What? No, I don’t. Why would you say that? I’ve repeatedly noted that, no matter how you first phrased your small-subset rule, you’ve since spelled out that you’re okay with one but not the other; thus, being okay with one doesn’t mean you’re okay with the other. That you claim I think otherwise shows a lack of understanding.
Er, yes; I know; that’s why I’ve repeatedly noted that you say you’re okay with one but not the other. Your position is both understandable and understood.
Uh – what? Obama lied; I don’t give him a pass on that; you do, and you add that you’d give a pass to other liars; and, when pressed for details, you add that there are some lie-about-a-small-subset types you wouldn’t give a pass to.
I’m not sure how that entitles me to declare victory; as far as I can tell, you and I blandly agree that Obama lied, and that I don’t give him a pass on it, and that you do, and that you’d give a pass to yet other liars – and, naturally, that there are various lie-about-a-small-subset types that even you wouldn’t give a pass to.
That’s not what he said though. He said (over and over again) that you could keep your plan, not that you could keep your plan if it were “compliant” with the ACA.
Even Clarence Page acknowledges that Obama was fibbing. Why can’t you?
Didn’t he also say you could keep your doctor? Suppose your doctor died- does that make Obama a liar?
You guys are really grasping at straws. Obama’s statement did nothing to get the bill passed, it did nothing in terms of how the bill read, it did nothing in how the law functioned, it did nothing in terms of premium increases. All it did was give you something to whine about if you look at his statement through enough prisms and call it a lie.
The ‘grasping at straws’, to me, is the belief that many of the posters seem to have is that Democrats believe that Obama is a perfect infallible Christ and any possibility that he ever may have told something untrue would shatter our world view, or something. Most of us recognize that Obama is a politician who says things that might be less than fully truthful for political reasons, just as many other politicians do (though according to Politifact he’s more accurate and truthful than most politicians) – we just agree with him more than his opponents.
Obama isn’t the best human ever – he’s just a lot better than the alternatives, as are most Democratic candidates and office holders.
Apparently. Still, I’d prefer not to be thrown out of my ACA plan unless someone has another plan, a decent one, that I could snap up immediately.
But I’m not supposed to say that the ACA plan I have has been working well for me.
I’m not supposed to say that I’m glad I’ve been on it since I’ve had a shit-slew of medical issues and surgeries over the past few years.
And I shouldn’t say that my premiums for my PPO plan have just gone down.
I’ve asked this question of Obamacare opponents several times and have not received a satisfactory response (actually, I don’t think I’ve had a response, period); can any opponent here do any better?
The president just vetoed a bill to repeal Obamacare without having a ready replacement. Some of you are currently complaining about the fact that some lost their insurance cue to Obamacare; in fact, that’s been one the major complaints against Obamacare (maybe even THE most often complaint referenced). However, these people are allowed to replace their insurance. Please justify to me your position to repeal, considering that millions of people will again lose their insurance, only this time these people will be WITHOUT opportunity of replacement. Please tell me why you are OUTRAGED over the former while at the same time support a position that has the latter as a consequence? Is it simple hypocrisy? Thanks in advance.
I’ll give you an answer. The people who lost insurance coverage from before obamacare can go back to the shitty policies they used to have. The people who didn’t have any insurance coverage before obamacare won’t be any worse off than they were anyway – i.e., who cares? They will be FREE!
If they lost their insurance due to Obamacare, but hadn’t been promised otherwise, then I doubt I’d be objecting at all.
If someone tells me he committed perjury to make sure a criminal got convicted, I wouldn’t object to the fact that a criminal got convicted; I’d object to the fact that a criminal got convicted due to perjury. I wouldn’t object to him selling a product; I’d object to him selling a product with false advertising. I wouldn’t object to him bedding someone, but to him bedding someone without their consent.
Strictly speaking, yes, I guess the shorthand gets used as “THE most often complaint referenced.” But speaking for myself, the same reason I support fining people who engage in false advertising – and jailing crooks who commit perjury, and disbarring layers who commit fraud, and so on – is what motivates me here.
It sounds to me like you’re saying what was SAID takes precedence over the outcome. Is this true in every case? Random made up example: Suppose you have two nuclear power plants. Manager of Plant A says his plant is 100% safe; manager of B says there are issues that make his plant at potential liability. Plant A has an accident causing 15 casualties, while plant B’s accident kills 10,000 and leaves the region uninhabitable for 1,000 years… Does manager B get brownie points for being more accurate/honest. Is manager A more reprehensible because he wrong/dishonest? If not, where do you draw the line between what’s said versus outcome? If so, I don’t know what to say other than “ridiculous”.
