Gruber, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the Transparency Gang of Four (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

The signature achievement of the "most transparent administration in history" had this guy running the show, to an extent.

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Explain Why "Lack of Transparency" Was Key to Passing the Health Care Law

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass....Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

In the words of Peter Suderman at reason, "Gruber may believe that American voters are stupid, but he was the one who was dumb enough to say all this on camera."

 

[rockaction]

Gruber is a freaking sociopath.

This article is about the same guy, who just might nuke the ACA with his preternaturally and unbelievably enormous mouth. Regarding King v. Burwell and state "Exchanges": "My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.”

On Second Occasion, Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Says States That Don't Set Up Exchanges Lose Access to Obamacare Subsidies

 

[DaVinci]

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

Video from the negotiations.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

 

[cstu]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

Fair enough, now if only the president would be that straightforward.

 

[rockaction]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

No, it shows no respect for democratic debate, process, nor basic decency, which are pre-Consitutional. They're the difference between tyranny and democracy, to an extent.

I think if the worst thing you've done is mislead voters, subvert government procedural standards, renege on promises so thoroughly that the ones that you're reneging on were the center of your campaign, and then you proclaim yourself so cynically, uh, transparent all while vilifying your enemies for earnest opinions to the contrary, you're a sociopath.

It's all very cynical and Machiavellian, and it shows how much political procedure, discourse, and the expectations thereof have been chipped away. They've been chipped away until belief or right-thinking support of the political system becomes something more endemic of support for a dictatorship rather than one of enlightened discourse.

This is a blatant admission of obfuscation -- without shame -- about lying to achieve ends. If one can't see why this is sociopathic or ridiculous, or hubristic in whatever form or name it takes, and that the politics that justify this are unsalvageable, I would encourage one to expatriate themselves to a system that has already settled these contentious debates.

 

[tommyboy]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

Meanwhile saddling future generations with billions in unpaid debt

 

[sublimeone]

Wow.... The guy is shameless

 

[timschochet]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

 

[avoiding injuries]

1. The main point is how they proclaimed they were going to be transparent about it, but ended up doing the exact opposite.

2. What does paying attention have to do with anything? Plenty of people were paying attention when this was passed and disagreed with it. Are you saying being more attentive would have changed something?

3. If this was something you opposed, like deportation, you wouldn't accept someone saying "get over it".

 

[saintfool]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

No, it shows no respect for democratic debate, process, nor basic decency, which are pre-Consitutional. They're the difference between tyranny and democracy, to an extent.

I think if the worst thing you've done is mislead voters, subvert government procedural standards, renege on promises so thoroughly that the ones that you're reneging on were the center of your campaign, and then you proclaim yourself so cynically, uh, transparent all while vilifying your enemies for earnest opinions to the contrary, you're a sociopath.

It's all very cynical and Machiavellian, and it shows how much political procedure, discourse, and the expectations thereof have been chipped away. They've been chipped away until belief or right-thinking support of the political system becomes something more endemic of support for a dictatorship rather than one of enlightened discourse.

This is a blatant admission of obfuscation -- without shame -- about lying to achieve ends. If one can't see why this is sociopathic or ridiculous, or hubristic in whatever form or name it takes, and that the politics that justify this are unsalvageable, I would encourage one to expatriate themselves to a system that has already settled these contentious debates.

i can't decide if you're being hopelessly naive or obtuse.

 

[TPW]

This really comes down to how people of different political persuasions view others. Progressives really see themselves as a cut above everyone else and think those who do not share their beliefs are not just simply misguided but are downright evil. The use of lies and underhanded tactics is therefore completely justified in their minds in the defense of what they consider essential and good. Rules are for suckers.

 

[timschochet]

1. The main point is how they proclaimed they were going to be transparent about it, but ended up doing the exact opposite.

2. What does paying attention have to do with anything? Plenty of people were paying attention when this was passed and disagreed with it. Are you saying being more attentive would have changed something?

3. If this was something you opposed, like deportation, you wouldn't accept someone saying "get over it".

2. Every administration claims it is going to be more transparent than the last one. Every promoter of a new major bill claims they're going to be more transparent. I believe that the main reason you are objecting here is because you are ideologically opposed to the President and to Obamacare, which is fine . But the issue of deception is a distraction. 2. I'm saying that very few people who paid attention were taken in by the CBO manipulations. Most people who were either for or against it paid little attention to the CBO, knowing that these sort of projections are never accurate anyhow. The bill did not pass because of the CBO, IMO.

