Monday, April 7, 2014

Opposition to Obamacare NOT Racist

Cynthia Tucker is a black, female journalist who gained prominence in the 1990s, and all the negatives that entails, i.e. she’s steeped in the race/gender wars. This last week, she laments that it’s hard to understand the “irrational hatred of Obamacare” (which of course is code for racism). But let’s put that aside. What Tucker doesn’t get is that the hatred of Obamacare isn’t irrational. Let’s discuss.

Tucker does what all politicized hacks always do: she creates her own facts to support the conclusion she wants you to reach. She begins with the fraudulent advocacy technique of talking about some woman she knows who is happy to finally have insurance. Whoopee! Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. In fact, I can counter with someone who thinks we should ban insurance. So what have proved? Nothing, Cynthia.

Anyways, she buys into Obama’s 7 million number and calls it “stark evidence of the overwhelming market demand.” Isn’t that cute, she’s a moron! Let us consider the seven million number and her point:
● First, it’s nonsense to call something that is forced upon people by threat of fine as creating “market demand.” That’s like saying Hitler created “market demand” for Nazism in every country he occupied by forcing it upon people. “Markets” imply willing buyers and sellers, not the coerced.

● Secondly, the 7 million number is obviously fake. Quoting it uncritically only demonstrates bias. Let’s see how many people actually have Exchange-sold policies three months from now, then we’ll talk Cynthia.

● Thirdenly, even if we accept the 7 million number, this is “stark” evidence of a lack of demand, not evidence of demand, you dingbat. There are 49 million uninsured. If we assume that all of the 7 million were uninsured before, then still only 1 in 7 signed up despite the threats of being fined if they refused. That’s evidence of horribly weak demand.

● Further, the evidence suggests that only 800,000 of the signups didn’t have insurance until Obamacare came along. That means only 1.6 in 100 of the uninsured responded. Again, how is that evidence of anything except disdain?

As for the other 6.3 million, those are people who were insured, but lost their insurance because of Obamacare and had no choice but to buy this inferior product at inflated prices. It’s not evidence of demand to ban all other alternatives and then point to your sales.
She then tells us that even though it’s too early to call Obamacare a success, it is a success. According to her,
● “It made great strides in improving access to health care.” Uh, not really. More people lost insurance than gained insurance. And only an idiot would say that disrupting the entire system to get 800,000 coverage is making strides.

● She says it will be a “boon” to the economy that young people can stay on their parent’s plans.... as if that made any sense at all.

● Now you can’t be denied coverage! That’s true, but you can be denied treatment. Which would you rather have? In fact, the biggest problem Obamacare will encounter is that people will buy this insurance, but won’t be able to find doctors, and certainly not good ones. Basically, Obamacare will cause the “two America’s” dystopia liberals always whine about, with rich people getting to see great doctors and getting treatment anywhere they wish, while poor and average people get handed worthless policies that leave them dying in the waiting rooms of third-rate converted animal hospitals. Thanks Cynthia, may it happen to you and yours first.

● Now you can get affordable insurance away from your employer! LOL! Actually, Obama killed the affordable policies. So to restate this truthfully, “Now you will lose your employer-sponsored plan and you can go buy way overpriced, underprovided phantom-coverage from Obama’s website.
Next she takes on those nasty, racist Republicans. She points out that they should love Obamacare because it “adheres to market-based ideas.” Yeah, right. There isn’t a market-based idea in the whole bill. Further, she whines, the Republicans are free to offer alternatives. This is, of course, revisionism. This bill was written in secret by a couple Democrats and the insurance companies. It was voted on without amendments, without reading, without Republican input or public input being allowed. It even got pushed through on an abusive procedural motion. I guess Cynthia wasn’t paying attention.

Of course she finishes with a nasty, slander: “Could it be that Republicans are simply furious that millions of Americans like [her friend] finally have health insurance?” No, Cynthia, racism is your obsession, not ours.

