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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by stevenricherd : April 13th 11 at 08:29 AM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 02:41 PM |
California medical coverage | The Dave© | Child Support | 4 | August 16th 03 05:27 AM |