Sean Hannity had Michelle Malkin and Juan Williams on to discuss the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Juan Williams is one of the very few more-or-less polite liberals in existence today.
But he IS a liberal and he practices liberal deflection tactics to avoid actually answering hard questions.
For instance, Hannity said:
"Let's see Juan, we have one article in investor's business daily today that the cheapest plan by 2016 is going to be $20,000 and that the CBO says that seven million Americans are going to lose their health insurance. What happened? Should I be upset over this or should we just accept that promises aren't fulfilled here? "
A direct answer might have been something like, "Well, $20,000.00 IS a lot of money, and we should probably take a closer look at what we can do to relieve families of 4 from that kind of burden."
But, no. Williams did not even address that issue. He deals instead with the "implemented in stages" aspect of AHA.
He said:
"I don't understand how it's any promise broken. I think everybody knows the affordable health care act is going to be implemented in stages, Sean and these things just like Social Security when it started, Medicare when started, Medicaid, they all have some difficulty in their starts."
Why doesn't he understand? Is he that dumb? Really? Does that address the issue of $20,000.00 for a family of four?
"...they all have some difficulty in their starts," therefore $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK?
"...they all have some difficulty in their starts," therefore $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK?
No. If you study political science in school, one of the things you learn is how to use a lot of words to sound like you're answering a question while really not answering it at all.
He continued:
"What the CBO was saying was not everybody is going to sign up right away, and so some cases, you're going to have situations where there's a lack of coverage or there's an increase in cost of coverage, that's why there's an individual mandate but just takes time for that to be put in full place, that's why it's done over several years. "
What does that even mean?
So, let me guess what he meant.
"Not everybody is going to sign up..." so it will cost the average family of four $20,000.00 per year and that's OK.
"There will be situations where there's a lack of coverage..." so $20,000.00 for an average family or four is OK.
"There's an individual mandate," so $20,000.00 for a family of four is OK.
"It takes time to put in 'full place'..." (whatever the heck that means), so $20,000.00 for a family of four is OK.
"It's done over several years..." and that's why $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK.
After Michelle Malkin spoke about how liberals just ignore all the lies Obama tells, Williams said,
"Now, I think you're, I mean, you know, you're -- the sky is falling, the sky is falling, Obama is bad, but I'm just telling you that in fact what the CBO has shown is that the rate of increase in terms of health care spending in the country has gone down for the last two years, that's good news Sean, and I think that's part of the this process of putting in the affordable health care act. "
You're probably going to need some help understanding that statement as well, so here goes.
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling,..." therefore $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK.
"...but I'm just telling you what the CBO has shown..." (which was already stated by Hannity at the beginning) therefore $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK.
"...the rate of increase in terms of health care spending...has gone down..." therefore $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK.
"...I think it's part of the process of putting in the affordable health care act." (Another meaningless phrase.), therefore $20,000.00 per year for a family of four is OK.
(Watch the whole discussion HERE).
Lest you think Juan Williams is the only one who uses this nefarious tactic, take a look at Jay Carney answering questions about drones killing citizens.
Deflection is a typical tactic of liberals (even liberal RINOs). It is used in the comment section of this blog with unnerving consistency.
They really, really don't like answering questions that challenge them.
8 comments:
I do appreciate that you took the time to express your opinion on this piece.Hannity is a Bottom feeder, pure and simple. And to think that Hannity refers to himself as a Christian. Obviously, he has not read the New Testament. How do I judge Sean Hannity? It’s easy. I listen to what he says and draw certain conclusions. In the case above, he was exploiting the fear of one of his gullible listeners. And he does it all the time. And he does it in exchange for cash. If you don’t find that reprehensible and worthy of condemnation, then I don’t understand where you are coming from.
TQM: "...Bottom feeder, pure and simple."
Nice retort. I think it is exactly in line with your intelligence level.
This was not about what Hannity said, it was about a question he asked based on a CBO report.
Juan Williams did not answer the question, but deflected the subject into one he wanted to talk about.
If you are not intelligent enough to understand that, you are totally hopeless.
"...he was exploiting the fear of one of his gullible listeners."
That is patently false, which makes it a lie.
A person who farms is a farmer. A person who builds is a builder. A person who lies is a liar.
$20,000 is a lotta dough, Joe.
It's not as if you can lift up the cushions of your sofa, dig around a little and come up with that kind of scratch.
Seems to me I recall Obama telling me that our premiums would be reduced by $2,500.00. I do believe that my president ...gasp!...LIED TO ME!
Actually, I am not all that shocked, I live in Illinois and have heard Obama lies well before he was president.
Fredd: He lied to you? Why XO would take all of these examples and proclaim that BO never lied about anything. Then he would challenge you (or me) to find one example of him lying.
Liberals cannot be reached.
Let's see , Investors Business Daily the day trader's bible (aka amateur hour) and a Washington Times wannabe that once wrote a column claiming Britain's NHS is so poor that Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized quotes a figure and you take it as gospel.
Plus we get noted health care expert Michelle Malkin, a diva of objectivity.
I'd get a second opinion, Joe.
Ducky: "we get noted health care expert Michelle Malkin, a diva of objectivity."
See? Deflection. The post was not about Malkin, it was about Williams not addressing the $20,000.00.
As a frequent commenter on my blog says, "Keep pitchin' 'till you win."
we have one article in investor's business daily today that the cheapest plan by 2016 is going to be $20,000
So, Juan, the Fox "liberal" can't answer the question directly. Probably because the $20,000 figure is taken from the IRS report buried deep in the report (page 77) and it is completely bogus. It is taken from a scenario, one of many, to calculate the penalty for not buying ins. Here is the scenario,
"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.
"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).
"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”
First it's a family of 5, not 4. Their income is $120k and they don't have employer health ins. This already narrows the field considerably. Not an "average family of 5" by any means. $20,000 is a projected average in 2 years, not "the cheapest". To say that is a lie. That family could shop the exchange and find a policy for $10 or $15k. There is no mention of deductibles or co-pays. Is that included? The IRS doesn't fix rates.
This is a narrowly defined scenario that uses a, more or less random, $ amount pulled from an unknown calculation to illustrate how penalties will be figured. It has been completely misrepresented by Investor's Business Daily, Hannity, CNS, the Righty blogosphere and you.
By your reasoning, it's safe to say all conservatives will misrepresent, misinform and fail to do their due diligence when presented with "facts" from questionable sources if it supports their ideology.
Another example of Righties trying to grasp on to a stinky floater as they circle the bowl.
Craig: Your conclusions are typical, but warped.
God ahead...enjoy ObamaCare. It will be good for you and I hope you reap all of its negative benefits.
Post a Comment