Paul Ryan: ‘I don’t have a racist bone in my body’

Would someone help the congressman from Wisconsin understand that his “bones” are not the issue; it is his brain that is laced with racism.’ Bones are not capable of mental and social deficiency.” And his bones did not evoke Charles Murray’s racist philosophies. That came straight from Ryan’s brain!

A Man Who Would Be Vice-President Evokes Charles Murray (Libertarian Racist)

ACA Enrollment, US History And Jennifer Stefano’s Poor Punditry

Despite one half a billion dollars spent by the Koch brothers, incessant Fox News anti-ACA broadcasts and an unfatohmable number (53 plus votes at $1.6 million per vote) of House votes to repeal the ACA, enrollments happened and reached revised projected CBO goals. See Advisory Dot Com (below) and the 2.11.2014 Brainwrap graph. 

And, of course, there are people who are so adamantly against medical coverage for people with no coverage, they actually fight against the law hand and foot. Hence, the silliness of the Hobby Lobby case and many CEO threats to reduce workforces if Obama was reelected in 2012.

Some of us have followed ACA enrollments via the Charles Gaba, Brainwrap, webpage: ACAsignups.net. Others have supported the ACA without close enrollment scrutiny because it is the right thing for the nation. And, yes, there are many who do not support Obamacare, but will express an affinity for the ACA.

Go figure! 

I have developed the following set of BrainWrap running graphs (from 11.2013 – 2.1014) as visual representation of how enrollments have grown from the early weeks of HHS ACA website failure. The post was originally developed for my “Data Scroll” page and will be moved to that page after an initial run here.

From the doldrums of a failed website to the revised projections!

11.26. 2013


BrainWrap, Charles Gaba ACAsignups.net; December 2013 

12.03.13

12.24.2013

12.31.2013

1.21.2014

1.28.2014

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the failed ACA roll out led to lowering its enrollment projections by one million.

See more after break below

Advisory Dot Com

New enrollment projections for 2014

CBO previously projected that about seven million Americans would purchase health insurance policies through the ACA insurance exchanges in 2014. In its latest report, CBO lowered that projection by at least one million people, primarily because of the troubled roll out of the federal health insurance exchange website last fall.

Projection line amended via addition of a revised projection line (Red lines in next graph).

2.11.2014


3.27.2014


Let’s see how enrollment continue for the next two weeks.
______________________

Now, a bit of early fact checking related to Ms. Stefano’s claims. 

“$94,000?”

Demo News Excerpt Not only did she suspiciously “confuse” the $94,000 income threshold for receiving government subsidies to pay for Obamacare with the Medicaid expansion eligibility, she had the audacity to tell host Chris Hayes to “get his facts straight when he tried to correct the record. Think Progress STUDY: Obamacare Will Help Provide A Big Boost To America’s Middle Class BY TARA CULP-RESSLER April 1, 2013 Excerpt And, according to a new study from the health care advocacy group Families USA, it’s a provision that will mainly help America’s working poor and middle class.  The Americans whose annual incomes fall between 138 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — which translates to single adults earning less than $46,000 and families of four earning less than $94,000 — will be eligible for Obamacare’s subsidies. Families USA crunched the numbers to find that means about 25.7 million people will soon be able to better afford the high cost of health care. And the vast majority of those people are working Americans, who have tended to struggle to get by in the face of growing income inequality since the Great Recession: “This reaches deeply into the middle class, as well as moderate-income families,” said Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, which released the national report. “This is a group that’s really deserving of priority help.” […] Most Americans, Pollack said, don’t know how the exchanges will work or that they are eligible for financial help to pay for insurance. That’s why Families USA released the report, he said. The report shows that families that make between $47,000 and $94,000 will receive half the money, that 88% of the credits will go to working families, and that those up to the age of 36 are most likely to be eligible. Families USA did not include people who fall below 138% of the poverty line because, in the states that will expand Medicaid, they will not need subsidies. Read more

“……already had insurance.”

The Truth-O-Meter Says: Most of the people who have signed up through the Obamacare exchanges “already had insurance.” Rich Lowry on Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 in a broadcast of NBC’s “Meet the Press” Are most Obamacare sign-ups people who had insurance before? If Obamacare was about anything, it was about getting more people insured. The law never promised to eliminate the uninsured altogether, but the Obama White House did say 32 million people would gain coverage, out of about 48 million who didn’t have it. Read more

“Seven million cancellations”

