Anyone remember back before the "Affordable Care Act" was passed, you know the "You have to pass it before you can read it" legislation. Anyone remember the kinds of things P-BO said when he was shilling for the "ACA"?
Stuff like.
"If you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor."
"If you like your health insurance, you will get to keep it."
"It (the "ACA") will save the average family $2,500.00 per year."
Now that the "ACA" is law, how many of those statements actually came true?
In how many of those cases did the Truth turn out to be exactly the opposite of what was promised?
The fact that P-BO was so horribly wrong about the outcome of his signature legislation, suggests a couple of options.
1. His promises were the victims of unintended consequences.
2. He had absolutely zero idea what was in the "ACA", nor what the outcomes would be, but was simply pandering to his base.
3. He was simply mistaken.
4. He lied about the whole thing.
5. He was/is stupid.
I personally suspect #4 or #5, but be that as it may.
Given this abysmal track record of being able to predict the outcomes of his own legislation and what appears to be a tendency to say anything expedient regardless of the truth, why should anyone believe anything he says about his recent executive orders designed to fix "mass shootings"?
Is there really anyone out there gullible enough to think that these executive orders will have any actual noticeable effect on "mass shootings"?
How could anyone with the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty not see this for what it is? A symbolic gesture that will make a bunch of gullible lemmings on the left think that P-BO has actually done something and that will fix everything. But, no one could be that gullible, right? No one except the Facebook/Twitter lemming who cut and paste or share whatever bit of P-BO propaganda they come across without giving it the tiniest bit of critical thought or examination.
Just you wait. If one of these tragedies happens during the next year, no one will blame P-BO for the failure of his executive orders. No one will even remember this brave bit of theater. They'll just continue to blame the same old straw men.
So, why exactly should be believe P-BO about this?
15 comments:
From the factcheck.org people...
Obama did repeat a version of his promise in 2009 during the congressional debate over the federal law, saying the legislation 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.” But this time the president didn’t say by the end of his first term.
Obama, May 13, 2009: On Monday I met with representatives of the insurance and the drug companies, doctors and hospitals, and labor unions, groups that included some of the strongest critics of past comprehensive reform proposals. We discussed how they’re pledging to do their part to reduce our nation’s health care spending by 1.5 percent per year. Coupled with comprehensive reform, this could result in our nation saving over $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and that could save families $2,500 in the coming years — $2,500 per family.
As we said at the time, the promise was “still optimistic.” But, he didn’t promise this would be done by the end of his first term and Obama didn’t promise that premiums “would drop,” as Cruz put it. The Obama administration told us that future spending could be $2,500 per family lower compared with what it was otherwise projected to be.
A year later, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle told ABC News that the law needs to play out before savings materialize. She said “by 2019 we estimate that the average family will save around $2,000.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/factchecking-pernicious-obamacare-claims/
fyi.
Now, are you lying, stupid or just mistaken? (applying the same grace towards you that you gave to Obama.) I presume you are just mistaken due to missing some real world context.
Thank you ever so much for your uncalled for uncivil attack, it certainly fits with what I expect from you.
The fact remains, that P-BO did make the claims I attributed to him, and the fact that he realized his "mistake" and attempted to dial back his claims doesn't change the fact that his original claim was not accurate and was simply designed to lead people to believe something that wasn't accurate. The fact remains that even according to your quotes that P-BO is still claiming that there will be a savings of $2000 at some point in the future. Based on how the "ACA" is working now how realistic do you think that $2000 figure is?
The fact that your big gotcha was to provide some after the fact modifications about only one of the claims P-BO made just serves to point out your lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty in these conversations.
The fact is that P-BO made claims about the "ACA" which have not only been proven inaccurate, but the facts have proven them to be exactly the opposite of what his signature legislation was supposed to accomplish. You note I didn't even address the 30 million uninsured who haven't been covered by the "ACA".
I note in your desire to "apply the same grace to me as I did to P-BO" you chose to pick only three of the 5 options I proposed for P-BO. So, I guess that once more those pesky facts keep getting in the way of your claims.
Now that I've allowed and responded to one semi off topic comment, will you actually reply to the topic of the post, or just continue with your sniping and attacks?
