This thread got really weird since the last time I checked in.
Carry on.
If that was the messaging for the last 4 years, why is it that you can only find one quote that is marginally supportive of that claim? Should be all over the place.
It was actually coordinated messaging. Sebelius pushed that narrative constantly:
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/sebelius-misinformation-is-obamacare-enemy-no-1.html/?a=viewall
And the White House site also did:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
This is particularly rich:
Oh, well that settles that then. The President said so.
The site also links to Reality Check, another whitehouse.gov site which seeks to “combat misinformation”, but given what we know now, much of what is on that site is itself misinformation.
As much as I shy away from accusations of lying, it’s hard to defend someone who gets 4 Pinocchios from the Washington Post Factchecker.
Here’s the reality of the situation. People have been paying for “bare bones” plans that don’t cover shit, and they don’t even understand how poor their coverage has been.
One of the poster children that the right, along with CBS, has rounded up to illustrate this nefarious “lie” of Obama’s is Dianne Barrette. She was on a $54 per month plan and received a cancellation letter.
From Wonkette
So she never really bothered to understand what was not covered in her previous plan, and has not bothered to investigate what alternatives there are to the single suggested alternative in the letter.
What’s really odd here is that Fox News! of all outlets, was the source for some direct confrontation of the facts of the matter.
From mediaite, via Daily Kos
This woman keeps saying she has $50 copays, but she doesn’t appear to understand the term, because what she has is $50 of coverage for services, and pays the rest out of pocket.
Yes, this kind of insurance plan ought to be terminated, with extreme fucking prejudice. It’s really nothing more than an abuse of an ignorant person. Sure, the free market runs on caveat emptor, but there’s nothing that says such is the ideal solution in all cases.
What is also amusing is that nearly all of the poster children for the horror stories caused by Obamacare end up, with the slightest of investigation, to actually be poster children for the horror stories that Obamacare is going to fix. After Greta van Susteren actually did some probing of the facts and left Barrette stumbling to respond, according to Daily Kos, Barrette’s planned appearance on a subsequent Fox show was cancelled.
Many policies were like that. Many were not. All a policy has to do to not qualify is fail to offer preventive services with no co-pay.
Secondly, Obama said, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it”, not “if an objective observer likes your insurance, you can keep it.”
Finally, the law gave him the tools to make good on that promise. The administration was delegated the task of defining what constituted qualifying insurance. They could have made it as broad as possible in order to keep the President’s promise.
But that misses the point of Obamacare, and of many liberal policies in general, which is that the role of the citizen is not to run his own life. It is to do as he is told by the wise and benevolent Democrat philosopher kings who have been appointed over him. And if we have to tell a few lies to get them to fall for it, well, that’s a small price to pay.
Because if we give them the facts, and let them make up their own minds, they might do what is in their own interest instead of going along with the plan, and God knows we can’t have any of that. So we will pass a law mandating a tax if you don’t buy insurance, and lie about it being a tax. Because we need lots of people in the system who get less in benefits than they pay in premiums, or the whole thing falls apart. We will promise that you can keep your plan, and clear our throats and change the subject when people finds out you can’t.
Just do as you are told - we know better than you do.
Regards,
Sho-damned
I agree, but that’s not the point (at least not in this thread). The only question here is whether Obama told people their shitty coverage wouldn’t be available anymore, and he clearly didn’t do that.
Here’s the reality of the situation: Most people selected the plans they have based on price. Even if you have dumb people who can’t understand their plan, that’ll not go away. Trust me. Human beings can be as dumb as they want to be.
But, if you can afford $50 a month and you select a health insurance plan that reflects that price (whether fully informed or not) that’s all you can afford. It doesn’t matter WHY that’s all you can afford, and some may even think that you should be spending your money differently, but that doesn’t matter, either. You selected a price you can live with. The only other option in many cases is no insurance coverage at all.
