›

stupidity of the american voter

BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
edited November 2014 in Strut Central
thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/index.html

"It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

"If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.
«1

  Comments

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Many people believe the American voter is stupid....not them themselves, but you know, the OTHER voters.
  • fishmongerfunkfishmongerfunk 4,154 Posts
    i'll bite.....so, what are we supposed to be mad about again? would americans have been better off without insurance?

    Also, not that it even matters, but how transparent and open was the opposition to this bill? i seem to recall out and out falsehoods being promulgated by opponents of the law such as "death panels" and so forth...

    Sorry, but the only one who cares about this is Fox News.
  • white_teawhite_tea 3,262 Posts
    Absolutely nothing about health care in the United States is transparent except maybe the price of Advil!
  • meistromocomeistromoco 954 Posts

    "It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    "If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

    Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.

    An unfortunate choice of words, but his point is pretty straight forward. If you say healthy people pay into a system to support the less healthy you are describing how ANY insurance scheme works. It's a risk pool and only works if healthy people pay into it to support the unhealthy folks. It's called insurance and is not limited to ACA.

    That said, Gruber is wrong in that this fundamental part of the plan was never hidden or not transparent -- folks were saying all along that for ACA to work, young, healthy folks had to enroll. That fact was no secret during the debate. When he says that "healthy people pay and sick people get money" it admittedly sounds bad but it's just a crude way of describing any insurance plan.

    Gruber sounds like condescending elitist / academic prick though, so that doesn't help.
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    Sick people pay in, too--hopefully.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    crabmongerfunk said:
    i'll bite.....so, what are we supposed to be mad about again? would americans have been better off without insurance?

    Also, not that it even matters, but how transparent and open was the opposition to this bill? i seem to recall out and out falsehoods being promulgated by opponents of the law such as "death panels" and so forth...

    Sorry, but the only one who cares about this is Fox News.
    Americans are still without insurance and by cramming misleading legislation down people's throats, there is a real risk of Supreme Court rulings overturning legislation and destroying the chance of any real reform or coverage happening for generations to come.

    Pelosi is infamous for saying that they had to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Considering both sides of the aisle did not read the bill, what real transparency was there? When key elements of legislation are obscured to prevent the CBO (a bi-partisan organization) from properly scoring the bill, is there transparency?
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    white_tea said:
    Absolutely nothing about health care in the United States is transparent except maybe the price of Advil!
    truff
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Bottle of 30 Advil at Wal-Mart - $4.89
    Packet of 4 Advil at local Quickie Mart - $2.49
    Two Advil at local Hospital - $45.00
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    meistromoco said:

    "It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    "If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

    Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.

    An unfortunate choice of words, but his point is pretty straight forward. If you say healthy people pay into a system to support the less healthy you are describing how ANY insurance scheme works. It's a risk pool and only works if healthy people pay into it to support the unhealthy folks. It's called insurance and is not limited to ACA.

    That said, Gruber is wrong in that this fundamental part of the plan was never hidden or not transparent -- folks were saying all along that for ACA to work, young, healthy folks had to enroll. That fact was no secret during the debate. When he says that "healthy people pay and sick people get money" it admittedly sounds bad but it's just a crude way of describing any insurance plan.

    Gruber sounds like condescending elitist / academic prick though, so that doesn't help.
    he def sounds like a prick and agree with the rest of your post but the damning statement is about qualification for subsidies.
  • meistromocomeistromoco 954 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    meistromoco said:

    "It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    "If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

    Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.

    An unfortunate choice of words, but his point is pretty straight forward. If you say healthy people pay into a system to support the less healthy you are describing how ANY insurance scheme works. It's a risk pool and only works if healthy people pay into it to support the unhealthy folks. It's called insurance and is not limited to ACA.

    That said, Gruber is wrong in that this fundamental part of the plan was never hidden or not transparent -- folks were saying all along that for ACA to work, young, healthy folks had to enroll. That fact was no secret during the debate. When he says that "healthy people pay and sick people get money" it admittedly sounds bad but it's just a crude way of describing any insurance plan.