More properly, then:
You engaged in an uncivil attack (by your measure).
I engaged in an object lesson to point out your uncivil attack.
And apparently it worked, because you did not appear to care for having the same measure you applied to the president applied to you.
You're welcome, and happy new year.
To the point of the post: I have no great opinions on ACA nor do I hold out great hope that an improvement on gun registration/licensing process will make a huge dent in our violence problems we have. That does not mean I don't want to see the gun registration/licensing process improve nor that I think it can't be improved.
I would also like to see our car/motorist licensing process improve, even though it may not make a huge difference.
Small improvements, lessons learned here and there, add up, that would be what I would hope for.
On the gun support, it appears that a majority of Americans, gun owners and Republicans agree that Obama's new plans for improving the registration process are helpful ideas...
The changes were modest in scope -- experts and even the NRA agreed that their overall impact would be small. That didn't stop Obama's critics from fiercely denouncing the proposals. But the president predicted the public would be on his side. The actions would be supported by an "overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners," he said Monday.
As it turns out, he was right.
A new CNN/ORC survey of 1,000 Americans finds that the public supports Obama's plan by a 2-1 ratio: 67 percent of respondents favored the executive actions, while 32 percent opposed them. Even more striking, a similar share of people in gun-owning households -- 63 percent -- supported the measures.
Even more striking: 51 percent of Republicans support Obama's executive action on guns. When's the last time 51 percent of Republicans agreed with Obama on anything?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/obama-said-gun-owners-would-support-his-new-restrictions-he-was-right/
Who am I to argue with a bunch of gun owners on the topic?
I just wanted to thank you for your gracious and civil apology for your uncivil personal attack. I can always count on you for gracious and respectful dialogue and this is no exception.
Now to a few of your comments.
"You engaged in an uncivil attack"
Actually, I did not engage in an "uncivil attack" I expressed my opinion.
As I pointed out you quite (presumably) intentionally did NOT apply the "same standard", you left out two of the options I included. By definition that would be NOT the same. Further, I did not apply any standard to P-BO. I pointed out that his three main promises about the "ACA" have not only proven to be false (although one of them has a possibility of coming true 4 years from now), but have in point of fact turned out to be exactly the opposite of what he promised. Given that track record, I wonder why anyone would take seriously his assertion that his minuscule efforts will have any noticeable affect of gun violence.
As P-BO pointed out gun violence as fallen precipitously (although the you wouldn't know it from the media) since 1990. This drastic fall comes as the number of guns owned by Americans has risen dramatically. Simple logic would suggest that increased numbers of guns does not lead to increased crime.
I agree with you that the "ACA" has been a failure and that P-BO's executive orders will hive virtually zero effect on gun violence. The reason why is that they are purely symbolic.
If all you want are insignificant symbolic "improvements" designed for their PR impact, then you will be satisfied with this recent edict.
I suspect that reason why gun owners "support" these measures is that they are virtually 100% symbolism and will have virtually no effect on law abiding gun owners. Also, we all know P-BO will be gone in a year anyway. This symbolic act allows him to claim to have made huge strides against gun violence while in reality having done nothing substantial.
"Who am I to argue with a bunch of gun owners on the topic?"
The same one who argues with "a bunch of gun owners" an every other topic where they disagree with your (self admitted) positions based on ignorance of the issues.
Personally, I don't care that much beyond the fact that this is just one more thing where the reality doesn't live up to the promises. But, as usual, y'all are willing to line up to support P-BO pretty much no matter whether what he says is true or not.
I have to say, that I love the fact that you manage to find one of the three promises P-BO made where he later modified his promise and base your entire disagreement on that (even though you do admit that he actually said essentially what I said he said), while pretending that the other 2/3 of his broken promises don't exist.
Again, I thank you for you continued display of grace, civility, and intellectual honesty.
Just a couple of more thoughts on your charges.
1. My grace or lack thereof toward P-BO pales in comparison to the scurrilous attacks you launched against Bush several years ago. I know you've tried to justify your graceless attack, but to try to hold me to a standard that you abandoned long ago is just one more manifestation of your lack of consistency and intellectual dishonesty.
