President Obama’s claim that if an individual likes their health care coverage in 2009 or 2010 is technically true but misleading. It is true that if there has been no plan changes in benefits, network, tiering or basic eligibility, a plan that does not meet PPACA requirements for life time limits, coverage of essential health benefits and community underwriting can continue to go forth in the marketplace for as long as someone will buy it but the practical impact is that there are very few stable plan designs of more than a few years.
The grandfather regulations and definitions are at the link below. I’ll summarize before most of the readers here fall asleep.
Plans are grandfathered past some Obamacare regulations for plans that had membership before PPACA was signed into law and the following items were not significantly changed:
- Out of pocket limits, co-pays, deductibles and co-insurance levels
- Covered services
- Eligibility requirements for members
- Employee contributions to premiums if group coverage, or total premium for individual coverage
Grandfather plans were destined to die rather quickly due to underlying trends in the insurance market. Over the past twenty years, deductibles have increased, co-insurance has increased, out of pocket maxes have increased, and employee contributions to the premiums have increased. This was trend and it would have continued even if the firebaggers were successful in killing the bill.
In year 1, most plans were grandfathered but some plans became PPACA compliant as deductibles increased, co-pays increased and employee contributions increased as employers sought to decrease the amount of increase that they paid in health benefits. In year 2, fewer plans were grandfathered as more benefit design and payment design changes occurred. Now, in year 3, there are still a few grandfathered plan designs available, but most plans and employer sponsored groups are using PPACA compliant designs.
It is quite possible for a plan to stay grandfathered for a decade. I will be shocked if my company has no grandfathered plans in 2020; we won’t have many, but we’ll have at least one or two groups clinging to their 2009 plan design.
So, it is true that if you liked your 2010 insurance plan AND there were no material changes to it, you can keep it. It is just extremely unlikely that there are no material changes to your plan.
Mnemosyne
I’m still a little puzzled by the meme since the claim is that Obama lied in 2009, which was before the legislation was passed — he signed it into law in March of 2010. So, what, he climbed into his time machine, figured out what the legislation was going to be before it was completed, and then pre-lied about it based on that knowledge?
Trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
You forgot about the part when he sacrificed the chicken, which was as important as the time machine. Won’t somebody think of the chickens?
Omnes Omnibus
@Trollhattan: Well, they are less important now that we don’t need them to pay our medical bills.
Ben Cisco
Clearly he wasn’t clear enough.
What he should have said was:
Clearly.
jonas
@Mnemosyne: Well, he had the Libyan ambassador killed before he knew about Assad’s chemical weapons attacks, so there’s no telling what he’s capable of.
On lying about the health plans thing, I do think the president, or at least his point people on the ACA, Sebellius, congressional aides, etc., had to know that telling people nothing in their current insurance policies would change, guaranteed, was a very risky thing to say. Someone should have said, “Mr. President, you’re going to have to qualify these claims, or we’re going to have a lot of pissed people on our hands come 2014.” Even if trading up into an ACA-conforming plan is a plus over the long term — both for them and the country — this kind of stuff, like the rollout problems with the website, were unforced errors.
NonyNony
@Mnemosyne:
I thought that the accusation was the one traditionally leveled at all politicians – he claimed one thing when campaigning for votes and then signed into law something that was different than he campaigned on.
Which is why it’s falling flat for the most part. Because it’s the kind of thing that is a normal part of expectations for elected officials in the USA. It isn’t like he lied about smoking crack or something.
Chyron HR
@Ben Cisco:
Obama lied, I was denied my ham sandwich because of a pre-existing condition.
pseudonymous in nc
Isn’t it equally true — at least in the individual market — that if you’ve had a plan since 2010, you’re in a tiny minority, given that most people pre-ACA didn’t have individual coverage for an extended period of time? The annual churn rate was reported at around 50%: is that accurate?
Omnes Omnibus
@pseudonymous in nc: Correct.
Ben Cisco
@Chyron HR: No bacon, no peace!
Belafon
According to the chart on the previous post, Obama’s statement was 94% correct (80% + 14% that went from not having a plan to having one). I know that’s like 3 Pinocchios, but it’s not like his qualifying anything would have made any difference in the number of “Obama’s going to take my house in order to pay for blah’s to go get t-bone stakes from their doctor” statements.
Richard Mayhew
@pseudonymous in nc: Individual market traditionally had high churn as it was a shitty market to be in. It made sense to go individual market when there was a high probability of only a short time frame of non-group coverage (ie graduating college and waiting for a job to start in August, short term unemployment etc). As a means of providing long term and decent coverage, the individual market sucked as it either had tremendous adverse selection effects (New York state for instance) or had massive medical underwriting so it insured the young and the healthy cheaply and almost no one else could get coverage that would actually pay out.
FlipYrWhig
I still think that the “if you like it you can keep it” thing was never meant to be a statement about all insurance policies in existence — how could he possibly promise that? — but instead a reassurance that “Obamacare” was not something anyone would ever be forced into. That was what sunk the Clinton proposals. Maybe he should have said “If you like your plan and it’s a good plan, they’ll keep offering it, and you’ll be able to keep it.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Ben Cisco: Bacon and peas? Seems an odd sandwich.
some guy
Rube Goldberg would be so proud of his contribution to how healthcare is delivered in this country. pure awesome.
Chris
@FlipYrWhig:
Could he actually have gotten away with that? Or would it simply have led to an outpouring of “YOU SEE! You’ll only get to keep your plan if OBAMA likes it!” Etc.
Redshift
@Belafon: I know a couple of people who are in high dudgeon over “he lied to sell his plan!” My response has been “I didn’t hear a peep from you about death panels and ‘government takeover’ and ‘he’s cutting Medicare,’ but now a lie is an outrage? Spare me.”
fuckwit
death panels!! i knew they were coming to kill our grandfathers!
jl
The ACA is awful. I mean, whenever did insurance companies hike premiums, hike co-pays and deductables, drop lines of coverage before Obamacare?
Note: that is snark.
I remember i had an individual policy once, and I was young and naive, and thought that the line that ‘oh don’t worry, we can’t cancel you or make big changes unless we discontinue the whole product, and, jeez, that won’t ever happen!’ meant something. Well, it did for a few years, but after that…
I recalled that statement when I cancelled the policy after it became hugely expensive, and had a very different benefit design.
Edit: there was a TPM post earlier this week mentioning that Obama could be accused of lying if he had promised a government takeover of health insurance that prevented private insurance companies from ever changing their policies. No time to find it now, but I thought it made a good point about how much this bamboozle has be overblown.
Cervantes
@FlipYrWhig: Maybe he should have said “If you like your plan and it’s a good plan, they’ll keep offering it, and you’ll be able to keep it.”
