Obama Care Economic Analysis?

[Airbrush]

When congressman Cruz was filibustering in congress to try to stop Obamacare, why didn't he get into the economic impacts of it? He had plenty of time to go into great detail WHY Obamacare will bankrupt the US.

 

Here is my new congressional proposal. Whenever congress reaches a stalemate about the budget or similar issues, both sides should bring in their best economists and have the economists debate the issue. The debate will be moderated by a panel of economic EXPERTS. Then the winner of the debate gets the green light.

[iNow]

Economics itself is based on a lot of good research and there are clearly scientific elements to it, but econom-ISTS are still humans subject to bias and selective reading of the data and unconscious tendencies to argue for their own preconceptions.

 

I doubt such an approach would be as beneficial to our political process as you probably imagine, as we can always find some supposed expert out there who agrees with our preconceived opinion, no matter how far out or silly or long debunked it is.

 

Krugman wrote an article on almost this exact topic just 2 days ago:

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/maybe-economics-is-a-science-but-many-economists-are-not-scientists/

Raj Chetty stands up valiantly for the honor of his and my profession, arguing that economics is too a science in which careful research is used to falsify some hypotheses and lend credibility to others. And in many ways I agree: there is a lot of good research in economics, maybe more than ever as the focus has shifted somewhat from theoretical models loosely inspired by observation — which, as he suggests, was my forte — to nitty-gritty empirical work.

 

But while there are clearly scientific elements in economics, a lot of economists aren’t behaving like scientists.

 

<snip>

 

But are such results actually being used to inform policy debate? Have conservative economists like Casey Mulligan said “OK, we were wrong to argue that extended unemployment benefits are the cause of high unemployment”? Have economists who oppose Obamacare said, “OK, we were wrong to say that Medicaid hurts its recipients?”

 

You know the answer.

 

And it’s not just policy debates. Whole subfields of economics, notably but not only business-cycle macro, have spent decades chasing their own tails because too many economists refuse to accept empirical evidence that rejects their approach.

 

The point is that while Chetty is right that economics can be and sometimes is a scientific field in the sense that theories are testable and there are researchers doing the testing, all too many economists treat their field as a form of theology instead.

Now... As to your thread title, repealing the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the way the Cruz and I suspect you support would actually ADD to the deficit and HURT the budget, but again... Facts don't seem to matter to lots of folks in this discussion.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/10/1245897/-Debunking-Ryan-s-zombie-lie-Obamacare-doesn-t-add-to-the-deficit-it-actually-reduces-it

[John Cuthber]

You would need a panel of one handed economists.

An easier approach might be to look at the experiments done outside the USA in, for example, England, France and Germany where a system similar to Obamacare has not bankrupted the economy, and provides healthcare at about a third of the cost of the US.

Presumably this system was costed up by the people who first proposed it (I think that may be the Republicans, but I'm not certain)- they must still have the details of that proposal they could look at.

[Airbrush]

iNow: "...Facts don't seem to matter to lots of folks in this discussion."

Thanks for the info iNow. That is why I propose a debate of economists from both sides, to be judged by the best economic minds in the country.

 

If it works for England, France, and Germany, then it should be able to work for the USA. Anyone know of any other countries that are doing OK with a comparable Affordable Care Act? Doesn't Canada have something like that? Anyone know of any countries that tried it and it failed?

[John Cuthber]

iNow: "...Facts don't seem to matter to lots of folks in this discussion."

 

Thanks for the info iNow. That is why I propose a debate of economists from both sides, to be judged by the best economic minds in the country.

 

If it works for England, France, and Germany, then it should be able to work for the USA. Anyone know of any other countries that are doing OK with a comparable Affordable Care Act? Doesn't Canada have something like that? Anyone know of any countries that tried it and it failed?

Countries doing OK includes this few dozen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_health_insurance_coverage

 

There may be some who tried it and failed, but none spring to mind- of course you could count Russia since their whole economy failed and too social healthcare with it, but I think even they still run the system as well as they can.

[Airbrush]

That's an interesting list Mr. Cuthber, thanks for posting that.

