He’ll be here all week, folks. Try the veal. Tip your waitress.
I’m asking you if a person who (a) paid an amount she liked for coverage she liked. and who now (b) pays more than she’d like, for coverage she doesn’t like, liked her plan and got to keep it. Near as I can tell, she liked it, and didn’t get to keep it.
If that’s too imaginary for you, the mind boggles at how you processed if you like your plan, you can keep it in the first place; doesn’t that claim involve weird flights of imagination, of hypotheticals and if/then reasoning? Which somehow elude you in my scenario, even as you’re fine with a statement about all sorts of scenarios?
Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, they say.
You’re skipping the part in between a and b where the plan was grandfathered, changed by the insurance company, and lost grandfathered status.
I’ve been away a couple days and there have been many things I could respond to; to keep it more manageable, I’ll make two quick comments (which can be elaborated on) then one with a little more elaboration:
If that’s your criteria my response would be that most Republicans refuse to reason with Obama. From the beginning they’ve opposed Obama to make it difficult to accomplish anything, whether they support or oppose it. Their constituents have followed in their footsteps.
Oh I ***strongly *** doubt this. I absolutely think bunches of people are unaware that repeal without replacement implies millions of people of people will lose their insurance without an opportunity for a replacement plan. There are at least two reasons for this: 1. A large number of people are ignorant of political issues in general and 2. All of the Republican lies about Obamacare from the beginning. For example, polls have shown that many people support ACA while opposing Obamacare:
My last comment (back to when Obamacare was being proposed): Forget the issue over whether Obama lied or not; for the moment, let’s just agree that both Obama and Republicans have lied about ACA. If it passes, Obama is condemned for a false claim supporting it. If it fails, Republicans are condemned for false claims opposing it. FWIW, I consider the GOP’s lies to be more egregious (for one thing, they’re more numerous, and remember the death panels that were also awarded LIE OF THE YEAR in 2009), but here I’ll take the weaker position that it’s a wash between the two.
Now remember that the original debate I proposed was that it’s hypocritical for the GOP to oppose Obamacare (leading to loss of plans WITH replacement) while supporting repeal without replacement (leading to loss of plans WITHOUT replacement). From there we discussed which is more important: The lie or the outcome?
As I said in the penultimate paragraph from here, the lies told on both sides are a wash. From there I now claim the outcome is the most significant issue. And of course the difference between those two outcomes is that under ACA, lost plans can be replaced. Not so under a repeal of ACA without replacement.
And one more thing:
Yes, I meant “repeal withOUT replacement”. Sorry if I confused you.
Because I’m not saying it lost grandfathered status.
I’m saying it retained grandfathered status, but – as we know – grandfathered plans aren’t exempt from all of ObamaCare’s new rules. So if one of those rules means (a) she was paying a price she liked for coverage she liked, and now (b) she’s paying a price she doesn’t like for coverage she doesn’t like, then nothing’s skipped.
If you think “repeal without replacement” implies that everyone gets a “replacement”, then, yeah, I follow you; in that case, the GOP would be just as misleading. I’m not aware of anyone who believes “repeal without replacement” means that everyone gets a “replacement” – though I am aware of folks who believed the bit about liking your plan and keeping it implied that you could keep your plan if you liked it.
Well, yeah, but, again, that’s predicated on folks not realizing “repeal of ACA without replacement” means “repeal of ACA without replacement, seriously, no-foolin, that’s WITHOUT a REPLACEMENT, we can’t stress that enough.”
I’ve never met anybody like that. I’ve never heard of anybody like that.
Might could be, though.
I take your point about “death panels”, but – I dunno, is this just what we’re gonna do every time? Like, will be GOP and the Dems both tell lies when trying to pass or kill any and all legislation, with each side saying we only do it because they do it, and those of us who get lied to just shrug and say it’s to be expected from our elected officials and whadayagonnado; all that matters is which outcome is better?
Dispiriting, but maybe accurate. What’s next? Sure, there was a break-in and a coverup, but outrage is silly because that’s to be expected; it’s politics as usual, everybody just assumes both sides are crooks – and, hey, isn’t the only real question which guy would be better for the country, not which one got caught?
Many of those people were paying for insufficient coverage that will cost (on average) the rest of us money – that will cost me money.
To bring the total cost down, we need to bring the coverage of each plan up.
No, I get that; that’s why you tell her that – instead of telling her that, hey, if she likes her plan, she can keep it.
How many people fell in to that category? Was it more, or less than 10 million people? If it was wrong to take away their insurance, why is it not wrong to repeal Obamacare and throw 10 million people off of insurance?
Many people were saying that all the plans were going to go away and everyone was going to be forced on to some sort of government plan. They were calling it “the government take over of healthcare.”
The statement was really an attempt to reassure people that the vast majority of plans would still be valid under ACA, people who were happy with those plans would be fine and would just keep on going the way they were.
I agree with you that there should have been a caveat about those with crap plans.
I don’t believe I’ve taken a position on whether it’s wrong to repeal Obamacare. Or on how many people were in that category. I merely wanted to make what I thought was an obvious and uncontroversial point – that it was a lie – and am genuinely mystified at the amount of pushback that bland assertion is getting.
If no one or even a majority of folks got kicked off their plans, I’d agree that it was a ‘lie’.
