Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Laughable Americans for Prosperity Rep

BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 12:50:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm sure many of you have seen this interview between Chris Hayes and Jennifer Stefano from Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded right-wing group (http://www.msnbc.com...).

Suffice it to say, she butchered the facts on the ACA -- she demonstrated that she had absolutely no idea of what she was talking about, even asserting that the Medicaid expansion to 133% of the poverty line extends to those earning $94,000 a year, when the actual figure is around $31,000.

This is precisely the problem. People are attacking these problem while spouting utter nonsense. Not only do they not understand these policies, but they're completely ignorant of the contents.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 8:35:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 12:50:45 PM, BobTurner wrote:
I'm sure many of you have seen this interview between Chris Hayes and Jennifer Stefano from Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded right-wing group (http://www.msnbc.com...).

Suffice it to say, she butchered the facts on the ACA -- she demonstrated that she had absolutely no idea of what she was talking about, even asserting that the Medicaid expansion to 133% of the poverty line extends to those earning $94,000 a year, when the actual figure is around $31,000.

This is precisely the problem. People are attacking these problem while spouting utter nonsense. Not only do they not understand these policies, but they're completely ignorant of the contents.

So, you are saying that because one fact was misplaced, her entire argument should be ignored? Should Obama have been kicked out of the primary race simply because he stated there were 57 states?
People make mistakes.

The 400% of poverty line goes towards tax credits (and the advancement thereof).
http://obamacarefacts.com...

I don't know if she continued to make a fool of herself, or what, but since this is the only thing you seem to care about, it is not the worst mistake in the world.
My work here is, finally, done.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 10:07:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 8:35:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/28/2014 12:50:45 PM, BobTurner wrote:
I'm sure many of you have seen this interview between Chris Hayes and Jennifer Stefano from Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded right-wing group (http://www.msnbc.com...).

Suffice it to say, she butchered the facts on the ACA -- she demonstrated that she had absolutely no idea of what she was talking about, even asserting that the Medicaid expansion to 133% of the poverty line extends to those earning $94,000 a year, when the actual figure is around $31,000.

This is precisely the problem. People are attacking these problem while spouting utter nonsense. Not only do they not understand these policies, but they're completely ignorant of the contents.

So, you are saying that because one fact was misplaced, her entire argument should be ignored? Should Obama have been kicked out of the primary race simply because he stated there were 57 states?
People make mistakes.

The 400% of poverty line goes towards tax credits (and the advancement thereof).
http://obamacarefacts.com...

I don't know if she continued to make a fool of herself, or what, but since this is the only thing you seem to care about, it is not the worst mistake in the world.

She also said the following untruths:

1. Medicaid has failed poor people -- I guess providing people without insurance coverage with insurance coverage is failing them. Don't you love the logic on that side?
2. Medicaid-expansion isn't a right-left issue, even though every Democratic governor has expanded Medicaid, yet many GOP governors -- most in fact -- have refused.
3. Most people who are enrolling were not uninsured -- which is BS, since the experts tell us at this point that we can only estimate this figure.
4. The ACA has kicked "7 million people off their insurance." I don't need to tell you which body part she pulled that answer out of.
5. She pulled the gender card out of the sky. When did Chris Hayes attack her for being a woman?
6. She ignored the fact that millions of people have signed up for ObamaCare already -- at lower costs and better coverage.

There's probably more I could find. The bottom line is, she's either horribly misinformed, a massive Koch-funded shill, or a conglomeration of both. I tend to think her IQ couldn't be much higher than room temperature, so it's difficult to blame her for being so ignorant.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 11:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 10:07:51 AM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/29/2014 8:35:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/28/2014 12:50:45 PM, BobTurner wrote:
I'm sure many of you have seen this interview between Chris Hayes and Jennifer Stefano from Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded right-wing group (http://www.msnbc.com...).

Suffice it to say, she butchered the facts on the ACA -- she demonstrated that she had absolutely no idea of what she was talking about, even asserting that the Medicaid expansion to 133% of the poverty line extends to those earning $94,000 a year, when the actual figure is around $31,000.

This is precisely the problem. People are attacking these problem while spouting utter nonsense. Not only do they not understand these policies, but they're completely ignorant of the contents.

So, you are saying that because one fact was misplaced, her entire argument should be ignored? Should Obama have been kicked out of the primary race simply because he stated there were 57 states?
People make mistakes.

The 400% of poverty line goes towards tax credits (and the advancement thereof).
http://obamacarefacts.com...

I don't know if she continued to make a fool of herself, or what, but since this is the only thing you seem to care about, it is not the worst mistake in the world.


She also said the following untruths:

1. Medicaid has failed poor people -- I guess providing people without insurance coverage with insurance coverage is failing them. Don't you love the logic on that side?
Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I cannot get Medicaid because I am eligible for insurance through my work, which is "affordable", but I cannot afford it. Further, since my wife, too, is eligible, she also cannot have insurance.
How does that aid poor people?
2. Medicaid-expansion isn't a right-left issue, even though every Democratic governor has expanded Medicaid, yet many GOP governors -- most in fact -- have refused.
It is a tax-welfare issue, and that makes it difficult.
Also, it is a medical issue.
I had Medicaid for one month. I had to call seven different dentists before I found one that took Medicaid, even though every dentist listed was in my provider directory. Also, once I found one, my wife called them three days later, and they said they are not talking new clients. Also, I was told the service I required ("deep cleaning") was not covered, but Medicaid told me it was. So, who is lying/misinformed - Medicaid or dentist?
Also, how does this headache/abuse/confusion aid the poor?
3. Most people who are enrolling were not uninsured -- which is BS, since the experts tell us at this point that we can only estimate this figure.
Meh. So it's opinion. But, I see your point.
4. The ACA has kicked "7 million people off their insurance." I don't need to tell you which body part she pulled that answer out of.
Can this not be assumed by loss of hours and layoffs and companies flat out refusing to offer the more expensive coverages? I assume there are figures for this, though I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement.
5. She pulled the gender card out of the sky. When did Chris Hayes attack her for being a woman?
Didn't watch, so I cannot comment, but it sounds stupid, but commonplace with pundits.
6. She ignored the fact that millions of people have signed up for ObamaCare already -- at lower costs and better coverage.
Given points 3 and 4, I find this comment hypocritical.
How can you say with any certainty that the costs are lower and/or coverage is better?
Further, you seem to ignore the fact that people are required by law (and/or suffer a tax if they do not comply) and thus are singing up.

There's probably more I could find. The bottom line is, she's either horribly misinformed, a massive Koch-funded shill, or a conglomeration of both. I tend to think her IQ couldn't be much higher than room temperature, so it's difficult to blame her for being so ignorant.

Chances are they are both full of crap and both make valid points.
Try to be objective, will ya?

Also, if this insurance does more and costs less, where is the difference in price made up? It's either forcing those who don't want/need it to buy it (which isn't less of a cost), or those paying it are paying more to cover the costs for the exchanges, or, as in the case of Medicaid/Medicare, the government screws over the business by only paying a preset percent of the cost, and we all know the doctor can't charge some people more than others, even though some people cost more to admit than others (insurance vs. cash), and others are more profitable (medicare vs. insurance vs. cash)
My work here is, finally, done.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 5:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/29/2014 11:02:23 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/29/2014 10:07:51 AM, BobTurner wrote:
At 3/29/2014 8:35:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/28/2014 12:50:45 PM, BobTurner wrote:
I'm sure many of you have seen this interview between Chris Hayes and Jennifer Stefano from Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded right-wing group (http://www.msnbc.com...).

Suffice it to say, she butchered the facts on the ACA -- she demonstrated that she had absolutely no idea of what she was talking about, even asserting that the Medicaid expansion to 133% of the poverty line extends to those earning $94,000 a year, when the actual figure is around $31,000.

This is precisely the problem. People are attacking these problem while spouting utter nonsense. Not only do they not understand these policies, but they're completely ignorant of the contents.

So, you are saying that because one fact was misplaced, her entire argument should be ignored? Should Obama have been kicked out of the primary race simply because he stated there were 57 states?
People make mistakes.

The 400% of poverty line goes towards tax credits (and the advancement thereof).
http://obamacarefacts.com...

I don't know if she continued to make a fool of herself, or what, but since this is the only thing you seem to care about, it is not the worst mistake in the world.


She also said the following untruths:

1. Medicaid has failed poor people -- I guess providing people without insurance coverage with insurance coverage is failing them. Don't you love the logic on that side?
Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I cannot get Medicaid because I am eligible for insurance through my work, which is "affordable", but I cannot afford it. Further, since my wife, too, is eligible, she also cannot have insurance.
How does that aid poor people?

Because having insurance is better than not having insurance.

I've never heard of this eligibility requirement -- though it does make sense, since I think Medicaid essentially says that, after being employed, you no longer qualify (which is probably why we're dealing with 31,000 or so, so it's targeted to long-term employed). Obviously it covers a very narrow amount of people, but how exactly is this "failing" anyone? Because it's not perfect? I agree, I want single-payer. She made the positive statement that it's failing based on nothing at all -- she didn't meet the burden of proof.