 

Wow, Ted Cruz and his followers are a bunch of Neanderthals.

 

This reminds me of how unpopular it was for the US to enter WWII, but a good thing we did.

[doG]

If it works for England, France, and Germany, then it should be able to work for the USA.

 

Other countries have shown that successful implementations are possible but I'm not convinced the U.S. has chosen a method of implementation that will be successful. As far as I know the current attempt to implement a system is not a tried and true method from other nations that have been successful.

[Phi for All]

How hard would it be to unshackle Medicare, start treating it like a program we actually want to succeed, and then remove the age requirement? Has anyone seen a good economic study for that scenario?

[waitforufo]

I’m sure economists will have a fun time picking apart the implementation of ACA in the future regardless of the program’s success or failure. I have to agree with iNow that it would be pointless bringing together economists to debate the issue prior to implementation. Politicians would just bring their favorite think tank economist to parrot what the politician believes. Why let politicians hide behind there so called experts. Why give a politician an out. I would rather have politicians stick their own neck out without a built in excuse for being wrong.

 

As a side note there is a wonderful book called “Shop class as Soulcraft” (http://www.matthewbcrawford.com/ ) written by a guy with a PhD who ran a think tank and gave it all up to be a motorcycle mechanic. In that book he tells stories about how his paying customers would show up and say “this is what we believe, so now go find evidence that it is true while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.” The book is a lot more than that but I thought this might shed a bit of light on politicians and their experts.

 

iNow if you haven’t read “Shop class as Soulcraft” I’m sure you would enjoy it.

Edited October 28, 2013 by waitforufo

[EdEarl]

To me it is simple, the US is a Republic with a democratic voting system, not merely an economy in which economists decide the laws; the people do have some say in running the government.

[iNow]

Anyone know of any other countries that are doing OK with a comparable Affordable Care Act?

They still pay more than other countries who chose simply to move forward with centrally funded single-payer universal systems, but the systems the Netherlands and Switzerland are quite similar to our own ACA (in that they require purchase of coverage from private companies):

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-to-save-705-billion-in-health-costs-be-like-the-netherlands/2012/05/03/gIQAn1DNzT_blog.html

http://nation.time.com/2012/08/16/health-insurance-switzerland-has-its-own-kind-of-obamacare-and-loves-it/

 

 

How hard would it be to unshackle Medicare, start treating it like a program we actually want to succeed, and then remove the age requirement? Has anyone seen a good economic study for that scenario?

From 3 months ago: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/‘medicare-for-all’-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

 

The economics of this are very clear. Universal care is far cheaper, more effective, and covers more. The only thing stopping it is politics and ideology, but the economics are pretty inarguable.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13.pdf

 

 

iNow if you haven’t read “Shop class as Soulcraft” I’m sure you would enjoy it.

I suspect you're probably right. Thanks for the recommendation. Edited October 29, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

As a side note there is a wonderful book called “Shop class as Soulcraft” (http://www.matthewbcrawford.com/ ) written by a guy with a PhD who ran a think tank and gave it all up to be a motorcycle mechanic.

Uh, lessee: His Bachelors was in Physics, he did work on climate science, his PhD was in Political Science (U of Chicago, famous for the fantasy world "Chicago School" economists and the political views of Leo Strauss) and he is currently employed as a Research Institute fellow by the University of Virginia - a prestigious and well paid intellectual job for which one needs a graduate degree, and exactly the kind of job often mocked by the anti-intellectual crowd (the institute's mission is "Advanced Studies of Culture" ).

 

The job he quit, running the think tank, makes an interesting bit of info for this forum: He was hired by its board to run ("excecutive director") the George C Marshall Institute, but quit after a few months, for this reason:

 

"the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank."

 

So he did not "give it all up" to become a motorcycle mechanic - he quit a good job at a well known and well funded conservative think tank because he felt it was intellectually dishonest, and after taking a break found a different job at an equally intellectual and perhaps more prestigious liberal arts University.