“If you like your plan, and it’s a good plan, and they keep offering it, and you can keep paying for it, and your insurer does not go belly up, and global sea-rise does not drown you, and an asteroid doesn’t strike Earth, and we don’t run into maximum entropy or the heat death of the Universe, and …”
Honestly, the people playing these stupid, stupid games — Republicans, mostly — ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Redshift
While the point that most of the plans that are being discontinued are ones that suck, I don’t think it’s being emphasized enough that for nearly all the horror stories of “my plan is being canceled and rates are going up 65%!,” the 65% is from the replacement plan that their insurance company is suggesting, and their insurance company is lying (at least by omission.)
As was reported by a commenter here very early on, and in numerous cases since, this seems to be an extremely common tactic from insurers. If your plan is canceled, and you take their suggested replacement as your only option and don’t look on the exchanges to see what your options are, you’re going to get screwed, and not by the Obamacare or Obama, by your insurance company.
That’s the way Democrats should counter this ridiculous meme, not with “well, your plan sucked anyway.” If enough of them do it, maybe the media will even begin to take notice.
Chyron HR
@Ben Cisco:
He’s a Muesli, you know. They don’t even eat bacon.
jl
@Cervantes: Thanks for digging up the exact wording. And I read the BS WaPo fact checker is handing out noses for that. Worthless corrupt media. Really, impossible not to call out the BS anymore without being complicit with corporate and GOP lying.
Edit: Oops you were not offering a quote. Sorry, I misunderstood. But, you have to be willfully and/or strategically dim not to have understood what Obama was saying, especially since there was an almost exact same debate back about that statement before the law was passed.
Chris
@Redshift:
I think “I know someone whose insurance went up 65%/who lost their insurance because of Obamacare!” is the new “I know someone who missed out on getting a job because affirmative action.” It’s mostly bullshit, but because it conforms to what a ton of people want to believe and places the blame squarely somewhere they’re inclined to place it anyway, the meme becomes commonly accepted wisdom anyway.
raven
@Chris: And we were spit on by hippies in the airport.
jl
@raven: Well, my teabagger relatives out in the Central Valley CA cannot clip out little ads anymore for completely unheard of health insurance schemes based in Delaware or NJ, or wherever far far away, and pay rising premiums for years, and then never see a dime in paid claims when they have an accident or get sick. Where did our freedom go?
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: Here’s one of the Obama quotes from 2009:
The “time machine” thing is silly. He was making an ironclad promise about the future. Clearly he did not live up to that promise. If you prefer to call it “Obama breaking his word” rather than “Obama being dishonest”, fine.
pseudonymous in nc
@Richard Mayhew: Thanks, Richard, that was my assumption: basically, gap coverage where you tried your damndest to get off it onto a group plan before your insurer chucked you off it.
That’s not even counting the absolute junk policies that didn’t constitute major medical coverage.
raven
@jl: FreedDOMS!
raven
@TG Chicago: Back at it huh dickhead?
The Raven on the Hill
In other words, Obama dissembled.
Just what did he think this was going to do for his party during the next election?
Thanks, Obama.
raven
The whiny bitch patrol is on the case.
Belafon
OT: Michelle Nunn (D), who is running for Chambliss’s seat in Georgia, is getting Republican businesspeople in Atlanta to donate and fundraise for her. The speed of this collapse may become dizzying.
jl
@TG Chicago: OK, that is a quote. And it demonstrates the dishonesty of the pundits and news actors, and corrupt BS fact checker scam artists saying it is a lie.
Obama said the law would not take it away, he did not say the law would prohibit insurance companies from discontinuing or changing their policies.
And smarty pants rich ass supremely competent pundits did not understand that? They could not understand it when the claim was first made and after the first round of debate, and they cannot understand it now? Yeah, sure.
Everything about this so called scandal is effed up and BS (to put it politely in this family friendly blog)
TG Chicago
@Omnes Omnibus:
Again, the promise he made was “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
He was saying that if you like your plan, nothing in the reforms we enact will take that plan away from you. That turned out not to be the case for some people.
jl
@TG Chicago: “Give me the man and I’ll give you the case”, as a famous man once said, and who apparently is a model for our corporate news BSers and the GOP.
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago: The reforms didn’t take the policies away. The insurance companies did.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: Logic will do it.
TG Chicago
@jl: But the ACA did make it economically impossible for insurers to continue some plans. Some of those plans were contingent upon yearly changes and high turnover. Once you say that you can’t change the plans and you can’t enroll new people, you’re essentially killing the plan.
That’s what Richard means when he says it was “technically true but misleading”.
Belafon
@raven: Well, making all those people who were happy paying someone so that they could
continue the fantasy that they actually had health care coveragehave the rest of us pay their bill when they went to the emergency room ACTUALLY pay for their own health care is what makes this lie so bad. It’s even worse than telling all of us who knew there was nothing to claims of WMD in Iraq that a few soldiers will need to die in order to prove us right.TG Chicago
@Omnes Omnibus: The reforms made it economically impossible for the companies to continue the plans. Again, “technically true but misleading”.
Omnes Omnibus
@raven: It isn’t for TGChicago and the other bird, it is for other readers on whom logic works.
raven
@Omnes Omnibus: ding
David M
@TG Chicago:
The insurance companies made a business decision that they were not going to grandfather the plans and would rather end them. Obamacare gave them the opportunity and a way to continue the plans and they chose otherwise.
Seems like a minor thing to get worked up over, just another example of the insurance companies making decisions that their customers dislike.
piratedan
@TG Chicago: WELL THANK GOD THAT YOU’LL NEVER HAVE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ty cleek, once again for your pie filter!!!!
NR
@FlipYrWhig:
Well then that was a massive lie, because everyone in America is now forced to give money to private insurance companies.
jl
@TG Chicago: Are you snarking. If I buy a twinkie, and someone says no one will take it away, and the Hostess company decides to drop the product (edit, or go out of business), did that someone lie to me? And am I outraged because I have to pay more for a Little Debby dream cake, or bar, or whatever they call theirs.
Really, what sane person thought that health care reform would result in insurance companies offering the same product for the same price forever?
In addition to the fact that this whole BS is a worn out dumbed down retread of the first round of debate about it.
Patrick
@TG Chicago:
You are saying that Obama should have forced the insurance companies to keep these plans. Can you imagine the outcry from people like you, like FoxNews and the GOP if Obama done just that?
BTW – I find this fake outrage amusing. Where was the outrage from people like you over the fact that insurance companies were allowed to refuse insurance to people without pre-existing conditions prior to the ACA?
TG Chicago
@Omnes Omnibus: Does logic work on Richard Mayhew? He also said Obama’s claim was “misleading”.
Chyron HR
@raven:
If he posts it a certain number of times, it will magically cause Obamacare to be repealed and revert everything to the way it was in 2008. This is seriously how these people’s brains work.
