse, Suresh Mukhi, The Future of management education (Nichols) ISBN 0893971847 p.9:

They are skilled in whataboutery: the art of avoiding the issue.

2011 Romesh Ratnesar "In Defense of Inconsistency" Time (US edition) 28 March 2011:

As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson writes, "War in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones." This line of argument has surfaced in nearly every debate about Western military intervention since the end of the Cold War. The British even have a term for it: whataboutery. If you are prepared to go to war to protect Libyan civilians from their government, then what about the persecuted in Bahrain?

What freeman was doing was not whataboutery. What bbauska did regarding ricky's criticism of Chris Christie over ebola quarantines, was.

The word originally comes from politics in the UK, specifically Northern Ireland, where examination of one's own side's faults was... lacking for a while during the murderous "Troubles".

rickyp

What exactly is an Obama cheerleader? Name a few and explain why they are so

hacker

I'm sure you could explain it better than I could.

You are the person who has resorted to using the term. Surely you understand the meanings of the words you use? Elst why use them,.
I asked, because I can't respond to the term without understanding what you think they mean.
I linked a profile of Mckinsey and a link to their web site for you. Its obvious to me that they are one of the most respected management consultancy firms in the world. You don't earn that respect by cheer leading an ideology. You gain that respect by providing proven management expertise and advice.
part of that is establishing a fundamental understanding of situations. Which in this case is a study of the medical insurance market in the USA.
If you think they are "cheerleaders" what in the study or their profile suggests this is so? Or is this just a knee jerk reflex worthy of Fate?

freeman3

I really think that Republicans are having a hard time keeping a straight face when they claim the people were mislead about the law. Come on, Republicans were there to repeat over and over to people any perceived negative of the ACA (real and imagined)

So you're saying that if Gruber is right, and Obama somehow put one over on the American people its because the republican opposition failed in its duty to root out the lies and distortions?
Maybe its because they were too busy rotting out stories about death panels, people cut off insurance and government run medicine. Stuff like this ...
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

hacker

Precisely, Ricky: personal experience. Have you had to deal with it personally yet? If I recall you live in Canada.

The "personal experience I was referring was not my own. It was, the personal experiences of the people signing up for insurance in the exchanges...
And that's why the McKinsey study is important. It reports on what those people have actually experienced and how they feel about those experiences.
As shown in the McKinsey data, its pretty positive. Plus, costs are bending down;. And that is pretty important to just about everyone in the US except the 1%

By the way Hacker, my personal experience with publicly funded health care has been pretty good. Even if the Canadian system isn't that great. And I say, pretty good, in comparison to the incredibly expensive system that predated the ACA in the US. I have dual citizen American friends who haven't been able to return to the US as they had planned because of their health care needs and the incredible cost.
The ACA is pretty crappy when compared to anything else in the first world. But its an improvement And therein lies the conundrum for Republicans...
How to "repeal" when the alternative they offer is worse?

So what was the intent with the 9-11 comment and WMD comment, if not "whataboutery"?

Guys, I apologize in advance for the following: I usually do not stoop to throw stones at a particular member when I myself am not without sin, but Ricky seems to think he has dealt me an effective "Q.E.D.", here, and I cannot but resist to pass the parcel back to him (and who can blame me when you can hear it ticking).

You are the person who has resorted to using the term. Surely you understand the meanings of the words you use? Elst why use them,.
I asked, because I can't respond to the term without understanding what you think they mean.

Do you have a dictionary? If you don't, I would imagine the provincial government of Ontario spends plenty of money to stock and maintain public libraries. Look up IRONY.

The "personal experience I was referring was not my own.

Um...doesn't that up EXPERIENCE or PERSONAL (perhaps "personal experience" is listed under one of the other entries). You do not have personal experience of Obamacare, you have not yourself lived here and been to doctors here, and gotten the opinion of health care workers in the United States (who are the ones who would know from personal experience, and the fact that the law affects them too....ya think?)