This one is more like saying “We’re all free and get to vote for president (except those few who aren’t allowed to.)” or “The first amendment guarantees free speech (except for yelling fire in a theatre)” etc. We don’t say those statements without the tiny caveats are ‘lies’.
In the vast majority of cases (e.g. those with ‘real’ insurance, not fake insurance) this was a perfectly true statement.
Okay, so when the Democratic candidate promises no middle class taxes will go up, she actually means, “The vast majority of middle class voters won’t see their taxes go up.” Some middle class taxpayers will pay higher taxes.
I just want to make sure that this “fine print” argument applies generally, because if it doesn’t, most people should take such statements at face value.
Like i said earlier, I’m absolutely sure there are many unaware that repeal without replacement will lead to millions losing their insurance–they’re not aware that millions will even NEED replacement. And I’m not aware of Republicans candidly pointing out that their attempt at repeal is without replacement. I remember they used to claim “Repeal and Replace” thought I haven’t heard that used in a while. Plus, all their effort has been on the repeal side–There’s never been a replacement with enough consensus to be legitimate. The focus should be on having a replacement first, only then should repeal even be attempted–otherwise people lose insurance–which, after all, is one of their main complaints against ACA. You’d think they’d be concerned over this especially–Why aren’t they? Finally, as I claimed earlier, I’m sure many people are ignorant of the fact that millions of people will lose their plans if the GOP repeals. I find the GOP’s lack of candor on that fact MORE irresponsible than Obama’s lie–the difference being whether or not people that lose their insurance can replace it.
Given my earlier comments about general ignorance of politics and much misinformation about ACA, there’s pretty much no doubt in my mind there are many ignorant of this. Given the evidence of the quantity of ignorance around the world, it’s even hard for me to believe otherwise. Also looks like you’re confusing two different uses of the word “replace” there, too–Your first use refers to no replacement of ACA; in the latter you’re referring to insurance plans that cannot be replaced. These are not the same, of course; the latter is a CONSEQUENCE of the former. I’m also sure there are many unaware that that loss of ACA without replacement causes irreplaceable loss of insurance plans–They are aware the GOP attempting the form but unaware of the latter as a consequence. America’s population is not perfectly knowledgeable. I’m not aware of any polls testing ignorance of these issues (I’ve been unable to find any); the closest I can come is to point out similar things like Dennis Blackburn in KY: Kentucky: Am I actually supposed to sympathize with Dennis Blackburn??? | ACA Signups. Also Luis Lang in SC, which is also linked to there: Luis Lang | ACA Signups
In what I"m saying here I certainly do not condone lying politicians, and I think we should show outrage; I am simply saying both D’s and R’s are both guilty of it and I’m not aware of anything I can do to eliminate or even reduce the problem. I do believe some lies are worse than others, but in the case of ACA, while I personally believe the GOP’s lies are somewhat worse and more extensive, I’m willing to call it a wash. I’m not simply accepting those lies; I’m simply (cynically) acknowledging they exist. IN that case, what else do we have to judge their respective proposals on other than respective outcomes–While simultaneously claiming that if there’s anyway to rein in all the lying somewhat, we should certainly pursue it.
And having said all that, remember that my initial point was the hypocrisy of opposing ACA but supporting repeal without my replacement. Do you still think it’s not hypocritical?
Finally, I see your point in your final paragraph, but I don’t think a lie is really comparable to a break-in.
Do I still think it’s not hypocritical? I don’t recall ever saying if it was hypocritical.
I do seem to recall saying that, if we assume arguendo that people think repealing Obamacare without a replacement would lead to some result other than repealing Obamacare without a replacement, then it would be just as misleading as saying you can keep your plan if you like it – so, yeah, if we assume it’s just as misleading, then, sure, it’d be hypocritical to castigate one but praise the other.
Well, it wasn’t the break-in that got Nixon; it was the cover-up, right? It’s my understanding that he didn’t even know about the break-in beforehand; he just covered up. But that’s another hijack for another time; I think this whole thing has already gone on entirely too long. 
Agreed. If the policies implemented didn’t substantially change the rates the vast majority paid, I wouldn’t call that a lie, even if some few middle class taxpayers due to some obscure tax clause (perhaps a windfall the previous year or some such) happened to be exceptions where they ended up paying slightly higher.
While this is probably true (I don’t doubt you at all so I won’t bother to check) do recall asking that in my original proposal to debate. Since you responded, I naturally took that as claiming it wasn’t hypocrisy. Sorry for the confusion again.
I was actually claiming there are many who, even if they, “think repealing Obamacare without a replacement would lead to some result other than repealing Obamacare without a replacement” are STILL unaware that one consequence of this is that millions will lose their insurance PLANS without replacement, particularly those that do not have to deal with pre-existing conditions and are quite possibly unaware of the problems thay had in obtaining insurance pre ACA.
Thank you.
I don’t see how this contradicts my claim that a break-in is not comparable to a lie. And I’m ready to drop the debate as well.
Louisiana just began the process of expanding Medicaid.
Bobby Jindal must be pissed.
Pissed off or pissed upon? Clarity, 2Many, clarity! (Though, come to think on it, could just as easily be both.)
Well, Paul Ryan has a solution after all:
His party needs to come up with one.
Yep, they sure do need to have one.
This is really all he says in the interview.