3. I'm not saying to get over Obamacare . If you don't like it, you should vote for those who want to get rid of it, and no doubt you and millions of others did this month. (Whether or not it CAN be gotten rid of is a different question- I think it's too late.) I'm saying to get over this whole question of manipulation and deception. Unless your aim is to completely redo our political system. This is the system we have. I truly believe that most of our political leaders, including a President Obama, are essentially honest people . But they are going to manipulate facts now and then to their advantage. That is not the same as deliberate lying to the American public, and it's certainly not worthy of the kind of condemnation it has received in this thread .

 

[TPW]

1. The main point is how they proclaimed they were going to be transparent about it, but ended up doing the exact opposite.

2. What does paying attention have to do with anything? Plenty of people were paying attention when this was passed and disagreed with it. Are you saying being more attentive would have changed something?

3. If this was something you opposed, like deportation, you wouldn't accept someone saying "get over it".

2. Every administration claims it is going to be more transparent than the last one. Every promoter of a new major bill claims they're going to be more transparent. I believe that the main reason you are objecting here is because you are ideologically opposed to the President and to Obamacare, which is fine . But the issue of deception is a distraction.2. I'm saying that very few people who paid attention were taken in by the CBO manipulations. Most people who were either for or against it paid little attention to the CBO, knowing that these sort of projections are never accurate anyhow. The bill did not pass because of the CBO, IMO.

3. I'm not saying to get over Obamacare . If you don't like it, you should vote for those who want to get rid of it, and no doubt you and millions of others did this month. (Whether or not it CAN be gotten rid of is a different question- I think it's too late.) I'm saying to get over this whole question of manipulation and deception. Unless your aim is to completely redo our political system. This is the system we have. I truly believe that most of our political leaders, including a President Obama, are essentially honest people . But they are going to manipulate facts now and then to their advantage. That is not the same as deliberate lying to the American public, and it's certainly not worthy of the kind of condemnation it has received in this thread .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

 

[timschochet]

This really comes down to how people of different political persuasions view others. Progressives really see themselves as a cut above everyone else and think those who do not share their beliefs are not just simply misguided but are downright evil. The use of lies and underhanded tactics is therefore completely justified in their minds in the defense of what they consider essential and good. Rules are for suckers.

i've never before realized that **** Cheney was a progressive. Thanks for the insight.

 

[TPW]

This really comes down to how people of different political persuasions view others. Progressives really see themselves as a cut above everyone else and think those who do not share their beliefs are not just simply misguided but are downright evil. The use of lies and underhanded tactics is therefore completely justified in their minds in the defense of what they consider essential and good. Rules are for suckers.

i've never before realized that **** Cheney was a progressive. Thanks for the insight.

Establishment Republicans lie, cheat, and steal with the best of them to be sure. However, you generally don't see the conservative base patting them on the back for doing so. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe that's why progressives think the Tea Party is full of crazies for challenging them. They really cannot picture a world in which Constitutional principles are obeyed and leadership is held to accountability.

 

[TheAristocrat]

As long as you support the outcome, its ok to lie, cheat, and steal. Got it.

Then when someone questions your lying, cheating, and stealing, all you have to do is say "Everyone does it" and that cannot be challenged. Got it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

Sort of missing the point. It is difficult to mislead, swindle, or defraud the informed. It is, however, very easy to do with the ill-informed. Using a paternalistic, ends justifies the means argument to mislead the ignorant to get them to support public policy which will become an entitlement redistributing trillions of dollars while demonizing the accurate positions of those opposed is unconscionable. Of course for those with no conscience, no worries.

 

[joffer]

This really comes down to how people of different political persuasions view others. Progressives really see themselves as a cut above everyone else and think those who do not share their beliefs are not just simply misguided but are downright evil. The use of lies and underhanded tactics is therefore completely justified in their minds in the defense of what they consider essential and good. Rules are for suckers.

i would hate to be you

 

[timschochet]

Sorry I just think that using words like "unconscionable" within the context of the debate over Obamacare, which throughout has been full of misinformation and exaggeration on both sides, is way over the top. You guys seem so eager to place Obama in the role of demonic villain when all he really was, in this instance, was a pragmatic politician trying to get some sort of achievement passed on health care, even though it wasn't what he really wanted.

