Keeping Insurance: Did Obama Purposely Mislead

Obama denies videotaped "you can keep it" promises | The Daily Caller

In this article Obama is trying to say more was implied with the healthcare reform and that what he really said was something else.
Is this being disingenuous and back peddling, reasonable explanation or simply dishonest?

I'm not the thought police. If you're wrong you're wrong. We can't trust what he says even if it was an honest mistake.

One thing the President is not is stupid. He would have had a much harder getting the public support that he did if the full implications of the program were recognized earlier. Given that and the fact that he said a number of times I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than intentionally misleading.

Par for the course for a politician.

Gaius46 said:

One thing the President is not is stupid. He would have had a much harder getting the public support that he did if the full implications of the program were recognized earlier. Given that and the fact that he said a number of times I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than intentionally misleading.

Par for the course for a politician.

Click to expand...

if the media would have done their job and would have investigated the rights claims that have all came to fruition the law wouldn't have passed

He lied. Period.

Wow, poll results don't look good for him so far. I'm not sure he knows much about the details of things because there's so much a President has to hear about on a daily basis. But it does seem unrealistic that he didn't know about the insurance mandates and new regulations/guidelines being enforced.

He obviously didn't know what a disaster the website was or he would've had it fixed beforehand. I'm not sure what's worse being uninformed or intentionally misleading. I doubt anyone who doesn't want to sign up will do it with only a $95 fine, until 2015 when it goes up to $325. But losing a plan that cost less, even if it's less coverage doesn't sound fair.

I think it was probably entirely purposeful. Otherwise, he would have had a huge problem with trying to sell us a bad bill of goods.

lizzie said:

I think it was probably entirely purposeful. Otherwise, he would have had a huge problem with trying to sell us a bad bill of goods.

Click to expand...

But the fall out from such a blatant misstatement is worse than a better crafted form of misleading information. I would think he could've definitely come up with a slicker lie being a consummate politician. It's entirely possible after seeing how dumb the website turned out that he made a misinformed comment or mistake. Though the longer he takes to own up to it the more deceptive it appears.

68% will lose their coverage. Millions and millions and millions won't get a replacement. Those who do will pay much more for less.

Expert: 129 million will not be able to keep insurance plan | The Daily Caller

The structure of the ACA is such that it will make a profitable position
by the insurance companies untenable.
The insurance companies are not dummies, and so will rearrange their
strategy to make a profit in other ways. (such as administrating the ACA)
In one of the early versions of the Senate Bill, Private Health Insurance
was described as being given a 5 year GRACE period, during which
they could not increase premiums or decrease benefits.
The goal has always been a single payer public insurance.
Sen. Harry Reid: Obamacare 'Absolutely' A Step Toward A Single-Payer System - Forbes

grip said:

Wow, poll results don't look good for him so far. I'm not sure he knows much about the details of things because there's so much a President has to hear about on a daily basis. But it does seem unrealistic that he didn't know about the insurance mandates and new regulations/guidelines being enforced.

He obviously didn't know what a disaster the website was or he would've had it fixed beforehand. I'm not sure what's worse being uninformed or intentionally misleading. I doubt anyone who doesn't want to sign up will do it with only a $95 fine, until 2015 when it goes up to $325. But losing a plan that cost less, even if it's less coverage doesn't sound fair.

Click to expand...

With the law requiring exchange (all?) insurers to issue a policy to anyone (at any time?), why not just wait until you (or one of your dependents) get seriously sick to buy insurance? The annual fine is typically less than one month's premium cost. It makes sense to stash away enough to cover a few month's premiums (just in case) and only buy insurance when/if the need arrises.

ttwtt78640 said:

With the law requiring exchange (all?) insurers to issue a policy to anyone (at any time?), why not just wait until you (or one of your dependents) get seriously sick to buy insurance? The annual fine is typically less than one month's premium cost. It makes sense to stash away enough to cover a few month's premiums (just in case) and only buy insurance when/if the need arrises.