David M
@TG Chicago:
It wasn’t a misleading statement for the vast majority of the country.
jl
@TG Chicago: I think Richard is wrong on this (edit: meaning his evaluation of the merits of the accusation). This issue was debated, the fact that the the law was going to raise minimum standards for health insurance plans was debated before the law was passed.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy at all for his issue. None, zero.
raven
@Chyron HR: This party just took a turn for the douche.
Quaker in a Basement
@pseudonymous in nc: Thank you! If you’re part of the gigantic majority of Americans who get their insurance from an employer or a government program, Obama’s promise was exactly correct.
TG Chicago
@Patrick:
I never said anything of the sort. But I don’t think Obama should have made such an airtight, ironclad promise if he wasn’t going to live up to it.
“People like me” expect that a for-profit insurance system will be bad for many people. But you’re muddying the waters. I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to accept that Obama did not live up to his promise. Richard Mayhew said so at the beginning of the OP. Accepting that this was “misleading” is not tantamount to saying that the ACA is doomed or Obama should be impeached. It’s living in reality.
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago: You’ve been screaming “Lying liar lied!” about this. Now it’s true but misleading? As I see it, for the vast majority of people – those who have employer provided insurance or medicare and those who have crap insurance but hate it, the statement is perfectly true. The very small number of people who have and love their crappy policies doesn’t negate that. A politician made a statement for political effect. It was not 100% accurate; it was 97-99% accurate. If this is the hill on which you want to dig in for a last stand, fine.
Redshift
@TG Chicago:
I weep for the insurance plans that will no longer be able to be “economically viable” based on blatantly screwing people over. All this talk of people, will no one think of the poor insurance companies?
FlipYrWhig
@NR:
Yes, to give money to insurance companies… for insurance, bound by rules that makes that insurance better. Not for nothing.
But that doesn’t even help the point you’re trying to make anyway, but, rather, mine. There’s no “Obamacare” to speak of, no program that you sign up for and get back an Obamacare Card that you use to see your Obama Doctor. That’s why the statement makes sense: instead of being forced off your current plan and into The Obamacare Plan, you can keep your current plan. It’s not a promise about how every insurance company will behave. That would be stupid. It’s not well stated because it can be read as overpromising, but what the promise is being distinguished from is being overlooked.
FlipYrWhig
@Redshift: I said the same thing to TG two days ago. Apparently it doesn’t stick.
TG Chicago
@jl: The question is not whether insurance companies would ever change their policies on their own. It’s whether they would cancel policies due to the health care reforms. It’s cause and effect. Obama said “No one will take [your plan] away,” not “Your plan will exist in perpetuity.”
But the ACA did in fact create an environment in which some plans were no longer viable. And the creators of the ACA knew they were doing it. That was intentional. It was probably for the best. But it goes against what Obama promised.
Let’s put it this way: do you think Obama was wise to make that promise in 2009, when it clearly turned out to be a promise he couldn’t keep?
Belafon
@NR: Please tell us, oh wise one, how American’s are supposed to get health care right now any other way.
I’m already required to give money to a private insurance company. It’s called being the major bread winner and provider of health insurance for my family. I’ve had this requirement since I got out of the Navy.
raven
@FlipYrWhig: Fuck him, he’s like a goddamn little jack russell.
FlipYrWhig
@Quaker in a Basement:
And that was pretty clearly the immediate context of all of those statements. The missing element is the insistence on whether the plan qualifies. So beat him up for that. I still don’t think it matters much, because the number of affected people is small: individually-insured people whose plans didn’t meet the new federal minimum standards.
Patrick
@TG Chicago:
Your statement assumes Obama is a dictator. He is not. Most people (apparently not you and FoxNews) took his statement as a goal of Obama’s. People realized that Obama had to negotiate with Congress and what have you.
Just like Benghazi, this is such a non-issue to whoever I know. Most people (me as an example) have insurance thru work and won’t be affected by this whatsoever. And most of those who are impacted, will now have an option of lower insurance with better coverage. Of course, this assumes that these people would bother to research the facts instead of running to FoxNews and cry.
Chyron HR
@TG Chicago:
No, it was foolish of Obama to ever say anything that Republicans could possibly find reason to complain about later. This, of course, constitutes all known permutations of words in English or any other known language, but whatcha gonna do?
ETA: Also Klingon, Koko’s sign language, and that elf-talk from Lord of the Rings.
TG Chicago
@David M:
The ACA created an environment where it was not viable for the insurance companies to continue the plans. The creators of the ACA knew that it would not be viable for them to continue the plans.
You can blame insurance companies for many things — I surely do — but you can’t blame them for discontinuing a plan with a high turnover rate if they’re no longer allowed to enroll new people into the plan.
TG Chicago
@Chyron HR: It’s a mistake to assume I want ACA repealed. I just don’t like it when presidents lie.
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago:
I honestly am not bothered by a politician making a statement that is pretty much true.
raven
Please don’t dominate the rap Jack
if you go nothin new to say
If you please don’t back up the track
This train got to run today
raven
dupe for douches
TG Chicago
@Redshift: I’m not asking you to cry for insurance companies. I’m just puzzled that it’s so hard for people to admit that Obama broke his promise when the evidence is right in front of them.
I’m not saying that this part of the ACA should have been different. I’m saying that Obama shouldn’t have made such a bold guarantee when it clearly was going to come back to bite him.
Felinious Wench
My response to this silliness is “Correct. Something Obama said in 2009 did not come true. That is a factual statement.
Now, what are your ideas to improve the implementation of the ACA, which is not being rolled back? Ever?”
The crickets are deafening.
David M
@TG Chicago:
I’m not blaming the insurance companies for making the business decisions, just pointing out that it’s their choice to end the plans. It only makes sense to complain about Obama’s statement if there is no grandfather clause at all.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
He was making an “ironclad promise” about legislation that hadn’t even been written yet? And not fulfilling what even you now refer to as a “promise” meant that it was a “lie”?
Belafon
@TG Chicago: And why wasn’t the plan worth staying in? Why did it have such a high turnover rate? Because it was worth less than the paper this blog is printed on every day.
I’ll be even less apologetic than everyone else here. Obama was talking to the 80 percent of the people that get their health insurance through their job.
The people who were getting crappy insurance so they could pretend they were covered were not the target. These are the kinds of people who believe that they will somehow be able to cover cancer coverage or six months in ICU due to a horrific injury. And maybe Obamacare should have thrown in free six months of therapy so they can see how the world actually works.
Patrick
@TG Chicago:
By any chance, do you think what Obama did is worse than Bush, Bush the elder and Reagan who didn’t do a damned thing about helping all those Americans who were discriminated against due to pre-existing conditions?
raven
Pretty funny New Yorker Obamacare Cover.
TG Chicago
@Patrick:
A goal? Again, his own words:
Emphasis added.
By the president’s own words, it wasn’t a “goal”, it was a “promise”. He did not keep that promise.
Belafon
@raven: Maybe Obama can get Carlos’s cousin (Magic School Bus) to fix the site.
raven
@Belafon: And drive it to BENGHAZI!!!