 

The fact that throughout his young and adult life and intellectual career he has been a car and then motorcycle mechanic has apparently deeply informed his research, thinking, and especially the book mentioned, which is a fine piece of practical economic and political philosophy - deliberately kept lowbrow and persuasive.

 

 

Anyone know of any other countries that are doing OK with a comparable Affordable Care Act?

They still pay more than other countries who just moved forward with a centrally funded universal system, but the system in the Netherlands is quite similar to our own ACA:

Also Switzerland's, which likewise is among the most expensive First World setups, (nothing like the US, of course, which is in a class by itself for overhead and overpayment costs).

 

Nobody but the US relies on "market competition" between for-profit insurance corporations to limit the cost of basic medical care, drugs, etc, though. That key and central feature of the US setups is a criminal offense in all other First World systems.

Edited October 29, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Uh, lessee: His Bachelors was in Physics, he did work on climate science, his PhD was in Political Science (U of Chicago, famous for the fantasy world "Chicago School" economists and the political views of Leo Strauss) and he is currently employed as a Research Institute fellow by the University of Virginia - a prestigious and well paid intellectual job for which one needs a graduate degree, and exactly the kind of job often mocked by the anti-intellectual crowd (the institute's mission is "Advanced Studies of Culture" ).

 

The job he quit, running the think tank, makes an interesting bit of info for this forum: He was hired by its board to run ("excecutive director") the George C Marshall Institute, but quit after a few months, for this reason:

 

 

So he did not "give it all up" to become a motorcycle mechanic - he quit a good job at a well known and well funded conservative think tank because he felt it was intellectually dishonest, and after taking a break found a different job at an equally intellectual and perhaps more prestigious liberal arts University.

 

The fact that throughout his young and adult life and intellectual career he has been a car and then motorcycle mechanic has apparently deeply informed his research, thinking, and especially the book mentioned, which is a fine piece of practical economic and political philosophy - deliberately kept lowbrow and persuasive.

I enjoyed the book. So what is your point?

[overtone]

I enjoyed the book. So what is your point?

That you have in front of you yet another example of your misreading (or at least misrepresentation) of events,

 

yet again one which non-coincidentally supports your attempts to present the public discourse as a circus of equivalently fatuous, equivalently corrupt, equivalently dishonest, both-sides-do-it posturing clowns.

 

The "conservative" think tanks are intellectually dishonest, in general and by design (this the latest example, one you can recognize because its purveyor has unimpeachable conservative intellectual credentials and personal compatibility ). The more liberal and liberal arts university based think tanks are not, in general or by design. This bears directly on how one goes about getting an idea of the economic impact of this Heritage Foundation invented, Republican originated, rightwing corporate friendly, capitalist healthcare initiative the wingnuts have labeled "Obamacare".

 

You can't get it from any rightwing, conservative, or Republican associated think tank.

Edited October 29, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

That you have in front of you yet another example of your misreading (or at least misrepresentation) of events,

 

yet again one which non-coincidentally supports your attempts to present the public discourse as a circus of equivalently fatuous, equivalently corrupt, equivalently dishonest, both-sides-do-it posturing clowns.

 

The "conservative" think tanks are intellectually dishonest, in general and by design (this the latest example, one you can recognize because its purveyor has unimpeachable conservative intellectual credentials and personal compatibility ). The more liberal and liberal arts university based think tanks are not, in general or by design. This bears directly on how one goes about getting an idea of the economic impact of this Heritage Foundation invented, Republican originated, rightwing corporate friendly, capitalist healthcare initiative the wingnuts have labeled "Obamacare".

 

You can't get it from any rightwing, conservative, or Republican associated think tank.

Not quite sure why you felt the need to turn this into a personal attack.

 

My education is in engineering but I got my undergraduate degree from a liberal arts college. One of the vital lessons I learned there is that you should spend at least 25% of your studying time investigating points of view different from your own. That studying should include making a serious effort walking in the shoes of those you disagree with in an attempt to better understand their point of view.

 

You should try that some time. It would get you out of the echo chamber you have put yourself in.