Click to expand...

Health reform of some kind is definitely needed but many aspects of this new provision don't make sense. The penalties and forcing higher coverages and premiums make it appear as if this wasn't vetted very well. If they don't make some adjustments soon it's going to be a monumental flop.

trfjr said:

if the media would have done their job and would have investigated the rights claims that have all came to fruition the law wouldn't have passed

Click to expand...

We don't have an impartial media in this country, it's all a bunch of biased idiots going for ratings. Nobody in the mainstream media does normal investigative journalism anymore.

grip said:

Health reform of some kind is definitely needed but many aspects of this new provision don't make sense. The penalties and forcing higher coverages and premiums make it appear as if this wasn't vetted very well. If they don't make some adjustments soon it's going to be a monumental flop.

Click to expand...

The whole thing doesn't make any sense, especially for the working poor. They're forced to buy insurance they don't need or want at rates they cannot afford or face fines they cannot afford, to get coverage with deductibles they cannot afford. So now, they're paying for insurance they can't even use because they can't afford to pay for the deductibles. And this is an improvement?

Cephus said:

The whole thing doesn't make any sense, especially for the working poor. They're forced to buy insurance they don't need or want at rates they cannot afford or face fines they cannot afford, to get coverage with deductibles they cannot afford. So now, they're paying for insurance they can't even use because they can't afford to pay for the deductibles. And this is an improvement?

Click to expand...

The improvement part is that insurance companies wouldn't be able to deny or drop coverage for prior conditions. But the improvements come at the costs you mention to offset the losses the companies would be hit with. I heard it explained in these terms, that if you make the insurance companies pay out more for sick people and don't have healthy people paying in they go broke.

grip said:

Obama denies videotaped "you can keep it" promises | The Daily Caller

In this article Obama is trying to say more was implied with the healthcare reform and that what he really said was something else.
Is this being disingenuous and back peddling, reasonable explanation or simply dishonest?

Click to expand...

At first, I thought he was mistaken or that those in his admin. told him that (even if they may have known it wasn't quite true). But now I think that he may well have lied out of frustration, to get the bill passed.

JumpinJack said:

At first, I thought he was mistaken or that those in his admin. told him that (even if they may have known it wasn't quite true). But now I think that he may well have lied out of frustration, to get the bill passed.

Click to expand...

So, the ends justify the means? Or perhaps, "lying to the american people is justified by the roll out of this wonderful piece of legislation" ? Anyway, congrats on being the only liberal to answer this thread so far and a response that wasn't partisan in the least.

SBu said:

So, the ends justify the means? Or perhaps, "lying to the american people is justified by the roll out of this wonderful piece of legislation" ? Anyway, congrats on being the only liberal to answer this thread so far and a response that wasn't partisan in the least.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I merely answered the question. It didn't ask "and were Obama's actions justified?"

No, whether by incompetence, ignorance, or dishonesty, or the reason for the dishonesty, the result has been destructive and is hurting millions of Americans. Of course, the Republicans didn't rely on his statements, whatever he said. They assumed he was lying about everything, I believe. (Remember the "You Lie!" statement that a Republican yelled out to Obama during the State of the Union address, when Obama said it would not apply to illegal immigrants?

So his statement has hurt mainly, ironically, his supporters and those in the middle. Those on the right hated Obamacare and wanted to stop it from the start and have never rested from that position. Whatever the policy amounts are for 2014 or whether people would be able to keep their old policies, the Republicans would STILL be against Obamacare in full. Remember the government shutdown we just went through, to try to defund Obamacare, BEFORE we knew about these issues with cancellations and high premium prices?

JumpinJack said:

Not at all. I merely answered the question. It didn't ask "and were Obama's actions justified?"

No, whether by incompetence, ignorance, or dishonesty, or the reason for the dishonesty, the result has been destructive and is hurting millions of Americans. Of course, the Republicans didn't rely on his statements, whatever he said. They assumed he was lying about everything, I believe. (Remember the "You Lie!" statement that a Republican yelled out to Obama during the State of the Union address, when Obama said it would not apply to illegal immigrants?