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne:
“Promise” is Obama’s word. Yet again:
If you can agree that this was a “broken promise”, I will accept that term in favor of “lie”.
lol
A lot of concern here.
Patrick
@TG Chicago:
Talk about stretching… And you are the one who is accusing Obama of lying.
Anything that hasn’t happened yet is by definition a goal. Any rational person knows this.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Just correcting you back to your original stance in case people are under the impression that your original whine was about Obama “breaking his promise.”
Your claim was that Obama lied. You repeated that over and over again, ad nauseum. Now you’re going to try and pretend that your complaint was that he “broke his promise” and we’re all so mmmmeeeaaannnn for disagreeing with something so reasonable?
Of course, it’s not reasonable to freak the fuck out every time a politician over-promises, but I’m guessing you were one of those children who threw a screaming three-hour tantrum if your mommy promised you chocolate ice cream with sprinkles but forgot to put on the sprinkles.
Omnes Omnibus
cleek
@piratedan:
i consider it my small contribution to world peace.
tybee
@TG Chicago:
you must still be miserable about boy george’s administration. you and your sensitive fee fees and all.
TG Chicago
@Patrick:
Off the top of my head, I’d say W’s lies about Iraq’s WMD and dishonesty about ties to 9/11 were far more damaging than Obama’s dishonesty here. Also more damaging: Reagan’s dishonesty about Iran-Contra.
TG Chicago
@Patrick: So even though Obama explicitly called it a promise, it’s not a promise?
FlipYrWhig
@TG Chicago:
In context, that means “no one [from the government] will take it away.”
There were ways to be more accurate. Instead of “if you like it” the conditional could be “if it qualifies with our new, higher standards.” Or he could have had a separate part where he addressed the individual market.
But IMHO the audience is, as Belafon said, people already on employer-provided or Medi- plans, not everyone in America.
TG Chicago
@tybee:
I am! No question that his lies were very damaging. But the fact that I hated his more damaging lies doesn’t mean I accept Obama’s less damaging ones.
Patrick
@TG Chicago:
That I grant you. He broke his promise. But that’s not the same thing as accusing him of lying. He was promising something. Unfortunately he was unable to get everything he wanted in the negotiations. People like Lieberman etc (people who you really should get mad about since they are the real reason we don’t have a perfect health care system) stood in the way.
Richard Mayhew
@TG Chicago: That is not what I am saying… what I am saying is that there has been a very long trend of plan design changes that was ongoing pre-PPACA and is still continuing. Even in a non-Obamacare alternative universe, the % of plans that are identical for the 2014 benefit year as ccompared to the 2010 benefit year is very low.
As a side note, my company is doing internal open enrollment next week. I looked through my choice history and in my career here, I have had one two-year span with the same plan design, and the opportunity to have an additional couplet. Plan design changes a lot.
David M
@TG Chicago:
The “promise” was met when they included a grandfather clause. End of story.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Except that, by your own words in this very thread, you don’t think it was a broken promise. You think it was a lie:
You now have to prove to all of us that it was, indeed, an actual lie — something that Obama knew for certain, before the legislation was written, was not true — rather than a mere “broken promise,” which most normal people whose mommy didn’t forget the chocolate sprinkles know is not the same thing as a “lie.”
hoodie
@TG Chicago: Your standard of truth appears to be that Obama has to be everyone’s mother and the “promise” is that bad people will never do anything bad to them. The ACA allowed insurers to grandfather existing policies. They decided to materially change their policies instead and those new policies are not grandfatherable. If anyone was misleading, it was those insurers, who should have been obliged to inform their customers of the effects of the changes to their policies in light of the ACA as part of their contractual disclosure requirements. In fact, do you know that they didn’t, and the folks complaining just didn’t pay attention?
FlipYrWhig
@TG Chicago: It’s a promise that the government will not take your insurance away, which is true. The government did do things that resulted in insurance companies changing how they did business, which is a potential problem, but the government did not take anyone’s insurance away. I don’t think it’s even a broken promise. I think it’s a misunderstood promise about something else. So it’s more an embarrassment than anything else.
Cervantes
@TG Chicago:
Silly.
Obama did say all that, you’re absolutely right.
But then my doctor died.
So did Obama break his promise (double-plus-ungood!) or did he lie (very bad!)?
JoyfulA
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t know that it’s a gigantic majority of employer-insured workers.
I’ve been a freelancer since the 1980s and had individual health insurance since the late 1980s. It was decent insurance that was community-rated (I don’t know if it was Pennsylvania state law or a function of nonprofit Blues), and I did have a hip replacement under this plan so I’m not having misplaced faith in a policy I haven’t much used.
Two of my online freelancer friends moved to PA to acquire affordable health insurance that actually had benefits. Many more had to take 9-to-5 jobs they hated to get health insurance for family members.
The rates did keep rising, though, as did the numbers of working people who did not receive employer-provided health insurance.
All in all, I’m glad I’m on Medicare now.
TG Chicago
@FlipYrWhig:
Agreed.
Agreed again.
I think the president was quite clear who he was referring to. He specifically said, “I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor.” That’s the sentence that comes right before his promise. So that’s clearly the audience to whom he is making his promise.
So you’re right that it’s not everyone in America; it’s everyone who has a plan they like.
Belafon
@Richard Mayhew: The company I work for, a defense contractor, completely dropped one of their plans, the one I was on.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@NR:
Those on medicare, medicaid, and tricare, including those who will be covered on medicaid as of 1/1 do not fall under your stupid blanket statement.
Belafon
@TG Chicago: Awesome. You’re a mind reader. I’m sure this has come in quite handy in your realization that most of us here think your full of shit.
TG Chicago
@Richard Mayhew:
And given that fact — that the business model has been to change plan designs — and given that the PPACA grandfathering does not allow for those changes, is it not fair to say that the PPACA made that business model infeasible?
Also, is it not correct that these individual market plans typically had a high turnover rate? And that the PPACA would prohibit new enrollees to grandfathered plans? Would that not make those plans infeasible?
TG Chicago
@Cervantes: No. Your doctor did not die as a result of the ACA, so it’s not relevant to Obama’s promise.
FlipYrWhig
@TG Chicago: I think the reason why they’re “content” is not supposed to be their affective state of emotional happiness, though. Describing them as happy with it is a Lakoff-ish rhetorical way of describing how they have the peace of mind that comes from reasonable protection. But, admittedly, it can be heard as a promise to a different group of people than I believe the intended audience actually was, because the set of “people who claim to have been happy with their insurance” isn’t the same as the set of “people who have insurance worthy of the name primarily because they split the cost with their employer or the government,” even though (1) those overlap, and (2) the number of people in the first set but not the second is extremely small, and (3) I question the intensity of their claims of liking/happiness.
NR
@Belafon:
No. You made the choice to do that. Nothing was forcing you to.