 

[saintfool]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

Sort of missing the point. It is difficult to mislead, swindle, or defraud the informed. It is, however, very easy to do with the ill-informed. Using a paternalistic, ends justifies the means argument to mislead the ignorant to get them to support public policy which will become an entitlement redistributing trillions of dollars while demonizing the accurate positions of those opposed is unconscionable. Of course for those with no conscience, no worries.

The defining issues for the two most recent administrations have traded on this. The Iraq War and Health Care Reform were issues that were hijacked along the way. It would have been nice to have a healthy public discussion but that didn't happen.

 

[jonessed]

As long as you support the outcome, its ok to lie, cheat, and steal. Got it.

Then when someone questions your lying, cheating, and stealing, all you have to do is say "Everyone does it" and that cannot be challenged. Got it.

It's disgusting, but tim is prerry consistent with this "the ends justifies the means" thinking.

 

[cstu]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

Sort of missing the point. It is difficult to mislead, swindle, or defraud the informed. It is, however, very easy to do with the ill-informed. Using a paternalistic, ends justifies the means argument to mislead the ignorant to get them to support public policy which will become an entitlement redistributing trillions of dollars while demonizing the accurate positions of those opposed is unconscionable. Of course for those with no conscience, no worries.

We wouldn't have Medicare today if it wasn't 'shoved down people's throats' by Democrats.

Then, on July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor and 17 against. President Johnson signed it two days later.

 

[StrikeS2k]

As long as you support the outcome, its ok to lie, cheat, and steal. Got it.

Then when someone questions your lying, cheating, and stealing, all you have to do is say "Everyone does it" and that cannot be challenged. Got it.

It's disgusting, but tim is prerry consistent with this "the ends justifies the means" thinking.

It's the libertarian way.

 

[Boston]

Isn't the "ends justify the means" part of the Alinsky gospel many on the left follow...to think lying is Ok is really sad...once you give the green-light for our leaders (be it GOP or dem) to lie you're heading down a path that's not going to end well...to put your personal goals over honesty truly shows the character of someone...

 

[saintfool]

at least there was something of a national dialogue about health care reform through the election of 2008. in the end, after obama was elected, the public favored - close to two-thirds to three-quarter in some polls - some kind of health care reform. i don't think anyone believed it would happen the way it did with ACA. To borrow from former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, "you go to war with the army you have - not the army you might or wish to have at a later time."

 

[cstu]

As long as you support the outcome, its ok to lie, cheat, and steal. Got it.

Then when someone questions your lying, cheating, and stealing, all you have to do is say "Everyone does it" and that cannot be challenged. Got it.

It's disgusting, but tim is prerry consistent with this "the ends justifies the means" thinking.

When it comes to passing legislation like this, it does. The great thing about America is that anything can be overturned. If it's so bad then voters can vote in people to repeal it.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

Tim,

Actions speak louder than words. Just because you don't like hearing that you promote something doesn't mean it isn't so if your posts/actions indicate otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

Tim,

Actions speak louder than words. Just because you don't like hearing that you promote something doesn't mean it isn't so if your posts/actions indicate otherwise.

i don't value your interpretations of my actions and posts.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

Tim,

Actions speak louder than words. Just because you don't like hearing that you promote something doesn't mean it isn't so if your posts/actions indicate otherwise.

i don't value your interpretations of my actions and posts.

Yet you always respond to them

 

[StrikeS2k]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

Tim,

Actions speak louder than words. Just because you don't like hearing that you promote something doesn't mean it isn't so if your posts/actions indicate otherwise.

i don't value your interpretations of my actions and posts.

I'm not the one who posted the comment. I simply supported it.

 

[timschochet]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

Tim,

Actions speak louder than words. Just because you don't like hearing that you promote something doesn't mean it isn't so if your posts/actions indicate otherwise.

i don't value your interpretations of my actions and posts.

I'm not the one who posted the comment. I simply supported it.

as you do with any post that attacks me. Stinger Ray as well. Which is why, other than mocking the two of you (which I'm ashamed to admit I engage in too often) you're both easy to dismiss in terms of serious relevance.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I never wrote the ends justify the means and I certainly don't believe in that. And I haven't read one person make that argument. Try again.