So his statement has hurt mainly, ironically, his supporters and those in the middle. Those on the right hated Obamacare and wanted to stop it from the start and have never rested from that position. Whatever the policy amounts are for 2014 or whether people would be able to keep their old policies, the Republicans would STILL be against Obamacare in full. Remember the government shutdown we just went through, to try to defund Obamacare, BEFORE we knew about these issues with cancellations and high premium prices?

Click to expand...

Well...were they justified?

True true, but I think they hated Obamacare not necessarily because they dislike Obama personally (although I think frustration with him is at an all time high), but rather because Republicans are against vast expansion of federal government in social welfare programs, which is what Obamacare essentially is. In other words, it's a legitimate ideological rift vice personal. Just like Democrats would cry to high heaven and obstruct to the max if Republicans were in charge and about to cancel social security or medicaid or something (even though time and our deficit will eventually kill them anyway more than likely).

SBu said:

Well...were they justified?

True true, but I think they hated Obamacare not necessarily because they dislike Obama personally (although I think frustration with him is at an all time high), but rather because Republicans are against vast expansion of federal government in social welfare programs, which is what Obamacare essentially is. In other words, it's a legitimate ideological rift vice personal. Just like Democrats would cry to high heaven and obstruct to the max if Republicans were in charge and about to cancel social security or medicaid or something (even though time and our deficit will eventually kill them anyway more than likely).

Click to expand...

No, not justified.

I do think the Republicans personally dislike Obama and anything he proposes (except waging war). I do think it's evident that a certain percentage of the Republican Party just can't get over the fact that a black man is President. His race shows up repeatedly at Tea Party rallies and references by far-right politicians. There were pics of Obama made up as a witchdoctor at Tea Party rallies, another time he was shown in pimp getup, and the like. References by Palin to "shuck and jive," referring to Obama. The Kenya crazy birther thing is based on race. There was an e-mail distributed by a Republican elected official (last year?) about Obama as a monkey, or something like that. The race shows up repeatedly, directly or indirectly. I underestimated the racism that exists in the country.

The Republicans can be this way. (Mind you, I belong to neither party.) They had a very personal animosity to the Clintons from the start. They went on personal crusades against them, even to the point of accusing Hillary Clinton of having someone murdered. Really wacko stuff. Until Bill Clinton handed himself to them on a platter, like an idiot.

The Republicans didn't argue against Obamacare on policy issues. They dug their heels in and just tried to obstruct it (even after the Dems accepted something like 200 Republican amendments, only to have no Republicans vote for it). They did NOT propose a competing reform act, which is what opposing parties normally do, when they have policy differences with the party in power. It was personal, it was hateful. It was not policy driven, for the most part. There were a few who had policy objections (McCain, I think).

Obamacare was a Republican plan. If a Republican President had proposed it, the Republicans would have amended it and passed it. Because they fall in line and pass their Republican leadership plans (this was pre-tea party).

Comparing Obamacare to SS and Medicare is not quite accurate, I think. Obamacare was not law. It was a proposed act. Social Security (which is solvent, BTW, and will continue to be for another couple of decades) and Medicare are established laws, and are quite popular (ESPECIALLY to older Republicans). Social Security has been a very successful program, doing what it was intended to do. Medicare has some financial issues, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE PART D THAT BUSH PUSHED THROUGH WITHOUT FUNDING. Obamacare did not add to the Medicare issues. It reworked some provisions, taking away some, adding to others.

So the Republicans would have trouble privatizing SS and Medicare, even among its own ranks. It's not just Democrats who would not go along with that. Most older people are Republicans.

SBu said:

Well...were they justified?

