Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.
The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.
If you can watch the video of Obama promising people that they can keep their health plans and read even one letter of someone being kicked off theirs and not come to the conclusion that he lied, you should be immediately removed from the gene pool.
Wouldn't it have been nice if the WaPo and the NYT and LAT, with all their investigative reporters, had made some effort to dig into Obamacare and report on it honestly before it turned into this giant clusterfrack?
Wouldn't it have been nice if the WaPo and the NYT and LAT, with all their investigative reporters, had made some effort to dig into Obamacare and report on it honestly before it turned into this giant clusterfrack?
No, they had more important stories to run about "binders full of women," Sandra Fluke, legitimate rape and all the other diversions they were told to run with by the DNC.
Hilarious. Any time WaPo finds a con lie, you guys dismiss it out of hand as "biased." But now it's God's own truth.
But it doesn't make any sense. Is WaPo saying that the regulations on the polices were a lie? Is WaPo saying that the plans weren't grandfathered in?
Is the WaPo saying that the regulations were just introduced to protect consumers are a lie?
So basically President Obama should have known that insurers would offer their customers policies that were grandfathered in, but that the insurer changed in violation of the law when they had 3-4 years notice?
This makes no sense. How much is everyone? If 97% of people's insurance policies don't change that's still a lie?
Nothing like stating the obvious, Kessler. I wonder if the horribly biased "Politifact" will take a swing at this topic?
Obama was given Four Pinocchios for this, because apparently Twelve Pinocchios were not available.
Politifact is comedy gold from The Tampa Bay Times. God, what a horrible paper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
