dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

You are just...

...attempting to force people to refine their arguments.

 djones520 wrote:
You are just...

...

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

He said the same damned statement multiple times since it's passage.

No, he didn't. He made many similar statements, but not the same ones.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You are just...

...

Lying his ass off.

"The president said that you could keep your plan if you liked it, and that's not a lie, because there's nothing in the ACA that forces you the individual to change your plan. The fact that the law forces insurers to drop those plans is something I don't like acknowledging, because that pretty clearly makes the statement a lie, so instead I'll just continue to loudly say it wasn't a lie while providing no reasoning."

Actually, maybe he just subscribes to the theory that Obama had no idea what was in the law. He didn't know anything about the website, after all. Or the NSA spying, part one. Or the NSA spying, part two. Or Benghazi. Or Fast and Furious. Or anything else. Poor guy's just trying to hang in there while everyone who works for him goes behind his back to do nefarious stuff. Fortunately, he's forgiving enough that nobody ever gets tossed over it.

My wife and I have five children and the reason we have five children is we do not want six. And those we have we want to get out of the house, before we die. Just to get them out. Because all children have brain damage. Now those of you who have no children let me describe the brain damage. You come in the room with a Coca Cola, you set it down you go to get a news paper. Child comes walking in grabs the drink. You say Gimme that! Didn't I just tell you not to drink it? The child says "Uhh Huh". You say What did I just say? "You said but for not to not you drink." So every time I tell you that don't I I say every time I have a drink don't you drink it, don't I say that? "Uhh Huh". Now tell me what I said. "You said but for not to not you drink." That's right. So you put it down to go and get the paper the child picks it up again and quickly starts to drink it. You say Gimme that! Didn't I just tell you to ahhhhh... Well why did you do it? "I don't know". Well that's brain damage.

 Seaward wrote:

"The president said that you could keep your plan if you liked it, and that's not a lie, because there's nothing in the ACA that forces you the individual to change your plan. The fact that the law forces insurers to drop those plans is something I don't like acknowledging, because that pretty clearly makes the statement a lie, so instead I'll just continue to loudly say it wasn't a lie while providing no reasoning."

 dogma wrote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

 whembly wrote:

My wife and I have five children and the reason we have five children is we do not want six. And those we have we want to get out of the house, before we die. Just to get them out. Because all children have brain damage. Now those of you who have no children let me describe the brain damage. You come in the room with a Coca Cola, you set it down you go to get a news paper. Child comes walking in grabs the drink. You say Gimme that! Didn't I just tell you not to drink it? The child says "Uhh Huh". You say What did I just say? "You said but for not to not you drink." So every time I tell you that don't I I say every time I have a drink don't you drink it, don't I say that? "Uhh Huh". Now tell me what I said. "You said but for not to not you drink." That's right. So you put it down to go and get the paper the child picks it up again and quickly starts to drink it. You say Gimme that! Didn't I just tell you to ahhhhh... Well why did you do it? "I don't know". Well that's brain damage.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm simply paraphrasing what you said earlier in the thread.

 dogma wrote:
And, by way of quotation marks, attributing your statement to me.

 Seaward wrote:

Are they inaccurate reflections of your sentiments?

 Seaward wrote:

You've claimed multiple times in this thread that the false statements, knowingly made, by President Obama are not in fact lies.

 dogma wrote:
No, I haven't. I have repeatedly claimed that the statement "If you like your healthcare, you can keep it." was not a lie. And I subsequently offered up examples of comments Obama has made which were lies.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

So you'd say, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," wasn't a lie?

Yes. Any person holding an insurance policy prior to the passage of ACA can keep their policy by way of grandfathering.

Absent that the argument becomes semantic and, while I like those arguments, others do not seem to.

 Seaward wrote:

Plan. Not healthcare. Plan. He said plan. The quote in all the supercuts is "plan."

 Seaward wrote:

So it's not a lie, because that plan is protected by grandfathering. Except, wait, the ACA forces insurers to stop offering those plans, because it's become illegal to do so - something the administration knew would happen. So we're back to it being a lie.

 dogma wrote:
This is, again, a dance we've done.