True true, but I think they hated Obamacare not necessarily because they dislike Obama personally (although I think frustration with him is at an all time high), but rather because Republicans are against vast expansion of federal government in social welfare programs, which is what Obamacare essentially is. In other words, it's a legitimate ideological rift vice personal. Just like Democrats would cry to high heaven and obstruct to the max if Republicans were in charge and about to cancel social security or medicaid or something (even though time and our deficit will eventually kill them anyway more than likely).

Click to expand...

I think it's clear that many Republicans PERSONALLY hate Obama and would obstruct just about anything he opposed. Here's an excerpt of a post in this forum about "Obummacare" by Huu Long or something like that:

As to the Monumental Fraud Obama's Commie/Socialist background, here is the basic information, each of the facts readily available for verification from various TV news outlets, and the National Media in general.

Obama's parents were both self-avowed Commies. His mother actually even hated her own race. And his mother's father, Obama's grandfather was a devoted Commie who got him a notorious Commie Frank Marshall Davis as a mentor .......all this from Obama's own book: "Dreams from my Father".

Some more about Obama's upbringing and relatives: Shortly before Obama's Presidential Campaign Obama visited his Kenyan relatives, all of whom were decidedly Muslim Communists. Obama went to several rallies where Raila Odinga, the Murderous Rapist known throughout Africa as the "African Stalin" was championing his Communist "Orange Party for Democracy". Obama had several photo-ops with this monster, arm in arm, smiling. And later, at an all Muslim Communist gathering with the rest of his Kenyan Family, Obama had the famous photo with him in his African garb and a turban ..... one of those photos had Raila Odinga looking on. BTW, the Monster Raila Odinga was denounced by our State Dept for slaughtering men,women and children in the thousands as part of his ethnic cleansing.

Somehow, all this does not negate Obama's leaning towards the Commie ideology.

Later, Obama becomes a "Community Organizer" i.e., a Rabble Rouser with the criminally indicted Voter Scam Organization, ACORN wanted by the FBI in approx 15 States. This is where Obama has a historically documented almost inseparable friendly relationship with an Unrepentant, Homicidal and Maniacal Commie/Terrorist Bill Ayers. These two unsavoury characters share the same Board at ACORN, the same speaking platforms where they spewed the same Commie Crappola, and were seen gallivanting frequently together at the various restaurants. Not only that, Obama kicked off his Senatorial Career from Ayers' home.

Want more ? Obama was Ayers' protege at the Nationally known, Most Notoriously Corrupt Chicago Political Machine run by Commies and the Mafioso ...... and Obama had the telling meteoric rise thru that Corrupt Organization. I wonder why ?????

Also, Obama's Senatorial Career was notable because he established himself to be the Leftiest Senator in Senatorial History to the left of even the Icon of Dem Morality, Ted Kennedy, The Chappaquidick Murderer (may he roast in Hell !).

Click to expand...

That's a post about Obamacare, mind you. That seems like personal animosity to me. I wish I could say that was a weird, rare type of post, but I have seen far too many of these over the years.

anonymous polls suck

Obama sucks more

Cephus said:

We don't have an impartial media in this country, it's all a bunch of biased idiots going for ratings. Nobody in the mainstream media does normal investigative journalism anymore.

Click to expand...

They certainly don't wear out shoes anymore.

Obama lies and the people who voted for him fell for his lies hook line and sinker.

Let me parse this up so I can try to respond coherently haha.

JumpinJack said:

No, not justified.

Click to expand...

Good, there is hope for you yet!

JumpinJack said:

I do think the Republicans personally dislike Obama and anything he proposes (except waging war). I do think it's evident that a certain percentage of the Republican Party just can't get over the fact that a black man is President. His race shows up repeatedly at Tea Party rallies and references by far-right politicians. There were pics of Obama made up as a witchdoctor at Tea Party rallies, another time he was shown in pimp getup, and the like. References by Palin to "shuck and jive," referring to Obama. The Kenya crazy birther thing is based on race. There was an e-mail distributed by a Republican elected official (last year?) about Obama as a monkey, or something like that. The race shows up repeatedly, directly or indirectly. I underestimated the racism that exists in the country.

