Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:
Yes, it did, but I don't see how that makes a claim regarding state action pertaining to a particular group of health plans a lie.

What was said was not a lie, however lots of people seem to feel like they were lied to; something which is problematic for many reasons.

"If you like your plan, you can keep it."

Demonstrably untrue for hundreds of thousands. It'll become millions when the employer mandate kicks in.

If it's demonstrably untrue, it's a false statement. A false statement made knowingly is a lie.

 Seaward wrote:

"If you like your plan, you can keep it."

Demonstrably untrue for hundreds of thousands. It'll become millions when the employer mandate kicks in.

If it's demonstrably untrue, it's a false statement. A false statement made knowingly is a lie.

Why would anyone think that the state, under ACA, would have the power to force insurance companies to continue offering a particular plan?

I mean, its ridiculous, that would create a de facto public option; something which was objected to vociferously.

 Ouze wrote:
Well - they are paying at least some taxes. As you doubtlessly have discovered firsthand by now, one cannot live in America and not pay any taxes at all, sales tax at a bare minimum - and there is no reason to think that they are not filing federal income taxes.

Probably, uh, not payroll tax though.

So my point about them not paying tax on their undeclared income (the part of that post that you omitted) still stands then?

 dogma wrote:
Why would anyone think that the state, under ACA, would have the power to force insurance companies to continue offering a particular plan?

I mean, its ridiculous, that would create a de facto public option; something which was objected to vociferously.

So you believe these hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters are de riguer and have nothing to do with the ACA?

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. The administration knew - we've got documents saying this - that hundreds of thousands of people would be losing their policies at the start of the individual mandate.

Yes, it did, but I don't see how that makes a claim regarding state action pertaining to a particular group of health plans a lie.

What was said was not a lie, however lots of people seem to feel like they were lied to; something which is problematic for many reasons.

Relapse wrote:

It's like the house is burning down around people and they can't be convinced to leave it.

That, or people are tired of inaccurate arguments driven by a desire to characterize.

It seems that characterization is not a factor here, though. People in great numbers are losing their insurance policies because of Obamacare. My company just did it's annual enrollment and one of the agents I spoke with told me that it's going to be really bad insurance wise next year for most people doing individual plans. Talk to most doctors having to deal with Obamacare and they aren't happy with it, either, as the New York poll I posted earlier demonstrates.
I would love to be wrong here and you be right, but Obama has time and again proven himself a liar with the evidence of it concering his healthcare growing stronger monthly.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well - they are paying at least some taxes. As you doubtlessly have discovered firsthand by now, one cannot live in America and not pay any taxes at all, sales tax at a bare minimum - and there is no reason to think that they are not filing federal income taxes.

Probably, uh, not payroll tax though.

So my point about them not paying tax on their undeclared income (the part of that post that you omitted) still stands then?

Uh, not really, no. I guess it does if you didn't read either the original article or the supporting one I linked. Are you trying to predicate that I said they probably don't pay payroll tax to pretend this indeed means all of their income is undeclared? Because... well, independant contractors aren't covered by payroll tax anyway.

If this discussion is going to devolve into single sentence Seaward-style dodges and intentionally-missing-the-points, I guess good luck with that.

 Ouze wrote:

Uh, not really, no. I guess it does if you didn't read either the original article or the supporting one I linked.

They don't make the point you seem to think they do.

Another Seaward-style dodge, pointing out that Ouze once again has no apparent idea as to what he's talking about.

 Seaward wrote:

So you believe these hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters are de riguer and have nothing to do with the ACA?

Obviously it is connected to the ACA, but a comment made about the ACA regarding state action presumes that the ACA exists and therefore does not pertain to the passage of that law.

Honestly, anyone who believed, after the whole "public option" debacle, that the federal government would be able to force insurance companies to continue certain forms of coverage (a de facto public option) is either inattentive or not very bright.

Relapse wrote:

I would love to be wrong here and you be right, but Obama has time and again proven himself a liar with the evidence of it concering his healthcare growing stronger monthly.

I'm not arguing that Obamacare is good. It isn't. I am arguing that Obama did not lie, and now adding that whether or not he did should not be a significant topic as it does not impact the way healthcare is provided in the US.

 dogma wrote:
I'm not arguing that Obamacare is good. It isn't. I am arguing that Obama did not lie, and now adding that whether or not he did should not be a significant topic as it does not impact the way healthcare is provided in the US.

