To Whom it May Concern,
You know, anytime you bring GWB into this discussion, it’s because you think he lied. And the unwritten preamble to you response is:
“Yes, Obama lied. But…”
You might as well stop after the first three words. Then open another thread about the evils of GWB.
Roll your eyes all you want, but you’re rolling them at a strawman. Happy Halloween!
Well, now, John, you did open this particular can of annelids. Don’t think anybody forced you. Your comment clearly implies equivalence, even if only that they are equivalent in that they are both liars. Might as well point out that they both have navels. To suggest that Obama and Bush are equally liars is to compare a handjob technical virgin, no better than she should be, with a Shanghai dockside hooker.
Frankly, I’m surprised at you, did you just have your first senior moment?
Nope. “The end justifies the means” is a dangerous concept and I reject it. Precisely because it is a true slippery slope that can lead to anyone justifying lying because they feel the end is worthwhile.
Of course there are degrees of badness for using this method, but that is precisely why I reject it. One person’s “good” is another persons “evil”. I’m sure Bush thought he was doing good. So if you sanction "the end justifies the means’, then you are sanctioning anyone who thinks their goal is good.
Besides, Obamacare has yet to be implemented and we don’t know if it’s going to be good or not. Better to play above board and if you can’t persuade people in a democracy that you are right, then so be it. That’s a feature, not a bug, of democracy.
So, RS, and to the point: Do you think the end justifies the means in this case, if the means is lying to the American people? Are you OK with that?
If the site isn’t up and running soon, more people will have lost insurance than gained it, which will lead directly to deaths. So the equivalence to Iraq is not as farfetched as it may seem. There are serious consequences to botching health care reform, just as there are to botching a war.
Jesus Christ man. Did you just compare the Iraq war with the initial roll out of a website?
What the ever loving fuck? Are you serious with that?
I think this thread just reached a new low.
I keep hearing this, but I don’t understand how it’s going to work.
Are you suggesting that millions of people are going to change their withholding so that they no longer have a refund coming and then refuse to pay what is due when they file at the end of the year?
Don’t unpaid taxes ruin your credit? Can’t they can put a lien on your belongings for back taxes?
I bet in your head that sounded awesome.
In any case, as to if “You can keep your insurance.” is a lie, I’d say it’s at least a little misleading.
You can, in fact, keep your insurance. So long as it’s still being made. Obviously if your insurance is amazingly shitty, it’s not gonna be up to the minimums. I don’t recall that ever being said, but it seems like a logical extension.
Misleading, sure. Dishonest? I’m on the fence. It was a sales pitch, and when you sell something, you talk up the benefits, and don’t fixate on the limitations. If the Republicans weren’t in shrill, tri-cornered hat, hysterical mode, they might have tried to sell this as an issue. But why mention that some shitty plans will be gone, if you can scream about death-panels and Dr. Obama ramming a spear into Granny White-bread?
No.
And just to be clear, I originally said:
“That’s pretty much what GWB’s defenders would say of him.”
Which is entirely different from saying"
“Obama is pretty much the same as GWB.”
The first is about those who would defend a particular strategy (in this case: the end justifies the means). The second is about two actual people. and things they may have done.
I suspect he thinks they’ll change their withholding with such boot-strappy finesse that they’ll magically owe exactly nothing.
Because 21st century conservatives aren’t big on details.
Given that the only way to get insurance is through the systems behind the website, even if you do it over the phone, an awful lot of people risk having no insurance come Jan. 1.
ACA defenders acting as if the website is not central to the program is just wrong.
Right, but it could never be zero since the penalty would always be due. Right?
Maybe I’m just missing something.
Unpaid taxes may, and they can - but not for the Obamacare fine (“tax”). For that, they cannot put a lien on your belongings, or try to collect it in any other way except withhold it from money THEY owe you. That’s what the Obamacare law says.
You don’t have to have owe exactly nothing. In order not to pay penalty to IRS for not enough withholding (or not enough quarterly payments if you’re not doing it through a W-2), you have to either:
10% is pretty big wiggle room. It’s not that hard to estimate.
I owe about half the time. If I had to go without insurance I’d just make sure I owed a little.
And he’s still lying, even as Americans are dropping dead in the streets from insurance deprival anticipation disorder! He says it will be fixed the end of November, well, its November first, so he was lying! Lying! Maybe somebody wants to try and claim he meant the other end of November, the one on the 30th, but then why he is being so ambiguous?
And even so, he already missed this one, so if he makes it by that end of November, he will still have lied about this end! And that makes it exactly the same, because the ends don’t justify the means.
Really, only thing he can do is remove Biden as VP, replace him with Cruz, and commit *seppuku *in the Rose Garden…
Yeah yeah. But tell you what, they assured us the site would be up and running by Oct. 1, so their assurances that it will be ready by the end of November mean exactly nothing.
However, the computer systems backing the website still have to work, which is why applying by phone is just as difficult as doing it on the site.
Depends on your state’s laws and what’s available outside the exchange and whether it complies with ACA.
Which costs a lot more and is often completely different from a financial perspective. It would be like owning a stock portfolio and the government forcing you to switch to bonds, and then claiming it’s the same IRA.
No, it isn’t. Not anything remotely like that. Because insurance is insurance, there are variations within that theme, but they are very similar. Bonds are very much one thing, and stocks quite another.
Anyway, herein offered a chart by way of Talking Points Memo
which tells a much less hysterical story than the one you seem intent on selling.