Charles Gaba address this issues in his latest web page posting, while I am totally biased I find Gaba to be a far more reliable source of ACA related information than anyone associated with Charles and David Koch.                                                                                                                                        Well, I forgot about one more thing: Not all of those 4.8 million “cancelled” policies were actually cancelled.  Another commentor, danslabyrinth, reminded me that thanks to President Obama and HHS announcing their “grandfathering” policy which extended the deadline for existing non-compliant plans by a year (and, more recently, by another two years, to as far out as the end of 2016), this 4.8 million figure has already been vastly reduced. By how much? Well, according to this article about the additional 2-year extension, 1.5 million people never had their policies cancelled after all (or at least, they had them reinstated after originally being cancelled, anyway):  It’s not clear how many people will actually be affected by the most closely watched provision of the new regulations, the two-year extension on policies that were previously subject to cancellation. The administration cites a congressional estimate of 1.5 million, counting individual plans and small business policies.  About half the states have allowed insurance companies to extend canceled policies for a year under the original White House reprieve. The policies usually provided less financial protection and narrower benefits than the coverage required under the law. Nonetheless, the skimpier insurance was acceptable to many consumers because it generally cost less.  “It’s not likely to affect a large number of people but it certainly avoids difficult anecdotes about people having their policies canceled,” said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, an expert on insurance markets. “I think it’s a small and dwindling number of people who are affected.”  Now, that 1.5 million figure isn’t given as solid…but then again, neither is the 5 million figure (I’ve heard the number claimed being as low as 4.7 million or as high as 6 million, but the 6M sources are, to put it mildly, a bit shakey to say the least).  UPDATE: Thanks to Tim Dickinson for pointing me towards the source of the “1.5 Million UNcancelled Policies” estimate…which is actually the same updated CBO report which lowered the exchange QHP estimate from 7M to 6M:  In November 2013, the Administration announced that state insurance commissioners could give health insurers the option of allowing individuals and small businesses to re-enroll in coverage that did not comply with certain market and benefit rules, such as the prohibition against adjusting premiums based on health status, that were scheduled to take effect in January 2014. CBO and JCT estimate that, as a result, roughly 11⁄2 million people in the individual and small-group markets will renew policies in 2014 that are not compliant with those rules. In addition, because subscribers may renew such coverage between January and October of 2014, CBO and JCT estimate that half a million people will continue to be enrolled in noncompliant policies in 2015.   So, here’s what I’m willing to do: Since 5M is the most-cited figure, I’m willing to use that. And since 1.5 million appears to be the maximum number that have taken the administration up on their extension offer, I’m even willing to knock a couple hundred thousand off of that in the interests of being, shall we say, “conservative”. This means that we can subtract 1.3 million from 5 million, leaving 3.7 million people who genuinely had to replace their existing non-compliant health insurance policy with a fully-compliant one…via either the ACA Exchanges or off-exchange, directly through the insurance companies. And as I explained yesterday, until I know how many of those 3.7 million replaced their policy off-exchange instead of on the exchanges, I have no way of knowing how many to “subtract” from the graph and therefore can’t do so.

We will await other and more concise fact checks related to Jennifer Stefano’s performance.  While we know Ms. Stefano practiced entertaining conservative media via providing a Bill O’Reilly like video, we have posted enough credible information for validation of her flawed punditry. There will be more study of her performance and we are confident the appearance on ALL IN will go down the path of simple fodder for LIVs (Low Information Voters). 

Battle of the Year: Hayes Vs Stefano; Who Got Schooled?

Early in the week, the Obama Administration announced an extension for Americans who are in the midst of the ACA enrollment process via an extension to April 15, 2014 (Vs the actual March 31, 2014 deadline).

The deadline extension was reported for people who for whatever reason are immersed in enrolling for the ACA. I have read the deadline change would predominately benefit people who had attempted to enroll in the ACA and may have a record of their efforts. It was reported as not an open extension for all. I frankly suspect however, some will take advantage of the deadline change and start the process. But, I ask, how should the Administration handle people who for various potential reasons failed to compete the sign-up process by this coming Monday?  

Needless to say, right-wing media, conservatives and all who work for the vast Koch brothers network are seething about the deadline extension. Chris Hayes MSNBC, ALL IN, found out the level and scope of angst and ugliness as he invited a regional director from the Koch brothers Americans For Prosperity to sit in discussion.  Discussion did not ensue. 

Hayes sat with Jennifer Stefano and another guest (for the latter portion of the interview).  

Ms. Stefano joined Hayes and seemed to be primed for a classic conservative go-off.  She never answered the question related to why angst from the two week extension, she also failed to discuss any references to GOP refusal to enact Medicaid Expansion.  Since we know MSNBC provides on-air topics to guest (or some form of brief) , we know Stefano was not surprised with Hayes’s questions. The real issue is, why not answer the questions. If she could not provide an answer her employers would find palatable, why not opt out of the interview? Yet, Stefano opted for a sports analogy we have all heard,“…a good offense if the best defense.” 

Since I used a sports analogy above, allow me to say the following is the rightful domain and key responsibility of the show host. The host role: ask the initial question and monitor the segment for accomplishing the focus of the segment. So, let’s say Hayes fired-off the opening and initial “offense” and possibly placing the guest in a defensive posture. It is a basic dynamic of “challenge” TV reporting or questioning when the guest is known to hold opposing views. Unlike many Fox News host/guest interactions resulting from carefully chosen and strategically placed (validating) conservative guest.  