But now, the law does force you to do so, just as it forces everyone. We are all forced, by law, to pay for insurance company CEO bonuses and corporate profits.
David M
@NR:
Pay the penalty then.
TG Chicago
@Belafon: What “mind reading” are you referring to? I was going back to direct quotes from Obama.
I mean, you’re reading:
(My emphasis.)
And you’ve decided that instead of meaning what he actually said, Obama meant only employer-covered plans? And I’m the one who’s mind-reading?
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago:
The death panels got him.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Patrick:
Take a moment to consider what you wrote. I have bolded the part you should consider especially well.
TheHalfrican
I just showed this to a Progressive I know that’s been drifting to rabid anti-obama-everything Libertarianism for years.
His response was to call it “bullshit” and link me to one of those news articles from last week saying THE ADMINISTRATION KNEW NO-ONE COULD KEEP THEIR PLANS OMFG.
You see, when he went to the website, his options weren’t cheaper. Therefore the whole law is shit and must go.
Sounds like an asshole, doesn’t he? There’s a reason I didn’t refer to him as a “friend”.
I think I’m just gonna spam him with blog posts like these now. Any recommendations are welcome.
Belafon
@NR: No, you’re not. You can choose to:
1. Take the tax penalty.
2. Not make enough money.
3. Live really far away from a hospital.
4. Leave the country.
5. Die.
If you are going the number two route, I’m willing to help pay for your insurance.
Number five is a bit extreme, I’ll grant you, but if you choose to live than you have chosen by definition to be part of the health care system, and if you can afford to, you should have to pay into it. Otherwise, you’re just mooching off of my health care, making my rates higher.
NR
@David M: By this logic, laws don’t force people to do anything. Just go to jail instead!
David M
@TG Chicago:
He also meant those plans, so his statement is mostly true at worst, even with your inability to comprehend the meaning of the word “grandfathered”.
NR
@TG Chicago: You’re wasting your time. These are the same people who believe that, when Obama specifically said that he’d offered to cut Social Security and Medicare, that that didn’t mean that he’d offered to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Reality and the BJ commentariat don’t tend to intersect very often.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
We’re also forced, by law, to pay for ER care of uninsured people, many of whom are treated at for-profit hospitals.
Why so upset about CEO bonuses for insurance company executives and not a peep about CEO bonuses for hospital executives profiting from the current system? The CEO of Tenet Healthcare — a hospital system, not an insurance company — has made $25 million over the past 5 years. Why am I supposed to keep paying him taxpayer dollars for ER care rather than paying it towards someone’s insurance policy that might prevent that ER trip in the first place?
NR
@Belafon:
Not necessarily. But if it should happen that you need health care…
…there are other ways to pay into it besides giving money to a bunch of greedy corporate middlemen who take 20 cents out of every dollar for profit and do everything in their power to deny you care when you need it.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Remind me, when exactly did those cuts go into effect? I seem to have missed the news, but I’m sure you’ll remember. Did the cuts begin in 2011? 2012?
Belafon
@TG Chicago: I would say 80% (the percentage that get their insurance through their employer) of 300M is probably millions.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Like paying it directly to for-profit hospitals that charge $15 for a Tylenol? Yeah, that’s a great plan. Why didn’t we think of that earlier?
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@NR:
Nope. Some are on medicare, some are on medicaid, and some are in tricare. You also have the option of not having health insurance.
Eric S.
Slightly Off Topic: I successfully registered on Healthcare.Gov today. As an Illinois resident I will be using the federal site. As a SWM, 42, non-smoker plans ranged from a low of $158 for a Bronze to a high of $454 for a Platinum. It took me about 20 to 25 minutes to get registered and part of that was getting briefly stuck in a loop of “Your application has been accepted” and “You need to provide further information”. A large green button that was a hyperlink didn’t act like one (didn’t change the mouse cursor or give any other indication) but once I clicked on it I continued on, told them I didn’t smoke and there were my list of plans.
I need to contact my doctor’s office to see if he takes any of them. I’m fairly new to his practice so I’m not 100% wedded to staying with him. However, I liked him and the practice well enough when there and it would be nice instead of starting over with someone I don’t know.
TG Chicago
@David M:
I agree that he meant both employer-based plans as well as individual plans, and that his promise was kept for employer-based plans.
I guess if someone cheats on their wife one time, they can claim that there are 3 billion+ women in the world, so their promise of fidelity was mostly true at worst.
What am I missing about the term “grandfathered”?
David M
@NR:
The choices in 2009, and by extension the next decade, were Obamacare or nothing. Do you really think no one else on here supports a public option or single payer health care?
Chyron HR
@Mnemosyne:
It doesn’t matter what actually happened, all that matters is what Obama said. That’s obviously what True Progressives mean when they constantly sneer, “JUST WORDS,” that just Obama’s words are what we should judge him on.
NR
@Mnemosyne: So by your “logic,” if you offer something to someone and they don’t accept, that means you never offered it in the first place.
You Obots really do live in your own little world where the basic tenets of reality just don’t apply….
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Why is it not relevant? Here’s Obama’s statement:
By your standards, isn’t that Obama promising that everyone will get to keep their doctor, no matter what? And if Cervantes’s doctor dies or stops practicing, by your standards, doesn’t that mean that Obama lied when he said Cervantes could keep their doctor?
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@NR:
The two examples you give are no longer allowed due to the PPACA. Care to try again?
Mnemosyne
@NR:
It means that an offer by itself is meaningless. If I offer to punch you in the nose and never do it, do you go rushing to the ER to have them do an x-ray because someone offered to injure your nose?
tybee
@NR:
so which of the plans available fit your specifications? or any plans that used to exist in the past few years. i’m sure we’d all love to see them.
Omnes Omnibus
@NR: Look, I can offer you a million dollars if you are able to make sense for a week without any fear that I will need to pay. Same with an offer to talk about cuts to SS, etc., in return for talk about tax increases.
tybee
@TG Chicago:
pretty much just the definition. nothing else.
Belafon
@NR: I’m pretty sure there are ways to pay for health care that don’t involve middlemen who take 20% off the dollar, but they don’t exist in the Unites States of America for 80% of the population, do they? I know you, once again, want to turn this into a referendum on Single Payer, but you know what, that would be Obamacare and would still be paying money to private corporations, who would demand a profit.
Can you imaging what this country would look like if we’d gone to a Single Payer system with Republicans blocking everything like they are doing right now? Imagine the Medicare system trying to get ready for 200M+ people after the Republicans shut down the government.
NR
@David M:
The Democrats would love for people to believe this, but it’s simply not true. The Democrats could have and should have passed Medicare for all.
They chose not to, because insurance company profits were more important to them than people’s health care.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: I explained why it’s not relevant. Obama was talking about changes brought about by his health care reforms, not changes that might occur for other reasons.
