Yet another Obama lie

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

When did Bush ever tell the truth?

You mean like both Bush and Obama are liars right?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But our Obamazombies never will. They will defend this ACA clusterfuck with their dying breath, which will come sooner due to benefits being denied.

I just don't understand people who want the government so involved in our daily lives.

I just don't understand why we have 50 million people who are uninsured.
That's a lot of people for a country that is a Super Power.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by acp5762

You mean like both Bush and Obama are liars right?

Here is the difference acp5762. Bush lied about the WMD's to enhance his legacy. Obama made a generalized campaign promise before the law was written. He gave congress some guide lines to go by, and left it up to them to write the legislation. The committee headed by the Senator Baucus of Montana wrote the legislation. In the group market most people can keep there policy. In the individual market it did not turn out the way he said in the campaign for all cases. Obama is not the first president to not make good on a campaign promise. To have 50 million uninsured people is unacceptable. The USA is a super power not a third world country. The ACA is better than what we had. Someone who has high blood sugar or allergies or curvature of lower spine, should not be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Don't feel bad for the health insurance companies they will be able to maintain a profit.

[Guest123018-4]

So if Bush lied about WMDs di the administration before him lie too.
If Bush repeated the lie he was told, does that make him a bigger liar than those that started the lie?

I like your justification. The guy before me lied so it is ok for me to lie too.

Suckers.
snick

[drluv1]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

So if Bush lied about WMDs di the administration before him lie too.
If Bush repeated the lie he was told, does that make him a bigger liar than those that started the lie?

I like your justification. The guy before me lied so it is ok for me to lie too.

Suckers.
snick

I guess you don't remember Powell's speech at the UN. I thought WMDs were a slam dunk. The Clinton administration may have thought Iraq had wmds, but they didn't start a war over it. No wmds , no accountability and trillions wasted.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Obama is not capable of telling the truth.
He is a lying sack of shit.

NOT TRUE! He said he wanted to spread Joe the plumber's money around and that's exactly what he's been doing. . . we are all Joe the plumber now.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I like your justification. The guy before me lied so it is ok for me to lie too.

The reality is that Obama's comment about being able to keep your health-care plan was in the context of the right-wing suggestion that everyone was going to be put on a government run health-care plan.

So the irony here is that Obama's so called lie was really nothing more than an exaggeration.....which was used to offset an actual lie by the people now bitching about lies.

Good stuff! Really, it is.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Here is the difference acp5762. Bush lied about the WMD's to enhance his legacy. Obama made a generalized campaign promise before the law was written. He gave congress some guide lines to go by, and left it up to them to write the legislation. The committee headed by the Senator Baucus of Montana wrote the legislation. In the group market most people can keep there policy. In the individual market it did not turn out the way he said in the campaign for all cases. Obama is not the first president to not make good on a campaign promise. To have 50 million uninsured people is unacceptable. The USA is a super power not a third world country. The ACA is better than what we had. Someone who has high blood sugar or allergies or curvature of lower spine, should not be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Don't feel bad for the health insurance companies they will be able to maintain a profit.

I don't want to hear that garbage. You don't know what you're talking about anyway.

[CJ7]

nobody wants to hear the truth either ..

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...virtually-eve/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by drluv1

I guess you don't remember Powell's speech at the UN. I thought WMDs were a slam dunk. The Clinton administration may have thought Iraq had wmds, but they didn't start a war over it. No wmds , no accountability and trillions wasted.

Check your history, drluv1. W didn't "start" the war. Saddam did that when he invaded Kuwait. W used force, just like Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator did ("Operation Desert Fox"), to enforce the provisons of the truce that Saddam was violating.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Bush lied about the WMD's to enhance his legacy. Obama made a generalized campaign promise before the law was written.

You're the one doing the lying, flighty.

[Yssup Rider]

finding someone else to insult, eh, Corpy? is it possible for!you to debate any topic without slandering the opposing debater?

Making friends... All of whom have come to your defense during the current 16 day meltdown.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CJ7

nobody wants to hear the truth either ..

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...virtually-eve/

Yes, isn't it interesting that not one of the knuckledraggers has commented on the fact that the OP is factually incorrect? Even though you've now pointed it out twice. I'm sure we'll next see an attack on your source as being further evidence of liberal media bias....that most convenient of all excuses offered by the chuckleheads on here when faced with a fact they don't like or that doesn't fit their narrative.

It's all about "ODS"....one of the main symptoms of ODS is that it renders its sufferers incapable of any form of rational thought or expression when discussing President Obama.