No, but it’s true in this one. I could think of examples where it’s not…
…but I’m not sure that’s a great example.
Eh, then again, maybe it is, because it can highlight a whole bunch of points.
I’d say, in that case, that Manager A needs to be called to account for his falsehood; we’d presumably do a whole what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it thing, and we’d presumably make sure he faced legal ramifications for a lie, and so on. If there’s a case to be made that those 15 casualties wouldn’t have occurred because folks would’ve reacted upon hearing the truth from him, I’d like to hear it.
But what fascinates me about Manager B is, what, he announced that, and everybody just said they were cool with it? Was his plant operating within the law? I’m not trying to fight the hypothetical, here; I’m trying to understand it: he was honest about what was going on, and nobody said thanks for bringing that to our attention, how soon can you stop? I’m not, uh, 100% sure I follow you.
Because, see, that’s what I dislike about what Obama said: he didn’t give people the chance to say they were cool with it, or to say no, that’s not what we want; he made a reassuring pitch, and folks nodded when they heard they could keep their plan if they liked it, and they didn’t get to weigh in on the actual policy. If you’re telling me folks heard what Manager B said and okayed it anyway – well, (a) that’s weird; but what’s more, (b) it’s different, in a strangely relevant way.
Actually, I think you are trying to fight the hypothetical. Just ignore the legality about whether the plant should stay open, the issue is simply what was said versus what happened, period. It is a gedankenexperiment.
But there’s another reason I claim you’re fighting the hypothetical. You never answered the question. Namely, by what criteria do you judge the outcome trumps what was said versus vice versa. Use your own example if you wish (though I reserve the right to disagree (with stated reasons) that it is a relevant example, of course).
One more side issue–The passage of the bill PRECEDED the promise. To me that means you can’t claim it’s passage was supported by that promise, in that sense it wasn’t advertised falsely. The advertising period was over. I’m not saying you don’t have a point there, I just don’t think it’s properly labeled as “false advertising”. More like (false) encouragement during implementation (which had already been settled on).
One more final thing (and I honestly don’t know all the details here; if anything I say here is wrong, it’s simply ignorance on my part, not intent to mislead). At the time I was under the impression that the bill did have a clause that all pre-existing plans were to be grandfathered in, even if they didn’t meat ACA standards–PROVIDED the plan was not altered in any way. Ultimately, some plans WERE changed, and these were the plans that were dropped. (I believe I heard Obama knew of this issue when making the original claim, but as I believe that was from Fox News, I’m skeptical). At the last moment Obama made a last minute amendment that those plans could be restored (by that time it was too late/difficult for the companies to resume those plans. Anyway, to me, that does ameliorate Obama somewhat–The intent was there, but third party factors did not allow it.
If he told everyone what he was doing, and it was entirely legal, then in your rather bizarre hypothetical I have a hard time imagining what crime we’d charge the honest man with. I also have a hard time imagining what kind of society he’d be living in; if the whole thing was brought to our attention ahead of time, and we said “meh” then, I’m not sure we can do anything but say “meh” when it then happens.
How about the classic Murderer At The Door hypothetical that makes Kant look silly? Imagine a would-be murderer comes to my door, and asks whether his intended victim is in my house. Do I lie to him? Of course. I’m not lying to him because I want a better outcome for him; he can face a firing squad for all I care. In this scenario, I’m lying to him because the person I’m sheltering would, if asked, lie to save herself.
That’s assuming, of course, that she’s sensible. And I’ll stand up, afterward – again, assuming we’re in a society of reasonable people, and not the ones from your bizarre hypothetical – and proudly tell them what I’ve done, right down to explaining that I lied to the the guy because he deserves to face a firing squad; you can put me on that firing squad if you like, I’d add, figuring they’d mull it while giving me a medal.
Now, if Obama would like to stand up and proudly say it was an honor to lie to those people because they’re the kind of people who deserved to be shot instead of reasoned with – well, then we’d be having a different conversation.
But that ain’t the case in this case.
No, he also made the promise before passage of the bill.
I’m under the impression that, no, that’s not true. If that’s the key for you, I guess we could both post cites and see who happens to be right?
