In this particular case, the “lie” was easily understood to be just that. Did anyone who actually thought about it seriously think that if the government institutes new minimum standards, that no one would lose their existing plan? It’s more that no one really made much of a big deal about it.
Now, it’s a bit harder to prove the effect of voter ID laws, but not impossible. Look at what the data tells us to determine the lie.
Having said that, anyone who advocates that lying by the president is OK as long as it is for a good cause, is easily dismissed if he can’t provide evidence that, on a given issue, the president is not lying.
How does ACA make the cost of hospital Tylenol go down? And what cite can you provide that most of the policies being cancelled because of ACA provide terrible coverage? I’ll concede that the cartoon-type coverage you describe sucks. Anything beside anecdotes from the several people you know? Because the news is awash with counter anecdotes from people saying they were perfectly happy with the coverage Obama promised them they’d be able to keep. My own silly notion is that people ought to be able to decide for themselves what constitutes acceptable coverage.
“Thought about it seriously” seems like a weaselly caveat to me if that’s become one of the rationales. There are millions of low-info voters who truly believed they’d be able to keep their coverage because the president repeatedly assured them they’d be able to, period. What that says about the depth of their reflection, I don’t know. All this stuff now is nonsense and spin relative to the president’s assurance, which it turns out was utter bullshit for lots of people.
I know you’re not defending the president’s election promises, just reacting to the distinction you’re drawing.
Correct. I don’t expect most people to have to research each and every one of the president’s claims to make sure it is correct. But, the fact is this “lie” was easily detected as such and we shouldn’t just throw up our hands and say: well, we never know when he’s telling the truth or not. If we really want to know, we generally can find out.
Yes, I told you X, Y, and Z, but if you had done research or reflected on my words, you would have known I was lying. So it’s your fault that you let me lie to you.
That’s what happens when the press act as cheerleaders for the president.
The narrative put forth was that this huge change is going to happen, and it’ll be great. But if you are concerned about some of this change interfering with your life and the insurance plan and doctors you currently use and want to keep, worry not! If you have it now it will be protected, grandfathered in. We were told this repeatedly.
I don’t know about that. The link in post 450 was from 2009. I just don’t think people were paying that much attention. Maybe the opposition party should have been talking about this instead of shutting down the government?
That was almost a year before the ACA was signed into law. It was talked about some, but people don’t focus on bills much when they’re being debated. They depend on the press to bring the important things to the fore. And that was done very little here. We largely had a press corps who was not only compliant, but complicit. Both they and the administration wanted to move in the same direction, so they both dispensed with serving the American people as well as they should have.
As mentioned earlier, the grandfathering language also changed late in the game. and then we had the super-duper rush to pass the final bill before anyone had a chance to read it. What we’re talking about here is what can happen when something of the scale of the ACA is rushed through at the end. When there are changes to a big document like that, and so many parts affect so many other parts, even a well-intenioned improvement in one area can cause problems elsewhere.
Also, wouldn’t you say that when the President very publicly and repeatedly makes such a direct and unambiguous claim like he did, that the people assume that if the press is not bringing up any problems, then its probably not problematic. I think one of the things we learned here is that much of today’s press is as partisan as the politicians they’re supposed to be keeping honest. It’s very unhelpful. And as we can see with the coverage in questions, quite dangerous.
Obama’s statement will apparently be correct for about 97% of the people.
I’d be perfectly content with some kind of case by case review of people claiming to be in the 3% adversely affected to see whether they deserve some kind of subsidy.
Just to be clear, you are saying that since some people make unwise choices, our philosopher-kings should tell everyone how to spend the money we earn?
With the exception, presumably, of refraining from telling food stamp recipients that they can’t buy Doritos and Slim Jims?
If there are to be words in my mouth, I’d prefer to put them there. Simpy because I don’t say stupid things is no reason to assume I can’t, and offer suggestions.
Hentor, they need this. Throw 'em a bone, what the heck. Piss and moan about how your Golden Idol is tarnished, how you’ll never call him the Messiah again. Not that you ever did, but they’ll never know the difference. They get tired of licking their wounds, let them lick ours for a while…
Note: this should not be taken as license to fib about alleged wounds in, ah, strategic zones you like to have licked. That would be wrong.
Seriously? You don’t know about any of this, you come to argue about something which you have no information regarding? To oversimplify for the sake of brevity, hospital musts provide emergency care whether the patient can pay for it or not. They cover their losses by jacking up prices for people who can pay. But you hadn’t heard about any of this?
Hentor’s site offers a good starting point. The thing about terrible coverage is you don’t know its terrible until you need it.
Didn’t offer any ancecdotes. I asked the reader if they know someone who has been screwed over by their insurance “provider”. I know several, my suspicion is that most people do. And you? Know any?
Awash, you say! Heavens, that’s quite a lot! But again, the caveat offered above: have they needed to use it?
And so we are compelled to permit someone to offer bad coverage because Freedumb?
And people who aren’t smart enough to buy cow meat rather than horse, they got it coming? We regulate used cars, do we not? Even though the shifty used car salesman is a totem of our culture almost as pervasive as the lawyer.
If someone wants to sell you a house wherein the central heating hasn’t worked in so long, its become a racoon habitat, they have to tell you that, right? Even though you ought to be smart enough to apply your expertise in heating and ductwork on your own?
Are there standards to apply to consumer protection, some point we reach and you cry “Hold! Enough!”. Your insurance company seems to be of the opinion that point is reached when their profit margin is threatened, I disagree. The difference between a “nanny state” and responsible regulation is in the mind of the beholder.
