“Now apologize for the tax hike.” (Supposedly, that was a Dan Castellaneta ad-lib.)
Laugh now, but come the revolution you’ll feel the sting of his blade.
Indeed, we’ll all know Newt axes.
Even if it costs more, it’s worth it. But I don’t think you get there by making it free. I think it’s much better to have low co-pays for everything rather than high co-pays with some things totally free.
“You’re free checkup showed that you have cancer.”
“Well, thank God I’m insured!”
“yeah, about that, you have to pay $3000 for your chemo before your insurance kicks in.”
I’m on the same page as Ibn and others. I understand the grandfathering clause. I understand that the reason people are losing their plans are because of the insurance companies not offering them anymore without substantial changes and blaming it on Obamacare. I get it.
And I don’t think Obama was lying. But he was completely utterly wrong, and the folks who criticized Obama and warned Americans that they were going to lose their health insurance and be forced to buy more expensive plans were absolutely correct.
I am a big ol’ lefty liberal who probably won’t vote for a single republican again in my lifetime (I used to vote for them, but unless they seriously get their act together I never will), but the democrats and Obama especially deserve their comeuppance for not adequately warning people about the reality.
If Obama had said, “We have plans to include a grandfather clause so that those of you who want to keep your insurance will be able to do so, as long as the insurance company continues to offer it without making any substantial changes,” then this would be a non issue. But that’s not what he said. He repeated over and over again that if you liked your insurance you would be able to keep it, period. No questions. No exceptions.
And that is obviously just wrong.
Now what is the administration doing? They aren’t owning up to it. Instead they are coming around and (rightly) saying that people who are losing their insurance had crappy insurance plans in the first place and should be glad that they are now forced to buy a new plan that gives better coverage. Or they are saying that it really isn’t that many people anyway that are going to have to buy new plans.
I wish they would own up to it and admit that they oversold it and didn’t understand how many really crappy insurance plans their were, and apologize to the american public. Maybe they’ve done this, but if so, I’ve missed it.
Pretty much agree here, although the administration is also claiming that most (or is it many?) people who have their plans cancelled will be able to buy better and cheaper insurance on the exchanges, especially when tax credits are included. So we’ll need to see how this plays out, especially since so many people are having trouble with the website that allows them to enroll in the exchanges.
The other thing I’m not buying into, though, is that it’s the mean old insurance companies jacking up rates. Could be in some cases, but it also could be that the new requirements really do add significant costs. And I’ll bet there are a lot of people who don’t want or need some of those requirements. Americans are, to a large degree, leery of having some bureaucrat in Wash DC telling them what they “need”.
Except that the cancelled plans were not necessarily crappy plans, unless you define crappy as not forcing each individual to contribute to the greater good by paying for services they will never need.
That situation was not strictly the same thing, because Bush probably believed what he was saying at the time he said it, while Obama was making claims that were incorrect at the time he said them. But that’s a minor point. Bush did go back on a very central part of his election campaign and he was excoriated for it and deservedly so.
I would quibble with “failure to be clear” to the extent that it implies that Obama was making a good faith effort to be clear but failed. To the contrary, Obama was in full salesman mode when he said those things.
Those things are a small part of it. A lot of it has to do with lifetime maximums etc., and the 60% coverage threshhold.
Bush made a promise and then broke that promise in order to make a grand bargain with an opposition party that controlled Congress. It was all very transparent and he didn’t weasel out of it.
What Bush did was EXACTLY what Democrats want Republicans to do today. So I would hope that if Republicans do come to the table on taxes that Democrats don’t try to use it against them.
I agree largely with **deadtwo99 **as well, except I actually believe that the ramifications of people losing their plans was pretty obvious, or it should have been to the administration. While I don’t think they lied per se, I’m inclined to think the way it was sold was intentional.