2. Medicaid-expansion isn't a right-left issue, even though every Democratic governor has expanded Medicaid, yet many GOP governors -- most in fact -- have refused.
It is a tax-welfare issue, and that makes it difficult.
Also, it is a medical issue.

Sure.
I had Medicaid for one month. I had to call seven different dentists before I found one that took Medicaid, even though every dentist listed was in my provider directory. Also, once I found one, my wife called them three days later, and they said they are not talking new clients. Also, I was told the service I required ("deep cleaning") was not covered, but Medicaid told me it was. So, who is lying/misinformed - Medicaid or dentist?

I honestly have no idea but I'm not a fan of anecdotal examples. What you're saying, essentially, is that the system isn't perfect. I agree. A cleaning, in my book, falls under preventive medicine -- I'm not sure whether the ACA covers it, but I would. She's not for expanding required coverage, now is she? You're essentially supporting my argument that more government is needed.

Also, how does this headache/abuse/confusion aid the poor?

Because confusion is better than dying in the streets due to lack of insurance? Again, I'd expand it.

3. Most people who are enrolling were not uninsured -- which is BS, since the experts tell us at this point that we can only estimate this figure.
Meh. So it's opinion. But, I see your point.

Well, it's a matter of projection so, yes, her positive statement was off, but she also left out Hayes's point that the Medicaid expansion covers most uninsured people. So even if her figure was correct, her point fell flat.

4. The ACA has kicked "7 million people off their insurance." I don't need to tell you which body part she pulled that answer out of.
Can this not be assumed by loss of hours and layoffs and companies flat out refusing to offer the more expensive coverages? I assume there are figures for this, though I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement.

I don't think we can assume that since the numbers at this point are ambiguous. But the point is this: yes, fat-cat insurance companies will cancel some policies. But they were canceling at a faster rate prior to the ACA. This isn't something new. But now, there are more options for better, more affordable coverage through the exchanges, with preexisting conditions covered, a system which is far better than the last. So, again, her point falls flat.

5. She pulled the gender card out of the sky. When did Chris Hayes attack her for being a woman?
Didn't watch, so I cannot comment, but it sounds stupid, but commonplace with pundits.

I wouldn't say that. Bachmann pulled the same thing on Charlie Rangel on CNN's crossfire. I'm not Rangel fan, but it's stupid to pull that nevertheless.

6. She ignored the fact that millions of people have signed up for ObamaCare already -- at lower costs and better coverage.
Given points 3 and 4, I find this comment hypocritical.

Hardly, This is a fact.
How can you say with any certainty that the costs are lower and/or coverage is better?

Because we've seen the numbers and know it to be true, by and large. There are only a few groups who are paying more, and even then our only basis for comparison are pre-crisis rates that didn't cover preexisting conditions, so that isn't even adequate.
Further, you seem to ignore the fact that people are required by law (and/or suffer a tax if they do not comply) and thus are singing up.

Yes, they do, because under current law they can go to the emergency room on our dime. So the ACA, a GOP idea, says no more free-riders, if you can afford insurance and choose not to get it, you have to pay something.

There's probably more I could find. The bottom line is, she's either horribly misinformed, a massive Koch-funded shill, or a conglomeration of both. I tend to think her IQ couldn't be much higher than room temperature, so it's difficult to blame her for being so ignorant.

Chances are they are both full of crap and both make valid points.

She made 0 valid points, and Hayes intellectually pummeled her with facts, though I think he was too nice. This false equivalency is unfounded.

Try to be objective, will ya?

I am, but objective isn't saying "both sides are equally valid." I'm objective because I follow the facts. In this case, this Koch shill was completely wrong on everything, yet had the unmitigated nerve to scream "Stick to the facts!" I will stick to the facts, and will call her out because she's full of it.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 5:11:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, if this insurance does more and costs less, where is the difference in price made up? It's either forcing those who don't want/need it to buy it (which isn't less of a cost), or those paying it are paying more to cover the costs for the exchanges, or, as in the case of Medicaid/Medicare, the government screws over the business by only paying a preset percent of the cost, and we all know the doctor can't charge some people more than others, even though some people cost more to admit than others (insurance vs. cash), and others are more profitable (medicare vs. insurance vs. cash)

First, costs are addressed by covering everyone and avoiding exorbitant out-of-pocket emergency room costs.

Second, preventive medicine is cheaper than covering, say, a pregnancy, so they trim costs in that way, as well.

Third, what are you talking about? Doctors charge more than others all the time. That's why the costs of procedures varies so widely throughout the country.

Fourth, no, the government is not screwing over businesses. They're going to love this thing.

The rest of your post is just noise.