It’s a sales job…
From The Hill:
While it is shocking to consider that Obama is anything less than one of the best communicators in modern political history, when it comes to healthcare, he simply has not been able to make the sell to people who do have health insurance.
[Emphasis Added]
Maybe the President should take some sales advice from a commenter:
Good luck with that.
I think the Prez and “commenter” have both screwed the rhetorical pooch here. Here is the “buzz-kill”: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_health_care_news_conference.html
It’s too bad that we fail to educate most people in both logic and rhetoric. The rhetorical device that began with Mark and was picked up by Mike is known in logic as a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam known as shifting the burden of proof – in that:
The recent dust-up between the OMB and the CBO is the perfect example. The OMB criticizes the CBO because the CBO has a “history of overstating costs and underestimating savings.” But even if true that doesn’t prove the savings asserted by the OMB. It’s intellectually dishonest.
I think it has been determined as an acceptable logical argument by those who are really just very long on hope and significantly short on change. Aristotle, however, would disagree. And so do, apparently, the majority of Americans at the moment.
Budge you passive-aggressive jerk! I do no argue from ignorance, NPR do I male am appeal thereto. My arguments are based ok sound logic. I point out the omhrtemt defect in your wonderful machine – that of world against itself. It cannot succeed. Every failing in the private insurance model is so obvious that even a caveman can see it. You suffer from a special kind of arrogance -the intellectual who cannot see his own nose.
Maybe that’s why you take special pains to insults. I am so stupid that I see what is obvious. Your stupidity is of a higher calling. You serve wealth, and have to twist yourself like a pretzel toake sense. My argumentim ad absurdium is actually an argument ad obviousintium. I have a special gift: the ability to describe those things that are painfully obvious to children: no clothes.
Btw, I’m typing this on an iPod. The mistakes are part oft learning curve. Sift through the misspellings please.
Dftuxmstrq(&!;
Dftuxmstrq(&!;
CBO has a “history of overstating costs and underestimating savings.”….
Yeah, right. Since when did the Government overestimate the cost of an Entitlement program?
Pooch Craig?
How ’bout this one, it took the POTUS more time to pick out a dog for his kids than he wants us and lawmakers to decide on his plan.
You’re right about the “Sales Job”.
I’m worried about the fallback plan.
The one with the Trojan Horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FElipqE_Dl4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fminx%2Ecc%2F%3Fpost%3D290183&feature=player_embedded
Mark, like I said, too bad that we fail to educate most people in both logic and rhetoric… inasmuch as, once again, you’re avoiding the issue (yet another rhetorical device although I’m more sure than ever that you don’t have a clue you’re doing it.)
My responses to you require neither pain nor distance.
First, the post above, non-Ipod:
Budge you passive-aggressive jerk! I do not argue from ignorance, nor do I make an appeal thereto. My arguments are based on sound logic. I point out the inherent defect in your wonderful machine – that it works against itself. It cannot succeed. Every failing in the private insurance model is so obvious that even a caveman can see it. You suffer from a special kind of arrogance -the intellectual who cannot see his own nose.
Maybe that’s why you take special pains to insult. I am so stupid that I see what is obvious. Your stupidity is of a higher calling. You serve wealth, and have to twist yourself like a pretzel make sense. My argumentim ad absurdium is actually an argument ad obviousintium. I have a special gift: the ability to describe those things that are painfully obvious to children: no clothes.
I know what the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is – I’m speaking from a little higher up. I’m talking
1) about your arrogance. You present as an erudite and educated man, but make some simply stunningly obtuse assertions that cannot be disproven. You and Natelson both do this – your philosophy has no grounding in the real world, and cannot be tested, since none are so foolish as to actually try it, save a butcher or dictator here or there. So you present it, you say it would work if tried, that Strauss or Friedman (Tom and Milty) say so. Your argument cannot be defeated because your philosophy cannot be tested. It’s a cocoon that you live in, a nice secure little palace where you can look down on the rest of us. Ivory, it is.
And then you tell me that I have shifted the burden of proof. I am surrounded by evidence of the failing of your way of thinking. Everywhere. You are like a parent that cannot see the failings of his own offspring. If there is a logical fallacy that describes this state of mind, you cannot see it, and that is a fallacy all its own. Argumentum ad Ivorarium.
2) about the failings of logic that lead a man to extreme beliefs by course of one step after another, each grounded in the last, each verified long ago by some intellectual giant. It takes you to a failed philosophy, so you have to be missing something. Go back and examine your thought processes. They lead you down a blind alley, away from reality, and to the perfesser, waiting at the end, telling you what marvels you’ve accomplished, grasshopper.
Dave – look at the world. Look at 50 million uninsured, 25 million underinsured, avoidance of the sick and the poor and sold people, rescission, and godammit, don’t blame government. Blame capitalism.
