No, Obama Didn't Lie to You About Your Health Care Plans

[Freeper]

Star Member xchrom (96,646 posts)

No, Obama Didn't Lie to You About Your Health Care Plans

http://www.alternet.org/no-obama-didnt-lie-you-about-your-health-care-plans

President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.

First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.

The plans being terminated because they don't meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.

However if the insurers didn't tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024030882

Wow they sure are trying like mad to spin this.

Star Member B Calm (19,620 posts)
1. I don't think he lied. So you don't like the new plan,

you can still keep the same insurance company!

So if Sprint tells me I can keep the plan I have with them forever, but next week they change my plan on me, they didn't lie since my plan is still with Sprint?

cthulu2016 (9,592 posts)
4. He did not lie, he broke a promise. It is a subtle distinction.

Last edited Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

A false statement about what you *will* do is not a lie because it is not yet true or false.

But the (intentional) implication was that the present tense of the promise was 2013, not 2010.

But since the regulations were not written yet then what Obama intentionally communicated was not at odds with the regs... cause th regs didn't exist yet.

Most normal people would take it as a promise that Obama would ensure that the regs would (when written in the future) be written to best comply with the promise.

If folks really want to get into this "it depends what the meaning of is is" territory they are free to, but other people are hardly obliged to take such sophistry seriously.

Had he been under oath President Obama would not have been guilty of perjury. Agreed.

Woo. Hoo.

I see he didn't lie, he just broke his promise is all. Well it's not like when you break a promise that you lose credibility or anything. 

Face it DUmmies he lied, and he lied again today. Only you idiots would believe this man.
All today was a speech in order to spin and lie and deflect blame to the insurance companies. Basically all 0bama did today was open up hunting season on unicorns. While it's true you can hunt one, just try to find one.

[Bad Dog]

Their concept of lie isn't the same as decent normal folks.

[Freeper]

Their concept of lie isn't the same as decent normal folks.

To be fair they do have to lie in order to gain support for their policies, you think people opposed 0bamacare with the lies, just imagine if he had been honest and said you won't get insurance cheaper and it probably will go up, you also will probably lose your plans unless your plan meets with our qualifications. The opposition would have been even greater with the added bonus that they couldn't claim we were lying.

[DLR Pyro]

obama lied and the democrat party died.  suck it DUmmies

[Karin]

Star Member B Calm (19,620 posts)
1. I don't think he lied. So you don't like the new plan,

you can still keep the same insurance company!

We laughed at you the first time you said this, DUmmie. 

They're so funny squawking their talking points at each other.  Outside the bubble of DU, AlterNet, and Salon, the landscape is quite different.  DUmmies, you cannot ignore the polling data forever.  Also, people aren't buying your "shitty insurance" thing.  It's pissing them off mightily. 

[Karin]

From another thread:

Response to bluestate10 (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:25 PM

Star Member Savannahmann (1,931 posts)

40. No the announcement today will give us three or four more months of the President lied news stories
 
Because many insurance companies are pulling out of the individual market, or leaving states entirely. So the President announcing that he is going to fix it so you can keep your plan, will be portrayed as another lie. Then the news stories will not be the good intentions of the President, or the vision of President Obama. The news stories will be the habitual lies told by the President.

Prepare for months of negative news stories on the Democratic Party, and a big loss in 2014.  

Prepare, prepare.  Let's see.  Popcorn & cold beer.  Check.

Response to Robbins (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:09 PM

scheming daemons (21,826 posts)

4. Nope. Millions have coverage that didn't have it before... That's a win, long term

Response to scheming daemons (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:53 PM

Keefer (314 posts)

33. Millions?
 
More like 106,181 through the exchanges and 396,000 new in Medicaid.

And those are still sitting in the shopping cart. 

Look, a shout-out:

Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:30 PM

scheming daemons (21,826 posts)

17. Many of them aren't "real"

 they're CC moles trying to spread FUD.

Others are "real"... and they're just pathetic. 

Here's that millions again.

Response to Robbins (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:36 PM

Star Member FSogol (17,975 posts)

22. Unrec. My oldest son can now stay on my insurance for another 4 years.
 
Pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits are gone.
Millions more are now covered.
 