Click to expand...

I believe you're right that some people have probably let their frustration turn into a kind of dislike and animus, but hate is a pretty strong word. That being said, there are racists and nut jobs on both sides, I think you would agree...and it's pretty safe to assume that white supremacists hate Obama like anyone else in their laundry list of hate-ees. I think the other spectrum of this is that SOME liberals look for race in each and every thing they see, especially related to criticism of this president (not necessarily unjustified since he is their president and the first black one at that...so naturally). Just google "funny bush pictures" in images and you'll see a host of similar musings, but I don't say that without conceding that you are also right in your observation to a minimal degree as it applies to certain fringe peoples.

JumpinJack said:

The Republicans can be this way. (Mind you, I belong to neither party.) They had a very personal animosity to the Clintons from the start. They went on personal crusades against them, even to the point of accusing Hillary Clinton of having someone murdered. Really wacko stuff. Until Bill Clinton handed himself to them on a platter, like an idiot.

Click to expand...

Eh, typical partisan nut job pot shots. To be expected.

JumpinJack said:

The Republicans didn't argue against Obamacare on policy issues. They dug their heels in and just tried to obstruct it (even after the Dems accepted something like 200 Republican amendments, only to have no Republicans vote for it). They did NOT propose a competing reform act, which is what opposing parties normally do, when they have policy differences with the party in power. It was personal, it was hateful. It was not policy driven, for the most part. There were a few who had policy objections (McCain, I think).

Click to expand...

Wellllll, let's be honest. Was there really time to argue against it? Did they really have the time or power to propose a competing reform act? Do you remember when it was passed, the time frame it was passed in? Christmas Eve 2009. Christmas Eve for god's sake. Passed by the house a month before, but literally rushed through the house by Pelosi without any reading it or any time to really debate it or build consensus. It's not like they spent a long time trying to build consensus or debate policy etc. They sure didn't spend any time reading it. I realize you probably won't release your view of it being personal and hateful, but I just disagree with you on that.

Boehner: GOP Plan Lowers Costs, Increases Access to Quality Health Care - YouTube (November 2009)

JumpinJack said:

Obamacare was a Republican plan. If a Republican President had proposed it, the Republicans would have amended it and passed it. Because they fall in line and pass their Republican leadership plans (this was pre-tea party).

Click to expand...

Source? I heard that there was some looking into something like this in the 90s but didn't have support. If you're referring to Romney, then I would say you're comparing apples to oranges because state programs are different than what is necessary at a federal level. So like apple and oranges are round, they taste different; and like state and federal are both government, they have different methodologies/purposes. Either way, this is hardly a Republican plan. If it were, I'm sure some Republicans would have voted for it.

JumpinJack said:

Comparing Obamacare to SS and Medicare is not quite accurate, I think. Obamacare was not law. It was a proposed act. Social Security (which is solvent, BTW, and will continue to be for another couple of decades) and Medicare are established laws, and are quite popular (ESPECIALLY to older Republicans). Social Security has been a very successful program, doing what it was intended to do. Medicare has some financial issues, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE PART D THAT BUSH PUSHED THROUGH WITHOUT FUNDING. Obamacare did not add to the Medicare issues. It reworked some provisions, taking away some, adding to others.

Click to expand...

Why is that comparison not quite accurate? Obamacare IS a law, so I don't understand the point of that sentence. A program that is insolvent in the future IS insolvent. That's like saying social security is solvent...for two days. I said Medicaid, not medicare. Again, social security has been very successful up until I become a senior at which time it probably won't be available (because it's insolvent at that time). The rest of the paragraph is more of the same.

JumpinJack said:

So the Republicans would have trouble privatizing SS and Medicare, even among its own ranks. It's not just Democrats who would not go along with that. Most older people are Republicans.

Click to expand...

...getting back to our original foray...perhaps they could just lie and make grandiose speeches misleading those old people