Clip 1. The Question (39 seconds)

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read more after the break below


According to Yahoo News (and co-signed by Yahoo News), after the initial question Hayes interrupted Stefano several times. (The piece also includes a bit of fact-checking)

The Independent Journal Review and other conservative sites argued that Hayes got “schooled,” and “destroyed,” and noted — accurately! — that Hayes interrupted Stefano several times.

After 25 seconds of Stefano never once addressing the question, while issuing a diatribe about being a mother and her children, Hayes performed the first attempt to provide structure to his question and move his show forward. Stefano and Hayes both know the clock is not an ally of the host if the guest can “Gish Gallop” through pre-programmed minutes.

Clip 2. An attempt to shut-off the Gish Gallop with Host redirection

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Over the course of the interview, Stefano actually knocked herself “out.”  The issue of “schooling” is a politically correct way of imparting the ridiculousness of Stefano’s performance and efforts to spew Koch brothers/Rovian talking points. Their was no schooling as Stefano’s misson was to appear and spew Koch talking points. She responded to Hayes’s effort to re-direct to the initial question with her next bag-of-tricks talking-point, “the president lied!” 

From that point Stefano’s performance rivaled some segments of the old Jerry Springer show replete with head-bobbing, finger pointing and Stefano’s wide open oral cavity emanating various forms of “You don’t know me” or “How dare you.”  

The day after the (figurative) “bout”, I posited, “Yes, Stefano we now know you and we know for whom you and we are not surprised.”  

We wonder if Bill O’Reilly took offense to your deploying one of his patented “go-offs.”  Another area of wonderment is why Stefano decided to deploy a “Gish Gallop” (a weak and out of bounds) debate technique.  Since, we know guest on MSNBC are given a heads-up and possibly given briefs on the topics from the show host, we know that Stefano knew exactly what Hayes would ask. Why did she choose to completely avoid answering questions with a preference for attempting a strategy best called: ” the best defense is an offense?” 
 

Stefano without personal shame avoided Hayes’s questions by providing feed for Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Fox News and other LIV (Low Information Voters) high-emotion conservative media.  Actually, her ill-fated performance was a live exhibition of what we see in AFP (Koch brothers) television advertisements without the Springer show yelling.  Instead of airing real cases of people who have suffered under the provisions of the ACA, the Kochs and their ad agency professionals broadcast actors speaking from scripts or people speaking half-truths about their (alleged) predicament.

Yahoo News structured their screed around “who got schooled.” Let’s listen to Stefano roll-through a series of points she calls facts. Points that are not being supported as “facts.” Hayes attempts to (rightfully redirect). Why should The Independent Journal Review and Yahoo News expect Hayes to sit back and facilitate a Sean Hannity-like talking- point barrage when the guest was not answering questions about the recent extension?

Clip 3. Marsha Blackburn like rolling talking-points

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

At this point in the interview Stefano continues railing like a Jerry Springer prime seat guest, while Hayes attempted to redirect to an answer. Notice Stefano moved to the beginning of a “…..you don’t know me….”  go-off.  At one point, Hayes actually showed a bit of frustration via a clear eye-roll in response to a Stefano point and her increasing Bill O’Reilly like behavior. After a few more seconds of talking-points based on seemingly inaccurate information (I will not suggest she lied), Hayes managed to fulfill his role as facilitator via as follows.  

Clip 4. Ah ..finally a quiet guest and a redirected effort to secure an answer.

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now, as Hayes and his guest move towards the end of their time together, notice the seeming pre-planned “offense is the best defense” from a guest who did not answer the question that precipitated her show booking. 

Here we go…. Have you noticed this look on O’Reilly as discussion draws on an inner core of lack of confidence that when cornered generally manifest in anger?

Notice the Ugly and an effort to end the segment with….“You are a good guy otherwise.”  A bit judgmental from a person who just finished showing the deepest level of anger, uncivilized on-air behavior and gauche. Some would say . she showed her ass.” A dynamic loved by Fox News viewers, but held in contempt and disdain by people who tune to current event of news related shows. How about the non-prospect that Hayes had responded, “..well you certainly have not shown signs of being a nice person?”

Clip 5

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And, the interview ends on a civil and intellectual note.

Clip 6

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If there was anything worthwhile from the interview other than a lesson in being prepared for GOP “Gush Gallop,” it could be an opportunity for fact-checking. And, fact checking is taking place. We will report on  claims from Stefano as we find them across the web or on MSNBC. 

Fact-checks from Fox News and CNN will probably not take place for obvious reason. Fox News has no interest in ACA data veracity Vs emotional rants, and CNN is 24/7 occupied with ratings garnering coverage of the Malaysian MH370 tragedy. We should add CNN is doing a good job of covering the recent mountain slide in Washington State.

As we consider Stefano and her conservative performance, we have to suspect her appearance was not only approved by the Kochs, we can assume she would only speak from the confines and pre-approval of a playbook.  Do you think for one second Karl Rove and other operative were not are of her appearance well before she sat to ‘explode?’ It does not happen in the lock-step GOP and RNC.