Are you being deliberately difficult so you can continue to avoid answering the question? I was responding to your immediately previous post where YOU answered your own question:
After a quick search I’ll give you this.
It’s not key to what I’m saying, and this doesn’t cover every aspect of what I wrote, but about grandfathered plans:
Grandfathered Health Plans Don’t Have to Follow ObamaCare’s Rules and Regulations.
Last, about your murderer at the door scenario–It looks as if you’re giving a specific example of when outcome trumps what is said; however, I was asking for criteria. How do you objectively determine which takes precedence? Is it emotion/politics/other subjective things or can it be objective? If it’s the former I stand by my original comment that it’s hypocritical to blame Obama for lying (or however you may interpret it) versus an Obamacare repeal that cause loss of insurance WITHOUT replacement. The latter outcome is OBJECTIVELY worse than the former; I also find Republicans not being candid (a lie of omission) about the certain irreplaceable loss of insurance from repeal (without replacement) more damning than Obama’s comment (but perhaps that’s just me).
No. You can tell, because I answered the question. I’m not fighting the hypothetical; I’m just drawing attention to how weird it is – and also answering it.
As per your link, “Grandfather plans aren’t exempt from all of ObamaCare’s new rules.” A list follows.
I started by providing an example, like you asked – but thought I did a pretty good job of spelling out a generality it from there: it’s okay to lie to that murderer at that door if he can’t be reasoned with, was kinda my point. I’d have just as readily shot him to stop him, or even shot him afterward like I’d said, because meh.
I’m not seeing where you’ve answered the question. The question wasn’t asking for an example (I offered the original example (nuclear power plant)), it was asking for an objective criteria to base this judgment on.
I know you mentioned a criteria of “reasonable people” being addressed, and you didn’t really like my earlier example, so:
Oil companies A and B both propose to build a cross country dilbit pipeline. On the whole (ie majority), the populations to which the proposals are addressed are reasonable. Company A advertises it as virtually risk free, and that any accident will be minor (they know this to be a lie), Company B claims minor risk for major damage (truth). A’s pipeline has no significant issues its entire life. B’s pipeline ruptures (due to B’s faulty engineering), killing 500 and a cleanup costing $1 billion.
Which is more reprehensible, the lie or the outcome?
a few years later … affordable care act has shown itself to be way … way … way too complicated.
another fundamental flaw is … affordable care act does nothing to control costs. look at the runaway cost for drugs, even generic drugs have multiplied in costs.
hospital billing systems sending out bills based in fiction, capable of bankrupting most folks. an operation costs at one hospital for say $5k could cost $50k at another hospital 10 miles away for the same. etc. etc. etc.
You are going to have to explain this. Obamacare is no more complicated than applying for any kind of health insurance.
Whose fault is that? In addition to an amendment that prevented the ACA from negotiating lower drug prices, Republicans demanded 150 other amendments that made the ACA less efficient with fewer benefits. And then they didn’t even vote for it! Negotiating prescription prices is an easy fix, but Republicans refuse to consider anything that will make Obamacare work better, because…Obama!
That is nothing new, that has been going on for decades.
I thought I’d provided one: you lie to – or shoot – the murderer at the door if (a) he can’t be reasoned with, and if (b) you’re willing to stand before reasonable people and explain that you lied – or shot – because he couldn’t be reasoned with.
I figure the folks at A should be sued and fined and possibly jailed.
I figure it because, if the “they know this to be a lie” part comes to light, then I figure folks you describe as Reasonable People would react accordingly and appropriately. I figure that’s kinda the whole point of jury trials and democracy and so on and so forth: you provide Reasonable People with truth, and they respond with justice; it’s, like, the American Way, or something. And so I actually figure I’d defer to the judgment of said Reasonable People, and I figure that’s how they’d judge.
Well, if “B claims minor risk for major damages (truth)”, and the Reasonable People populace you mentioned okayed it, then I guess you could say the outcome is pretty reprehensible – though I’d probably pick some other adjective or adjectives – but it’s hard for me to say that B was reprehensible.
The outcome, I suppose. But which would you say is more reprehensible: A or B?
And now this is the third time I mention that the question is not looking for an example–It’s looking for a valid, objective manner to judge when a lie is more/less reprehensible than the outcome.
Remember that B had an engineering mistake. I put that in there because you earlier said that if Obama hadn’t advertised you can keep your doctor/plan you probably wouldn’t be objecting–It gave me the impression you think a public lie in advertising is worse than being candid in presentation but followed by a discreet accident. Perhaps I"m taking your position here too extreme, I don’t know. If so, I’m sure I can come up with a more suitable example (or just take it out yourself if you think it makes my argument stronger to your point of view).