Some individual plans that people liked were made infeasible by the health care reforms. No doctors were killed by the health care reforms. So one is relevant and the other isn’t.
David M
@NR:
Good Lord, now Medicare for all could have passed? That’s even less credible than the numerically challenged claim that the public option could have passed.
Chyron HR
@NR:
Well, if you True Progressives had given your Tea Party allies the support they needed to prevent Obamacare from ever passing, Medicare For All would have happened by magic. Clearly you must shoulder some of the blame here.
tybee
@Mnemosyne:
pretty much TG and NR’s view. time machine + negro. = much bad juju * tears of firebagger
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
What about doctors who chose to retire or stop practicing because of PPACA? Doesn’t that mean that Obama lied when he said people could keep their doctors?
TheHalfrican
@NR:
if you srsly believe Medicare For All was politically feasible, can i plz have your weed dealer’s phone number and a price estimate for an ounce?
tybee
@NR:
bwahahahahahaha. poe. gotta be.
surely you’re not really that stupid….well, evidence does point to that conclusion.
pseudonymous in nc
@TG Chicago: Nobody’s going to take the stick out of your ass, because you like it so much. Apart from if you develop septicemia, end up in the ER, and they extract it.
Patrick
@NR:
Yup. And this is not much different than Switzerland, for example. Or France for that matter where the government only covers 70% of your cost. By default, most people get insurance thru the evil insurance companies. It seems to work just fine in both countries.
NR
@Mnemosyne:
Good god, you are really grasping at straws here.
I guess nothing Obama says ever means anything. Except, of course, the stuff you like.
David M
@TG Chicago:
Making something infeasible still implies that the decision to end the plan is made by the insurance company, not the government.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne:
If they were forced out of the market because the ACA made their business practices no longer feasible, then yes. However, I have not heard about that happening.
I have heard about it happening with some individual health plans, though.
In other words, if some goofy doctor somewhere “goes Galt” out of ACA spite, that’s not on Obama. But these plans aren’t being canceled out of spite; it’s because the ACA killed their business model.
Again: maybe it’s a good thing that the ACA killed their business model. But that goes against Obama’s promise.
NR
@Chyron HR:
It wouldn’t have taken magic. The Democrats had the numbers in Congress to make it happen.
The only reason it didn’t happen was because the Democrats didn’t want to do it.
Omnes Omnibus
@NR: Lieberman was not a Democrat. Lieberman was needed for the 60 votes. Lieberman would not accept Medicare for All.
David M
@NR:
Um, if they Democrats didn’t want to do it, then they didn’t have the votes for it. Numbers alone are meaningless when there were so many that were just barely on board with Obamacare.
Patrick
@NR:
OK – How? For example, Joe Lieberman stated that he was adamantly opposed to lowering the Medicare age to even 55. And he wasn’t alone. So, how do the heck do you think the Dems could have passed Medicare for all?
And if it was that easy, then why didn’t Clinton pass single-payer in 1993?
TG Chicago
@David M: You’re basically saying that insurance companies should have continued policies that would have become money-losers due to the ACA in order to prevent Obama from breaking a promise. I don’t think that’s fair.
liberal
OT: WTF is this?
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago:
No.
Amir Khalid
I don’t know why, but this just seems appropriate here …
(Life imitates art: I saw exactly this line used in a sketch by the Two Ronnies, many many years ago.)
CarolDuhart2
@NR: Really? Numbers in Congress aren’t enough. Think of how much money thie insurance agencies could put into opposition-that’s what happened the last time Hillary tried to get us care. I mean, all of those people working at the insurance agencies that would lose their jobs. I mean, an untried, unfamiliar system that would have cost millions more to implement, and would have had even more millions insecure about just about everything medical.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
So Obama is personally responsible for the business decisions of health insurance companies, but he’s not personally responsible for the business decisions of healthcare providers like doctors? Sorry, but that makes no sense. Unless, of course, you’re desperate to find something, anything to back up your claim that Obama lied, so you automatically ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion.
Cervantes
@TG Chicago: I see what you mean, but I also conclude that, as someone else said just now, you’re being “willfully and/or strategically dim.”
FlipYrWhig
@David M: NR’s been running this same Green Lantern wishing-is-doing diarrhea for 4 years. At a certain point you have to conclude that he’d rather be aggrieved than listen.
raven
Charlie Crist runnin in Fla.
FlipYrWhig
@Patrick: He’s just going to say that they didn’t try hard enough. If they tried harder, they’d win, but they didn’t win, ergo they didn’t try hard enough. It’s Ted Cruz logic: we were just about to win a glorious victory until They stabbed Us in the back. He doesn’t budge. He’s a dead ender.
raven
This thread needs funnies:
FlipYrWhig
@CarolDuhart2: Plus if the government is the single payer, good luck getting a robust suite of reproductive-care options. If we got Medicare For All we’d get Hyde Amendment For All right along with it.
NR
@Omnes Omnibus: Lieberman was part of the Democratic caucus.
But in any case, the filibuster rule can be done away with at any time with 51 votes. The Democrats could have passed anything they chose, and they chose a law that benefits the private insurance companies at the expense of people’s health care.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: Before the ACA, these plans were economically viable.
After the ACA, the rules changed so that the plans were no longer economically viable.
David M
@NR:
You need some remedial math classes again. The issue was that there never were 51 votes to end the filibuster, especially not for the public option, single payer or Medicare for all.
Even if the filibuster wasn’t there, none of those things had 50 votes, and some may have struggled to break 30.
David M
@TG Chicago:
Obamacare allows insurance companies to continue grandfathered plans even if they are no longer economically viable.
Patrick
@NR:
You are assuming that there are 51 Democrats willing to go along with Medicare for all. If it was so easy, then why didn’t the Dems do it in 1993 when they had 57 seats?
There are a lot of red-state Dems who would refuse to go along, not to mention blue-staters like Lieberman (caucused with Dems).
FlipYrWhig
@David M: He’s going to say that they didn’t try hard enough ETA or even want to try, because for him there’s one group called The Democrats who carefully coordinate their actions in order to spite him and people like him, rather than various Democrats with different views and beliefs who, once they are determined to go their own way, lock in. Forget it, Jake, it’s NR-town.
LanceThruster
@Trollhattan:
Arise chicken!
TG Chicago
@David M: True, but obviously they’re not going to continue offering a plan after the ACA made it economically infeasible.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Before the ACA, these doctors’ private practices were economically viable.
After the ACA, the rules changed so that these doctors’ private practices were no longer economically viable.
Sorry, still not seeing the difference here. If doctors made choices based on PPACA, then it’s Obama’s fault that they retired or stopped practicing and he lied when he said you could keep your doctor.
David M
@TG Chicago:
You’ve almost got it now.
ruemara
You guys sure this isn’t T&H playing reasonable troll? Because no one could be this obtuse and this bored to go however many responses on THE SAME FUCKING SUBJECT in 2 days.
