Boundless

[rubato]

The right-wing ability to lie and deny reality to support a failed ideology is boundless!

The WSJ does as they are paid to do ...





http://www.vox.com/2015/3/18/8246481/ob ... e-heritage

On Tuesday, Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine surfaced what is arguably one of the more bizarre comments made about the Affordable Care Act of late. The comment is from Ed Haislmaier at the Heritage Foundation, who was talking about the 35 percent decline in the uninsured rate since 2014, when Obamacare's insurance expansion started.

"It's premature," Haislmaier told the Wall Street Journal, "to say it's ACA-related."

There's a lot of argument right now about whether Obamacare's insurance expansion is good, bad, or somewhere in between. This is a place where you can have a real policy argument: is it a good idea to commit billions of taxpayer dollars to getting more people health insurance?

Questions about whether Obamacare actually increased insured rates, though? Those pretty much fly in the face of all available data.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that Obamacare has driven down the uninsured rate — and that the decline in uninsured rates started right when the health law's new insurance programs started. ... "

Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, Obamacare goes on to success after success.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Only if you define success as "people doing something they are forced to do (or get slapped with a penalty if they do not comply)"

Wonder what the "success" rate would be if people could actually choose whether or not to "sign up"?

[rubato]

If you cared enough to look you could find out.

http://acasignups.net/graphs/2014

I have posted links to the data many times.






Yrs,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

Yeah, and of course your "data" doesn't at all address oldr's question...

And it remains the same misleading, incomplete, only-telling-one-part-of-the-story crapola it has been since the first time you posted it... all the flaws and cherry picking and double counting, etc., etc., etc have been pointed out to you numerous times but it never makes any difference to you....once again, you refuse to let facts impact on your narrative...

Which is why I never even bother to respond to your intellectually dishonest, transparently disingenuous, shameless and mindless propagandizing on this topic any more...my immediate reaction when I see one of these shill posts from you now is, "oh, that pile of garbage again", and then I move on...

Figures don't lie, but liars figure...

[Joe Guy]

Obamacare cured cancer!

[rubato]

Liars start repeating the tactics of other liars:


http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/Tob ... lained.pdf

"...
Tobacco
companies start
the denials
The US tobacco industry responded to the public concern by producing the
‘Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers’, which sets the tone for the next few
decades:
“Distinguished authorities point out:
1.
That medical research of recent years indicatesSmoking and health
4
many possible causes of lung cancer.
2.
That there is no agreement among the authorities
regarding what the cause is.
3.
That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is
one of the causes.
4.
That statistics purporting to link smoking with the
disease could apply with equal force to any one of
many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the
validity of the statistics themselves are
questioned by numerous scientists.”
13
(TIRC, 1954)

Whiners whine and liars lie. It's what they do.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Whiners whine and liars lie. It's what they do.

I've certainly noticed that...

[Lord Jim]

of course your "data" doesn't at all address oldr's question...

Liars start repeating the tactics of other liars:


http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/Tob ... lained.pdf

"...
Tobacco
companies start
the denials
The US tobacco industry responded to the public concern by producing the
‘Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers’, which sets the tone for the next few
decades:
“Distinguished authorities point out:
1.
That medical research of recent years indicatesSmoking and health
4
many possible causes of lung cancer.
2.
That there is no agreement among the authorities
regarding what the cause is.
3.
That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is
one of the causes.
4.
That statistics purporting to link smoking with the
disease could apply with equal force to any one of
many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the
validity of the statistics themselves are
questioned by numerous scientists.”
13
(TIRC, 1954)

Whiners whine and liars lie. It's what they do.


yrs,
rubato

When the facts are disagreeable, change the subject! The path to perpetual ignorance leads through self-delusion. Aummmmmm.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

If someone genuinely wanted to know what the numbers would be without the mandate they could look up what they were 1 year ago, when there was no mandate. I posted a link. (yet again). That would be someone who had a genuine curiosity. Not a dishonest purpose.


Have a smoke. The evidence for a link between smoking and lung cancer is merely statistical.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Again, they (you) measure "success" by counting how many people are doing something where if they don't, they get fined.

It's like saying a traffic light is a success by counting how many people stop their cars when it's red.

And I have read the numbers and take issue with how they came up with those numbers.

[Lord Jim]

We've been over and over this, but it makes no difference to rube...

Just to give one of many examples:

Rube's "data" shows 100% of young people between 19 and 26 years of age receiving health insurance because they can stay on their parent's insurance, (an admittedly popular element of this program) thanks to Obamacare...

Which is of course ridiculous, and grossly inflated, because it assumes that none of those folks would have had health insurance without Obamacare...

As I said, just one example...

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

Hey, I'm not one of those folks who believes that government can't do anything right...

The NSA intelligence gathering programs are well-run and serve the public

[Lord Jim]

Rube, here's what I don't understand about you, (and have frankly never understood about you...)