To quote the New York Times editorial board...

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies.

They knew the changes the ACA made would force people off of insurance plans. By the law itself. Instead of saying that, however, they said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it."

If you'd prefer to claim Obama misspoke dozens upon dozens of times, go right ahead. But claiming that the ACA didn't force hundreds of thousands of cancellations of insurance policies as an intrinsic part of its implementation is simply factually inaccurate. Claiming that the administration never said this would not happen is also factually inaccurate.

Label that whatever makes you feel better about it, I suppose.

Of course attentive and bright people knew that the, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," line was bs. Just as they know it's not going to be true when the employer mandate kicks in, either, and makes all of the complaining now pale in comparison. Just as they know it's going to drive costs up, not down. You might argue that's why bright, attentive people dislike the ACA a great deal.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
apparently a lot of hookers like obamacare. I can see having less declared income, and thus qualifying for subsidies, as a great attractor for black/grey market workers to enroll.

So the ACA is great if you haven't declared all your income and aren't being taxed on it?

So... Obama didn't lie...

Bush didn't lie either about those WMDs... amirite?

 Seaward wrote:

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies.

Yes, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that do not meet the standard set by Obamacare. They can renew those policies, should they choose to do so, but they cannot sell them. Of course they likely will not choose to do so, and obviously have not chosen to do so, as it makes no fiscal sense. I mean, why continue a policy which you cannot market?

 Seaward wrote:

If you'd prefer to claim Obama misspoke dozens upon dozens of times, go right ahead.

Well, no, I wouldn't. That is a stupid argument, and the NYT Editorial Board should be ashamed for making it.

 Seaward wrote:

Of course attentive and bright people knew that the, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," line was bs. Just as they know it's not going to be true when the employer mandate kicks in, either, and makes all of the complaining now pale in comparison. Just as they know it's going to drive costs up, not down. You might argue that's why bright, attentive people dislike the ACA a great deal.

It was a piece of rhetoric so, yeah, it was bs. Not a lie, though.

Dogma, as a professional bullshitter, aka meteorologist, I can attest that BS'ing when selling a product, is the same as lying.

 djones520 wrote:
Dogma, as a professional bullshitter, aka meteorologist, I can attest that BS'ing when selling a product, is the same as lying.

Good one.

So, dogma... this is exactly, EXACTLY the same as George H. W. Bush's promise of "Read my lips, no new taxes".

But... don't worry, Obama can't win again.

 djones520 wrote:
Dogma, as a professional bullshitter, aka meteorologist, I can attest that BS'ing when selling a product, is the same as lying.

Dude, my job requires me to tell people how to manipulate others on the basis of statistics amalgamated from numerous opinion polls and coded journalistic articles. If anyone knows the distinction between a lie and bs, it is me.

Obama's comment was not a lie, but it was bs; as all rhetoric is.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Dogma, as a professional bullshitter, aka meteorologist, I can attest that BS'ing when selling a product, is the same as lying.

Dude, my job requires me to tell people how to manipulate others on the basis of statistics amalgamated from numerous opinion polls and coded journalistic articles. If anyone knows the distinction between a lie and bs, it is me.

Obama's comment was not a lie, but it was bs; as all rhetoric is.

Ok.

So our President is little better then a sleazy car salesman. Selling us a lemon is more important to him, then ensuring we have a product we need. If it's that much for you, I'll give you that.

 whembly wrote:

So, dogma... this is exactly, EXACTLY the same as George H. W. Bush's promise of "Read my lips, no new taxes".

It isn't really, though it is close.

 whembly wrote:

But... don't worry, Obama can't win again.

No, but another Democrat could; which is a big reason behind much of the hay being made. This is doubly true given the absence of a strong GOP candidate.

 djones520 wrote:

Ok.

So our President is little better then a sleazy car salesman. Selling us a lemon is more important to him, then ensuring we have a product we need. If it's that much for you, I'll give you that.

Well, that's true of all modern Presidents. The problem isn't with the man, it is with the office, the people, and the way the people regard it.

 dogma wrote:

Obviously it is connected to the ACA, but a comment made about the ACA regarding state action presumes that the ACA exists and therefore does not pertain to the passage of that law.

Honestly, anyone who believed, after the whole "public option" debacle, that the federal government would be able to force insurance companies to continue certain forms of coverage (a de facto public option) is either inattentive or not very bright.
.

so anyone who heard "you can keep your plan" who loses their plan, and thought they could keep it, is just not paying attention/stupid then i guess...