 Seaward wrote:

So I'll try one last time: the president knew that the ability for individuals to grandfather in their current health insurance under the ACA was going to be wiped out by another part of the ACA that made the plans those individuals like illegal to continue offering and servicing. Knowing this, he still said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." He knew this would be untrue for millions of Americans. How is this not a lie?

Three tech geeks in their 20′s - George Kalogeropoulos, Ning Liang, and Michael Wasser – didn’t like witnessing the abysmal rollout of the epic fail of a website that is Healthcare.gov, so they did what any self-respecting web gurus would do: Saw it as a challenge, and fixed it. On a few nights and weekends.

Said Liang;


“They’ve got it completely backwards in terms of what people want up front – they want prices… You come to our website, you put in your zip code… you hit ‘find plans,’ and you immediately see exchange plans that are available for that zip code.’

The result, which the trio built for free, is called HealthSherpa.com, and it’s working right now.

CBS News reports that;


“…using information buried in the government’s own website built by high-priced government contractors, they found a simpler way to present it to users.”

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/11/guys-20s-fixed-healthcare-gov-matter-days-video/

Three tech geeks in their 20′s - George Kalogeropoulos, Ning Liang, and Michael Wasser – didn’t like witnessing the abysmal rollout of the epic fail of a website that is Healthcare.gov, so they did what any self-respecting web gurus would do: Saw it as a challenge, and fixed it. On a few nights and weekends.

Said Liang;


“They’ve got it completely backwards in terms of what people want up front – they want prices… You come to our website, you put in your zip code… you hit ‘find plans,’ and you immediately see exchange plans that are available for that zip code.’

The result, which the trio built for free, is called HealthSherpa.com, and it’s working right now.

CBS News reports that;


“…using information buried in the government’s own website built by high-priced government contractors, they found a simpler way to present it to users.”

http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/

 Easy E wrote:
This whole "If you like your plan debate" is really stupid. I thought Conservatives hated "Gotcha" type media?

So imagine, the President said, if you like your "Corvair you can keep it!" Then, we find out that the new car sefty laws means that Corvairs are dangeroud because they tend to explode. Therefore the Corvair is recalled because it does not cover the minimum safety requirements of the law. Then, people get all up in arms because their Corvair could explode on them but they aren't allowed to keep it.

So here we essentially had people who's plans didn;t cover the basics of what is now required to be considered "healthcare". Therefore, their plans are being cancelled because it doesn't meet the new minimum standard. Then people are all butt hurt that the Plans they use to own which are now inadequate to be considered Healthcare are being cancelled. Now people are angry that their "non-healthcare" healthcare plans are being cancelled.

It barely makes sense. Secondly, why were you paying for such a piece of crap plan in the first place?

 Alfndrate wrote:
That is indeed far simpler to use, and it fething works!

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
This whole "If you like your plan debate" is really stupid. I thought Conservatives hated "Gotcha" type media?

So imagine, the President said, if you like your "Corvair you can keep it!" Then, we find out that the new car sefty laws means that Corvairs are dangeroud because they tend to explode. Therefore the Corvair is recalled because it does not cover the minimum safety requirements of the law. Then, people get all up in arms because their Corvair could explode on them but they aren't allowed to keep it.

So here we essentially had people who's plans didn;t cover the basics of what is now required to be considered "healthcare". Therefore, their plans are being cancelled because it doesn't meet the new minimum standard. Then people are all butt hurt that the Plans they use to own which are now inadequate to be considered Healthcare are being cancelled. Now people are angry that their "non-healthcare" healthcare plans are being cancelled.

It barely makes sense. Secondly, why were you paying for such a piece of crap plan in the first place?

That would be a really good analogy if your healthcare plan had the potential to explode.

 Easy E wrote:


I'm not a fan of some of its provisions, but I also don't see an R alternative that they are fighting to replace Obamacare with. Maybe if they had a plan of what they were going to repeal and replace O-Care with I would be willing to swap. Until then it is all just a bunch of noise and no signal.

