They're not entirely stupid (although that's certainly part of it). Mainly they're just shameless liars who take straight dictation from Karl Rove.

Yeah and the Democratic caucus spews carbon dioxide, too.

Just not the noxious, polluting, deadly kind that the Republicans spew.

With the end of this year's Zappandan, let's pause and remember what Frank proffered: Stupidity is the most abundant element in the universe!

Too bad our U.S. Congress and the electorate who elect its members haven't found an antidote! -Kevo

Think about it. Without any real efforts to contain costs Obamacare cuts cost over the next decade while covering 31 million more Americans. Damn, there is a lot of slack in the current monopoly system. Imagine what would be possible if there were real efforts to control health care costs.

One other thing to keep in mind. One of the principle ways the taxpayer saves under Obamacare is the elimination of subsides to Medicare Advantage. Those subsidies were corporate welfare for the same insurance companies who are going to benefit from Obamacare.

Sorry Steve, you are deliberately confusing the issue. This plan does increase costs. Including a tax increase in the plan to pay for the higher costs does not change them from higher costs into lower costs. Those tax increases were going to happen anyway and now cannot be spent on something else.

On the other hand, the funding mechanism that was not going to happen anyway is the higher price of premiums for everyone who already has individual insurance and everyone who has already decided they could not afford individual insurance. That is an outrage and is the reason why I and most of the people who you pretend you are helping will not vote for any Democrats again.

I don't know anything about Tom Price's intelligence, but I do know that Republicans are master's of the simple message. Price knows his constituents are against government spending. He knows the Republican base is against government spending. Thus his message against the health reform bill is "It will increase government spending."

You can call that stupid, but politically it works.

Health Care Reform: By the Corporations, For the Corporations

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/12/health-care-reform-by-corporations-for.html

as usual, the general leads us to understanding

Deliberately confusing the issue

This plan does increase costs. Including a tax increase in the plan to pay for the higher costs does not change them from higher costs into lower costs. Those tax increases were going to happen anyway and now cannot be spent on something else.

You confuse me , but that confusion was going to happen anyway , now I can spend time thinking about something that is not a deliberate obfuscation .

Tom Price is not stupid. Dishonest, maybe but not stupid.

He knows he can get away with it becuse the people he's talking to will believe anything he says without question.
As for the "Republican study comittee", They study what messages will hurt Dems most, and what will gain them seats in the next election. Policy is an afterthought. It's all about message.

David Gregory continued the silliness by pressing Axelrod on Obama's supposed promise to actually reduce health care costs (when bending the curve is taken I think, to imply reducing growth as a minimum standard.) He should (does?) know better, as should "Anonymous" and FRP here. (I'm not imputing bad faith, just that you need to get that distinction.) Axelrod did the best he could in that regard.

(Well, OK you're making a different kind of complaint but do keep that distinction in mind. As for your direct complaints: I agree we must somehow cost-out new payments made by someone who wanted not to pay them, even if they get good "value" compared to previous norms. But we were all paying for what happened to them anyway, and very inefficiently. As for taxes, I thought that cost was already taken into account and of course it isn't an "expense" for the government if paid for. Is it worth paying for? Well, the uninsured already cost us - by definition, the value must come from the total cost to take care of them anyway compared to the new "costs" however you rate them. True?)

Whenever a health care opponent tells me that this plan will cost money, I tell them yes, but it saves more than it costs.

When they somebody tries to get more specific by telling me that this plan will cost a trillion dollars, I say no--it'll cost $850 billion, but it'll save a trillion dollars. That's a net gain of $150 billion.

Believe it or not, that usually shuts them up.

It is almost like these Republicans are so damned stupid they have no idea what the hell we are even debating. How are they supposed to have a coherent response or be constructive participants if they can't even figure out the debate?

This reminds me of the joke about the woman who went to her doctor and asked what to do about her husband, who seemed to only want anal sex. When asked, she told the doctor she enjoyed it, too. Then he told her to be careful of pregnancy. She was surprised by that and asked, "How can you possibly get pregnant that way, doctor?"

"Ma'am, where you you think Republicans come from?"

"Ma'am, where you you think Republicans come from?"

Posted by: TCinLA on December 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I've always wondered about that. Explains why they have shit for brains, too.

Comparing costs of programs without recognising our populations growth is confusing . A direct proportional growth , for matters measuring programs involved with our population , is in a one to one relationship rising or falling with said growth . Confusing in that you need to isolate an understanding of the practical , or sensible , reading of the projected costs in order to trumpet the growth part without including the growth .

comment5, http://celebritysextapes.spruz.com celebrity sex tapes, :-]],

comment1,