Mnemosyne
@David M:
The rain … in Spain … stays mainly in the plain …
Omnes Omnibus
@ruemara: I think we just need a new clean thread.
Churchlady
The ACA did not cause cancellations. Cancellations caused the ACA. Insurance companies have dumped people forever. What you may have taken up AFTER ACA passed in the form of “junk insurance” was already doomed to be recalled – and it IS a recall just as the feds force upon car makers or other businesses for selling something that is dangerously substandard.
So ACA may have prompted a recall of junk insurance, but cancellations BY insurance companies was a normative action that deprived us all of coverage. Including that ham sandwich.
ranchandsyrup
@raven: This Charlie Crist?
piratedan
@Omnes Omnibus: the horse is dead and the stick is broken
pseudonymous in nc
@TG Chicago:
That’s a bullshitty argument. The reason they were economically viable was because they were built for short term coverage by people who weren’t going to utilize them, and had a 50% churn rate. That’s like saying that a restaurant is economically viable if it only poisons 10% of its customers every year.
Your concern remains noted.
jeffreyw
Will no front pager rescue me from this tedious blather? Look! A kitteh!
Peter
If your coverage needed to be changed every year for your company to offer it, then definitionally you would not have been able to keep your coverage with or without the ACA.
scav
Oh dear, has the nasty nasty government been making economically viable ripoffs less profitable and not forcing companies to maintain frozen patterns of offerings? How socialist of them. Bet they’ve decreased the ROI of baby pimping and not mandated that one can get the exact 4 month old enjoyed 4 months ago. And I can’t find the same spring peas in the supermarket either. Hell in a handbasket.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne:
What rules do you mean?
If the ACA did, in fact, change rules which forced doctors out of business, then I do count that against Obama’s promise. I’m just not aware that that happened.
Mnemosyne
@jeffreyw:
Is he helping Mrs. jeffreyw with her sewing? I know Bitsy is the product tester.
I don’t have good pictures of it, but this is the time of year where I build little blanket forts on the couch for Charlotte, because she gets a little chilly in the winter. Not chilly enough to grow more fur, but enough that she appreciates a good den she can curl up in.
TG Chicago
@David M: So when Obama promised that people could keep their health insurance, he assumed that insurers would continue plans that would be money-losers.
No, he knew full well that they’d be economically forced to discontinue the plans.
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago: Fuck it, you win.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Electronic medical records are now required for any doctor accepting Medicare or Medicaid. Some doctors chose to stop seeing patients rather than comply with the law. Therefore, Obama lied when he said you could keep your doctor — he knew this modernization was going to happen and he didn’t put in the proper disclaimer.
TG Chicago
Let’s say a Republican president said the following:
No matter what, we will keep this promise: If you wish to get an abortion, you will be able to get an abortion. Period. No one will take away your right to an abortion. No matter what.
Then let’s say that same Republican president signed a law enacting a $5 million dollar tax on all abortions.
I’m sure you all would agree that this guy kept his promise, right? You can still get an abortion! It’s completely economically infeasible, but he didn’t make it illegal, so he was entirely honest, wasn’t he?
I don’t agree with that line of thinking.
David M
@TG Chicago:
Pretty sure there isn’t a $5 million tax on every grandfathered policy.
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: I’m still not seeing how their business model depended on not having electronic medical records.
Also, as the link states, that change was based on the Recovery Act, not the ACA. Obama was talking about ACA changes when he made the speech in question. The Recovery Act was already law at the time of the speech.
TG Chicago
@David M: If you see a wide gap between making something economically impossible and making something illegal, so be it.
I think few people here would agree with that idea if the shoe was on the other foot.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Really? You have no idea how the cost of upgrading to an entirely new computer system could have anything to do with their business model?
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago: First, never going to happen. Second, to make your hypothetical valid, it needs to be more like this:
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
And your equivalent of signing a $5 million tax into law is … putting rules in place that limit the number of changes an insurance company could make to a grandfathered plan.
Jaysus, at least try to stick with your own metaphor and compare it to the laws currently being passed by various red states that restrict abortion access while technically leaving it legal. Or is that too much contact with the real world for you?
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: Do you have any examples of this taking place?
Also, you may have replied before I added the edit explaining that this is irrelevant since it refers to changes mandated by the Recovery Act, not the ACA.
Mnemosyne
@Omnes Omnibus:
But then TG Chicago would be here crying tears over poor, persecuted Kermit Gosnell, who was forced out of business by the evil government.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
I have exactly what you have: anecdotes from wingnuts. Why are your wingnuts more credible than mine?
TG Chicago
@Omnes Omnibus: That would, in fact, reflect a broken promise.
To put it another way, why are you all defending Obama for the fact that he promised not to touch awful, bogus healthcare plans?
TG Chicago
@Mnemosyne: I have more than anecdotes from wingnuts. I have the estimates from ACA regulators from July 2010 that said large numbers of individual plans would go under. Plus countless reports from a wide variety of news sources showing that it is happening.
Omnes Omnibus
@TG Chicago: I don’t know if it’s that you are stubborn or obtuse, but I really don’t care. I am done with this line of crap. Cheers.
David M
@TG Chicago:
You have evidence that companies are choosing to end plans? Or even that the Administration thought that companies would end plans?
That totally changes things. Not.
pseudonymous in nc
@TG Chicago:
“OBUMMER LIED, MY DOGSHIT HEALTH POLICY DIED!”
To put it another way, fuck off. Also, fuck off. Finally, fuck off.
TG Chicago
@David M: Yes, and when Republicans put massive blocks in front of things, it’s appropriate to say that “people of color are choosing not to vote” because of restrictions or “women are choosing not to get abortions” because they close down clinics.
It’s bogus either way. If not for the ACA rules, the plans would still be in place. Because of the ACA rules, they can’t realistically offer the plans. This was part of the plan. There was no need for Obama to lie about it.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
But you don’t have proof that Obama lied, which is what your claim is. As many, many, many other people have pointed out to you, these policies constantly “churn,” and did so long before PPACA. Where’s your proof that this is anything other than what would have happened anyway even without PPACA? Your own statistics show that 50% of people left those policies even before PPACA was implemented. The estimates from ACA regulators are based on what was already happening in the market prior to PPACA being implemented.
So where’s your proof not only that these policies are being canceled solely because of PPACA, but that Obama personally knew that they would be canceled and deliberately lied about it? Because that’s your claim — not that insurance companies made changes due to PPACA, but that Obama had personal knowledge 5 years ago of exactly what insurance companies would do and then deliberately lied about it.
David M
@TG Chicago:
No one knows this for sure, evidence suggests this probably is not true.
Fixed it for you. It’s likely the plans would have changed without the ACA, and people still would not be keeping the plans they liked.
Mnemosyne
@TG Chicago:
Prove it. Your own statistics show that those policies were expected to change, and that insurance companies change their policies all the time. So where is your proof that these specific policies would have remained unchanged in the past 5 years, unlike every other insurance policy before that?