 

The book I read, enjoyed, and recommended is primarily about the virtue of craftsmanship and tradesmanship. It’s a good read. The politics in the book is a minor aspect.

 

The point I mentioned that is relevant to this topic is that increasing the number of talking heads, this time economists, would help little in resolving political differences. Political adversaries can always find “experts” to support their position. You seem to think this evil is only practiced on the right side of the political aisle. You are wrong. The fact that the book I reference points out an example on the conservative side is merely coincidental. If I did not think this was true I would not have referenced the book? Remember, I did read it, and enjoy it.

[Airbrush]

waitforufo: "....One of the vital lessons I learned there is that you should spend at least 25% of your studying time investigating points of view different from your own. That studying should include making a serious effort walking in the shoes of those you disagree with in an attempt to better understand their point of view...."

 

That is a wise attitude. Good attorneys must do this in order to effectively argue their case.

 

"Political adversaries can always find “experts” to support their position."

 

That is why I propose a "trial" in which experts argue the case, and a jury or judge decides whose argument is better.

To me it is simple, the US is a Republic with a democratic voting system, not merely an economy in which economists decide the laws; the people do have some say in running the government.

The people should be INFORMED before they decide. Who can inform them? Economics experts.

[waitforufo]

Yeah, but who picks the jury and the judge? Who is held accountable when bad decisions are made? We are not too good at that accountability aspect today. For example, regardless about how you feel about ACA, the roll out has been terrible. Heads should roll. But they won't. Political considerations are more important than accountability. Your judge and jury proposal would just make accountability worse.

By the way our current tort system is much as you describe. I few years back I was sued and counter sued based on an crash I was involved in. You would not believe the number of "experts" that contacted me unsolicited, claiming they could support my case. When asked how, almost all of them said in effect "I'll dream up something good, don't worry." Based on the trial, the other side took some of these people up. In fact one of their expert witnesses that appeared in court contacted me before contacting the other side. When I told him I wasn't interested he told me that if I didn't hire him the other side would. Threats are always such a nice way to drum up business. So in the end the judge and jury mostly heard the nonsense of these experts. I didn't see the justice in it then and don't see it now even though I prevailed. It was all sound and fury resulting in a pay day for lawyers. I got a little, the other side got nothing but there insurance paid for the trial so they were out nothing but time. I think we would have a revolution if our political decisions were made this way.

[Airbrush]

Yeah, but who picks the jury and the judge? Who is held accountable when bad decisions are made? We are not too good at that accountability aspect today. For example, regardless about how you feel about ACA, the roll out has been terrible. Heads should roll. But they won't. Political considerations are more important than accountability. Your judge and jury proposal would just make accountability worse.

 

By the way our current tort system is much as you describe.........I think we would have a revolution if our political decisions were made this way.

Each side in the argument picks their experts and jury, in this case opposing members of congress instead of lawyers. Of course timeliness is necessary, so a long trial will not do, a judge is probably a better solution. The bad decision makers are held accountable. Now you are arguing against accountability?

 

You don't know if any heads will roll over this farce or a "roll-out". Political considerations will always trump everything else, but accountability and transparency are good things.

 

So because the legal system worked imperfectly for you the system is broken and we should throw out accountability?

 

A revolution if congressional log-jams are solved by experts arguing before a judge or jury? I doubt that. You haven't changed my mind.

 

In this world, stupidity is the norm, but we don't all HAVE to be stupid. Improve the system.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Airbrush

[overtone]

Not quite sure why you felt the need to turn this into a personal attack

You set the terms. If you don't like them, change them. I don't think you can, actually, post in any other manner (lack of self awareness, like this: "You seem to think this evil is only practiced on the right side of the political aisle. You are wrong" where you project your own "thinking" into other people's heads and then lose track of where it's coming from - which is not even a strawman argument, just a strawman) - but I've been wrong before.

 

 

The book I read, enjoyed, and recommended is primarily about the virtue of craftsmanship and tradesmanship. It’s a good read. The politics in the book is a minor aspect.

I was not responding to the book, but to your post. The politics in your post introducing the book were not nearly so minor as that.