Tim,

Actions speak louder than words. Just because you don't like hearing that you promote something doesn't mean it isn't so if your posts/actions indicate otherwise.

i don't value your interpretations of my actions and posts.

I'm not the one who posted the comment. I simply supported it.

as you do with any post that attacks me. Stinger Ray as well. Which is why, other than mocking the two of you (which I'm ashamed to admit I engage in too often) you're both easy to dismiss in terms of serious relevance.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Every time Tim posts in any remotely political thread it's the same usual suspects who clog up most of the thread going out of their way to go after Tim. It's very tiresome. Am I the only one who gets sick of these guys?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'm struggling to see where the "lie" is here. Does transparency mean the political sides aren't expected to sell the benefits of their ideas? Usually in a debate you expect the side pitching an idea to focus attention on the value and the opposing side to focus on the cost (monetary or social).

Are we angry at Republicans here for not pointing out at the time that the mandate could be interpreted as a tax, or that young/healthy people would be required to get insurance to offset the cost of older/sicker people (the basic premise of the law)? I'm pretty sure they did.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Every time Tim posts in any remotely political thread it's the same usual suspects who clog up most of the thread going out of their way to go after Tim. It's very tiresome. Am I the only one who gets sick of these guys?

Many of us see Tim as the one clogging up the thread. To each his own I suppose.

 

[rockaction]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

No, it shows no respect for democratic debate, process, nor basic decency, which are pre-Consitutional. They're the difference between tyranny and democracy, to an extent.

I think if the worst thing you've done is mislead voters, subvert government procedural standards, renege on promises so thoroughly that the ones that you're reneging on were the center of your campaign, and then you proclaim yourself so cynically, uh, transparent all while vilifying your enemies for earnest opinions to the contrary, you're a sociopath.

It's all very cynical and Machiavellian, and it shows how much political procedure, discourse, and the expectations thereof have been chipped away. They've been chipped away until belief or right-thinking support of the political system becomes something more endemic of support for a dictatorship rather than one of enlightened discourse.

This is a blatant admission of obfuscation -- without shame -- about lying to achieve ends. If one can't see why this is sociopathic or ridiculous, or hubristic in whatever form or name it takes, and that the politics that justify this are unsalvageable, I would encourage one to expatriate themselves to a system that has already settled these contentious debates.

i can't decide if you're being hopelessly naive or obtuse.

I think you're missing my point. How many politicians or architects of major, sweeping, nation-altering legislation have gone in front of a camera, admitted they lied, and then called voters "stupid."

This guy is a sociopath. That's been my point. And his line of thought about what is acceptable runs completely antithetical to basic democratic societal foundations. There is nothing naive nor obtuse about my statement.

It's called basic trust. Francis Fukuyama wrote a whole book about its necessity in democratic, capitalist societies. De Tocqueville has entire sections of Democracy in America that essentially talk about civic organizations, giving, and the trust required to do so. His theory of social capital should be studied by those in doubt. Adam Smith writes about trust as essential to a free society.

Virtue and honesty are neither naive nor obtuse. I'm sad that I even have to defend something like this. I'm very discouraged by your view of the world.

 

[saintfool]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

No, it shows no respect for democratic debate, process, nor basic decency, which are pre-Consitutional. They're the difference between tyranny and democracy, to an extent.

I think if the worst thing you've done is mislead voters, subvert government procedural standards, renege on promises so thoroughly that the ones that you're reneging on were the center of your campaign, and then you proclaim yourself so cynically, uh, transparent all while vilifying your enemies for earnest opinions to the contrary, you're a sociopath.

It's all very cynical and Machiavellian, and it shows how much political procedure, discourse, and the expectations thereof have been chipped away. They've been chipped away until belief or right-thinking support of the political system becomes something more endemic of support for a dictatorship rather than one of enlightened discourse.

This is a blatant admission of obfuscation -- without shame -- about lying to achieve ends. If one can't see why this is sociopathic or ridiculous, or hubristic in whatever form or name it takes, and that the politics that justify this are unsalvageable, I would encourage one to expatriate themselves to a system that has already settled these contentious debates.

i can't decide if you're being hopelessly naive or obtuse.

I think you're missing my point. How many politicians or architects of major, sweeping, nation-altering legislation have gone in front of a camera, admitted they lied, and then called voters "stupid."

This guy is a sociopath. That's been my point. And his line of thought about what is acceptable runs completely antithetical to basic democratic societal foundations. There is nothing naive nor obtuse about my statement.

It's called basic trust. Francis Fukuyama wrote a whole book about its necessity in democratic, capitalist societies. De Tocqueville has entire sections of Democracy in America that essentially talk about civic organizations, giving, and the trust required to do so. His theory of social capital should be studied by those in doubt. Adam Smith writes about trust as essential to a free society.

Virtue and honesty are neither naive nor obtuse. I'm sad that I even have to defend something like this. I'm very discouraged by your view of the world.

i'm all for the high-minded virtues of democracy but that's not what we're dealing with here though.

 

[rockaction]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

No, they're not. When the main architect of administrative justice within the New Deal, Roscoe Pound, looked around at what had happened with The New Deal, and what he had done by centralizing power into the executive branch, he felt like it was un-American, and said so. Let me repeat: The lead legal reformer (and the leading proponent of legal realism) of the early 20th century recanted and renounced what he had done because the effects, he thought, intruded on liberty and trust and justice. It was an act of integrity and virtue. It was so far away from what Gruber has done -- on camera no less -- that a striking example could not be more apparent. See: Willrich, Michael. City of Courts

 

[rockaction]

you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed

Robert Reich said the same thing right around or just after the time of passage.

The whole thing was a lie, still is, it's appalling.

If the worst thing a person does in their lifetime is lie so they can help people health then I think they've done alright.

No, it shows no respect for democratic debate, process, nor basic decency, which are pre-Consitutional. They're the difference between tyranny and democracy, to an extent.

I think if the worst thing you've done is mislead voters, subvert government procedural standards, renege on promises so thoroughly that the ones that you're reneging on were the center of your campaign, and then you proclaim yourself so cynically, uh, transparent all while vilifying your enemies for earnest opinions to the contrary, you're a sociopath.

It's all very cynical and Machiavellian, and it shows how much political procedure, discourse, and the expectations thereof have been chipped away. They've been chipped away until belief or right-thinking support of the political system becomes something more endemic of support for a dictatorship rather than one of enlightened discourse.

This is a blatant admission of obfuscation -- without shame -- about lying to achieve ends. If one can't see why this is sociopathic or ridiculous, or hubristic in whatever form or name it takes, and that the politics that justify this are unsalvageable, I would encourage one to expatriate themselves to a system that has already settled these contentious debates.

i can't decide if you're being hopelessly naive or obtuse.

I think you're missing my point. How many politicians or architects of major, sweeping, nation-altering legislation have gone in front of a camera, admitted they lied, and then called voters "stupid."

This guy is a sociopath. That's been my point. And his line of thought about what is acceptable runs completely antithetical to basic democratic societal foundations. There is nothing naive nor obtuse about my statement.

It's called basic trust. Francis Fukuyama wrote a whole book about its necessity in democratic, capitalist societies. De Tocqueville has entire sections of Democracy in America that essentially talk about civic organizations, giving, and the trust required to do so. His theory of social capital should be studied by those in doubt. Adam Smith writes about trust as essential to a free society.

Virtue and honesty are neither naive nor obtuse. I'm sad that I even have to defend something like this. I'm very discouraged by your view of the world.

i'm all for the high-minded virtues of democracy but that's not what we're dealing with here though.

Certainly not, I guess.

 

[rockaction]

And what has been noted by legal commenters (and I'd invite the Con Law guys to comment) is the strangeness of King v. Burwell being granted cert. I can't help but think it has something to do with the Gruber's inability to shut up on camera and not gloat about blatantly unconstitutional things. See this post. There is a latter part to the quote that deals with federal questions and the increasing likelihood of more splits, but this is interesting quote below. For the full text, go here

As a general rule, the Court is very unlikely to grant cert petitions in the absence of an active circuit split. When two or more lower courts produce conflicting judgments, the justices recognize the importance of resolving the conflict. Among other things, this ensures the uniformity of federal law. There is no current circuit split in King, however. In King itself, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the IRS rule, concluding that the PPACA is sufficiently ambiguous and that the IRS had offered a reasonable interpretation of the statutory text. On the very same day, in Halbig v. Burwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reached the opposite result, concluding that the IRS rule was illegal and contradicted the plain text of the PPACA. While these two opinions are in conflict, the D.C. Circuit voted to rehear Halbig en banc, vacating the initial panel’s judgment. So while the opinions remain in conflict, there are not conflicting appellate court judgments. Further, if the en banc court overturns the three-judge panel and agrees with the Fourth Circuit, the circuit split will disappear entirely.