The plan you had is now gone. There are no plans that even come close to matching your old outlay, and you now get double, triple, or even more rates in exchange for “better” health coverage in hopes of making things better for people. Not the people with the rate increase. No. Other people. The problem is: People can’t afford this burden. You are now taking between a 2% tax hike (if you are poor but above medicaid) and at maximum a 7% tax hike (silver plan with no subsidies) for a service that doesn’t address the costs that go into making the insurance cost so much.
And that’s just the premiums. A good portion of these plans have a deductible of $4,000 to $6,000 with a maximum out of pocket of around $6,500 (SIlver plan at up to 30% payment after your deductible.) Ignoring the 30%, that means that the ACA poster child of a 27 year old making $25,000 a year is on the hook for at least $1,764 (147 a month) in yearly medical payments and, if you manage to get sick, you get to pay for the privilege of getting seen by a medical professional to the tune of another $4,000. Gee, we are certainly offering them a solid product with their well being in mind and certainly have no interest in the well being of the insurance companies.
As a country, we are actively hurting people who don’t have much budget to stretch during a period of time when the middle class’s buying power is eroding left, right, and center with everyone in the middle class sliding down towards “poor”. And, we aren’t pulling this into a government program designed to help us get health care. No, we are funneling this directly into private corporations who are far more interested in their bottom line than any of it’s subscribers.
You are forgetting the medical loss ratio rebate. Prior to 2008, insurers averaged* a medical loss ratio of 70% or so. Now they have to rebate any amount not spent on care under 80% of premiums.
*this depends from state to state and between the large and small employer markets; some already had MLR limitations in place.
As much as I’m an advocate of the ACA, I have to admit that this is a legitimate criticism of the law, albeit one that’s getting significantly overblown. I have no sympathy that these bare-bones, shitty, good-for-nothing plans aren’t going to exist anymore, but yes…there are plenty of stupid people out there who were perfectly happy with these policies, and now they’re going to have to adjust.
You can’t reconfigure 1/6 of the US economy and honestly say that nobody will actually be affected by it, so it probably would’ve behooved Obama to have said that the majority of people would be able to keep their existing insurance, rather than everybody full-stop.
That said, keep it mind that it’s the insurance companies who are deciding to cancel these private plans, and not the malicious federal government. I fully expect this fiasco to be a footnote in two-three months from now.
No, it’s not the insurance companies. They would like to keep these plans but are not allowed to because they aren’t ACA-compliant.
She’s 56 years old. I doubt that’s a serous concern of hers.
Yeah, I’d say that when the Washing Post has something that negative to say about Obama, there really is no defending him. But, as is evident here, many will still try.
And just to explain what The Post’s Four Whoppers means to the Hentors of the world:
One Pinocchio
Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
Two Pinocchios
Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
Three Pinocchios
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.
Four Pinocchios
Whoppers.
Yeah, because obviously there are no other possible expensive health issues that could befall a 56 year old woman. :rolleyes:
Its not like she could ever get cancer, or get in a car accident, or anything like that. Those things only happen to other people. Besides, if that does happen, she can just let everyone else pay for her care, right?
That’s why we are all better off without health ‘insurance’ plans like these. Her ignorance about her own coverage, or lack thereof, wouldn’t just affect her if she had a catastrophic health situation hit her.
To the extent you can make that case, it should have been made. “If you like your current policy, we’ll decide whether it’s acceptable.” If what you say has merit, why the heck wouldn’t the truth have been a good enough sales pitch?
Is it Obama’s fault that the insurers decided not to comply with the law?
No. It’s his fault that he told people they could keep their plans if they liked them. Then he made it impossible for many to do exactly that. That is what this thread is about.
Another debunked poster child horror story:
From Steve Benen at the Maddow blog.
It matters if the truth of the situation is that the horror stories we are hearing are due to nothing more than ignorance. So far, Chicken Little got hit on the head by an acorn and is screaming that the sky is falling.
If the truth is that people will get a better and more affordable health plan than the pig in a poke they think they have, that is what matters.