 

(neither are the politics in the book itself, btw, which are front and center and directly from the wheelhouse of a U of Chicago Political Science PhD, but that's another thread)

 

 

 

The fact that the book I reference points out an example on the conservative side is merely coincidental.

1) I didn't get that example from the book. 2) The example is not isolated, not even on this forum among your participated threads, and the "coincidence" is more of an inevitability.

 

 

 

The point I mentioned that is relevant to this topic is that increasing the number of talking heads, this time economists, would help little in resolving political differences

But increasing the quality of the talking heads might help a lot in resolving the matter of what this ACA program is going to cost, or save, or whatever. So we can discard the obviously corrupt and dishonest (every rightwing think tank fellow who helped design and sell and then praised Romney's plan in Massachusetts, but derides it in Washington, for example), set aside the normally wrong and confused on economic cost issues (every Republican in Congress, for starters), and listen more to those with track records of success in analyzing complex economic situations over the past couple of decades.

 

 

 

For example, regardless about how you feel about ACA, the roll out has been terrible.

I don't like the ACA much, but I have to admit the rollout has gone pretty well in my State so far. I guess I feel some sympathy for the people living in less competently governed States, forced to rely on the Federal Government the way it's been working, but they can't say they didn't see it coming, weren't warned, or in most cases don't share much of the blame for the Federal state of affairs - in the final analysis, people do tend to get the government they deserve. Edited October 29, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Airbrush,

 

In many ways the legal system worked just fine for me. It killed a lot of my time and caused a lot of anxiety in my family but in the end I did not have to pay out which was all I was looking for. I'm sure the lawyers loved it because they both earned better than $50k each. The expert witnesses all got paid too. I just don't see this method as acceptable for making political decisions. You say "bad decision makers are held accountable." In your system who are the decision makers? The jury picked by the politicians? Perhaps you are saying the jury is picked from current members of congress. I can tell from the above. If so, how would this be different from now? Would a simple majority of jurors win, or would it have to unanimous?

 

I could be wrong however. Your system would be quite a spectacle. Perhaps we could put it on TV to compete with Jerry Springer or Judge Judy.

Edited October 29, 2013 by waitforufo

[Airbrush]

waitforufo: "...I could be wrong however. Your system would be quite a spectacle. Perhaps we could put it on TV to compete with Jerry Springer or Judge Judy."

 

Good idea! On second thought, there should be a 2-hour, televised debate. Judges, experts, and viewers ALL vote, similar to "Dancing With The Stars", and expert opinions weighted heavier. But the facts for and against the case MUST be presented and economic analysis done by all the experts. Experts can challenge other experts. Simple majority wins.

 

I think that would be preferable to Ted Cruz reading "Green Eggs and Ham" for as many hours.

 

And by "experts" I mean CERTIFIABLE, reputable experts, not self-proclaimed experts of your courtroom experience.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Airbrush

[waitforufo]

You set the terms. If you don't like them, change them. I don't think you can, actually, post in any other manner (lack of self awareness, like this: "You seem to think this evil is only practiced on the right side of the political aisle. You are wrong" where you project your own "thinking" into other people's heads and then lose track of where it's coming from - which is not even a strawman argument, just a strawman) - but I've been wrong before.

Maybe you are just an intense person. Try not to blow a gasket.

 

You said "The "conservative" think tanks are intellectually dishonest, in general and by design". All I was saying is that most if not all think tanks are intellectually dishonest regardless of there political philosophy.

 

 

I was not responding to the book, but to your post. The politics in your post introducing the book were not nearly so minor as that.

(neither are the politics in the book itself, btw, which are front and center and directly from the wheelhouse of a U of Chicago Political Science PhD, but that's another thread)

I simply paraphrased one statement from the book regarding the veracity of think tanks. I did mention a word or two about the author. At the time I read the book he was only working as a motorcycle mechanic. I love your blanket condemnation of anyone studying politics and the U of Chicago. It says a lot about you.