If you can’t do that, you’re another useless theoritician, and a job awaits you at AEI.
Post: Health care is a sales job that the President hasn’t sold:
Dave: One of the problems is that the President, Mark and Mike use that doesn’t help make the sale and in fact American’s are beginning to see through.
Mark: You guy are so stupid. The system is broken and Dave is evil.
Dave: Mark, you’re not addressing the issue of this post which is that the President hasn’t been able to sell a proposal to the American Public. You’re avoiding the issue:
Mark: Blah, blah, blah, evil, real world, blah, blah, blah, extreme, slavery, blah.
[...] been dealing with the two extremes of our narrow, narrow philosophical spectrum – Budge at Electric City Weblog, and Jay at Left in the West. Each presents us with a failing in the American political [...]
It looks like part of the “sales job” involves CENSORSHIP: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51584
>>>>>>>>>>>
The Franking Commission, which is authorized by law to oversee mail and other communications between members of Congress and their constituents that is paid for with federal funds, sent an e-mail to Carter’s staff requesting that the wording in the message be changed.
“I received the script back from the majority, and there are a couple of changes that need to be made to make it compliant,” the Franking Commission e-mail said. “In the first paragraph (answering machine message, automatic connection) change ‘House Democrats unveiled a government run health care plan’ to either ‘the house majority (sic) unveiled a public option health care plan’ or ‘Just this past week the House majority (sic) unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers ….’”
“Change this on both scripts and send it back to me,” the e-mail concluded.
Carter unveiled the e-mail at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday. At the same conference, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said his colorful chart on “Obamacare” – which was voted into the record on the floor of the House earlier this month – was rejected by the Franking Commission for use in his communications with constituents.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I would not buy a brick from this salamander and his group of snake oil peddlers.
If you believe in the product you and your family use it first Barry, Harry and Nancy.
One of the more interesting, and also rewarding aspects of my job is dealing with the criminally accused mentally ill. Schizophrenics and full blown bi polar often are creating the most fantastic worlds in which they are the only ones who see the real truth. Whether it’s the author of some book with Aragon in the title, or the pettiness of a woman who thinks that her husband has replaced all of the appliances in her kitchen without her knowledge, thereby depriving her of the ability to operate them, all have the assuredness that theirs is the only reality, and the rest of us are just unable to see it like they do.
But the reason that they are mentally ill and not supremely aware, is that they are unable to reconcile their universe with ours when they conflict. An example would be those who have an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of government run health care, while they ignore the problems with Medicare and Medicaid. How about we let the government demonstrate its ability to effectively manage health care on a captive group (the elderly) before we have them take over our care.
Dave Budge:
Dave, you wouldn’t know either if it slapped you on the ass and yelled “Say my name!”
Gregg Smith:
I actually forced myself to wait 24 hours before responding to this. I was pretty pissed off when I first saw it. I honestly thought you were a better man than this Gregg. On further reading though, I realized that you had actually done something that repeatedly asked Hawkeye to do. You actually provided proof that I was wrong. I suppose I should be thanking you for that. It’s not a mistake I’ll make again.
Mihalis,
I think you are being overly sensitive about this issue. You had trouble answering the question about whether the majority (85%) with health insurance would be better off or not in terms of quality, access, and cost under a socialized plan. Gregg’s point is that not even Obama answers these questions. You are in good company. Obama is flailing on the health care issue because he is not addressing the elephant in the room. He (and you) should just acknowledge that those 85% who have insurance will not get better care or pay less by establishing another big entitlement program. What other entitlement programs do you think work well?
On the side, I enjoy your comments even if I disagree. It keeps things interesting. We can agree to disagree. I suspect if I posted my opinions at a left wing blog I would be blown out of the water with hate comments. I think Geeguy does very good job of moderating. None of us are actually making policy here. I also admire you for waiting a day to blow off steam. That is hard to do sometimes.
Hawkeye:
Well, because you think it I’m sure that makes it true. I guess that means that I’ll see a post tomorrow with something to that effect as the title.
I didn’t have trouble answering it, I refused to answer it, until you answered one of my questions. Remember, the food one? I chose it for several reasons. One, to see if you’d even bother to try to answer, which you did, after quite a lot of coaxing. Two, if you’d acknowledge that you couldn’t come up with fifteen reasons, which you didn’t. Three, if you’d understand that just because you can’t meet some arbitrary choice on my part, that doesn’t mean something bad. The best you came up with was six out of fifteen, which, by the logic you and others on this sight have been using, means that eating food is bad. Maybe if you’d have put in as much effort as you demanded, you’d have gotten an answer.
