Statement: If you like your car you can keep your car.
Let’s say that I drive a 1997 Ford Escort. Let’s assume the new plan makes me scrap the 1997 Escort, but gives me a 2014 Ford Escape absolutely free of charge. Was the statement true?
That’s really all the thread is about. The debate on the merits of the plan is in one of the thousand other threads on this topic. This thread is about whether his statement was true.
“Understandable essence” cannot reasonably outright contradict the more complex explanation. This is where your reasoning jumps the rails.
ETA: In response to Elvis
So, he lied and we should throw the whole thing out? Or he lied, and that’s that, it has no further pertinence to our ongoing efforts?
If the question is only whether or not Obama exaggerated his sales pitch, then its “Tsk tsk” and we move on. Maybe I cannot entirely trust Obama, and I wouldn’t anyway. But can I trust his opposition any more than him? I submit that is a very dubious proposition, given the demonstrated extremes those people are willing to go to. Here we have people losing their shit over some tens of millions of dollars in estimates on the rollout, and the same people blithely ignored…or even cheered for!..throwing billions of dollars down the toilet in pursuit of a goal that could not be reached. That is not commitment, that is not even extremism, that is barking mad.
If I have to trust such a liar as Obama…and what he said was mostly true…or people who believe every word they say but are batshit crazy and utterly irresponsible, my money is on the liar.
Suppose everyone in this thread said no, it isn’t. Then what? What would that mean to you? Would we all be done here? What would you do with that information?
Would it mean we could go back and explore all the outright lies, including some damn silly ones (Death panels? Nobody knows what’s in it? We have to pass it to find out? Socialism/Communism/Fascism?), that have been and are continuing to be told about ACA by its implacable opponents, including some persons in this very thread? Would you then recognize that it’s relevant to assessing the artificially-narrow, point-scoring-based *alleged *topic of this thread?
It doesn’t.
What won the national debate was a proposal to make various changes while letting people who liked their plans keep their plans. It’s awfully hard to debate against that position. Who would’ve won the debate if it’d been pitched without that false-advertising stipulation? We may never know.
That analogy would be great, if only cars were intangible things that people typically interacted with rarely that changed pretty much every year.
That feature of a good paper, which strives for objectivity, has to do with misstated facts. Every politician misstates facts, and gets called on it. It’s almost impossible to make a strong case while getting all your facts right.
Do you have a link showing that the Washington Post Fact Checker stated that the President lied? Or was that an innocent misstatement on your part?
You are perhaps thinking that you made no misstatement, because misstatement and lie are synonyms. By I don’t think that. I think that saying something is a misstatement is factual, while saying it is a lie is an inference.
No, it’s pretty easy. “Making various changes” is not at all a fair description of setting up a completely new government-run system that provides realistic access to insurance for many millions of people who didn’t have it and couldn’t get it before. I’d be very much surprised if you could find a poll detailed enough even to ask the question about what swayed people’s opinions the most in favor of it, or, if you could, that the top answers wouldn’t be about access, cost, pre-existing conditions, portability, and dependent coverage. Yes, it was necessary to soothe some stoked-up fears about “government taking over health care”, but that lie is continuing to be told even today, isn’t it?
Go on. Give us your best guess.
Apparently, it was also necessary to soothe fears about whether folks who like their plans could keep their plans.
Shouldn’t the liar be the one to explain why he guessed the sale called for false advertising? I don’t recall asking anyone else to guess whether a car salesman’s lie got the job done, or whether a perjurer could’ve gotten the same results with truthful testimony; I tend to figure they knew what they were doing.
How long do you figure to keep talking about this before most everybody stops listening? Not saying you don’t have the right to keep right on talking about it all you want, but seems like you might find a more productive pastime, like maybe knitting.
I don’t know that it ever really goes all the way away. I mean, I’m the guy who mentioned the Read My Lips: No New Taxes thing pretty recently, and that’s been decades. Heck, I still mention I Am Not A Crook from time to time.
The President owes us right-wingers another apology. We said Medicare Advantage was being cut, he said we were liars:
Medicare Advantage patients are losing their doctors because the networks have to shrink to accomodate the Medicare advantage “savings”.
I’m thinking the discussion will continue as long as folks like Elvis are in denial and are actively protesting. You want him to stop, them you stop him. For those around here who are on teams, I believe he’s on yours.
Oh, hell no, knock yourselves out. Ten years from now, good chance Republicans will be talking about how it was all their idea, and Obama stole it.
The opposing set of facts available here, at ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/02/2879821/like/
Not offering this as Gospel, but ThinkProgress has been a good source, can’t remember that they ever burned me. 'Course, my goldfish sometimes has to remind me about stuff…
Short version: like the “plan” kerfluffle…excuse, massive monumental Earth-shattering crisis…it centers around the individual plan problems. Those plans generally change frequently, hence there is seldom any such situation as having “your doctor”. With a new plan, in fact, the odds increase that you can develop such a relationship.
I make no claims here, just what I have from a reliable source.
I agree that Think progress is a good source, but as a partisan source, they are likely to interpret facts in a way favorable to them, just as the NY Post does(although I’d rate Think progress vastly superior to the Post).
What they are doing here is acknowledging that yes, people can’t see their doctor anymore, but that’s not the law’s fault, it’s part of the normal churn in insurance markets. Except the law is changing the nature of insurance, which is creating a lot more churn than we’ve seen in the past.
But again, in the end, the voters will judge.
And time will tell.
We may get a sneak peak in Virginia. The polls are showing the race getting a little closer, and I have to think that has something to do with McCauliffe being the guy who will fully implement ACA in Virginia.
Be interesting to see what happens Tuesday.
Polls are skewed. Women love Cuccinelli because he is so handsome and men because his name sounds like a lady part.
“Yeah, the cuccinelli, that’s the thing between the labia and, ah, the other labia. Right in there, somewhere.”
Neither of these posts are really pertinent and neither moves the discussion forward.
Your one-liners can be amusing, once in a while, but they ought to stay near the topic.
[ /Moderating ]