David M
If most of the plans from 2009 would have naturally changed (ended), I wonder if the fact they were grandfathered means that more people have kept their plans from 2009 (more or less unchanged) than would have without the ACA?
Cervantes
@David M: The choices in 2009, and by extension the next decade, were Obamacare or nothing. Do you really think no one else on here supports a public option or single payer health care?
I wondered that, too. Thanks for putting it into words.
Paula
Ferreals, though, is this guy actually trying to defend crap plans costing hundreds of dollars with no help to pay against better plans where you can get help if you don’t make enough money … because Barack Obama said something that was not true for the minority of people who aren’t on employer-based plans?
Is there some kind of fantasyland where these cheap plans are better than the ones available through the exchanges?
NR
@David M:
There were more than 51 Democrats. So if there weren’t 51 votes, it’s because the Democrats weren’t going to vote for it in sufficient numbers.
The Democrats chose not to pass Medicare for all. It was a choice they made. They weren’t prevented from doing it by some kind of magical force the way you seem to think they were.
NR
@CarolDuhart2: Medicare is not an untried, unfamiliar system.
David M
@NR:
You seem to think there were more than 50 votes for it, but they still didn’t pass it. If they didn’t have the votes for it, why bring it up as an option?
NR
@David M: You’re talking about “the votes” like they’re some kind of immutable phenomenon passed down by gods on high.
“The votes” are Senators who belong to the Democratic party. And those Senators had a choice. They could have passed Medicare for all. They chose not to. But make no mistake, it was a choice.
David M
@NR:
That’s pretty much the point, but I don’t think you understand the words your typing out. They all didn’t unanimously decide against anything, they all had to unanimously agree to something. Some of them were never going to agree to Medicare for all, so we took what we could get.
Cervantes
@TG Chicago: To put it another way, why are you all defending Obama for the fact that he promised not to touch awful, bogus healthcare plans?
That’s at least funny!
Thanks for the comic relief.
Omnes Omnibus
@David M: Choosing one thing implicitly requires rejecting other things. So, yes, at one level NR is right. By choosing to type these words, I am rejecting other words that I could typed. At a completely different level, NR is full of shit.
Patrick
@TG Chicago:
These are garbage plans. People get a pre-existing condition and get kicked off all the time from these plans. Other than for extremely low-information people, this is a bigger non-issue than Benghazi ever was.
Andrey
@TG Chicago: if your definition of “lie” is “made a statement that is not entirely true in 100% of cases”, then yes, Obama lied. And it’s a damn good thing that he did. Because the way that human communication works is that when you are attempting to convey a message about policies to more than one hundred people, you have exactly three choices:
1) Lie.
2) Say nothing of any valuable substance.
3) Go into so much detail that most of your audience won’t understand what you’re saying.
ruemara
@NR: NO actually, they did not have the votes. At a 60 vote majority for cloture, a public option passed as a majority but failed the 60 vote threshold. Because we did not have Senator Al Franken in at the time, nor was there a Senator Martha Coakley.
jl
@TG Chicago: I get your point. Looks like we disagree about how a reasonable and responsibly informed person wold interpret what Obama said. I guess you have point, since looks like a significant fraction of U.S. population does not meet those criteria..
jl
@Paula:
” is this guy actually trying to defend crap plans ”
Who is ‘this guy’? Mayhew? I do not believe that he is doing that, rather just explaining the reality of those crap plans, and public perception of the supposed ‘lie’ (that was not a lie at all IMHO).
And anyway, the whole shebang was argued as the law was being passed, so this BS has officially entered zombie nonsense territory, as far as I’m concerned.
Xantar
@ruemara:
I think NR means that technically the Democrats could have all voted for Medicare for all. Just like technically Republicans could have supported Obamacare. I mean there’s nothing physically stopping them from voting in support of the President’s policies. They always have the choice. And they choose not to.
So clearly, it could have happened.
TG Chicago
@Paula:
No, I’m just trying to get people to admit that Obama said something that was not true. You seem to get that part, I’m happy to see.
TG Chicago
@Patrick: Whether they are garbage plans is irrelevant. Some people liked them, perhaps even out of ignorance. Thus, Obama shouldn’t have promised not to touch them.
ruemara
@Xantar: Technically, I could be a lost Koch sister.
tybee
@Omnes Omnibus:
thanks for that link. i wandered down that rabbit hole…and liked it.
Omnes Omnibus
@tybee: I heard him for the first time this summer. Local college radio station. I couldn’t believe the first album had been out for about two years and I had missed it.
satby
@TG Chicago: You’ve moved the goalposts of your argument to Figi by now. Quit using Chicago in your name because you’re a complete embarrassment to the rest of us.
johnny aquitard
TG Chicago is a paid shill. One of those sock puppets like fox news employed. He will be gone after his contract is up.
David M
@TG Chicago:
If I understand you correctly, Obama should have done what? Informed people that insurance companies were likely to continue changing and cancelling plans, but would blame the reforms, and gullible tools would believe the insurance companies?
At worst, his statement is technically true but misleading for a small number of people. Why would any sane person care about this?
TG Chicago
@satby: How have I moved goalposts? My point is that Obama said something untrue. Was then; is now.
TG Chicago
@David M: If you got a cancellation notice in the mail after Obama promised you wouldn’t, you probably wouldn’t like it much.
David M
@TG Chicago:
First, it’s something you think was untrue, but you can’t remotely prove it.
Um, I did get a cancellation notice in the mail, and I didn’t like it. However, it was from my insurance company, not the White House.
TG Chicago
@David M:
And there is no causal connection between the ACA and your cancellation notice?
A Humble Lurker
@TG Chicago:
We would know if there was proof.
David M
@TG Chicago:
The ACA gave the company the choice to grandfather the plan or end it. The company decided to cancel the plan.
Paula
@TG Chicago:
Thanks for confirming your dumb-ass parlor game.
As other people have said, Obama gave companies a choice to grandfather the plans or cancel them. Companies cancelled them.
Also, as many people have pointed out, this affected people who do not have employer based plans. Barack Obama, in most of his speechifying on the ACA, was addressing people who were afraid that their employee-based care would be taken away.
If you’re going to waste time like this, at least be relevant.
TG Chicago
@Paula:
It wasn’t a choice. They knew that the ACA changes would make many plans economically nonviable.
Someone made an analogy to a restaurant earlier. It’s like if there was a law passed that outlawed hamburgers, but grandfathered in existing restaurants. However, those restaurants could only serve hamburgers to people who were in the restaurant at that very moment and who stayed in the restaurant. If you leave, you can’t come back and new people can’t come in. Restaurants can’t stay in business that way, so of course they would take hamburgers off the menu.
You can claim that the restaurants merely chose to stop serving hamburgers, but clearly it wasn’t a legitimate choice.