ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Martin Luther King was also called a community organizer if you get my drift
Won't Anything Satisfy The Right?...
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.
First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.
The plans being terminated because they dont meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.
However if the insurers didnt tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.
In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.
In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan
Friday, Nov 15, 2013 07:00 AM CST[h=1] No, Obama didnt lie to you about your health care plan [/h][h=2]Terminated policies were introduced after ACA's passing -- often with insurers' knowledge they'd be scrapped[/h]Dean Baker, AlterNet
Topics: AlterNet, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Conservatives, aca, Politics News
Enlarge(Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.
First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.
The plans being terminated because they dont meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.
However if the insurers didnt tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.
In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.
In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.
[HR][/HR]advertisement
[HR][/HR]As a practical matter, there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. Its hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obamas pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obamas pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?
If Obamas pledge was understood as ensuring that every plan that was in existence in 2010 would remain in existence, then it would imply a complete federal takeover of the insurance industry. This would require the government to tell insurers that they must continue to offer plans even if they are losing money on them and even if the plans had lost most of their customers. This would at the least be a strange policy. It would be surprising if many people thought this was the meaning of President Obamas pledge.
Finally, there will be many plans that insurers will stop offering in large part because of the changed market conditions created by the ACA. For example, last week the Washington Post highlighted a plan for the hardest to insure that was being cancelled by Pathmark Blue Cross of Pennsylvania.
This plan is likely being cancelled because it is unable to compete with the insurance being offered through the exchanges. The exchanges charge everyone the same rate regardless of their pre-existing health conditions. A plan that is especially designed for people who have serious health conditions would almost certainly charge a far higher rate. If these high-priced plans no longer exist because they cannot compete with the exchanges would this mean that President Obama had broken his pledge?
On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special. In the only way that the pledge could be interpreted as being meaningful, the pledge is true. The ACA does not eliminate plans that were in existence at the time the bill was approved.
If we want to play Fox News, President Obama also promised people they could keep their doctor. Since 2010 tens of thousands of doctors have retired or even died. Guess the pledge that people could keep their doctor was yet another lie from the Obama administration.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didnt_lie_to_you_about_your_health_care_plan_partner/
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
What a bunch of BS....President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.
First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.
The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.
However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.
In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.
In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan
Friday, Nov 15, 2013 07:00 AM CST No, Obama didn’t lie to you about your health care plan
Terminated policies were introduced after ACA's passing -- often with insurers' knowledge they'd be scrapped
Dean Baker, AlterNet
Topics: AlterNet, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Conservatives, aca, Politics News
Enlarge(Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)
President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.
First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.
The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.
However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.
In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.
In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.
[HR][/HR]advertisement
[HR][/HR]As a practical matter, there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. It’s hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obama’s pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obama’s pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?
If Obama’s pledge was understood as ensuring that every plan that was in existence in 2010 would remain in existence, then it would imply a complete federal takeover of the insurance industry. This would require the government to tell insurers that they must continue to offer plans even if they are losing money on them and even if the plans had lost most of their customers. This would at the least be a strange policy. It would be surprising if many people thought this was the meaning of President Obama’s pledge.
Finally, there will be many plans that insurers will stop offering in large part because of the changed market conditions created by the ACA. For example, last week the Washington Post highlighted a plan for the “hardest to insure” that was being cancelled by Pathmark Blue Cross of Pennsylvania.
This plan is likely being cancelled because it is unable to compete with the insurance being offered through the exchanges. The exchanges charge everyone the same rate regardless of their pre-existing health conditions. A plan that is especially designed for people who have serious health conditions would almost certainly charge a far higher rate. If these high-priced plans no longer exist because they cannot compete with the exchanges would this mean that President Obama had broken his pledge?
On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special. In the only way that the pledge could be interpreted as being meaningful, the pledge is true. The ACA does not eliminate plans that were in existence at the time the bill was approved.
If we want to play Fox News, President Obama also promised people they could keep their doctor. Since 2010 tens of thousands of doctors have retired or even died. Guess the pledge that people could keep their doctor was yet another lie from the Obama administration.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didnt_lie_to_you_about_your_health_care_plan_partner/
Where I live all of that article is a big fat lie...The part about grandfathered polices is a bunch of mumbo jumbo...And the part about the two or three doctors in my area , they are not dead or retired...That article is nothing more than a spin to cover up a lying piece of shit...
no he didn't..because:
1. he clearly, throughout his presidency, relied on appointed members of his cabinet
2. his cabinet is responsible for day-to-day activity that failed
3. being in charge of nearly 2M federal employees is no easy task
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If number one were true, then he was lied to, will he fire the liar?
Being in charge of anybody other than yourself can only be done two ways. Either they agree to you being in charge over them or they don't. If they don't agree and you TAKE charge over them, you have enslaved them in some way. Why do you endorse slavery?
have you ever worked for a large corporation?..a fortune 500, perhaps?..if you did, you'd know that we, at a point, must delegate and trust in those to whom we assign the responsibility..it is up to the president if he chooses to continue with those in his cabinet..imo ms. sebelius is/was responsible for the project..and that's how it would be in ANY rightie corporation (which are basically the fortune 500/1000).
Doer
Well-Known Member
NO. He lied over and over. He lied knowingly and willfully....just like you said about Bush. And he did too.
They all do. Get over it. We have a President where the buck stops.Why even re-gurg those lies?
If he has a rouge Cabinet, that is entirely on him. He has them all lie.
We would not have a nation if it worked the way you seem to think it does.
And remember, you are 2 faced and shameless about it.
"We should never denigrate a President." I remember, remember. My only claim to fame.
It is interesting that even the President has stepped back and while hasn't quite admitted he "fucked up" basically that is what he is saying...
Yet there are still people trying to twist and revise history to make it seem like he was the only one who didn't......
Just stop already. He lied. Only people suprised by the President telling a lie are those young kids who actually thought he was different than a normal politician.
If you are still trying to twist this into something else, just stop. It happened, no changing it.
Yet there are still people trying to twist and revise history to make it seem like he was the only one who didn't......
Just stop already. He lied. Only people suprised by the President telling a lie are those young kids who actually thought he was different than a normal politician.
If you are still trying to twist this into something else, just stop. It happened, no changing it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
If he admits it, he is done. WE are not forgiving of admissions.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Salon is trying to protect it's own rep here but obv failing if you are over 12. They were one of the biggest cheerleaders of ACA. I see more and more press is finally getting pissed because it was not only the President's credibility that was ruined, the press that was repeating those lies are now scrambling in attempts to save their own. Some are going the route of Salon and trying to cover it up with more lies, some are actually on the attack. It's good theater.
o what a short memory we have..back in the '50's with mccarthyism it was my understanding saying "anything" against a sitting president was met with a visit from g-men for "escort" to an "interview" where one may never be seen again walking free..neighbors "reporting" neighbors..
i don't speak negatively in general..so no..however, there is a difference in "bad" and "un-american"..speaking negatively against the commander-in-chief, the president is un-american no matter what your politics..at the end of the day, we are americans..everyone wants to be us.
Doer
Well-Known Member
All would be true except for that Pesky 1st Amendment.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
MLK's first name kind of sounds like Marxist.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. At the end of the day we are people, all deserving of the right to be left alone as long as we leave others alone.
Revere ideas, not positions of power or the people that occupy them. Always question somebody claiming to be your "commander". Your skin just stopped glowing.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I hope the president cuts himself while shaving his taint.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I guess the prez delegated responsibility to the guy who ran the teleprompter that told Obama to say "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance". The teleprompter lied!