"The plan is to allow those things that had been proposed over many years to reform a health-care system in America that certainly does need more help so that there's more competition, there's less tort reform threat, there's less trajectory of the cost increases, and those plans have been proposed over and over again. And what thwarts those plans? It's the far left," she said "It's President Obama and his supporters who will not allow the Republicans to usher in free market, patient-centered, doctor-patient relationship links to reform health care."

 whembly wrote:
Palin still in politics?

O.o

You do know she doesn't "speak" for those who oppose PPACA...right?

Many folks oppose it for myriad of different reasons.

But, if you want keep pointing out that the Republicans don't have an alternative, it's because you haven't been paying attention:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/a-serious-republican-health-care-plan.html
http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare

And those are only the recent ones...

 Easy E wrote:
No, the question was not about why they oppose it,; but what they plan to do instead of ACA. The answer apparently is.... I have no idea?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is referring to the White House debated whether Obama should make that statement at all:

The White House said it was unaware of the objections.

That seems eerily familiar........

ObamaCare - I know nothing
Benghazi - I know nothing
IRS scandal - I know nothing
NSA Spying - I know nothing
Phone tapping the media - I know nothing
Fast and Furious - I know nothing
Solyndra - I know nothing
Tapping of Merkel's phone - I know nothing

“Putting things in perspective:

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this progressive federal government to build a working webpage. Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin – all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!! And in that amount of time – this administration can’t build a working webpage.”

Time to Start Considering Obamacare's Worst Case Scenarios

The saying goes that things have to get worse before they get better. But with Obamacare, things just keep getting worse—and then they get worse still. In private, even many critics of the law are at least a bit surprised by how poorly the rollout has gone. The question that many are asking is: How bad can this really get?

The answer is...worse. A lot worse.

Over the weekend, several reports suggested that, despite continued assurances that Healthcare.gov, the problem-plagued online insurance enrollment portal run by the federal government, would be running smoothly for most users by the end of the month, it increasingly looks likely that the deadline will be missed.

Insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski, who, thanks to his contacts with his insurers, has been a critical and frequently prophetic source of information about the law’s rollout, opened a blog post this weekend with the following assessment: “It is now becoming clear that the Obama administration will not have Health.care.gov fixed by December 1 so hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of people will be able to smoothly enroll by January 1.” Laszewski says that months, not weeks, of work remain.

The dates he lists are important, and not only because of the administration’s self-imposed deadline of November 30. Anyone who wants to purchase insurance that kicks in at the beginning of next year must complete enrollment by December 15. If the system isn’t working smoothly at least a couple weeks prior to that rapidly approaching date, then large numbers of people simply won’t have a chance to sign up.

That is a potentially huge problem for a law whose central premise and promise was that it would create new opportunities for millions of people to sign up for coverage that goes into effect at the beginning of 2014.

It’s a problem that would be big enough on its own, but is now compounded by the fact that, thanks to rules and regulations built into the law, millions of Americans have already had their existing individual-market insurance cancelled, and estimates say that millions more cancellations are on the way. The end result could be that many people—thousands, perhaps even millions—end up with their current private insurance plans terminated due to the law, but no way to sign up for new coverage.

This is not a problem confined to the 36 states covered by the federally run health exchanges. In the state of Oregon, which has struggled to get its online enrollment system working and has yet to enroll a single person in private coverage, some 150,000 people are losing their existing health plans. A spokesperson for the state’s Insurance Division recently told the Associated Press that, if the state’s exchange isn’t functional soon enough, those people could see a break in coverage.

Translation: If you like your health plan, you can’t keep it. And until the exchanges are up, good luck obtaining a new one.

The administration is looking for workarounds. But the ideas now being floated mostly reveal how bad the potential options are—and how desperate federal officials are for any sort of quick fix.


According to a Washington Post report that ran over the weekend, one of those options would involve relying on the insurers to handle enrollment directly. Right now, health plans can manage most of the application process on their own. But they can’t complete all the steps, because they can’t connect with the federal government system that determines whether an individual is eligible for government subsidies. Even if they could connect with it directly, it’s not clear that the subsidy calculation system is working reliably enough to be useful.