2. The reason why I have developed the opinions I hold of P-BO regarding this are based on the fact that there were plenty of people at the time the "ACA" was being written who predicted exactly the outcomes that we have seen. Since those people either weren't listened to or ignored, it seems reasonable form the opinion that P-BO either ignored anyone who disagreed with him (which seems stupid) or he chose to make promises he knew were false in order to pass the "ACA" despite knowing the probable outcomes (which seems to be lying).
Given the fact that the amount of false information given out by the administration and congress in order to generate support for the "ACA" is so plentiful (not just the 4 things I have mentioned here, but the dishonest budget scoring and the politically motivated waivers granted), it's mystifying that anyone believes anything P-BO says about the results of anything he does.
But we all can see the lemming like behavior of the left and it's not all that surprising.
"President Obama just took a number of executive actions to prevent gun violence -- including cracking down on people selling large numbers of guns without performing background checks. Thanks to this historic action, an additional tens of thousands of gun sales each year will now be required to undergo criminal background checks."
This is the kind of lemming like behavior we see from those on the left. To call this "historic" is a joke. To say that it was motivated by the CT shooting but took years to happen is a joke.
"On Tuesday, I announced new steps I am taking within my legal authority to protect the American people and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people."
The problem with this promise is that literally every one of the publicized "mass shootings" was done by someone who had either purchased their guns legally (and would not be affected by these actions) or someone who acquired their guns illegally (and would also not be affected by these actions).
What we have is P-BO engaging in symbolism with no substance and a bunch of lemmings following along patting him on the back for his "historic actions".
Just one more example of those on the left who think that a hashtag or re-tweeting something or liking someones Facebook status is some sort of tangible action.
Looking at the actual poll Dan cites....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/obama-guns-executive-action-poll-results/index.html
...tells us a bit more about who is or isn't supporting Obama. While it is true it indicates support (and I haven't seen the break down by party affiliation), it also shows, strangely, that most of the people polled do not think the exec orders will be effective in reducing deaths, and it also shows that most oppose the orders themselves, as opposed to going through standard Congressional procedures.
I think the results Dan cites can be attributed more to the concept of weeding out those who should not possess guns, rather liking his specific plans. I need to study the poll more deeply to confirm this suspicion, but that which I have cited lends credence to that suspicion.
As to the ACA, I am still of the opinion that Obama never read it at all. It is certainly true that it was entirely unnecessary as regards how to "fix" the problems of rising health care costs and insurance coverage. More directly, it did little, if anything, to address the causes.
I tend to agree that P-BO and congress never read the "ACA" before passing/signing it. In my book voting for/signing legislation without reading it is pretty stupid. That's not a personal attack, it's just expecting our elected leaders to take the time to know what they're passing.
This would be a whole lot easier if they resisted the urge to fix everything in one fell swoop. Anything put forth as "comprehensive" immediately hoists high red flags for me. The focus should be on one aspect of a problem at a time, hopefully with the most likely cause of the problem being addressed. With health care, one of the problems was the rising costs. The first order of business was to identify all those things that led to the rising costs and determine which of those could be altered, reversed or even just tweaked. For example, forcing insurance companies to cover more things that insurance was meant to cover. Insurance was meant to protect against the economic effects of catastrophic illnesses or injuries. When insurance must cover the hangnail as well, it is no wonder the costs of premiums would reflect that.
Where does ACA address this issue? I don't see that it does.
Another is the numbers of people who do not have coverage. They include those who elect not to spend the money to have coverage. Among those may be some who can't afford it because they don't have jobs or don't have good ones. That's not an issue for the health care industry to address. That's a problem caused by economic policies that burden the private sector, resulting in high unemployment. Address the reasons why companies aren't expanding and hiring, and you "fix" the issue of some people being unable to pay for coverage.
Where does ACA address this issue? I don't see that it does.
The problem is that this president has a pattern of over promise and under deliver as demonstrated by the "ACA", and that anyone who believes his promises at this point is simply choosing to place partisanship over reality.
Dan's defense of P-BO above is a great illustration, he picks out one promise and attempts to use later modifications to the promise to invalidate the promise. Of course one of the later modifications essentially reiterated the original promise and pushes it 5 years into the future. This doesn't invalidate my original point, it just functions as an excuse and a dodge to avoid the other broken promises.
Post a Comment