Oh, and speaking of Irony, I have noticed that, while in one breath you call our law-making process and the entire presidential system "dysfunctional" you repeatedly praise the actions of its actual head of state/government, who I might point out, was elected via the same. While I cannot read your mind, I strongly suspect that a Democratic victory in the elections would have erased the word "dysfunctional" from your vocabulary of American politics. That's where we can look up the word CHEERLEADER.

I was only asking or attempting to find out if the McKinsey Center was a reliable source, or just another mouthpiece for the Administration. I was looking through the website and its related content myself and am still hard pressed to find out if it gets funding from the Democratic Party (which, if I understand you correctly from another thread, is something you are quite against). So far, I cannot confirm nor deny whether the McKinsey Center is indeed a reliable source for you to have used, or if you should have given it a pass. There's a difference being closed minded and just being skeptical in a healthy way. I think you grossly misunderstood me, there.

You admonished me once for questioning your sources, and "reminded" me that it's proper to back up your arguments with evidence in another thread where several of us engaged in a lively debate. And so it is. But there are two methods one can employ to find out "the truth" and back is up with real EVIDENCE (look up that one, too); and only one of them works:

1. Take a stance on some sort of emotionally-charged issue, find a slew of secondary sources to support what you already believe, and present it as "evidence" of the truth; and:
2. Look for evidence, not only of what you believe, but what might prove the opposite, just in case you're wrong. Then present the result, even if you have to admit you're wrong. Nothing wrong with taking a stance on something ahead of time, but finding the truth or the facts about something means looking at both sides of the coin.

It is of course a test of one's humility to follow #2, but, it also happens to be the method which is more scientific and more likely to result in you actually finding out the truth, not just seek out whatever confirms what you already believe in.

While I respect your ability to back up what you believe, you seem to ignore the difference between #1 and #2. I am not saying you have to look at Mitch McConnell's personal blog, or http://www.teaparty.com (making that one up) but it would help to QUESTION the origin of any source you find, even if it already supports what you believe.

As far as expense, insurance rates for those the government won't take on have gone up. Granted, the Republicans do not have a competing plan against Obamacare. If they ever come up with one, I won't be too surprised the minute you start throwing around websites that refute it.

Part of the reason Anthony Brown was passed over in favor of Hogan was that he was in charge of Maryland's health exchange, I want to mention.

1% eh? That does not sound suspiciously low to you? Now, maybe they're right. Then again maybe not. I'm still trying to find out where the McKinsey Center's funding comes from. Let's at least try to keep an open mind.

freeman3 wrote:I would have thought it was politically untenable not to cover the poor when the federal government offers to pay for it. I guess I am not getting the link between Medicaid and tax credits -- perhaps you could explain the connection.

Sorry, but the whole plan is blackmail.

AUSTIN – Texas will be among a handful of states whose employers will be subjected to an estimated $266-$399 million in annual federal tax penalties due to the state’s decision not to expand Medicaid, according to a study released Wednesday. The state’s failure to extend Medicaid coverage to the working poor or devise its own solution to reduce the number of uninsured leaves more than one million Texans with no access to affordable coverage options.

The study conducted by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service showed that states refusing to expand Medicaid for adults leave their employers exposed to “shared responsibility” tax penalties under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under the reform law, certain employers are assessed a penalty if their employees rely on premium assistance tax credits to purchase insurance coverage but not if they qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage. PPACA requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to pay up to $3,000 in federal tax penalties for each full-time employee purchasing coverage with premium subsidies before reaching a cap.

And, the law also says if you don't set up a State exchange, your citizens get no subsidies. That was another blackmail attempt. Then, the Administration realized the law would collapse if all the States were not involved, so they permitted those participating in the Federal exchange to get subsidies, without regard to whether their State had set up an exchange. That was "nice," but contra the law (as we will see in the Halbig case).

I really think that Republicans are having a hard time keeping a straight face when they claim the people were mislead about the law.