So the insurers have suggested a temporary measure: Let the insurers estimate the subsidies on their own. Any estimates that are too low would be reimbursable, and any estimates that are too high, the insurers would get to keep. In other words, the federal government, backed by taxpayers, would be on the hook for their bad estimates.

Can this possibly be legal? Can the administration seriously be considering this idea, which is potentially costly and politically disastrous? Imagine how Democrats will feel about turning over the central operations of the health law to insurers. Imagine how Republicans will react to a plan that could cost more, and will serve as an implicit admission that the exchanges simply won’t work without a major overhaul.

That it is even being discussed suggests how dire the outlook is for the law’s near-term functionality. As the Post piece notes, the administration’s broad cooperation with insurers “is a tacit acknowledgment that the federal insurance exchange… might not be working smoothly by the target date of Nov. 30, according to several health experts familiar with the administration’s thinking.”

The potential problems are not confined to the near term either. Very soon, the short-term technical troubles could begin to have meaningful longer-term policy consequences. Insurers must decide what plans to offer and what rates to charge in the first half of next year. If enrollment is low, if the exchanges are still broken, and if the president and his administration are still losing credibility and popularity as a result of the rollout debacle, how will insurers react? By pulling plans from the market? By raising rates?

Right now it’s clear that many health insurers, having built business plans around Obamacare’s rules and regulations, are trying to work with the administration in hopes of turning the health law effort around. But how long will their cooperation last if the technical problems and administrative bumbling continue? We already know about one insurer that is so far refusing to submit its enrollment information into the administration’s system for fear of further corrupting their data. And insurers can expect more headaches even if the technical issues recede. As Jon Kingsdale, who ran the Massachusetts health exchange and consulted on the federal system, noted in the Post over the weekend, billing and tracking issues for the insurers are likely to be significant. That's not going to make insurers too happy.

How does this all work out for the millions of Americans who have lost their plans as a result of Obamacare? The White House has suggested that it’s working on an “administrative fix” to aid individuals whose plans were cancelled, but the options for an executive branch fix are limited at best. Cancelled plans generally can't be reinstated. Tweaking the law’s grandfathering rules won’t work, because of the start dates of many of the plans and because insurers, who have spent months if not years preparing their systems for the changeover, can’t rapidly reorganize their computer systems to accommodate a sudden change in policy. Expanding subsidies to individuals above 400 percent of the poverty line in order to mitigate the cost of buying a new plan wouldn’t be legal, and also wouldn’t help much if the online enrollment systems are still malfunctioning.

This could still be turned around, perhaps even soon. But it’s time to start considering the worst-case scenarios: that the exchanges continue to malfunction, that plan cancellations go into effect, that insurers see the political winds shifting and stop playing nice with the administration, and that significant numbers of people are left stranded without coverage as a result. Rather than reforming the individual market, which was flawed but did work for some people, Obamacare will have destroyed it and left only dysfunction and chaos in its wake.

 Zathras wrote:
And speaking of WW2, here's something else to think about regarding Obamacare:

“Putting things in perspective:

March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days.

December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day.

What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this progressive federal government to build a working webpage. Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin – all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!! And in that amount of time – this administration can’t build a working webpage.”

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/11/09/fun-fact-of-the-day-america-fought-wwii-quicker-than-obama-admin-could-build-healthcare-gov/

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
No, the question was not about why they oppose it,; but what they plan to do instead of ACA. The answer apparently is.... I have no idea?

"Nothing" works fine for me.

 Easy E wrote:


Except that we pay the most in the world for middling care.

If you are a fiscal hawk that should make you angry.

if you are a nationalist that should make you angry.

If you are a social justice advocate that should make you angry.

If you are a nihilist.... then carry on.

 Easy E wrote:
Except that we pay the most in the world for middling care. If you are a fiscal hawk that should make you angry.

If you are a social justice advocate that should make you angry.

-Shrike- wrote:
They are seriously considering letting insurers estimate the subsidy? What the feth are they smoking, 'cos I want some of it!