    Gruber sounds like condescending elitist / academic prick though, so that doesn't help.
    he def sounds like a prick and agree with the rest of your post but the damning statement is about qualification for subsidies.

    as in "sick people get money" ?? if he's talking about subsidies there, it's not accurate. Subsidies are based on wealth, not health (unless you smoke). Even if he is talking about subsidies and simply misspoke, this was pretty clear during the debate too. Subsidies were no secret.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    meistromoco said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    meistromoco said:

    "It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    "If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

    Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.

    An unfortunate choice of words, but his point is pretty straight forward. If you say healthy people pay into a system to support the less healthy you are describing how ANY insurance scheme works. It's a risk pool and only works if healthy people pay into it to support the unhealthy folks. It's called insurance and is not limited to ACA.

    That said, Gruber is wrong in that this fundamental part of the plan was never hidden or not transparent -- folks were saying all along that for ACA to work, young, healthy folks had to enroll. That fact was no secret during the debate. When he says that "healthy people pay and sick people get money" it admittedly sounds bad but it's just a crude way of describing any insurance plan.

    Gruber sounds like condescending elitist / academic prick though, so that doesn't help.
    he def sounds like a prick and agree with the rest of your post but the damning statement is about qualification for subsidies.

    as in "sick people get money" ?? if he's talking about subsidies there, it's not accurate. Subsidies are based on wealth, not health (unless you smoke). Even if he is talking about subsidies and simply misspoke, this was pretty clear during the debate too. Subsidies were no secret.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
    this
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    When key elements of legislation are obscured to prevent the CBO (a bi-partisan organization) from properly scoring the bill, is there transparency?


    Good thing that never happened.
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    meistromoco said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    meistromoco said:

    "It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    "If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

    Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.

    An unfortunate choice of words, but his point is pretty straight forward. If you say healthy people pay into a system to support the less healthy you are describing how ANY insurance scheme works. It's a risk pool and only works if healthy people pay into it to support the unhealthy folks. It's called insurance and is not limited to ACA.

    That said, Gruber is wrong in that this fundamental part of the plan was never hidden or not transparent -- folks were saying all along that for ACA to work, young, healthy folks had to enroll. That fact was no secret during the debate. When he says that "healthy people pay and sick people get money" it admittedly sounds bad but it's just a crude way of describing any insurance plan.

    Gruber sounds like condescending elitist / academic prick though, so that doesn't help.
    he def sounds like a prick and agree with the rest of your post but the damning statement is about qualification for subsidies.

    as in "sick people get money" ?? if he's talking about subsidies there, it's not accurate. Subsidies are based on wealth, not health (unless you smoke). Even if he is talking about subsidies and simply misspoke, this was pretty clear during the debate too. Subsidies were no secret.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
    this

    Since no Congressperson that voted for the bill thinks federal subsidies were not included (legislative intent counts, people), and given that the dissent in Sebelius included this great passage indicating that they also knew federal subsidies were included in the law: "“Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.”, the only way federal subsidies are being thrown out is if the majority of the court acts in an egregiously activist capacity.

  • meistromocomeistromoco 954 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    meistromoco said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    meistromoco said:

    "It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

    "If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, OK? Just like how people -- transparent -- lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

    Gruber said he wished "we could make it all transparent. But I'd rather have this law than not.

    An unfortunate choice of words, but his point is pretty straight forward. If you say healthy people pay into a system to support the less healthy you are describing how ANY insurance scheme works. It's a risk pool and only works if healthy people pay into it to support the unhealthy folks. It's called insurance and is not limited to ACA.

    That said, Gruber is wrong in that this fundamental part of the plan was never hidden or not transparent -- folks were saying all along that for ACA to work, young, healthy folks had to enroll. That fact was no secret during the debate. When he says that "healthy people pay and sick people get money" it admittedly sounds bad but it's just a crude way of describing any insurance plan.