It's okay. It's not like those people heard that they could keep their plan if they liked their plan multiples times over multiple years. It was like, one time that he said it.

 whembly wrote:
The Democrats seemed to...

That's my point exactly. ACA is the signature policy of Obama's admistration, and one of the largest reforms of your country in at least a decade... and just now years after its passed you have Democrat strategists saying 'I think we should try and own this thing'.

When it take four years for a party to start saying 'we should change strategy and try to own this reform'... then it makes no sense to claim they were trying to make all Democrat from the start.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Democrats seemed to...

That's my point exactly. ACA is the signature policy of Obama's admistration, and one of the largest disasters of your country in at least a decade... and just now years after its passed you have Democrat strategists saying 'I think we should try and blame someone else about what is happening with this thing'.
.

Fixed that for you.

Relapse wrote:
It's like the house is burning down around people and they can't be convinced to leave it.

Or, alternately, we're in to our fourth year of chicken little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Fixed that for you.

That doesn't make any fething sense. First up, people have been pointing out the Republican origins of the reform since it was signed, to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the Republican attempt to obstruct the bill.

Second up, when strategists say, after four years, 'hey maybe lets try owning this thing' then they're not trying to blame the other side. They're doing the exact fething opposite of what you suggested.

Seb, not a single Republican voted for that thing. It was passed on solely Democrat votes. Now when everything seems to be unraveling with it do the Democrats try to lay it at the Republicans feet.

The race for everyone to try to get an exemption from it starting with the ones who voted for it to the unions who supported Obama, claiming it would "break the back of American labor", coupled with the majority of doctors saying it's a piece of crap legislation and millions of people going to get hosed this year alone would seem to put the Chicken Little comment in the realm of wishful hoping.

 sebster wrote:

That doesn't make any fething sense. First up, people have been pointing out the Republican origins of the reform since it was signed, to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the Republican attempt to obstruct the bill.

Heritage origins... not Republicans.

But, don't mind me... spin away brother.

Second up, when strategists say, after four years, 'hey maybe lets try owning this thing' then they're not trying to blame the other side. They're doing the exact fething opposite of what you suggested.

Ummm... they're either trying to blame the failure on the republicans for not engaging the democrats on this... because, It's. The. Law. (nevermind the Obama administration making changes to this law contrary to what was passed).

or... Dems are running away from the PPACA because it's so unpopular. Not sure how really.... incumbents have major electoral advantages anyways. *shrugs*

I post this with clear understanding that there were horror stories before the ACA, but this is still heart breaking.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

That doesn't make any fething sense. First up, people have been pointing out the Republican origins of the reform since it was signed, to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the Republican attempt to obstruct the bill.

Heritage origins... not Republicans.

You do know what the Heritage Foundation is, right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

That doesn't make any fething sense. First up, people have been pointing out the Republican origins of the reform since it was signed, to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the Republican attempt to obstruct the bill.

Heritage origins... not Republicans.

You do know what the Heritage Foundation is, right?

You know not a single Republican Senator voted for Obamacare, right?

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

That doesn't make any fething sense. First up, people have been pointing out the Republican origins of the reform since it was signed, to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the Republican attempt to obstruct the bill.

Heritage origins... not Republicans.

You do know what the Heritage Foundation is, right?

You know not a single Republican Senator voted for Obamacare, right?

And your point is?

The point being, the Republicans wanted nothing to do with this piece of ill concieved legeslation.

Relapse wrote:
Seb, not a single Republican voted for that thing. It was passed on solely Democrat votes.

Democrat and independent votes.

Relapse wrote:

Now when everything seems to be unraveling with it do the Democrats try to lay it at the Republicans feet.

As Sebster stated, the argument that the ACA has its origins within the GOP, or GOP sympathetic groups, has been around for a few years. It is now becoming a topic of note because lots of people are starting to pay attention to the debate surrounding the ACA.

Relapse wrote:

You know not a single Republican Senator voted for Obamacare, right?

Or House member. Though several members of the Republican Party openly supported it.

Edit: openly supported similar plans.

Relapse wrote:
The point being, the Republicans wanted nothing to do with this piece of ill concieved legeslation.

And?

The Republicans might "want nothing to do with this piece of ill conceived legislation", but that does not change the origin of the ideas.