 

[Phil Elliott]

1. The main point is how they proclaimed they were going to be transparent about it, but ended up doing the exact opposite.

2. What does paying attention have to do with anything? Plenty of people were paying attention when this was passed and disagreed with it. Are you saying being more attentive would have changed something?

3. If this was something you opposed, like deportation, you wouldn't accept someone saying "get over it".

2. Every administration claims it is going to be more transparent than the last one. Every promoter of a new major bill claims they're going to be more transparent. I believe that the main reason you are objecting here is because you are ideologically opposed to the President and to Obamacare, which is fine . But the issue of deception is a distraction.2. I'm saying that very few people who paid attention were taken in by the CBO manipulations. Most people who were either for or against it paid little attention to the CBO, knowing that these sort of projections are never accurate anyhow. The bill did not pass because of the CBO, IMO.

3. I'm not saying to get over Obamacare . If you don't like it, you should vote for those who want to get rid of it, and no doubt you and millions of others did this month. (Whether or not it CAN be gotten rid of is a different question- I think it's too late.) I'm saying to get over this whole question of manipulation and deception. Unless your aim is to completely redo our political system. This is the system we have. I truly believe that most of our political leaders, including a President Obama, are essentially honest people . But they are going to manipulate facts now and then to their advantage. That is not the same as deliberate lying to the American public, and it's certainly not worthy of the kind of condemnation it has received in this thread .

Hey Tim - Did you have a first point or two second points? This numbering system may be what confused the CBO. As for the bolded...

 

[cstu]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

No, they're not. When the main architect of administrative justice within the New Deal, Roscoe Pound, looked around at what had happened with The New Deal, and what he had done by centralizing power into the executive branch, he felt like it was un-American, and said so. Let me repeat: The lead legal reformer (and the leading proponent of legal realism) of the early 20th century recanted and renounced what he had done because the effects, he thought, intruded on liberty and trust and justice. It was an act of integrity and virtue. It was so far away from what Gruber has done -- on camera no less -- that a striking example could not be more apparent. See: Willrich, Michael. City of Courts

Link

Yet "there had always been a conservative streak running through Pound's thinking on administration and the common law"--which Witt identified as an aversion to radical departures that might "extinguish the individual altogether." As he aged, this streak grew stronger. After bitter battles with liberals on the Harvard law faculty, the death of his wife, and a sharp exchange with Karl Llewellyn, Pound felt bereft and upstaged. Craving attention, he found it by giving voice to his "lurking conservatism" in "a frontal assault on the administrative law being created by Roosevelt's New Deal."

 

[cstu]

I think you're missing my point. How many politicians or architects of major, sweeping, nation-altering legislation have gone in front of a camera, admitted they lied, and then called voters "stupid."

This guy is a sociopath. That's been my point. And his line of thought about what is acceptable runs completely antithetical to basic democratic societal foundations. There is nothing naive nor obtuse about my statement.

It's called basic trust. Francis Fukuyama wrote a whole book about its necessity in democratic, capitalist societies. De Tocqueville has entire sections of Democracy in America that essentially talk about civic organizations, giving, and the trust required to do so. His theory of social capital should be studied by those in doubt. Adam Smith writes about trust as essential to a free society.

Virtue and honesty are neither naive nor obtuse. I'm sad that I even have to defend something like this. I'm very discouraged by your view of the world.

Basic trust...from a politician...

 

[jonessed]

1. The main point is how they proclaimed they were going to be transparent about it, but ended up doing the exact opposite.

2. What does paying attention have to do with anything? Plenty of people were paying attention when this was passed and disagreed with it. Are you saying being more attentive would have changed something?

