26 total posts
Just add another lie to Obama's record
Politicians should be bound by the same rules
as pharmaceutical companies when they advertise. Side affects and remedies should be clearly stated. So if you feel any chest pains or notice cardiac arrhythmia when opening your insurance premium notice, see your doctor immediately...but check to see if you're covered first.
Too bad those polygraphs we see on cartoons aren't real
I'd like to have one hooked up to each participant at each debate.
CANDIDATE: "The candidate next to me said _____________!"
That means the phony debates we get every 4 years would end and, if desired, we could watch our usual boneheaded TV shows.
I advocate electric leads to the most, er, sensitive part of the pol's anatomy. When the whopper is made, ZAP! At the very least, it'd be great entertainment...
Try not to laugh out loud
But, from what I've heard here,
most of these pols have nothing with which to attach the leads.
It was done deliberately by design
They needed insurance companies to cancel individual (not employer type, but those would be good, too) policies and dump them into exchanges, preferably Obamacare, in order to get control and drive the private insurance companies out of business for good.
The adverse effect right now is that over 65% of those 'enrolling' are getting into Medicaid instead of Obamacare, which was also by design because this way the States have responsibility for them. All payments made for Obamacare are going into the Treasury, General Fund......none is going into an invisible 'lock box' like Social Security was supposed to have, so it will be raided and used for whatever Treasury decides to use it for.
Source? Proof? It was Republican opposition which
removed a non-Insurance Industry option from the Legislation in the first place.
I quote you, "They needed Insurance Companies to cancel Individual Policies ... in order to get control and drive Insurance Companies out of business." Does that make any sense to you? And if the Insurance Companies knew they were killing themselves by dropping Individual Coverage, why would they do it?
You remind me of a cartoon character who whips out a gun, shoots his opponent three times and then throws down the gun and says "The gun shot him" when the Sheriff arrives.
It was your party with your encouragement which re-wrote the legislation into the mess it is today. Try comparing the original proposal with the end product.
You have no clue again, Rob
This 'legislation' was NEVER about healthCARE......it's ALL about health INSURANCE that the government can control.........and it was ALL done by Democrats. And BO, without Congress passing the amendments to do so, made most of the changes by EO and the wave of his hand. You ARE right about one thing though....the END product ISN'T the LAW that got passed, which has made it WORSE than it originally was.
Aren't you one of the biggest
critic of ANY opinion piece from Fox? What makes a CNN opinion worthy in YOUR opinion of more credibility?
......I don't recall that. I criticize their "news" all the time though. The problem with Fox is that it's almost impossible to distinguish their "news" from their opinion pieces.
You're still welcome to support your claims, but I won't hold my breath.
Is it OK with you that the president's words stating that
those who were happy with their plans could keep them but to now find that to not be the case?...and that the same goes for those who liked their doctor may not get to stay with the practice as was first stated? Is that OK too?
No, I think those words were misleading
Sure, you could keep your doctor, as long as your doctor didn't sever his relationship with your insurance company. That was the case before the ACA and it still will be.
As for keeping your plan, provisions were put into the ACA to grandfather in plans that were in existence prior to a certain date, but the statement made it sound like that safety net was bigger than it actually is.
Aren't words that are misleading or, perhaps,
overstatements the same thing as "whoppers"?
If they were intentionally misleading.....
........it was not a bright idea, since the truth was going to come out eventually. My (limited) understanding is that at the time the ACA was first being drafted, the claim was accurate, but then the HHS department issued new regulations that negated a lot of it. The problem is that the president continued to make the claim even after that happened:
Included in the article is the White House claim that even if you have to change your plan, your new one will be as good or better, and subsidies are available to defray any additional cost (if you qualify). Even that still contradicts the original claim, though.
OF COURSE IT WAS INTENTIONAL!
Nothing said that better than Pelosi yelling at everyone to just vote for it, not read it. They wanted to get it past no matter what, no matter how bad it was, no matter how many lies they had to tell. What they did borders on the criminal, and some investigation into possible impeachment and censorship should happen after the next election if we can get enough in there to not just roll over like these old Republicans who won't.
Those morons couldn't fix a sandwich muchless their website.
I would like to have one of those knuckleheads explain to me in detail why maternity benefits would be mandatory for me if I chose to enroll??
I admit I would have a lot of fun trying but I couldn't get a woman pregnant if my life depended on it,I don't have a prostate!!
Well, the web site is probably fixable
but I have my doubts about the (un)Affordable Care Act. The insurance model has always been one of buying what you might need based on your own circumstances. The new model is buying whatever the entire populous might need whether you're specific circumstances fit or do not. Remember that it's not a purchased service anymore but a tax.
Another example of liberals saying
WE know better than YOU what you need, so just let us handle it and 'maybe' we'll give you money (subsidy) to help you pay for it......on the backs of those desperate to get insurance for pre-existing conditions (their policies are more expensive than others), young people who rarely will need it, and those who have had their other individual insurance policies canceled and now are also desperate to get coverage for themselves and their families. And the ones being hurt the most by this new law???? The middle-class (remember, those people who have to work two or three part-time jobs now because all the full-time jobs are invisible?)
The technical issues on the website......
......are frankly less of a problem than the security shortcomings that have been revealed. A page crashing can be due to something as simple as a typo in the source code. I'm a web developer and I've had pages crash because of a misplaced parenthesis. It happens, and one purpose of testing is to catch things like that.
If the site was coded with poor security, that's a bigger issue and could involve extensive recoding to fix.
What amuses me, Steven, is that you and the authors missed
the clear implication of this paragraph
"None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be "grandfathered," meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don't meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered."
So it is the Insurance Companies using this "Get Out of Covering This Person Free" card to re-write policies they didn't want to keep, and which you now blame on the Obama Administration. The HHS regulation was written badly, and I wonder if there wasn't some species of coercion, collusion, influence on the part of the Insurance Industry in that regulation.
What Obama said in 2008 and 9 and 10 isn't a deliberate misleading of the American public if the Insurance Industry wasn't weasling around to find any escape they can. Nor if regulations came into effect after the President made the statement was the statement made "knowingly".
Of course from your side of the argument none of this matters. It just means you get to join the chorus of nay-sayers whether the statement is truthful or not.
I'm just going by what the president claimed prior to there
being anything in writing. If people made voting decisions in his favor based on what he said and are now disappointed in what was delivered, I can't blame them. You can always find ways to twist and turn the truth, justify a false promise, or blame someone other than the man who made that promise if you like. It changes nothing for those duped by a false knight.
I can always tell when it goes racist
white Liberals come running out to make excuses for someone.