I’m not sure if he doesn’t understand it, or if he just refuses to focus on the OP. For obvious reasons.
No, no, no! You must have misunderstood the President’s comments. Apparently he didn’t say you could keep your plan. Period. What he really said is that you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed..
Glad I could clear that up for you 
One reason we stray from the topic is how difficult it is to believe this really ranks up there as a Big Hairy Ass Deal. The advancement towards ACA is a Big Hairy Ass Deal. Compared to which, this just isn’t. Perhaps we ought to just butt out, and let you guys tell each other over and over again what a liar Obama is. I mean, whatever does it for you. Freak freely, I always say.
As far as the horror stories go, I’ve been keeping up with the narrative, and from here it looks like few if any of those stories really holds up.
I’d call it more of a raw deal based on how much we’ve been lied to. Of course I’m shocked to see you are not the least bit concerned about the President intentionally lying to the public about the consequences of this raw deal.
Well, now, there you have a definite point, especially considering the strict candor and forthright honesty of his opponents on this issue.
“How much we’ve been lied to”? Well, just how much is that? Seems that the President overstated the fact that 97% of people won’t see a change with this.
What are the other lies that add up to “much”?
Also, how “raw” is this deal? That is, has the anecdote that proves the lie shown up yet? What was the disparity?
John Mace, I understand the debate just fine. This is the debate right here.
Well, truth be told, I think we’ve beat this dead horse well beyond death.
Now that you’ve *acknowledged *that you’re only looking to score cheap points, I have no reason to. The value and public acceptance of ACA is the real issue here, and how to get the point-seekers to recognize that is secondary to it. Playing that game, as if it validates criticism (really, all the Republican lies would be true? ), is counterproductive.
Well, let’s see:
You can keep your plan if you like your plan. Period
You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor.
Average family insurance premiums reduced by $2500 per year.
Won’t add one dime to the debt
Everyone will have insurance
Those are the lies that we already know.
The Obamaviks designed a car that would run. Not as well as any single payer plan currently in the world, but it would run. Republicans poured sand in the oil, replaced the gas with kerosene and flattened the tires. See, they say, how badly designed it was!
“And if you prefer the car you already have,” they said, “you can keep it.”
And three people who had paid $200 a month for a bar stool with two wheels superglued to it shouted “You lie!”
Please. Extra bells and whistles that people neither want nor need does not make all current plans “substandard”
You forgot the part where you’re forced to buy an Obamavik even if you’d prefer to keep riding a bike to work.
Here’s Obama’s response the McCain’s health care plan in 2008:
Also:
Any of that sound familiar?
Of course Chuck Todd doubted that people would be able to keep their insurance under Obamacare. I wonder why he never bothered to look into it deeper at the time?
I’m not seeing what constitutes “poured sand in the oil, replaced the gas with kerosene and flattened the tires.” Can you elaborate? Sure, the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare about a gazillion times, but that didn’t change it. Did GOP governors decline to set up exchanges, opting instead for the feds to do it? Well, that’s a design feature of the legislation and if the Dems didn’t anticipate this would happen, why not? It’s not like it was some huge surprise.
Was there something else? Honest questions, because I’m just not seeing it. When the car broke down in the middle of the road, they didn’t get out and help push, but that’s not quite the same thing.
Which never would have happened had the bill some bipartisan support.
It didn’t.
Now just why do you think that is, hmm?
So, you ventured into a thread seeking to avoid answering the questions in the OP. I can’t tell you how shocked I am. :rolleyes:
You’d think I’d be asking you to say “Sandman” three times. You may now go back to your Koolaid.
But given what your objective is—supporting the notion that Obama didn’t lie—how you might not want to answer that very simple question.
I saw this last night on the news. Amazing. He tried to claim that he didn’t lie by outright lying again.
Clinton’s gotta be laughing hi ass off. “And here I thought that me, as the President Who Lied, was going to be with me forever. Garcon, a few more bottles of the Dom P. for me and the lovely ladies. WooHoo!”