    Gruber sounds like condescending elitist / academic prick though, so that doesn't help.
    he def sounds like a prick and agree with the rest of your post but the damning statement is about qualification for subsidies.

    as in "sick people get money" ?? if he's talking about subsidies there, it's not accurate. Subsidies are based on wealth, not health (unless you smoke). Even if he is talking about subsidies and simply misspoke, this was pretty clear during the debate too. Subsidies were no secret.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
    this

    I'm aware of that, but what does Gruber's quote have to do with it? Maybe he says something before the quote you posted, but I'm not seeing the connection.

    Also, were federal exchanges a secret? Pretty sure it was understood all along that a federal exchange would cover people in states that did not set up their own exchange. I know the case is about a technicality regarding the word "state" and if the law permits the fed gov't to pay the subsidy in "exchangless" states, but again, what the hell does that have to do with Gruber???
  • ketanketan Warmly booming riffs 3,170 Posts
    this
    Reynaldo said:
    Sick people pay in, too--hopefully.

    & this
    Rockadelic said:
    Bottle of 30 Advil at Wal-Mart - $4.89
    Packet of 4 Advil at local Quickie Mart - $2.49
    Two Advil at local Hospital - $45.00

    PatrickCrazy said:

    (TooLongResponse)

    "As Congress voted on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010, one of the bill's architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, told a college audience that those pushing the legislation pitched it as a bill that would control spiraling health care costs even though most of the bill was focused on something else .. and there was no guarantee the bill would actually bend the cost curve."

    And that's totally fair. You could guess that by insuring the poor and marginalized (who typically have most of the burden of illness in any society) you will prevent more health care needs/costs earlier in life. Of course, these groups of people will live longer healthier lives, so the cost of elderly care will increase (there will be more old people!). Then again, they will remain productive members of society for longer than before, so there will be more $$ floating around the system to cope with more elderly care costs.

    And you can go on and on with these thought experiments with no guarantee, because you simply can't predict the future of a complex system like a country with 100% accuracy... even if you're approaching it purely intellectually (rather than ideologically).

    And that's why, except in a situation where a country is not productive and no longer fiscally sustainable, MOST countries allow the government's spending on health promotion and health care to be generous. We all pay into the system through our taxes and we expect that everyone has the same opportunities for a long and healthy life.

    It's really only in the u.s. where the status quo has been to protect the population minimally, e.g., clean water, air quality standards, FDA, immunizations, fluoride, (chemtrailz?) and expect most people to cover their own specific costs in times of need, even if it bankrupts a family. So policymakers who actually care about health equity in the u.s. have a particularly difficult time convincing the branches of government to accept things like obamacare, regardless of the details.

    I do a bit of research on this stuff, and there are real ideological/axiological differences between countries in terms of what a society/taxbase is responsible: does the government have responsibility to maintaining health equity (and other types of social justice), or are citizens largely responsible for the their own health and well-being (except where public health is at risk), and shouldn't expect the government to look out for them.

    Quick thought experiment to test your own orientation: if a teenager becomes a pack a day smoker, whose fault it is? their own, their family's or society's?

    (/TooLongResponse)
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    ketan said:

    Quick thought experiment to test your own orientation: if a teenager becomes a pack a day smoker, whose fault it is? their own, their family's or society's?

    The question isn't whose fault is it, the question is whose burden is it?
  • ketanketan Warmly booming riffs 3,170 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    ketan said:

    Quick thought experiment to test your own orientation: if a teenager becomes a pack a day smoker, whose fault it is? their own, their family's or society's?

    The question isn't whose fault is it, the question is whose burden is it?

    Fair enough, but I think those two things are inter-twinned.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    ketan said:
    Rockadelic said:
    ketan said:

    Quick thought experiment to test your own orientation: if a teenager becomes a pack a day smoker, whose fault it is? their own, their family's or society's?

