A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Surprise! ‘You can keep your coverage’ is not so truthy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 25th 10, 12:44 AM posted to alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.obama,alt.culture.alaska,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Leroy N. Soetoro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Surprise! ‘You can keep your coverage’ is not so truthy

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/...can-keep-your-
coverage-is-not-so-truthy/

The most obviously false claim that President Obama made during the
health-care debate — and there were many — was that, regardless of the new
law he sought, you could keep your current health coverage if you were
satisfied with it. It was obviously false because existing plans were
still going to be made to comply with certain mandates after a grace
period, and new mandates always cost something for someone — the health
consumer, the employer subsidizing the coverage or, most likely, both.

Some of us were pointing out that this wasn’t true in one iteration of the
health bill almost 11 months ago. But since the president kept repeating
his claim (albeit with ever-evolving nuance to cover himself), I guess
fresh confirmation that it isn’t so qualifies as news. From the Associated
Press:

Over and over in the health care debate, President Barack Obama said
people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many
employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the
new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be
in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange
projections in the draft.

Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided.

The rest of the article covers the debate between those who say the
president broke his promise and those who say, Eh, yeah, but don’t worry
because you’ll like the new benefits.

The latter argument is a nice spin job, but it misses the point. The
president didn’t say, “No one will have worse coverage after I’m done.” He
said, directly and repeatedly, that he wasn’t forcing anyone into anything
— a claim made to convince Americans that nothing would change for those
who were already content.

His administration is now debating whether that promise has passed its
expiration date. And keep in mind that its decision now will be subject to
change. If the law gives the executive branch latitude to make this
decision, that decision can always be reversed or modified.

In the real world, consumers have to balance the worth of new benefits
against their cost. When you aren’t given the choice of accepting the new
benefits or not, you’re left paying for them whether or not you like or
can afford them.

It’s another way this new law makes our system more, not less, broken.


--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. On February 25, 2010, the House ethics
committee has concluded that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.
Rangel knowingly accepted Caribbean trips in violation of House rules that
forbid hidden financing by corporations. Democrat criminal Nancy Pelosi
is deliberately ignoring the million dollar tax evasion of Democrat
Charles Rangel.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to be forced to remove Charles B. Rangel
from the House Ways and Means Committee.

Felony President.

Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.

18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position,
compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or
made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special
consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as
consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the
support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in
connection with any general or special election to any political office,
or in connection with any primary election or political convention or
caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #2  
Old July 6th 10, 06:50 PM
MommyBusyBee MommyBusyBee is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by ParentingBanter: Jun 2010
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy N. Soetoro View Post
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/...can-keep-your-
coverage-is-not-so-truthy/

The most obviously false claim that President Obama made during the
health-care debate — and there were many — was that, regardless of the new
law he sought, you could keep your current health coverage if you were
satisfied with it. It was obviously false because existing plans were
still going to be made to comply with certain mandates after a grace
period, and new mandates always cost something for someone — the health
consumer, the employer subsidizing the coverage or, most likely, both.

Some of us were pointing out that this wasn’t true in one iteration of the
health bill almost 11 months ago. But since the president kept repeating
his claim (albeit with ever-evolving nuance to cover himself), I guess
fresh confirmation that it isn’t so qualifies as news. From the Associated
Press:

Over and over in the health care debate, President Barack Obama said
people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many
employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the
new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be
in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange
projections in the draft.

Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided.

The rest of the article covers the debate between those who say the
president broke his promise and those who say, Eh, yeah, but don’t worry
because you’ll like the new benefits.

The latter argument is a nice spin job, but it misses the point. The
president didn’t say, “No one will have worse coverage after I’m done.” He
said, directly and repeatedly, that he wasn’t forcing anyone into anything
— a claim made to convince Americans that nothing would change for those
who were already content.

His administration is now debating whether that promise has passed its
expiration date. And keep in mind that its decision now will be subject to
change. If the law gives the executive branch latitude to make this
decision, that decision can always be reversed or modified.

In the real world, consumers have to balance the worth of new benefits
against their cost. When you aren’t given the choice of accepting the new
benefits or not, you’re left paying for them whether or not you like or
can afford them.

It’s another way this new law makes our system more, not less, broken.


--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. On February 25, 2010, the House ethics
committee has concluded that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.
Rangel knowingly accepted Caribbean trips in violation of House rules that
forbid hidden financing by corporations. Democrat criminal Nancy Pelosi
is deliberately ignoring the million dollar tax evasion of Democrat
Charles Rangel.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to be forced to remove Charles B. Rangel
from the House Ways and Means Committee.

Felony President.

Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.

18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position,
compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or
made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special
consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as
consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the
support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in
connection with any general or special election to any political office,
or in connection with any primary election or political convention or
caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this article, Leroy. Insurance companies are privatized and have never been ruined by government intervention. I've read the bill before and it's very much clearly stated that the government can't alter insurance practices unless those companies are doing something illegal and/or wrong.

I think most people are aggravated because following the bill being passed, the insurance companies decided to raise prescription costs. Do we blame Obama? No. Not at all. Those pharmaceutical companies were making plenty of money before. Essentially, they raised their costs out of spite and to gain support for privatized health care and opposition towards Obama's plans. No one gets angry with the pharmaceutics companies and they're really the ones to blame. They charge WAY too much for medication that ultimately keeps people alive.
  #3  
Old April 5th 11, 10:32 AM
stevenricherd stevenricherd is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by ParentingBanter: Apr 2011
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyBusyBee View Post
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this article, Leroy. Insurance companies are privatized and have never been ruined by government intervention. I've read the bill before and it's very much clearly stated that the government can't alter insurance practices unless those companies are doing something illegal and/or wrong.

I think most people are aggravated because following the bill being passed, the insurance companies decided to raise prescription costs. Do we blame Obama? No. Not at all. Those pharmaceutical companies were making plenty of money before. Essentially, they raised their costs out of spite and to gain support for privatized health care and opposition towards Obama's plans. No one gets angry with the pharmaceutics companies and they're really the ones to blame. They charge WAY too much for medication that ultimately keeps people alive.
It is all according to law and no one can raise a finger on the Government or insurance companies, because if the companies not follow the bill then this is upto Government to take action on them.

Last edited by stevenricherd : April 13th 11 at 08:29 AM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you have medical coverage for your pregnancy?? [email protected] Pregnancy 0 May 6th 07 11:16 PM
Insurance coverage for pregnancy [email protected] Pregnancy 4 April 26th 05 07:58 PM
Medical Coverage in addition to Child Support in Texas? No Spam Child Support 2 September 9th 04 02:17 PM
More on BF and BK: TV coverage iphigenia Breastfeeding 16 November 17th 03 03:41 PM
California medical coverage The Dave© Child Support 4 August 16th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.