Gregg’s point was to ridicule. You might have been able to sell that truckload of bovine fecal matter if Gregg hadn’t added the “Good luck with that” to the end of the comment. Skydiving without a parachute? Good luck with that.
I’m sure that means a great deal to Gregg. It’s easy to think that someone is doing good work when that person always comes down on your side. The real test would be if you’d think the same if our situations were reversed. Fortunately for you, you’ll never have to find out.
Actually, you both got my point wrong. It was not intended to ridicule you, Mihalis, although I considered the ability to needle you a little bit of a side benefit. I really do appreciate your participation.
My point was to show that we can argue all day about the rhetoric of who has to ‘prove’ what, but the fact is that of the most important people involved in the question, very few even read blogs. Unless President Obama (and Mihalis, on a micro level) can articulate good reasons why we should change, the average person is going to say “no change.”
That’s why I was amused at your back and forth with Hawkeye. He kept asking you why this was a good deal for people and you kept refusing to answer. It’s not persuasive, as our President is learning.
Sorry about the cheap shots, if that’s how you perceived them. I really was smiling when I posted it.
It seems the thesis statement of Obama’s “articulated good reasons” begins with: “Nobody is talking about [insert issue],” Mr. Obama said. I keep hearing it more and more. His latest is: “Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Mr. Obama said.
Not talking about an issue doesn’t mean the gears aren’t in motion. Too bad the cowed and fawning media doesn’t ask the cocky communicator what is HE talking about, and what HE is doing. Fact Check called him out on his healthcare fibs, but the media gives him a pass.
Gregg Smith:
Apparently everybody got your point wrong. Maybe you should work on that.
And you believe this based on what? You’re making an assumption that the average person is obviously going to agree with you, and I’ve seen nothing to say that that is the truth. This is where you demand that I prove that they would side with me, while your assumption goes unchallenged.
Huh, really? Is that why you portrayed our “back and forth” so lopsidedly? I just ask because you don’t do to good of a job showing the “back and forth” by only ridiculing one side of the argument.
That’s not what I’m seeing. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt in the past Gregg, but I’m getting a little tired of the 9th green at 9 trick.
I don’t know what the 9th green at 9 is, but if you don’t like it guy, you know where you don’t have to be.
As far as getting my point wrong, I’m sure plenty of readers got it right. If you and Hawkeye ain’t got the juice, well, that’s really not my problem.
And don’t bother condescending to ‘give me the benefit of the doubt’ anymore.
P.S. “This is where you demand that I prove that they would side with me, while your assumption goes unchallenged.” You might want to read the polls.
Gregg Smith:
Of course you don’t, and goodness knows you couldn’t be troubled to actually look it up.
Wouldn’t that just be easy.
Just none of the commenters.
Hm, I think I said something similar to Hawkeye, and it ended up on your wall of shame above.
Don’t worry.
Hey Mihalis,
Hey! Get, get, get, get, get over it!
Hey! Get, get, get, get, get over it!
Hey! Get, get, get, get, get over it!
Get over it, get over it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3ORwO5xDUE
No, just two of the commenters. That means that a little more than 1/3 of 1% of my readers didn’t get the point. Ouch.
Come back in a few days when you’re not feeling so bitchy.
Great tune, Hawk.
But I doubt that Mike will take the advice. Trolls that argue in bad faith are usually slow on the uptake – and he’s a “last worder” (but to be fair, so am I.)
Gregg Smith:
Funny. Problem is, over 75% of the commenters here just ignored whatever it was your point was suppose to be, over 22% of us got it wrong, and the rest have no opinion since they didn’t say anything. Another example of you making the assumption that you know what others think.
Hm, maybe I should. Give you time to get to the top of the page to remember where this all started.
Fine. FINE!
You want five reasons why “the majority (85%) with health insurance would be better off or not in terms of quality, access, and cost under a socialized plan?” Here you go:
1. A socialized plan would allow me [edited by admin] to sleep better at night in our trailer knowing we are morally superior to the rest of you a**holes.
2. Your 85% number is just an imaginary construct created by the government/corporate hegemonic system to control the masses.
3. I would finally get some health care coverage because I can’t afford it now. Then I could finally have that growth removed from my testicles.
4. It would spare all those old people from painful chemotherapy. They could just die instead.
5. While people are waiting months to see a physician, they will be comforted by the fact that those greedy bastards aren’t making near as much.
[Ed. Note: Don't bring people's families into it, and don't impersonate other posters.]
Hm, looks like impersonation is fun and educational for the whole family. I’d appreciate it Gregg, if you’d remove the “Mihalis” comment from 6:17 this morning, as well as this one in reference to it. I did not make the above comments.
How’s that?
[...] I want everyone to understand that I understand that politicians lie. It’s a matter of the quality of the lying that is going on. For example, to maintain a [...]