I understand what you are saying, but if a person has to parse an unambiguous statement in many ways, then it is intended to deceive. A listener shouldn’t have to hear a “period!” statement, and then research other speeches and data to see if he really means what he just plainly said.
Yes, there was some criticism that there would be a government takeover of health care and the response to that is: “you can still buy insurance on the private market” not being able to keep your own plan.
But the “government takeover” argument was really not one that most non Obama-haters feared. The real argument is the one we are seeing now: that his plan would cause premiums to increase or cause employers to drop their coverage.
So, I agree with Saint Cad’s interpretation. When I hear that I can keep my plan, and my current plan costs $300/mo., $20 doctor visits, $15 prescriptions, $2000 deductible, $4000 max out of pocket, then I expect that the proposed plan will not do anything to change those levels (except with modest adjustments). If the law adds regulations that increase my premiums, then I’m not keeping “my plan.”
I think that is a reasonable understanding of the language and one that most people would agree with. Likewise, a person would understand that you have to pay premiums and that if your doctor gets hit by a bus and killed, Obama didn’t lie because you weren’t able to keep him.
We can try to over-analyze the language and attribute absurd assumptions to hypothetical people, but the man made a simple, unambiguous statement that has turned out to be absolutely false.
Are you implying that this is a drastic measure. Is not obligating insurers to accept those with pre-existing conditions rather drastic? Rather fascist, actually.
The core fantasy of fascism was unity as an antidote to Marxism, to render class struggle obsolete by forging a cooperative unity of classes devoted to the nation rather than the state. Not that bad so far until it began to identify with militarism and authoritarianism, demanding a uniformity of dedication and opinion. Of course, its hard to keep glorifying your military strength without fighting somebody.
It is hothouse political philosophy, it was cooked up as political theory, which tends to work pretty good until actually applied to people. Its promised to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful by making the disgruntled classes content through the magic of a correctly organized nation. Which found warm reception amongst the rich and powerful, who expressed their approval in the time honored way. The Fascists announced their vigorous and manly spirit by beating up Communists, and socialists, and then unionists.
Anyway, when Obama’s beigeshirts arrive at the doors of Blue Cross. Humana, and United Health, do let me know. Beyond that, there is very little to compare between Obama’s strictly centrist liberalism and fascism.
An insurance company is sitting around minding it’s own business and the government comes along and says it must perform an action which will likely cause a large expenditure of funds and this is acceptable? No, it’s not. Forget the argument that insurance companies are evil, blah blah. If you can’t do it to the corner candy store, you can’t do it to the insurance company.
Well, your local candy store still doesn’t get to sell crunchy frog and cockroach cluster or anthrax ripple. Reason you can’t do it to the insurance company is that they have a battalion of lawyers and a random selection of Congressvermin. Insurance companies have been selling and profiting from the actuarial equivalent of crunchy frog and larks vomit for a generation
Ah, no. No, we won’t. They never should have done it in the first place, and extra-never should have been allowed to get away with it.
Mhmm, blame them all. Imagine a world where health insurance didn’t exist at all. And tell the countless survivors of catastrophic illness that there never should have been a way for the cost of their medical procedures to be covered. Health insurance is a business as any other, it just happens to deal with health and shouldn’t be singled out to be bullied.
This guy wants to roll with “Please, won’t someone think of the insurance companies?” as his argument?
Good luck with that. Maybe you’ll find a sympathetic crowd at Galt’s Gulch for that argument. Here, in reality, and in America, too many people have experience being fucked over by insurance companies to be concerned about how much profit they can make. I suspect that the rules mandating that a certain percentage of revenue has to go to covering care is one of the more popular parts of the law.
I’m concerned about individuals who lose out in terms of having to pay significantly more, should they exist. I don’t give a shit about professional gougers with a long history of specious justifications for denying legitimate claims.
Boy, that would be nice. Because then there’d be no excuse not to have a single-payer system. You know, the system that works extremely well all over the world.
I’m shocked to read this from you, but you’re right. At least once we transition to the ACA, we will be a bit closer to a model that works well. What we have had though, has clearly been a failure.
Obama is REALLY, really sorry…that makes it all OK! I guess we are in line for more disasters…but…he says the website will be fixed by the end of November-honest injun!
Especially since they get to load up on new policy-payers, required to buy their product but with low associated costs? They’ve been lazy, inefficient parasites for a long time, and ACA lets them keep on being just that despite the new overhead cap.
Amazing how so many of that bunch sympathize with the non-productive rent-seekers rather than with the hard-working multitudes forced to pay those rents.