B, absolutely. B’s unspoken engineering mistake is far worse than A’s lie. By the way, it’s possible I might not return until late Monday/Tuesday afternoon–I’m busy all day tomorrow and hope to get to bed soon.
I’m sure those lies cost Obamacare some additional support. So while some may argue it passed because it was carried by Obama’s lie, I can easily respond that it passed despite Republican’s lies. It’s disingenuous to focus on one and ignore the others. And once again I’ll point that the outcome of a repeal without replacement is significantly worse than the implementation of Obamacare. In the latter, insurance lost can be replaced, not in the latter. Republicans don’t advertise this at all–Do you not consider that a lie of omission. Do you not consider it irresponsible that they would attempt a repeal with a workable replacement ready?
Well, look, you asked “by what criteria do you judge the outcome trumps what was said versus vice versa. Use your own example if you wish (though I reserve the right to disagree (with stated reasons) that it is a relevant example, of course).”
I decided to lead off with an example of my own – a murderer at the door, the sort who can’t be reasoned with and so can be lied to or shot with a clean conscience, the sort you can later castigate before a jury of your peers provided they’re reasonable people who’ll say Oh Well Done – because my answer is, I suppose, only lie or kill when you (a) can’t reason with someone, and (b) could explain that afterward.
Dunno that I ever thought that through before, but I guess them’s my criteria.
Well, it comes back to your choice of words; I wouldn’t typically call honest candor followed by an accident “reprehensible”. I mean, I just now googled for synonyms for “reprehensible”, and got “blameworthy” and “unforgivable” and “criminal” – and what strikes me as weird about your examples is, they seem to involve obeying the law while letting everyone know the truth about potential risks and damages, at which point folks stand aside or cheer him on as he goes about his business.
So who am I to blame if those damages – the ones that were made public, the ones you followed up with a quick “(truth)” – then come to pass when an accident happens just like [del]the gypsy woman said[/del] everyone was told the risks of? Who can’t I forgive? Who’s the criminal? Who acted reprehensibly? Or is there a better word?
Possibly I misunderstood? Yes, if you’re telling me that B made a mistake and betrayed the public trust by hiding the truth about it, then, sure, I follow you.
Hey, if you want to know whether I disapprove of any other lies, just ask. Though I’m guessing you already know the answer. Because, y’know, criteria.
I gotta admit, it never occurred to me that it would be a lie of omission. I mean, who doesn’t know what would happen if Obamacare got repealed with no replacement? It’s not a secret that they’re just putting “repeal without replacement” out there, and I kinda thought that spoke for itself. (If you called for repealing the 22nd Amendment without replacing it with anything – well, I’d follow you, right?)
Well, I – wait, was that supposed to be “without”?
No, I do not. Why does there need to be a replacement? The ACA only passed in 2009, which isn’t that long ago, and it won’t be fully implemented until 2017 or 2018. People managed before, and they will be able to manage after a repeal.
Others went bankrupt, went without food to pay for medicine, were locked into jobs, abusive marriages, etc. Many couldn’t get any sort of health insurance.
It’s their fault for not working 400 hours a week, saving more than they made and planning for every possible outcome of every situation that ever happened in the history of the world.
I don’t think it passed because of the lie, and although Republican lies cost it some support, Democrats had apparently decided to ignore immediate public opinion on the theory that the law would become popular once enough Americans got dependent on it, er, I mean, saw how well it worked.
This weekend a “100% disabled vet” I know who is the most insane rabidly anti-(people exactly like her) posted this also insane Sovereign Citizen-esque Facebook post about how she refuses to be forced to purchase insurance under “Obamacare”.
Well on the face of it, it’s patently absurd. She’s got bags of insurance from being a disabled vet. She’s not giving that up. So I asked her if her posting this meant that she was intending to do so.
Of course, her first response is to ignore her own post and my question and go completely off the rails with the whole ‘lie’ thing and blah blah blah. I just kept telling her that none of these other things had anything to do with her post, and IS SHE GOING TO REFUSE HER INSURANCE???
No, of course not. She said she’s just posting “in solidarity” with those who refuse.
You brought this up as support for your allegation that the ACA was “founded on a lie.” As I said earlier, barring time travel or backwards causality, that’s demonstrably untrue. A lie in 2013 can’t affect the founding of a law passed and signed in 2009-2010.
If the best you’ve got is that Obama said something that wasn’t true, but that had little effect other than to temporarily move the needle on public opinion of the ACA well after it had been signed into law, then: so freakin’ what??
