[HoosierDaddy]

Shocking. Mitt's ideological continuity is one of his biggest strengths!

[Terez]

The surprising thing is that there are actually people who haven't figured this out about Romney by now. It's only been the dominant theme of his struggle so far (going all the way back to 2007).

[worry]

Fairly brutal essay kicked off by that Etch-a-Sketch blunder, but hard to argue with.

[Terez]

Rachel is always good for a rant. I was watching her online regularly for a while until I realized that she said a lot of the same stuff over and over again, and that she liked to do running themes (like the transvaginal ultrasound which I am tired of hearing about).

[Beezulbubba]

Jimmy Kimmel talks to Rick Santorum's brother.

This post has been edited by QWOPstadFrustrationHammer: 27 March 2012 - 11:19 PM

[worry]

Hahaha that was actually pretty funny, but I do think Santorum was right about that reporter's question...it was a pretty hacky attempt to mischaracterize what he said. And then there was this:


Both examples of stupid "gotcha" questions (as much as I hate using that term), but it's not so much evidence of liberal media so much as just people who are awful at their jobs. Particularly Wolf Blitzer, who is so incompetent he accidentally almost managed to make Mitt Romney seem human.

[worry]

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 30 March 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

I always give benefit of the doubt to these things because it makes me feel better. Santorum also had the "Bla...." racist gaffe earlier didn't he?

[worry]

Yah, I don't particularly feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think it's impossible that both cases were honest brain lapse moments. Not that I'd be surprised if they were exactly what they seem at face value. Either way, he's become essentially irrelevant so I can feel fine being simply amused by his foolishness again instead of frightened by it.

[HoosierDaddy]

And yet, at worse, Mitt will pull 46% of the population. More realistically he'll pull 49% and it'll be another Electoral College race.

Those numbers will speak volumes, and already have, for how polarized our country is politically. It's sad. Really, really, sad.

If I didn't care so much I'd think it was funny. I'm sure conservatives feel the same way.

[Shinrei]

In other news.

Cost more than we were told? Tricky accounting? More people losing private insurance and pushed onto government run? Shocked I say, shocked.

http://news.yahoo.co...-163500655.html

Quote

President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off.

Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."

When the final CBO report was released before the law's passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

"Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation," asserted Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, "the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014." This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO's budget window.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy, maybe this will: "President Obama's healthcare reform law coverage provisions will cost less but cover fewer people than first thought," the Hill reported, considering data from the CBO's Tuesday report. Revised estimates of ObamaCare's coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016.

Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year. Further yet, 1 million to 2 million fewer people will be granted access to the federally-subsidized healthcare exchanges, while an additional 1 million are estimated to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Provision.

In a second blog post published on Tuesday, Mr. Klein summed up the debacle: "It's also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn't represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges."

[Terez]

*yawn*

[Shinrei]

Yup. Government spending too much really isn't "news" because it's expected. It's not even a story for a lot of the news outlets.

Meh, I've become more like Nico as I watch the economic news these days. Who cares if Obamacare continues, or even expands. We're all freaking doomed regardless.

[Terez]

That was more for your weighted interpretation of the article than the news itself.

[Shinrei]

Shinrei, on 30 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

In other news.

Cost more than we were told? Tricky accounting? More people losing private insurance and pushed onto government run? Shocked I say, shocked.

http://news.yahoo.co...-163500655.html

Quote

President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off.

Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."

When the final CBO report was released before the law's passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

"Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation," asserted Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, "the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014." This accounting maneuver allowed analysts to cloak the true cost of ObamaCare, Klein alleged, making the law appear less expensive under the CBO's budget window.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy, maybe this will: "President Obama's healthcare reform law coverage provisions will cost less but cover fewer people than first thought," the Hill reported, considering data from the CBO's Tuesday report. Revised estimates of ObamaCare's coverage provisions indicate that 2 million fewer people will acquire coverage by 2016.

Moreover, the CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health plans by 2016, a far cry from the 1-million-person figure forecasted last year. Further yet, 1 million to 2 million fewer people will be granted access to the federally-subsidized healthcare exchanges, while an additional 1 million are estimated to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Provision.

In a second blog post published on Tuesday, Mr. Klein summed up the debacle: "It's also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn't represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges."

How is pulling specific points from the article, which are things I have argued as being highly likely before this news, "weighted interpretation"? It just looks like affirmation to me...

[Terez]

Your suggestion that people would be somehow forced off of private insurance and 'pushed' onto government insurance, for example. Where was that in the article? All it said was that an estimated 3 million people will change over the next 10 years. Nothing about forcing.

This post has been edited by Terez: 30 March 2012 - 01:31 PM

[Shinrei]

Point conceded.

[worry]

Re: the bottom thing you underlined, I thought disconnecting insurance coverage from employment was an area both conservatives and progressives could meet in the middle, so that people don't lose their coverage when they get laid off or what have you. Perhaps it's the government as safety net thing that bothers people, but obviously I would prefer the single-payer model anyway, and I always expected Obamacare to be the first step on that transition, and not the end in itself. And frankly, the conservative alternative to that is draconian. When the attorney representing Obamacare argued this week that since we have a system that turns away nobody in need of health care, it's imperative that we create a way to pay for it responsibly, Justice Scalia responded that maybe we shouldn't oblige ourselves to such a system in the first place then...in other words, he was suggesting that medical professionals simply start turning away people who can't afford the costs of treatment.

Anyway, yah, I'm sure the initial projected costs were essentially best-case-scenario projections all the way down the line, and maybe it's cynicism to say that's how it's always done regardless of party, but on the other hand, I don't necessarily accept that assertion that because it costs more than expected, that automatically means it costs "too much." There are probably inefficiencies, imperfections, all that, and it's a work in progress...but it's still pretty much all targeted at providing health care for those who need it, and that's going to cost however much it has to. Allaying suffering is the noblest cause of any organization, and as far as government responsibilities go I would put it right there at the top equal to protecting its people from outside harm. Two sides of the same coin to me.

Meanwhile, in other budgetary cost-cutting news, and something perhaps a bit less precedented, rising star/Social Darwinist Paul Ryan made a point of calling some of our highest ranking military liars this week:
http://thehill.com/b...dvice-on-budget

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 30 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

When the attorney representing Obamacare argued this week that since we have a system that turns away nobody in need of health care, it's imperative that we create a way to pay for it responsibly, Justice Scalia responded that maybe we shouldn't oblige ourselves to such a system in the first place then...in other words, he was suggesting that medical professionals simply start turning away people who can't afford the costs of treatment.

Given that I studied the Supreme Court for all of a semester in law school and went to observe a session, I would not be surprised in the least that Scalia actually believes something along those lines.

The man is an a-hole of the highest order. I would love to see him and Thomas replaced this upcoming term with people who have kept open minds throughout their adult lives (not necessarily Kagan/Sotomayor clones), but at least people who can intellectually bend to some degree.

Unfortunately, they will probably ask the Koch brothers to help them cling to zombie-like existences until a Republican president finally arrives once more...

[Terez]

worrywort, on 30 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Anyway, yah, I'm sure the initial projected costs were essentially best-case-scenario projections all the way down the line, and maybe it's cynicism to say that's how it's always done regardless of party...

Not cynical at all. Part of the debt assigned to Obama actually came from his move against Bush's supplemental budgets for Iraq and Afghanistan, something on the order of 1.3 trillion if I recall. The same type of accounting tricks. Of course, Obama has taken to doing the same. When in Washington...