 

Perhaps you of all people should read this book. Its central point is that modern work is dehumanizing. That it is not good for humans to do mundane repetitive work or be cubical dwellers. That those in power in our corporations work to divide work up until each task provides no mental stimulation and requires no true skill. He believes things were better when our economy valued craftsmanship and people respected trade labor. Also that craftsmanship is very mentally stimulating producing a more intelligent populous.

 

Yeah, I guess you are right, all those U of Chicago folks are jerks.

 

By the way the author was also raised in a hippie commune in San Fransisco. Obviously your snap judgement must be correct.

 

But increasing the quality of the talking heads might help a lot in resolving the matter of what this ACA program is going to cost, or save, or whatever. So we can discard the obviously corrupt and dishonest (every rightwing think tank fellow who helped design and sell and then praised Romney's plan in Massachusetts, but derides it in Washington, for example), set aside the normally wrong and confused on economic cost issues (every Republican in Congress, for starters), and listen more to those with track records of success in analyzing complex economic situations over the past couple of decades.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to get to with this. But let me remind you that no republicans voted for ACA. Maybe you have been busy lately but they also almost shut down the government over ACA implementation recently. They are working that hard to stop those evil right wing think tanks.

"...I could be wrong however. Your system would be quite a spectacle. Perhaps we could put it on TV to compete with Jerry Springer or Judge Judy."

 

Good idea! On second thought, there should be a 2-hour, televised debate. Judges, experts, and viewers ALL vote, similar to "Dancing With The Stars", and expert opinions weighted heavier. But the facts for and against the case MUST be presented and economic analysis done by all the experts. Experts can challenge other experts. Simple majority wins.

 

I think that would be preferable to Ted Cruz reading "Green Eggs and Ham" for as many hours.

I agree with all of this. Let the spectacle begin.

Edited October 29, 2013 by waitforufo

[overtone]

I love your blanket condemnation of anyone studying politics and the U of Chicago. It says a lot about you.

Once again with some playground, misconceived, oblivious attempt at slander via innuendo. Fox does that shit - that's why reasonable people think Fox guys are juvenile dumbasses.

 

I posted no such condemnation, blanket or otherwise, nor would I. This is completely obvious, if not from my standard posting here than from my obvious admiration for Crawford's work, my endorsement of his basic thesis, and my praise of his principled departure from one of those corrupt rightwing think tanks, all of which I mentioned in the same breath with my sourcing of his ideological underpinning.

 

 

 

Perhaps you of all people should read this book.

And perhaps, after a few dozen chokings on feet, you of all people should quit trying to post personal attacks based on projections of your own little mental cartoons. You should ask, first, whether I've read this or that book, hold this or that opinion, etc. Other people can tell by my posting, but you really need to ask.

 

 

All I was saying is that most if not all think tanks are intellectually dishonest regardless of there political philosophy.

I know. But you have have never presented evidence of that, for the simple reason that there isn't any - you are wrong: they aren't.

 

 

 

But let me remind you that no republicans voted for ACA. Maybe you have been busy lately but they also almost shut down the government over ACA implementation recently. They are working that hard to stop those evil right wing think tanks.

And so you see where the assessment "intellectually dishonest" and "corrupt" and so forth comes from.

 

Because the Republicans not only turned against this mess of a plan their guys created and bulldozed into the public arena in the first place, but found no need to "stop" any of the evil right wing think tanks to do that: those tanks were fully on board for the task of disparaging the ACA they themselves had designed and promoted, and slandering its current supporters.

 

Situations like that are what tell you that you can't get a cost estimate on "Obamacare" from the Heritage Foundation or any of its minions, allies, and intellectual brothers in arms.

Edited October 29, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Gee, we must be really talking past each other. Let me see If I can point out my confusion. You said..

 

His Bachelors was in Physics, he did work on climate science, his PhD was in Political Science (U of Chicago, famous for the fantasy world "Chicago School" economists and the political views of Leo Strauss)

I was not responding to the book, but to your post. The politics in your post introducing the book were not nearly so minor as that.

 

(neither are the politics in the book itself, btw, which are front and center and directly from the wheelhouse of a U of Chicago Political Science PhD, but that's another thread)

Maybe we should start here. So are you a fan of the U of Chicago school of Political Science? Are you a fan of Leo Strauss? When you say "famous for the fantasy world" is that a complement?

 

I posted no such condemnation, blanket or otherwise, nor would I. This is completely obvious, if not from my standard posting here than from my obvious admiration for Crawford's work, my endorsement of his basic thesis, and my praise of his principled departure from one of those corrupt rightwing think tanks, all of which I mentioned in the same breath with my sourcing of his ideological underpinning.

Do you respect him for studying Political Science at the U of Chicago, which is famous for the fantasy world "Chicago School" economists and the political views of Leo Strauss?

Do you respect him for his views "directly form the wheelhouse of a U of Chicago Political Science PhD"?

 

I'm obviously missing your point.

 

You should ask, first, whether I've read this or that book.

So have you read the book? What did you think? Pardon me for not asking.

 

 

I know. But you have have never presented evidence of that, for the simple reason that there isn't any - you are wrong: they aren't.

Got it. Conservatives bad. Liberals good. Don't you get tired of this echo chamber? Have you ever tried to walk in a conservatives shoes? It's really quite easy. Preserve you assets and try not to be a burden on others. Pretty simple. Well simple unless you believe that government is the proper arbiter of what an acceptable level of assets is.

 

Because the Republicans not only turned against this mess of a plan their guys created and bulldozed into the public arena in the first place, but found no need to "stop" any of the evil right wing think tanks to do that: those tanks were fully on board for the task of disparaging the ACA they themselves had designed and promoted, and slandering its current supporters.

 

Situations like that are what tell you that you can't get a cost estimate on "Obamacare" from the Heritage Foundation or any of its minions, allies, and intellectual brothers in arms.

When you say "mess of a plan" you mean the plan that all Democrats voted for? The plan that all Republicans voted against? Perhaps you should stop acting like liberals were tricked into voting for ACA. Its simply not true.

[overtone]

Gee, we must be really talking past each other.

We are not. I'm calling you on your inability to post without innuendo and slander, all of it unjustified, most of it delusion based.

 

 

 

So have you read the book? What did you think? Pardon me for not asking.

No, I'm not going to pardon you for not asking. I'm going to keep pointing out that this mode of discourse you have adopted is juvenile playground bs based in error and delusion.

 

Like this:

 

Got it. Conservatives bad. Liberals good. Don't you get tired of this echo chamber?

Don't you get tired of having to make shit up every single time you post? Or are you simply that badly confused, illiterate, whatever?

 

Hey, genius, it was an observation about think tanks, the actual ones we have, not conservatives or liberals. You can tell that because I used the words "think tank", written all the way out and correctly spelled. You can also spot the way I put quote marks around the word "conservative" applied to the rightwing corporate-bought think tanks, indicating that not only was I not talking about conservatives in general but that I found the appellation dubious - I don't find much genuine conservatism in their various economic follies and military boondoggles and science denials and racist sociologies and so forth.

 

And it was accurate, that obsrvation. So far it hasn't even drawn a comprehending response, let alone an echo.

 

 

 

When you say "mess of a plan" you mean the plan that all Democrats voted for? The plan that all Republicans voted against?

Why yes. That one. I used that vote as yet another ape-ass obvious illustration of the utter lack of integrity or principle in the Federal level Republican Party. So?

 

 

 

Perhaps you should stop acting like liberals were tricked into voting for ACA.

I'm not. I don't think the remaining liberals, a major fraction of the Democrats but not a dominant majority, were tricked. I think they were forced. No deception involved - straight political power, big money and its minions, their way or no way. The reason I think that is because that's what the ones I give ear to said, at the time the compromises were made.

 

The takehome being this: no rightwing think tank or Republican Congressional spokesman or coopted media figure or similar agent is a reliable source of economic analysis related to "Obamacare". Not after this. They have to be ignored, discouraged, disparaged, disrespected, discarded, disregarded, dismissed out of hand, out of respect for one's own basic intellectual dignity.

Edited October 30, 2013 by overtone