[Chica Chaser]

It took a full 14 posts to "Blame Bush" to deflect the facts away. You all are slipping.
No one even mentioned that Obama repeatedly said we would all save $2500/yr on average. Do I need to drag that video back up again? Or is that just another of those exaggerated "campaign promises"?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

It took a full 14 posts to "Blame Bush" to deflect the facts away. You all are slipping.
No one even mentioned that Obama repeatedly said we would all save $2500/yr on average. Do I need to drag that video back up again? Or is that just another of those exaggerated "campaign promises"?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/oba...ealth-savings/


Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems.
Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office.
Obama says he’ll "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn’t necessarily expect insurance premiums that are "lower" by that amount.
The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism

[TexTushHog]

They knew that rinky dink policies that didn't cover shit wouldn't pass muster. Nor should they. And in fact, they said as much at the time. So what?

And if you believe all the corporate media whores who are telling you that they didn't say as much back in the day, I have a bridge to sell you in New York City.

The more important question is, why would you assholes support substandard insurance policies that only cover a few things and leave families vulnerable to huge expenses for the kinds of medical problems that folks face every day? Do you think that the financially responsible thing to do, leaving government and employers like me who do their duty and provide health care coverage for their employees on the hook for those expenses? So folks like me who follow the rules and customs get shafted because cheap people are deceived by irresponsible insurance companies and buy a pig in a poke? Is that the conservative responsible thing to do? Why do you defend those sorts of shady practices?

Here are just a few of the instances in which the administration noted that substandard policies which didn't cover anything wouldn't be tolerated.


HHS Press Release, June 2010: "Roughly 42 Million People Insured Through Small Businesses Will Likely Transition From Their Current Plan." A June 2010 press release from the Department of Health and Human Services explicitly stated that some individuals would face changes to their plans, stating "roughly 42 million people insured through small businesses will likely transition from their current plan to one with the new Affordable Care Act protections over the next few years" and that the 17 million "who are covered in the individual health insurance market, where switching of plans and substantial changes in coverage are common, will receive the new protections of the Affordable Care Act." The release further noted that when a plan is not grandfathered in, individuals would still be eligible for the same basic health insurance minimums:

Roughly 40 percent to two-thirds of people in individual market policies normally change plans within a year. In the short run, individuals whose plan changes and is no longer grandfathered will gain access to free preventive services, protections against restricted annual limits, and patient protections such as improved access to emergency rooms. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6/14/10]

Sec. Sebelius, June 2010: If Health Plans Significantly Change, "They Lose Their Grandfather Status." On June 14, 2010, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the administration's grandfathering regulations, saying "if health plans significantly raise copayments or deductibles, or significantly reduce benefits, for example just stop covering treatments like HIV/AIDS or cystic fibrosis, they lose their grandfather status." [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6/14/10]
Interim Final Rule On ACA, June 2010: Administration Estimates Some Plans Will Not Be Grandfathered Due To Regular Turnover In Insurance Markets. The interim final rule published in the Federal Register in June 2010 about the grandfathering rules cited research that showed the individual insurance market regularly saw heavy turnover each year, and that the administration's estimate of the amount of plans that would not be grandfathered was based on the regular turnover rate:

The market for individual insurance is significantly different than that for group coverage. This affects estimates of the proportion of plans that will remain grandfathered until 2014. As mentioned previously, the individual market is a residual market for those who need insurance but do not have group coverage available and do not qualify for public coverage. For many, the market is transitional, providing a bridge between other types of coverage. One study found a high percentage of individual insurance policies began and ended with employer-sponsored coverage. More importantly, coverage on particular policies tends to be for short periods of time. Reliable data are scant, but a variety of studies indicate that between 40 percent and 67 percent of policies are in effect for less than one year. Although data on changes in benefit packages comparable to that for the group market is not readily available, the high turnover rates described here would dominate benefit changes as the chief source of changes in grandfather status. While a substantial fraction of individual policies are in force for less than one year, a small group of individuals maintain their policies over longer time periods. One study found that 17 percent of individuals maintained their policies for more than two years, while another found that nearly 30 percent maintained policies for more than three years. Using these turnover estimates, a reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate, and therefore relinquish their grandfather status, is 40 percent to 67 percent. These estimates assume that the policies that terminate are replaced by new individual policies, and that these new policies are not, by definition, grandfathered. [Federal Register, 6/17/10]

NY Times In 2010: Administration Acknowledged That Some "Might Face Significant Changes In The Terms Of Their Coverage." The New York Times reported in June 2010 that the administration acknowledged that some "might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage":

In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to "keep their current coverage if they like it." It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to "reap the benefits of additional consumer protections."
The law provides a partial exemption for certain health plans in existence on March 23, when Mr. Obama signed the legislation. Under this provision, known as a grandfather clause, plans can lose the exemption if they make significant changes in deductibles, co-payments or benefits.
About half of employer-sponsored health plans will see such changes by the end of 2013, the administration says in an economic analysis of the rules.
The rules allow employers and insurers to increase benefits. But, in a summary of the rules, the administration said, "Plans will lose their grandfather status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers." [The New York Times, 6/14/10]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...insuran/196652