3. If this was something you opposed, like deportation, you wouldn't accept someone saying "get over it".

2. Every administration claims it is going to be more transparent than the last one. Every promoter of a new major bill claims they're going to be more transparent. I believe that the main reason you are objecting here is because you are ideologically opposed to the President and to Obamacare, which is fine . But the issue of deception is a distraction.2. I'm saying that very few people who paid attention were taken in by the CBO manipulations. Most people who were either for or against it paid little attention to the CBO, knowing that these sort of projections are never accurate anyhow. The bill did not pass because of the CBO, IMO.

3. I'm not saying to get over Obamacare . If you don't like it, you should vote for those who want to get rid of it, and no doubt you and millions of others did this month. (Whether or not it CAN be gotten rid of is a different question- I think it's too late.) I'm saying to get over this whole question of manipulation and deception. Unless your aim is to completely redo our political system. This is the system we have. I truly believe that most of our political leaders, including a President Obama, are essentially honest people . But they are going to manipulate facts now and then to their advantage. That is not the same as deliberate lying to the American public, and it's certainly not worthy of the kind of condemnation it has received in this thread .

Hey Tim - Did you have a first point or two second points? This numbering system may be what confused the CBO. As for the bolded...

If manipulative people who lie are now essentially honest there really isn't anywhere to go from there.

 

[cstu]

If manipulative people who lie are now essentially honest there really isn't anywhere to go from there.

There is not a single person in Washington who has not been manipulative or a liar at some point - you don't get there otherwise.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I have been through this rodeo on a local level.

There is an answer and it is what was promised: transparency.

All documents must be retained and made available to the public upon request, every scrap of it.

It would help liberals, conservatives, progressives, fundamentalists, moderates, socialists and libertarians. I think when the Pharma and med industry negotiations were held behind closed doors that pretty much sealed it. It's not the only example, Cheney did it with the energy execs.

Also get rid of executive privilege. Yes, they are coequal branches of government but let's remember that Congress enacts laws, it has right as the People's house to see how those laws are being executed.

You should start by demanding it locally.

 

[rockaction]

As I pointed out in the other thread, almost no major bills are transparent. Certainly neither Social Security or Medicare was. Some of the comments in here about betraying American ideals are way over the top.

The basics of Obamacare were well known to anyone who paid attention: the insurance companies would be required to accept everyone at the same rate regardless of pre/existing conditions. The government was going to help very poor people get health insurance. In order to pay for it all, everyone would be required to get health insurance (the mandate).

Everything else is just detail. The basic debate centered over whether or not the mandate would be enough to pay for it all. I and many others argued no it would not, in part because it would be impossible to enforce, in part because pre-existing conditions would drive the price up so much higher for everyone else. I still think I'm right about this, but we won't know for several years: despite both conservative and liberal rhetoric to the contrary, there's no way to know now.

So the writers of the bill manipulated the CBO? That's a huge shock. Get over it; it happens all the time. If you were paying attention at the time the bill passed, you knew all the major issues involved. If you weren't paying attention, that's on you.

No, they're not. When the main architect of administrative justice within the New Deal, Roscoe Pound, looked around at what had happened with The New Deal, and what he had done by centralizing power into the executive branch, he felt like it was un-American, and said so. Let me repeat: The lead legal reformer (and the leading proponent of legal realism) of the early 20th century recanted and renounced what he had done because the effects, he thought, intruded on liberty and trust and justice. It was an act of integrity and virtue. It was so far away from what Gruber has done -- on camera no less -- that a striking example could not be more apparent. See: Willrich, Michael. City of Courts

Link

Yet "there had always been a conservative streak running through Pound's thinking on administration and the common law"--which Witt identified as an aversion to radical departures that might "extinguish the individual altogether." As he aged, this streak grew stronger. After bitter battles with liberals on the Harvard law faculty, the death of his wife, and a sharp exchange with Karl Llewellyn, Pound felt bereft and upstaged. Craving attention, he found it by giving voice to his "lurking conservatism" in "a frontal assault on the administrative law being created by Roosevelt's New Deal."

That's one historian questioning, what, in his own words, is the "conventional view" about Pound by citing a "hedged" version of the normal narrative. He questions Willrich, Horwitz (probably the most famous legal historian of the past century) and others in the article and proffers his own opinion, that Pound sought to reform courts to save themselves. Much like the liberal narrative on FDR is that he reformed capitalism to save itself, thus did Pound, claims Ernst.