However, the idea that people will be able to buy cheaper insurance if the subsidies are included is also misleading. Sure the price one person may pay may be less, but the cost of what they are receiving is the same. The subsidies shift that cost to younger, healthy people. The issue of the website is really not a big deal in comparison. I imagine it will get fixed or tweaked over time and while it is a cluster now it’s temporal. The cost shifting is forever.
When Bush made that promise he predicted that he would be pressured to raised taxes and promised that no matter what came he would not raise taxes.
It was also a campaign promise, and we all know those aren’t worth the paper they’re not written on. A claim made about legislation that the sitting president is pushing is a whole 'nuther matter, IMO.
my family of 4 is covered by an individual plan (BCBSM), we pay $525 a month for a “healthy fit” plan. I went on the dot gov site(there is a dot com which exists to confuse people?). Plan costs look about the same before the subsidy, and after a subsidy kicks in a monthly plan would be about $325 a month. For as little as we use our health insurance and still have to pay out of pocket for a wellchild or physical or mammograms, I am looking forward to putting a little consumer pressure on the insurance companies
True. Which is why I really wish they wouldn’t make such promises. He foresaw what was to come and acted as if he’d take a tough stance which he obviously wasn’t really prepared to do. And which would have been unwise in any case. The deal Bush got was actually a good one, I thought.
Funny thing is, Republicans have been offered a better deal than Bush got and aren’t jumping at it.
Indictment pending.
There’s also the matter of defaming critics. when Bush said “read my lips” and critics said they didn’t believe him, he didn’t accuse them of bad faith or try to associate them with the nutters who believed Bush was illuminati.
Most national debates involve one side making a case, the other side making a case, a lot of noise from crazies and the uninformed, and somehow the public develops an opinion from all that. This one was unusual in that the adminstration not only tried to refute the criticisms, but tried to attack the integrity of the critics themselves. Doing that in the service of not telling the truth is especially objectionable.
I’m not sure he did believe it. I certainly didn’t at the time. It’s just the same old same old and Obama’s claim was nothing new in the world of glibness.
I’d rather have someone oversell something that gets us a good thing rather than simply letting you beat the other person who was more honest about taxes (or even worse, that gets us involved in a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives and trilllions of dollars. That said, while I think Bush the Second’s obvious lying to get us into the war was horrible, due to the consequences, I wasn’t like “Oh! My Stars and Garters! A politician lied to me! Whatever shall I do!” Of course he lied. That’s what politicians do.)
ETA: of course in the ideal world, speaking the truth should not be penalized. If there were two candidates who were exactly the same, but one was more realistic in terms of keeping your old insurance policies, or the need to raise taxes, then the one whose statements hew closer to the truth is preferable. But that certainly wasn’t the case at least the case of GWB and Obama.
I don’t see the difference. I don’t take campaign promises seriously, but I also don’t take claims about legislation made by sitting presidents seriously either. It’s the same people and the same business. Support me and my plans and everything will be great.
I would speculate that part of what led to it was that there was widespread speculation that Bush would do the responsible thing and reneg on that promise, which sort of put the option “in play” in his mind.
But that’s a reason and not a justification.
Here is a perfect example from ada.org
So my son had his policy cancelled and replaced with an ADA compliant on that offers dental despite the fact that he has full dental coverage already. So explain to me how my son is able to keep his coverage like Obama promised considering his old coverage + separate dental together means he’s covered under ACA, was $20 cheaper and had $2600 less of an annual out of pocket limit?
As for the “no new taxes”, I will remind the Dems on the board that it was part of a deal to raise taxes and lower spending. Congress raised taxes and then … raised spending too.
I think one thing that’s important to remember (or discover) here is that the insurers are jacking up prices because they don’t really know what to charge. My wife is in HR outsourcing and her clients’ carriers are basically guessing at what their offerings will be.
I didn’t mean to imply that. As I said, I’m sure he did make a better job of it in context but I’m sure he was perfectly happy for people to understand whatever they wanted to from his words.