Not at all. Let me make it simple: if you fail to obtain medical coverage, what happens? You are hit with a tax. That's what the USSC said and what the Administration argued before the Court. Now, what did they tell the American people?

They said it was . . . a "fine." So, which one is it? Oh, it's a fine for political purposes and a tax for legal purposes???

Misleading.

You will be able to keep your plan if you like it.

Misleading.

You will be able to keep your doctor.

Misleading.

It will bend the cost-curve down. Gruber himself has admitted they have no idea. Further, he said they misled the CBO so that the CBO numbers would be "positive" (toward the bill).

The Cornhusker Kickback. The Louisiana Purchase. Transparent?

The group of pro-life Democrats who were assured the bill would not pay for abortions . . . how did that turn out?

Come on, Republicans were there to repeat over and over to people any perceived negative of the ACA (real and imagined). Should there have been a warning sent out to every one in their 20s and 30s that they because they were healthy that they would be in effect subsidizing older people and those with pre-existing conditions? There is a difference between lying and packaging or spinning things .

"Spinning" is . . . misleading. I said "misleading."


When I said "lying" it was about what they did with the CBO.

hacker

I was only asking or attempting to find out if the McKinsey Center was a reliable source, or just another mouthpiece for the Administration. I was looking through the website and its related content myself and am still hard pressed to find out if it gets funding from the Democratic Party

Your an idiot,.

Who we are
The Center for US Health System Reform is McKinsey’s in-house source on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Center was launched in 2010 to advance knowledge and insights critical to reform-related strategy, organization, and operations. Our goal is to help our public, private, and social sector clients address the implications of the ACA-related marketplace activity unfolding, while also providing the broader public with access to our latest research and findings.
What we do
At the Center, McKinsey brings together the depth of its real-world management expertise, proprietary knowledge, and rigorous primary research and economic analysis to understand the implications of ACA marketplace activity unfolding. Insights power high-impact client activities, and inform reports that are shared with the public.
Our research focuses on the impact of reform across key health system stakeholders including commercial health insurers, healthcare providers, exchanges, consumers, distributors, employers, Medicaid and Medicare organizations, retail pharmacies, pharmacy benefit manufacturers, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. It also includes such topics as cost of care, big data, exchange dynamics, network design, and innovative health care delivery models. While much of our early research was predictive, the Center now focuses on tracking empirical data and marrying it up with primary research in order to achieve a distinct level of understanding about market shifts.
The work is driven by world-class experts in collaboration with McKinsey’s global network of consultants. In keeping with McKinsey principles, the Center does not engage in policymaking or advocacy. Research is independently funded by the partners of McKinsey and is not commissioned by any business, government, or other institution.

http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/ ... tem_reform

Management consulting, the practice of helping organizations to improve their performance, operates primarily through the analysis of existing organizational problems and the development of plans for improvement. Organizations may draw upon the services of management consultants for a number of reasons, including gaining external (and presumably objective) advice and access to the consultants' specialized expertise.

Traditionally, the consulting industry charged on a time and materials basis, billing for staff consultants based upon the hours worked plus out-of-pocket expenses such as travel costs. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was a shift to more results-based pricing, either with fixed bids for defined deliverables or some form of results-based pricing in which the firm would be paid a fraction of the value delivered. The current trend seems to favor a hybrid with components of fixed pricing and risk-sharing by both the consulting firm and clients

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... ting_firms

McKinsey can be tainted by many things, but a Democrat mouthpiece they are not. While Ricky does have form in picking partial links, he did not do so here.

Ironically, back in 2011 McKinsey published the outcome of a study that suggested that 30% of employers intended to stop offering health insurance after 2014 following the ACA. Democrats then (some of them, at least) attacked the study and made accusations that it was biased towards the right.

A bit of research will tell you that McKinsey are one of the big three management consultancy firms in the US, and their long history.

McKinsey may be the most influential business organization in the world. Yet, their profile to the common person is so low Hacker hasn't heard of them, which is pretty astounding.