Who would suggest such a thing? Scheming members of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, no doubt.
Nope. Turns out, according to the Associated Press, that it’s White House officials who say that the President’s promises should not be taken literally.
But his plan may force, or encourage, employers to change or eliminate health care options they offer, because of the changing landscape provided by the new government options. So in fact, SOMEONE may well force you to shift.
Now, perhaps this doesn’t outrage you. You may think to yourself, “Hey, I favor government-run healthcare, or a single-payer system, or XXXXX-other option. So I’m OK with Obama exaggerating a bit if it gets us to this good end goal.”
I don’t agree with that approach. It seems to me we’re entitled to rely on the promises made by the President, and not hear that “his rhetoric should not be taken literally.” A major criticism of his campaign was that he was all “empty words and soaring rhetoric.” If we’re now in the actual presidency and still hearing that he is offering rhetoric that shouldn’t be taken literally, that’s not where we should be.
My golden idol is tarnished! The return to principles of honesty, candor, and bi-partisan comity established by his predecessor lies in ruins. Woe is me, I only hope I can squint through the tears well enough to fill out this Republican Party registration form…
Eh. I’m getting dangerously disillusioned with Obama. His stances on gay rights issues during the campaign have been more or less demonstrated to be lip service to get elected.
I’m not the only one either. I think the Democratic Party’s GayTM just shut down.
Bricker, of course that statement can’t be interpreted literally.
Consider the employee who has employer-provided health care. That employee gets laid off. The employee has no savings. Do you really think that Obama was promising that nobody would take away that employee’s plan?
Another person has a doctor they really like. The doctor is sent to prison for serious crimes. DO you really think Obama was promising that that person would be able to keep their doctor?
Of course not. Of course what he was saying was that, under his proposal, nobody will be forced by the government to go with a different plan.
Critics may find absurd interpretations of his words and then claim that he’s a liar. But that’s never been a valid form of critique.
I don’t get it and I am hoping you clarify this for me. If there are nearly a thousand health care insurance agencies in the United States, how is a government-run plan going to force employers to eliminate health care options for their employees?
I think the crux of Obama’s argument is logically sound. He’s stating that the bill is not going to force people to change their coverage. He is correct. I don’t think Obama has the authority (but I am certainly not a lawyer) to demand that all businesses continue to carry health insurance for their employees. Because he doesn’t have the authority, how can he speak for them? BTW, Is there a law that stipulates that an employer must offer health insurance?
My belief is that a government-run program will encourage people to switch only if its better than private insurance. **And who is saying that? **Nearly everyone is saying that a government option would cause flowers to wilt, babies to cry, the sky to darken, and the earth to shake.
This seems like an unlikely interpretation, but could they mean that you shouldn’t literally in isolation take the statement “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period”? IOW, a literal interpretation of that statement could mean that you were entitled to see your doctor even if you lost your benefits or switched insurers, etc.
That’s unlikely what was meant - but when someone tries to raise the literal/figurative divide in my mind, they’re not talking about slightly exaggerated claims - they’re talking about something that’s open to misinterpretation. So if Obama is saying “Don’t worry, you can keep your doctor… most of the time, don’t take what I say as absolute” then that’s just omission or lying - I wouldn’t normally associate that with needing a “literally” clarification.
This seems a rather desperate attempt to save things. Are you seriously going to insist that I parcel out the differences between the obvious consequences of normal life, such as you mention, and the consequences of imposing Obama’s plan? Seriously? That’s your plan of defense on this?
If the standard is, “We can only criticize Obama when his performance falls below the standard marked by the Bush administration,” then I suspect you won’t be interested in listening to any critique at all.
And that standard seems useless. No matter what, Bush would not have been President now. If anything, you might argue that McCain would have done it worse had he been elected. At least that is a reasonable inference to draw about possible alternatives.
Obama’s done plenty of good since taking office, and I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge it, as I have several times on this board. But in this matter, i don’t believe he’s doing well.
Are you not able to countenance any criticism of the man at all?
I’m not “desperately attempting to save things” - do you not see the part in my post where I said that if my interpretation wasn’t what was meant, then it’s a lie? Not everyone who isn’t in lock step criticism of Obama is his cultist.