Anyways, let’s cut to the chase. She just doesn’t understand the hate. Ok, how about this...

Why should we like a law that forces us to buy a product we don’t want, a product that costs more and provides less coverage than we could have obtained on the open market before Obama banned those policies. A law which ham-fistedly attempts to reshape 1/12th of our economy. A law which has cost nearly ten million people the insurance they liked (more to come), that has severed their relationships with their doctors, which put many independent doctors out of business, which cost people their jobs, which cut down the part-time hours available for part-time workers, which forced churches to provide abortion coverage and old people to pay for pediatric issues and males to pay for feminine issues and young people to massively subsidize the elderly. A law which promises huge, rich insurance firms subsidies all paid for on the backs of the middle class. A law which may yet wipe out unions. A law which will break various state and federal budgets.

Maybe that’s why people hate it, Cynthia. And if you weren’t a racist who is looking for anything you can spin into “white people hate us!” perhaps you would see this. The problem isn’t that Obama is the first black president, it’s that he’s the first abusive, incompetent, shithead black president.

Hating Obamacare is not an irrational response. It is quite rational. In fact, I wonder how Cynthia would respond if we passed a law which forced everyone to buy a 45 caliber (or above) handgun for home defense and we made blacks pay twice as much to subsidize old whites. Do you think she’d marvel and fake confusion at all the irrational hate coming from the left? Would she finish with, “Could it be that Liberals are simply furious that millions of Americans like old Earl finally have access to home protection?” Somehow, I doubt it.

29 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

well played, sir, well played.

AndrewPrice said...

Thank you, Jed! :D

BevfromNYC said...

Nice Andrew!! But I specifically heard President Obamacare state unequivocally that we were no longer allowed to debate the efficacy of Obamacare. So you are SOOOOO in trouble! Yet, Cynthia is not in violation because she is givin' us what-for. Well, I believe he put it this way "Weeeee! We won, we won, we won...neener, neener, neeeee-ner! Obamacare is a done deal...So shut up."

I still think that it is such a happy coincidence that the CBO target numbers and the "actual" number of sign-ups (minus any details from WH) are so close! That is just so amazing, isn't it? And just at the exact right time.

Seriously, all the pundits like Tucker keep forgetting that fun has not even started. In a few months the employer mandate starts to raise it's ugly head. Probably around May/June employers will start getting cancellation notices for policies that do not comply. Fun time...fun times.

tryanmax said...

CBO target numbers and the "actual" number of sign-ups are so close!

Kinda like how South American presidents always win with 95% of the vote.

Koshcat said...

WOW. I thought I disliked ACA. One can look at the Rules for Radicals and see how this administration plans their political attacks. Right now they are using Rule 5 and Rule 8: Ridicule and keep up the attack.

tryanmax said...

In related news, House Republicans successfully got repealed a piece of Obamacare but the likes of Drudge are accusing the GOP of expanding the law.

BevfromNYC said...

Yeah, the part they got repealed was the deductible cap. Since most people don't know what a "deductible" is, I am sure this will make people mad. In fact, it looks to be a "poisoned pill" because without the cap, there is no cap on how much one will have to pay out of pocket. Since most of the deductibles on the lower premium plans are already at 6K or more (in NY) this should be very interesting.

Tennessee Jed said...

A.C.A. deniers are just like climate change deniers,and as Krauthammer points out, an illusion to holocaust deniers, e.g. cut from the same cloth as birthers. This is one of the greatest examples of figures lie and liars figure ever foisted on Americans, and another great example of the sad loss of real objective news analysis. Just as we recently discussed the problems with talk radio and the right, this fully exposes how those who would have us believe they are after the truth really are not.

AndrewPrice said...

I deny the existence of the ACA. Heck, I deny Obama.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Bev! Yeah, I know I am treading on shaky ground by criticizing that which Obamamort has told us dare not be criticized, but Cynthia started it! She made me the way I am! :D

On the employer mandate, there is serious talk now among Democrats of cancelling that one all together. Nice, huh?! In any event, it doesn't matter what Tucker says because people feel the effect of this one personally and they aren't happy about it... any of it.

AndrewPrice said...

trynamax, LOL! It definitely has the feel of a banana Republic election doesn't it? I can even see el Dookey debating whether to make it 7.1 or 7.0 million.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat,There is much to hate here. This isn't just some stupid law where the government ends up wasting it's own time. This is a law which will hurt real people.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev and tryanmax, Why on earth would they eliminate the out-of-pocket spending cap? You don't even need a brain to spin that one as a sop to the insurance companies. Why the hell would they do that?

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Agreed. This is the ultimate proof that the government will lie whenever it wants and that the media will repeat the lies uncritically. It's a sad day for democracy.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, that may be true, but the likes of Drudge don't have a brain. Normally they'd support this as "good for small business" which the Republicans are claiming. But since they're currently on a "Boehner can do no right" kick...

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Agreed about Drudge. Plus, he wouldn't ever think about this would play outside the cult. Still, does no one in the GOP have any clue what this looks like? Why the hell do the keep giving love to corporations over people? What is wrong with them?!

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I don't think they see this as love to the corporations is why. This cap was only placed on small businesses. The corporate love was already in Obamacare by not having caps on individual and large group plans. But they don't consider that most people would never know that.

Still, as Bev says, most people don't know what a deductible is, so a lot of listeners drop off with that. The cap was $2000/$4000 individual/family, far below the rates Bev describes, so the odds of caps going up b/c of this are slim, so that's fewer people directly affected. On the campaign trail, the only people Republicans have to fear on this are to their right as Dems are already hailing it.

I still agree it was a stupid and unnecessary move--hands completely off is the best approach. This strikes me as a Democrat calculation to get a few sitting Republicans primaried by the fringe, i.e. the real low information voters.

tryanmax said...

What the Republicans really ought to push for are caps on premiums. That's what people understand the best and it would put Dems in a tough spot. I'm all for fighting bad laws with bad laws.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. The little I've seen of it (busy day) just says that the GOP voted to repeal "the deductible caps," which sounds an awful lot like "so that the insurers can charge you whatever they want." This also seems to have come out of the blue, so there's no ground work that has been laid to see how people will respond.

The fringe are indeed the real low information voters.

I like the idea of a premium cap! That would destroy Obamacare for sure and it would put the Democrats in the position of defending "the need for insurers to profit!"

tryanmax said...

It'll never happen though because, unlike Democrats, Republicans are fearful of proposing unworkable legislation even if it's just to make a point. And normally I'd agree that the risks are very high. But in a case like Obamacare, where there's really nothing to lose, either for the GOP or the country, you may as well shoot for the moon.

AndrewPrice said...

I know. They have no strategic vision.

Anthony said...

Great article. It should be pointed out that opposition to Obamacare is no more vehement than opposition to Hillarycare (1994 wasn't any better for Dems than 2010) so it makes no sense to imagine a racial angle.

Jon said...

Loved this article, Andrew. Well written!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Anthony! That's true too. Opposition to Hillarycare was just as strong, as has been opposition from the left to many things Republicans have wanted. To see racism in this is silly.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jon! :D

Rustbelt said...

And the most unpopular law in American history since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 gets pwned (again!) and loses another round to Commentarama!

("Down goes the A.C.A.! Down goes the A.C.A.!")

Andrew, you've got the Monster from the Washington Swamps on the ropes. Keep it up!

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, LOL! Excellent sports call!

BTW, that's a great line -- "the most unpopular law in American history since the Fugitive Slave Act!"

Rustbelt said...

Thanks, Andrew.

I've been waiting for just the right article to use that line. This definitely seemed like it was it.

AndrewPrice said...

It was well timed!

Post a Comment