Why can't you just make an argument like this:

"Okay, those numbers may be inflated, and they probably include some double counting, but even if the number is overstated, there are still millions of people today who are covered by health insurance that weren't before Obamacare, and this is a good thing"...

But for some reason, you seem constitutionally incapable of making an argument like that...A thoughtful, reasonably credible argument...an argument that might actually be able to hold some persuasive weight...

Instead you insist (constantly, on virtually every topic) on making "arguments" that are so absolutist and dodgy in their factual content, that they can be shot full of more holes than John Dillinger's last suit...

Why do you always insist on doing this when better courses of action to make your points are frequently available to you?

ETA:

Here's another example; how about an argument like this:

"Yes, Obama was undoubtedly deliberately deceptive about people being able to keep their healthcare plans. But he was deceptive to serve a higher purpose; providing healthcare for more people. And most of the people who lost the healthcare plans they liked are actually better off because the plans they have now are better"...

Now I wouldn't necessarily agree with that argument; (it strikes me as condescending and presumptuous for a start) but at least it has sufficient intellectual honesty and integrity to be taken seriously...

Two elements (intellectual honesty and integrity) that your "arguments" frequently suffer a complete lack of; which is why your "arguments" are generally dismissed out of hand and given no serious consideration.

Or how about this:

"Yes, I admit there is no evidence that Bush lied about Iraq having WMD to get us to launch the war. But that doesn't matter; it was a foolhardy policy decision, even it was based on on an honestly mistaken belief."

Again, I might argue with you about whether or not the decision to go in was a sound one (I probably wouldn't argue about whether the execution of the policy sucked; it certainly did) but at least you would be making a serious , defensible argument...

As opposed to mindlessly claiming over and over again that Bush deliberately lied to get us into the war in Iraq, when there is not one single shred of evidence to support that, and all the available evidence points to him not lying, but honestly coming to a wrong conclusion based on flawed intel...

All that kind of crap does is make you look silly, dishonest, and easy to dismiss.

[rubato]

And still more self-justifying bullshit at tiresome length. Your specialty.

Gaba describes at considerable length the provenance of the data and how it is continually corrected and updated. I have linked to his site many times. You have never read it even once.

Go read it. And stop being such a perfect ignoramous.

By all the data Obamacare is a huge success. Republicans are not only wrong on the facts and denying reality but they are actively trying to destroy healthcare so that more people will die every year.

And that, is the truth.

And please stop repeating that brainless crap that Obama 'promised' that he would force your insurance company to continue to offer you the same policy, only an idiot like you would believe that. What he promised was that IF your insurance company chose to offer you the same policy you could still have it.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

LMAO

That's exactly the sort of response I expected...(I hoped for better, but experience has taught me that's all you got...)

And it proves my suspicion (which I didn't put in my last post because I was really trying to help you) about why you are incapable of structuring an intellectually honest argument with a snowball's chance in hell of making even a minimally persuasive case for anything you believe in...

It's a combination of just not being very bright, and being so insecure (probably because on some level you have a dim realization that you're not particularly bright) that you can't bring yourself to deal with anything but simple-minded "me good, you bad" absolutism....The kind of ignorant, sophomoric crap that leaves you constantly having your ass handed to you while you stare down at your bullet riddled feet...

You simply do not have the tools (rhetorical or intellectual) to craft a nuanced, well thought out, logic based argument...

It would be like asking a cow to tap dance....You just ain't built for it....

Your brain is simply not capable of synthesizing any information in any way except by employing the most rudimentary binary constructs; therefore you have no choice but to try and interpret all of reality in this severely limited way.

ETA:

What he promised was that IF your insurance company chose to offer you the same policy you could still have it.

Please provide a source for where he ever said that....

I can re-post (I posted it here before) a video showing him saying 22 times what I claim he said....

Can you come up with one? (He asked, knowing the answer has to be no... )

[Joe Guy]

And please stop repeating that brainless crap that Obama 'promised' that he would force your insurance company to continue to offer you the same policy, only an idiot like you would believe that. What he promised was that IF your insurance company chose to offer you the same policy you could still have it.

Not true. Obama said, 'If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan'. He later admitted that he was wrong. He said he 'fumbled' - remember?

I didn't think so...

[Lord Jim]

Oh, we cross posted on my "ETA"...

My bad, it wasn't 22 times, it was 36...

I apologize for the error....

[Joe Guy]

Oh, we cross posted on my "ETA"...

My bad, it wasn't 22 times, it was 36...

I apologize for the error....

You promised it was 22 times so you're wrong!!

yrs,

flubato

[rubato]

And please stop repeating that brainless crap that Obama 'promised' that he would force your insurance company to continue to offer you the same policy, only an idiot like you would believe that. What he promised was that IF your insurance company chose to offer you the same policy you could still have it.

Not true. Obama said, 'If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan'. He later admitted that he was wrong. He said he 'fumbled' - remember?

I didn't think so...

Yes, he fumbled in not communicating clearly to stupid people. But only stupid people imagined that he could compel your insurance company to offer you the same plan.

yrs,
rubato