I’m saying that “don’t take this literally” doesn’t make too much sense in this context, since people usually use that distinction in areas where literal and figurative interpretations of a statement are possible. My interpretation is one in which making that distinction makes sense - however it’s so obvious a thing that it should go without mention. Which is exactly how I phrased it in my post - it’s either a statement that states the obvious in a very unnecesary way, or it’s a lame attempt to explain a lie.
Since I included this information in my post, and yet you still implicitly accusing me of being blind liberal Obama cultist sycophant - maybe you should read a little closer.
The horror of it. The government will offer a competing plan. Don’t capitalist just love competition? If they offer a better cheaper plan and your employer may opt for it. You are being force fed one plan now. The option of accepting or rejecting it still exists. Your options ,at least your company options, will have doubled. How is that forcing a government plan down your throat?
Most workers are having their insurance rates raised endlessly and benefits are being trimmed. Such a deal.
But what Obama is not saying is that because of his plan, many employers will change their health plans, leaving people with different insurance and/or covered doctors than what they currently have.
So, he is being very much misleading by pretending that all will be as usual under his plan. But he is being technically correct in saying that his plan won’t DIRECTLY force people to change.
What does “may force, or encourage” mean in that sentence? Is “or encourage” supposed to be synonymous/euphamistic with force? Are you saying that if an *employer *voluntarily decides to switch plans/ change coverage, the employee should take to the barricades? Are you saying that Obama may force employers to change or eliminate health care options? Cite?
But if the government offers health care of some variety at $X per month, some employers may well choose to save money by ceasing offering their own health care, reasoning that their employees can get now the government plan at no additional cost to the employer.
The government may not credibly disclaim any responsibility for that result.
This may not be compared to an employer switching to a cheaper private plan to save money, because the government’s plan doesn’t have to be profitable, and thus does not compete fairly with private plans.
Ah Monday, time for pathetic wheedling by conservatives pretending to be outraged.
An employer shifting to the public plan would be just the same as an employer shifting from Kaiser to Blue Cross. My last employer shifted my insurance twice in four years. No one is forcing the person to change, except the boss, who provides healthcare at his discretion.
@jayjay: I’d say that gay rights has shifted to the backburner because Obama needs to get health care passed. The Republican Base would scream like shrill children continuously if he made substantive gay-rights steps and it would pour money into the RNC’s coffers, who would put out more lying, bullshit commercials endangering the president’s agenda.
I’m extremely strong for gay rights, particularly repealing DADT, the DOMA and instituting Marriage Equality, but the angry simpletons comprising the Republican Base would finally have something to scream about. Waiting a year is the best thing for everyone. Gays need healthcare reform and cap and trade too.
It’s alright. I may be a little snippy because often times when I interact with conservatives (especially not on this board) I’ll try to float the idea that we should criticzie Obama on actual stuff he’s said or done and not the batshit crazy HE’S A MUSLIM COMMUNIST FASCIST MARTIAN stuff, and they start calling me a liberal communist socialist. It bugs me because I’d like to see actual principled, reasoned opposition to Obama’s policies out there - not the sort of crazy stuff that completely discredits his opposition.
I can’t see how it makes sense to use “literally” here - either you mean something like “absolute” - in the sense of “don’t take what I say here to be an absolute guarantee in all circumstances” in which case your words are chosen poorly, or you’re saying “don’t take this statement out of context in its literal form, which takes it to a ridiculous logical extreme”, but that’s stating something that should be obvious.
The former is more likely - I proposed the latter on the off chance it was a brain fart by some captain obvious press lackey. I agree in principle with your OP that if they’re saying “We promise X* *btw we don’t promise X” then it’s BS.
Then again, perhaps his press people are so used to defending against ridiculous attacks that they’re preparing for the inevitable “I MOVED TO CZECHLOSLOVAKIA AND OBAMA SAID I COULD KEEP MY DOCTOR AND YET I CAN’T! LIAR!” criticisms
“Pathetic wheedling” is argument ad hominem. And to the extent that my OP suggests I am outraged – and I didn’t think it did, at all – let me clarify that I am not outraged.
Now that we have dismissed these issues, perhaps we can discuss the merits of the points I raised?
This rather facile analysis doesn’t acknowledge the difference between different private plans, all of which price their offerings at points which allow them to not loose money, and a putative government plan under no such constraint.