    The question isn't whose fault is it, the question is whose burden is it?

    Fair enough, but I think those two things are inter-twinned.

    I think it only becomes inter-twined if you hold society accountable for an individual's actions.
  • ketanketan Warmly booming riffs 3,170 Posts
    Sure, I agree.

    And I do believe that there are real effects of social structures on individuals, so I do believe that a society should share in that responsibility by creating appropriate opportunities for healthy behaviour and health environments.

    But certainly, individuals have to be accountable in some key ways within a society for their health.
  • DuderonomyDuderonomy Haut de la Garenne 7,789 Posts

    What percentage of the people that are most strongly against universal healthcare would also describe themselves as "Christian"?

    #hypocrisy
  • discos_almadiscos_alma discos_alma 2,164 Posts
    Duderonomy said:

    What percentage of the people that are most strongly against universal healthcare would also describe themselves as "Christian"?

    #hypocrisy

    Hypocrisy, and also not recognizing a good investment for their states. CC: Texas & Florida

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119011/map-how-much-24-states-lost-refusing-expand-medicaid
  • LazarusOblongLazarusOblong 896 Posts
    Raise your hand if you'd heard of Gruber before this big "scandal."

    The Grubers from McHale's Navy and the Die Hard movies are just as relevant to the health care debate in this country as this clown is.

    Does anyone think that everyone knew what Medicare would be like in practice before it became law? Jeezus, I saw a video recently that showed a bunch of college students in Texas who didn't even know who won the Civil War. I knew more than they do when I was 5. Yes, most voters are stupid.
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    RAJ said:
    batmon said:
    dj_cityboy said:
    crabmongerfunk said:
    the trolls/bots managed to scare away the most of the productive and interesting posters.

    so people didnt just stop caring about the Strut, some bots and trolls drove them away?

    the moderhatters were needed years ago when the politcal shit started dominating. shit was dwindling before that and there was no sherif to boot the fakers out and tell the impulsive vets to stfu. dudes who pleaded for no moderation arent even here no more. it too latte.

    Start another current events thread and they will resurface.
    done

    RAJ said:

    It seems this place has mellowed out to the point where trolls don't even bother...
    But yeah, if it picks up here: I'll be banning somevabitches!

    :game_over:
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,473 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Many people believe the American voter is stupid....not them themselves, but you know, the OTHER voters.

    See also: "God, Congress is so stupid--we need to throw all these bums out! Well, except for my Rep, for whom I will be voting again."
  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,903 Posts
    Stupidity is a world wide problem.

    I especially cringe...

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,473 Posts
    DOR said:
    Stupidity is a world wide problem.

    I especially cringe...


    And when they describe themselves as "a concerned taxpayer," they're about to be an enormous, gaping asshole.

    Increasingly, this is true with "a citizen"/"a concerned citizen," too.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    word, how dumb is it to even think about money that we all slave away for being wasted on stupid shit.

    and being concerned about things? ugh, what a bunch of try-hards.
  • DuderonomyDuderonomy Haut de la Garenne 7,789 Posts
    word, how dumb is it to even think about money that we all slave away for being [strong]wasted on stupid shit[/strong].

    and being concerned about things? ugh, what a bunch of try-hards.

    You sound Christian.

    :roll:
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    word, how dumb is it to even think about money that we all slave away for being [strong]wasted on stupid shit[/strong].

    and being concerned about things? ugh, what a bunch of try-hards.

    You sound Christian.

    :roll:
    im not religious at all but good job on your bigotry?
  • LazarusOblongLazarusOblong 896 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    word, how dumb is it to even think about money that we all slave away for being wasted on stupid shit.

    and being concerned about things? ugh, what a bunch of try-hards.

    It's so cute when soft-handed glibertarians compare themselves to slaves.

    Too bad Nat Turner isn't around anymore to teach such fools a lesson.
Sign In or Register to comment.