like_that;1525530 wrote:When is our country going to stop allowing dipshit blatantly lie to us?

Good question.


Country, Shoot Quacker!

Of course Carney blames the insurers for not being able to "keep your own plan".

"The government plan will be better and cost less."

lol

We elected the enemy.


Once that is understood, the rest of this makes sense.

I wonder if Fox ratings are going to spike...you know, since the "lies" Faux News has been hammering for years on Benghazi and Obamakare, among others, are finally being validated by a very reluctant liberal media.

gut;1525693 wrote:I wonder if Fox ratings are going to spike...you know, since the "lies" Faux News has been hammering for years on Benghazi and Obamakare, among others, are finally being validated by a very reluctant liberal media.

I doubt it. Most of the nation has been polarized left or right for a few years. When people want to hear the gospel, they tend to go back to their own church.

Pravda would be soooooo proud of NBC and the "major" networks - http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/30/did-nbc-bury-its-own-reporter-hide-obama-lie

Burying the truth to protect their elistist leaders. How appropriate for a communist nation... but US? Oh right...the media isn't bias, just Fox.

So, the POTUS really went to Boston yesterday and flat out lied about the Healthcare law once again.

He blamed the fact that people are losing their health insurance on the people for buying cheap health care ("cut rate" was his exact words) plans and blamed the insurance providers for being "bad-apple" insurers.

No Mr. President, it can't possibly be that those people and those insurance companies agreed to a private contract of a service and fee that were mutually agreeable. It can't possibly be that YOUR law sucks and is hurting these people by CHARGING THEM MORE MONEY for insurance that they MAY NOT WANT.

I HAS to be that the insurance companies were just big and mean, it isn't your law's fault, its the private companies and private people's faults right?

So see, its your fault and the insurance companies fault, not Obamacare's fault!

What a crock of shit.

Please, any liberal at all...defend that speech yesterday. I would LOVE to hear it.

Here's a transcript.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/30/transcript-president-obamas-health-care-law-speech-boston

A conservative friend of mine posted this link on an ultra-gay, ultra-liberal (that happens to work at the Washington Post, go figure) friend of mine's facebook wall today with the comment "Your rebuttal?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/31/forbes-obama-officials-predicted-2010-93-million-would-lose-health-pl#ixzz2jJGbh1b1

His rebuttal was a gem.

It has NEVER been a secret that Americans with fake "insurance" plans -- the ones where you pay a couple of hundred dollars a month but have a huge deductlible which means the insurer never has to pay for anything -- that they would lose those plans.

Why? Because these get-nothing-for-your money plans are no longer compliant with the ACA, which says that insurance plans actually has to COVER things.

The fact that these plans are being cancelled is a FEATURE, not a BUG.

But if someone has one of these fake plans, and the really, really want to keep them, they can refuse to sign up for insurance and pay the annual tax. Then they can pick their favorite insurance company, write them a check for a couple of hundred dollars a month, send it to them and get NOTHING in return.

Which is what they were doing before.

It is disingenuous of "Newsbusters" to pretend that these people being forced off their fake plans is some sort of "revelation" or something that was being hidden from people.

justincredible;1526696 wrote:A conservative friend of mine posted this link on an ultra-gay, ultra-liberal (that happens to work at the Washington Post, go figure) friend of mine's facebook wall today with the comment "Your rebuttal?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/31/forbes-obama-officials-predicted-2010-93-million-would-lose-health-pl#ixzz2jJGbh1b1

His rebuttal was a gem.

I would love to be able to comment to your liberal buddy.

Apparently he doesn't understand the idea of catastrophic health insurance for young/healthy folks, just like Obama doesn't.

Yeah, its cheap, and yeah it doesn't cover anything but a major catastrophy (hence the name) and everything else is out of pocket. That's the freaking point. Have just enough insurance to make sure you don't go bankrupt for a major health problem, but don't pay for something that you DON'T NEED.

Sometimes people are so freaking stupid it hurts me to realize their votes count as much as everyone else's (I know, that wasn't nice to say, just venting).

"So far, no one," says the Obamacare navigator. "Thus far everybody has taken a look at the rates and they've walked out the door. There's sticker shock. They just can't afford it."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-navigator-hasnt-signed-anyone-because-its-too-expensive_765629.html


I would love to see the 14 million newly un-insured take to the streets of D.C.




Change we can believe in ....

It hurts my head.

Conservative response:

What part of "If you like your plan, you can keep it." am I not understanding? Everyone that is getting a cancellation notice was unhappy with their plan?

Liberal response:

If you have a privately-purchased plan that is not compliant with the ACA, your insurer can no longer offer it. Your insurer has to cancel your plan. Your insurer will offer you a new plan (and yes, they will try to upsell you to a more expensive one -- CAPITALISM) or you can go onto the exchange and use the FREE MARKET to buy a different one.

If you a privately-purchased plan that is ACA compliant, you can keep it. Or can look on the exchange and see if you can get a better deal.

Again, cancellation of crappy health insurance plans is a FEATURE not a BUG.

Conservative response:

So ... he knew all this ahead of time, yet repeatedly told people otherwise. I knew. You knew. but millions of others didn't. He INTENTIONALLY led people to believe that the ACA would NOT lead to cancellation of their insurance plan. No amount of spin can save the guy on this one.