Pedro says something stupid:

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 03:08 PM

Star Member Atman (26,811 posts)

35. It depends...
 
My wife manages a true "small business." 10 people, not 50,000 as the government defines "small business." 

50,000?  You really meant to type that?  It's 50, idiot. 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024033147

[JohnnyReb]

That S.O.B. that lied sure looked like Obama to me.....I guess it twas an obstacle illusion.

[DumbAss Tanker]

cthulu2016 (9,592 posts)
4. He did not lie, he broke a promise. It is a subtle distinction.

"That excuse has a maximum effective range of ZERO meters."

[JohnnyReb]

"That excuse has a maximum effective range of ZERO meters."

....same length as DUmmie peters.

[wasp69]

Pssssst!  DUmmies!

Alternet is lying to you, too...

The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be "grandfathered," meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don't meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example the policy would not be grandfathered.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101150855

[Bad Dog]

....same length as DUmmie peters.

Well, we're just going to have to take your word on that one.

[JohnnyReb]

Well, we're just going to have to take your word on that one.

A friend of a friend of a DUmmies friend told me so it's true.

[USA4ME]

So far, this has been my favorite "Don't blame the Dems" thread.

sheshe2

ACA, has its roots here

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,informally referred to as Romneycare, and officially entitled 'An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care,' is a state law enacted in 2006, signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney. The law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL). The bill aimed to cover 95% of the state's 500,000 uninsured within a three-year period. The law was amended significantly in 2008 and twice in 2010 and major revisions related to health care industry price controls were introduced in the Massachusetts legislature in May 2012 that passed in August 2012.

Among its many effects, the law and its amendments established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector. Among other roles, the Connector acts as an insurance broker to offer private insurance plans to residents. The reform legislation also included tax penalties on residents that fail to obtain an insurance plan, and tax penalties on employers with more than 10 full-time employees that fail to offer an insurance plan to employees. In 2007, Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, the penalty became pegged to 50% of the lowest monthly premium for insurance available from the Connector Authority.
source...Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024033440

Yes, you read that right. This dolt is blaming the failure of obamacare on......... Mitt Romney.

Post #2 in that thread is further blaming...

solarhydrocan

2. Mitt got his idea from a Heritage Foundation paper from 1989

... The Heritage Foundation.

So, you see, Dear Leader is not to blame at all, you silly, silly fascists.

.

[Freeper]

I love how they try to blame conservatives for this. If this truly was the brainchild of the repukes what does that say about the democrats who wrote it and passed it? You would think they would be furious with the dems for using repuke ideas.

[wasp69]

I love how they try to blame conservatives for this. If this truly was the brainchild of the repukes what does that say about the democrats who wrote it and passed it? You would think they would be furious with the dems for using repuke ideas.

Funny thing about that 1989 Heritage paper.  It dealt only with catastrophic insurance and stemmed from a Stanford economist whose name escapes me right now.

Since then, Heritage has rightfully disowned that position.


ETA:  The Stanford economist is Alain Enthoven.  He is the architect of a healthcare insurance idea called "Managed Competition".  His "idea" was pitched in the 70's by the California Insurance Commission and directly to the Carter misAdministration.  To wit:

Managed competition is compatible with a variety of ways of financing universal coverage - from a tax-financed approach as in the proposal of California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and my 1977 proposal to the Carter administration, to an employer/employee mandate plus an individual mandate and subsidies for the nonemployed as in the Jackson Hole initiative, to an individual mandate.  Thus, it can appeal to liberals, whose main concern is universal access, and to conservatives, who have strong preferences for decentralized private markets and against centralized governmental power.

http://www.channelingreality.com/Competitiveness/Ira_Magaziner/History_and_Principles_Enthoven_157_VC2.pdf

So, no, DUmmies, this is not some bastardized form of Romney-care.  

My fellow cavers, please feel free to take what you have read and distribute far and wide.

[Carl]

They are just stupid.

[Freeper]

Funny thing about that 1989 Heritage paper.  It dealt only with catastrophic insurance and was the brainchild of a Stanford economist whose name escapes me right now.

Since then, Heritage has rightfully disowned that position.

It's like they found the specs for one of the light bulbs that Edison failed with then tried to produce the thing and then blame the failure on Edison.