Original art by Mark Valentine
Words take on different meanings when politicians use them…
Sometimes it’s a clever twist meant to put on a better face. Pro-Life sounds so much better than Anti-Abortion. And Pro-Choice sounds much better than Pro-Abortion.
Sometimes the official words seem disconnected from the concepts. How did the expansion of government spying on private citizens become part of The Patriot Act? A stronger central government that invades privacy seems contrary to the Constitution.
Should an assault on The Constitution be branded with the word Patriot?
Sometimes code words are a deliberate smoke screen.
Was it a really surprise when Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, said lowering health care costs to citizens was never part of the planning sessions? So they called it The Affordable Health Care Act.
Deceptive naming may be a way to deflect failure.
At least they were trying to Leave No Child Behind. And somehow success or failure has become less important than motives.
The “New Normal” is a hip code for failure.
When you hear that it always means things are worse and they will stay that way long enough that you need to get used to it.
Washington’s most dangerous code word may be comprehensive.
Comprehensive seems to be code for complicated enough to hide the corruption.
For the first time in our history, the President said it was more important to listen to the people that didn’t vote. Can there be any greater undermining of a democracy?
It may be too late to ask for honest language. The time may have passed for us to know the results of stated goals. Prioritizing problems to properly manage solutions seems to be impossible now.
Our only hope is to learn to decipher the code words.
From the military on down, politicians have had centuries to perfect their wordly spin. The military defeat became a tactical retreat or retrenchment, taxes became contributions, and spending became investment. If it needs an asterisk on the page, it is not what Webster says it is. The Affordable Care Act has seen my out of pocket deductible go from 2500 per person per year to 5000 per person per year, and my premiums have gone from 360 per month to 605. What was the first word in the name of the Act, Affordable? Saving grace, however, is the simple fact that I am self employed, and assuming I meet my deductible, IRS will not be pleased when my tax deductions climb to 13000 per year for healthcare, I think one can easily see that Dr. Gruber was wrong, but he was wrong on many counts. In my case, it was not a tax increase, if you define taxes as that “paid to Caesar”, the government. He made two mistakes. The first was assuming the voters were stupid, and he had to get their support. In fact, he was not fooling the voters. They never had a chance to vote on the Bill. In fact, the only people he had to convince were Members of Congress, and, in that case, he was successful only with Democrats. The only time the people have had a vote in referendum to those same Members, and under those terms, maybe the voters are smarter than Congress. The second, and more telling mistake, is the term, “all things being equal”, a mathematical economic term describing the use of a partial derivative with respect to maximizing one variable with respect to another. In short “all things being equal” is the false premise. If you raise the cost of any service or product, you will sell less of it. Perhaps this shows the true level of his economic education, as he has forgotten second grade math, any tax rate times no income or profits is no revenue. This understanding is part of the Bible for the small business person. If government were in charge of the hardware store, setting prices by virtue of the profit margin, raising the retail price of hammers to $100, while the wholesale price remains at $25, leaving a higher profit margin of $75 looks great on paper. However, if the competition is still at $50, the government hardware store doesn’t sell any high priced hammers, and if no hammers are sold, revenue is zero and profits are zero. Any number multiplied by zero is still zero.
The news media focus is still in his blatant statement about the stupidity of voters, the definition of an elitist, not on the simple fact that he was paid $390,000 to write and clarify the law, and his version of intent concerning the state created exchanges is exactly what the plaintiffs are suing over, that there was never any intention of granting subsidies to non-state created exchanges. It was the intention to bribe states to spend the money to create exchanges with the promise of subsidies, something that failed 36 times out of 50. If one believes Gruber, and his message is repeated many times over explaining it to Congress, the President, and Economic Round Tables, the Plaintiffs in the suit have both the words and the intent on their side. I do not prejudge the outcomes of lawsuits, but perhaps MIT should consider the merits of Dr. Gruber.
+1
In terms of the President, they way people communicate with him is by voting. As such, it is inconceivable that he should listen to people not speaking. He does not have a firm grasp of reality, not just the Republican wins in Congress, but also in the State Houses and Governor’s mansions across the country. What bothers me is that our leader has no grasp of reality, and he hears voices in his head of people not speaking. What does a psychologist call that?
SORRY COWBOY: go read some history. Same b.s. was said by
opponents of social security/medicare/and every other major social
change that’s been proposed.
I suggest you go and find a better plan….you’re paying too much unless
you have bad health! And depending on your income you could get
subsidies. I would check with someone…with 5k deductible your
amount should be in 300-400 range…I can’t understand that.
all politicians used these “code” words….it’s not new and it’s not
going because people accept it.
thanks
Harley and I go “read history” all the time Cowboy. Harley even told Manti that Notre Dame beat Northwestern on Saturday and if he just clicks his heels three times, then his Obama Care monthlies would go down.
Congressman Joe Wilson needs to be given an award for the most honest man in America.
+1
Here is what he said that day Jack.————
On the night of September 9, 2009, a still highly popular President Barack Obama spoke spiritedly to a joint session of Congress. He had summoned the members of both parties to introduce his plan to transform American health care.
The promises he made that night were many and, to most in the television audience, at least, sounded fresh. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” said the president. “Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
Simmering throughout this litany of disinformation was an obscure five-term South Carolina congressman named Joe Wilson. When Obama denounced as false the claim that this proposed health care system “would insure legal immigrants,” Wilson could hold his tongue no longer. “You lie!” he yelled.
Widely chastised at the time, Wilson had to feel vindicated this week when a report surfaced that 42 percent of new Medicaid sign-ups were immigrants, legal and otherwise. This added weight to the recent revelation that most of those newly insured for Obamacare had been insured through Medicaid.
It has been a good few weeks for Wilson. On November 4, he handily won re-election to Congress from South Carolina’s 2nd congressional district with nearly two thirds of the vote. A week later, the remarks made by MIT professor and self-styled Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber at a 2013 academic conference sobered up those who preferred to think Obama’s broken health care promises were unfortunate but unforeseen.
Gruber gave away the Obamacare game plan. “This [Affordable Care Act] was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” said the smug Gruber. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” Gruber was just warming up.
“In terms of risk-rated subsidies,” he continued, “if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
As he explained, Gruber and his allies had to construct a dishonest bill because of “the stupidity of the American voter.” Citizens were apparently not smart enough to understand that the bill was in their own best interest. Gruber wished he could have made the law “transparent,” but for him and his cohorts, the end justified the means. “I’d rather have this law than not,” he said.
In this rare honest moment, Gruber put a lie not only to the basics of Obamacare, but also to the very foundation of the Obama presidency. “Let me say it as simply as I can,” Obama had told his assembled staff on his first full day in office. “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” This was pure smokescreen. Obama would package and sell his plan on more lies than Bernie Madoff sold his – and with more disastrous consequences.
Doubleplusgood, Mark!
The Ministry of Truth shall issue you a commendation soon.
you all don’t get the rules orthe organization of the aca. Everything you write
is wrong…and coming from the man who organizedthe first aca type program
I doubt what he’s saying is true.
25 million additional americans will be insured with 18 months thru aca.
that’s huge!!!!
so you cheap ass free loaders…pay up or go find someone to give you free care.
We’re tired of paying for your healthcare.
Leave you worthless free loaders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re worse than anyone!!!!!!
leave America now!