I chimed in:

I'm sorry, but choosing from a handful of plans tightly regulated by the federal government is not the "FREE MARKET." Please.

I wasn't finished:

I also don't see how you can call millions of Americans losing their health coverage a feature. In general, young, healthy Americans don't need much more than catastrophic coverage. A decent analogy I saw recently equated the coverage to a Hyundai. Now, these young, healthy Americans are forced to either buy a Cadillac or pay a fine and go with nothing. They don't need the Cadillac. They don't want the Cadillac. But now they have no choice. Free market, amirite?

jmog;1526723 wrote:I would love to be able to comment to your liberal buddy.

Apparently he doesn't understand the idea of catastrophic health insurance for young/healthy folks, just like Obama doesn't.

$200 a month isn't a "cheap, catastrophic" plan...a single person under 40 can get pretty good coverage for that amount, at least they used to.

justincredible;1526749 wrote:It hurts my head.

Conservative response:


Liberal response:


Conservative response:


I chimed in:


I wasn't finished:

I repped this post but please neg yourself to cancel it out. You don't argue with stupid people, especially stupid people with an agenda.

Also, $10 says this person will call you a racist within 48 hours. After all you are white and therefore only disagree because Obama is black.

sleeper;1526883 wrote:Also, $10 says this person will call you a racist within 48 hours. After all you are white and therefore only disagree because Obama is black.

Nah, he won't call me a racist. But he does use the "libertarian" in a derogatory manner, as if I should be ashamed for being anti-authoritarian.

Why does the government get to determine if my plan isn't good enough for me? Makes me furious.

TedSheckler;1526893 wrote:Why does the government get to determine if my plan isn't good enough for me? Makes me furious.

Because Obama. Also, because fuck you.

That's why.

Obama tells millions dropped by insurance to 'shop around'





What a leader.





Change we can believe in ...

TedSheckler;1526893 wrote:Why does the government get to determine if my plan isn't good enough for me?

Because they OWN YOU.

Welcome to the "fundamentally transformed America".

"Because of the tax credits that we are offering, and the competition between insurers, most people are going to be able to get better, comprehensive healthcare plans for the same price or even cheaper than projected."

Another lie. Anyone with a brain knows the economics do not work. The only way this can be true is if the program adds massively to the deficit - which it will, but Obama's statement still isn't going to be true. MOST people will have to pay more in order to reduce premiums for a smaller, but much more costly group of older people and those with pre-existing conditions.

It's basic. They've been selling this bill of goods that we were paying for people without insurance before, and now that they have to pay our premiums can go down. But this is simply not true because the vast majority of those uninsureds that we were picking up the cost for aren't go to pay anything, they'll get a subsidy.

Johnathan Gruber from MIT, Designer of Romneycare and Obamacare responds to the pandemonium over "If you like your plan you can keep it".

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.
Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chart-winners-and-losers-from-obamacare

Supplemented by this chart:





FWIW, I see no reason why we couldn't have continued to allow very high deductible plans in the new individual insurance markets w/o the caps on out of pocket expenses and w/o the "10 essential health benefits". I think it was wrong to include those provisions and require "higher quality plans". If people want "worse" coverage so be it. To me, all that really matters is that they have some coverage. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has introduced a bill to reverse that and allow those old plans if people want them. I think that would be an improvement and hopefully we can pass that and change Obamacare for the better without demanding repeal etc.

BS, he made his first false statement in his first couple words. The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare so we have absolutely NOT decided as a society. The democrats decided they knew better what was good for us than we knew ourselves.

His "97% winners" stat is blatantly false as the "14% that can now get affordable health care" have already found it isn't very affordable.

jmog;1527094 wrote:BS, he made his first false statement in his first couple words. The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare so we have absolutely NOT decided as a society. The democrats decided they knew better what was good for us than we knew ourselves.

His "97% winners" stat is blatantly false as the "14% that can now get affordable health care" have already found it isn't very affordable.

1). Do you not think that representative democracy and republican government are legitimate? We've already established that when people are asked if they like Obamacare vs. all of the things in Obamacare individually, they don't like the former and they like the latter. The Iraq War is unpopular and tax cuts for the rich are unpopular but because our society is bound by representative decisions by our agents in Congress it is nevertheless true in our country that our society decided to engage in those actions.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Part D all had troubling roll outs and all ended up wildly popular.

2). It is not blatantly false. The horror stories of those 3% having to get "better" but more expensive coverage is in the news now while the website is down. Let's see what happens when its fixed. Also, as Ron Johnson's bill shows, we can tweak the law and allow individuals to continue on their cheaper plans while still retaining the affordability and new coverage for other individuals.

BoatShoes;1527007 wrote:FWIW, I see no reason why we couldn't have continued to allow very high deductible plans in the new individual insurance markets w/o the caps on out of pocket expenses and w/o the "10 essential health benefits". I think it was wrong to include those provisions and require "higher quality plans". If people want "worse" coverage so be it. To me, all that really matters is that they have some coverage. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has introduced a bill to reverse that and allow those old plans if people want them. I think that would be an improvement and hopefully we can pass that and change Obamacare for the better without demanding repeal etc.

Low risk young and healthy people who would be attracted those plans are instead forced to pony up more cash. Calling it "worse" coverage is deceptive. A low risk individual purchasing high deductible insurance at lower premiums is smart coverage. But anyways there is a reason and we all know what it is. And yes Obama lied.