Thing is, the Democrats knew the public wasn’t willing to pay a price for the law. So they covered that up too. In fact, they said we’d all save money.
Really? You think this is an isolated litany?
“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,”
“Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”
Then there’s the unions, who find the cadillac tax objectionable. The allies of the law are seeking to kill it by a thousand cuts, although I’m sure each interest group individually only wants THEIR interests looked after.
Didn’t know, all I saw was you presenting one and insinuating legions.
The Democrats obviously assumed legions would feel this way, otherwise they would have been honest about the fact that the middle class would have to pay more so that the poor could have health insurance.
I don’t watch, but, probably, on some issues, yes. However, on this one, it is the right-wing that wants to socialize medical care costs by having lots of uninsured, and underinsured, people get bills so high as to be a bad joke, and then go bankrupt instead of paying them. And it is the center-left who wants a rational health system where people pay what they reasonably can, and care providers don’t get stiffed.
There also are left wing values embodied in the ACA – notably, fairness, and taking away some of lower class (and middle class) worries concerning what happens if you get sick. But selling ACA as a poverty program seems to me mistaken both on a factual level and as a debate tactic.
Feel very free to take this as an explanation of my own posts rather than as a criticism of yours.
Not a bit of it, 'tis a time honored tactic of the tighty righty, it is their way of avoiding class warfare by means of pre-emptive class warfare.
And, sadly, there is nothing in Obamacare that addresses the issue of food-stamp welfare queens rolling up to the emergency rooms in their Cadillacs to have a hangnail removed.
Just as you say, it is a center-left position to promote a rational health system. It used to be just us wild-eyed radicals. Its the radicals who hack the path through the jungle and clear the camp site, the liberals come along when the cabins are built and the hot showers installed.
Well. your ignorance was fought then.
Do you have a citation for that?
In any event, I can’t believe someone who graduated high school could believe this.
I was struck by the lawyer quoted in the LA Times as paying $98 a month for individual unsubsidized health insurance. This is an incredibly low amount in a country where health care takes up 17% of GDP and per capita health care cost is well over $8,000. It is hard for me to see how, even with big copays, they could charge so little without care for people who actually need it being refused. And, in fact, her insurer, HealthNet, has a history of doing just that. See:
The lawyer in the more recent LA Times story is described as pregnant. But before ACA, individual health plans did not generally include maternity:
I don’t know the individual story here, but non-coverage of maternity is one of the big reasons older policies are non-compliant.
Taking about telling the truth, are those who want to repeal the ACA pointing out that people who don’t work for a big employer, and have significant health care needs, will once again find it impossible to get care other than by ignoring their medical bills?
It’s an op-ed, but it’s Ezra Klein. Who of course is trying to “explain” the President’s promise in a way that makes it seem like he kept it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/obama-guesses-his-way-to-trillions-in-health-savings.html
Nancy Pelosi went further:
EVERYONE will have lower rates AND better quality care.
You’re right that no one with a high school education could believe any of this, yet many people argued with me about it and college educated politiicans proved that they were blithering idiots.
… and Pelosi decided to lie a bit more about Obamacare:
“If you had your plan before the enactment of the law in 2010, there is nothing in the law” that can remove it,” the California Democrat said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
This is a blatant lie (and no, it is not a misstatement, it’s a lie, since by now she should know better). Just one example: if you had a lifetime limit, no matter how high (mine was $2M) in the policy that you had before 2010, the policy would not be grandfathered in and would be canceled.
Well, maybe she still hasn’t read it. 
I doubt she’s read much of anything. She has a reputation for saying really stupid things that rivals Michelle Bachmann. Except she’s their leader.
My god, delusional doesn’t even cover it. Keep digging…just keep digging. You and all the usual suspects.
“Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”
She also said that it was unAmerican to enforce immigration laws.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/pelosi_on_unamerican_immigrati.html
Besides, your side is the one digging, attempting to cover up old lies with new lies.
Real Clear Politics. Could you sink any lower? Going to quote us Limbaugh next, kinda add a bit of class? Even then, you are economical with the truth.
From your cite:
Not good enough for you? Needed a bit of embellishment, did it, the artful withholding of fact? I swear, podnuh, you are as slippery as a catfish in a barrel of motor oil.
Parents get taken away all the time when they violate the law. I’m sure Pelosi has no sympathy for parents taken from their children because of income tax evasion. How do you feel about that? Is it un-American to separate parents from their children becuase they didn’t pay their taxes?
You know what’s actually un-American? Supporting laws and then decrying their enforcement. Nancy Pelosi has never come out for open borders. She has never come out for repeal of all immigration laws. So if she is against the enforcement of those laws, which yes, does take parents from their children, just like ANY OTHER LAWS that can result in incarceration or deportation, then she is against rule of law. And being against rule of law is un-American. Actually, it goes so far as to be anti-Enlightenment in general. Apparently Pelosi prefers rule by men who decide on a case by case basis who is worthy of mercy and who of condemnation, based not on what they did, but who they are and how it affects the next election.
These are way too close to accusations of lying by other posters.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Have you? :dubious: