Agreed. I've already made some health care insurance choices based on Sacto's informative commentary.:thumbsup:
This, This, This. I know I can be a real partisan dumbshit, but I thank reasonable people like Sacto that stick to the facts and are even polite about it.
Those who still pretend he wasn't lying really are alarmingly partisan. The tragedy is they don't believe they are; they don't realize what they are with no sense of self. sensesamp, throckmorton, they can't tell a lie for a lie because of its source, not because of its content. When every major news source has published articles on Obama's dishonesty, when simple comprehension of what he said is considered, when a site like politifact gives him its worst rating, when Obama comes as close to apologizing for lying as a politician is apt to do, and yet you're still saying he didn't, this is a defect in objectivity, a major one.This made me think of something I had read, that 20% of the population is clinically insane.
There are a bunch of different definitions of insanity. One is being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (legal defense).
It isn't just a broken promise; he was saying this even after he knew it wasn't true. This compares starkly to the typical 'broken political promise'.
My point is, if someone looked up the evidence and still thinks Obama did not lie repeatedly, they're probably one of the 20%'ers and frankly not worth talking to.
it's no surprise the obama's blinkered and blinded cloistered supporters are supporting his lies and back peddling..much the same way Jim Jones supporters went to their death with koolaid on their lips. Liberals can't approach the edge of a cliff without jumping off.
They're pulling the rest of us over with them. Look at the increase in the debt. When we crash as the bottom of the chasm, they'll turn and blame us.it's no surprise the obama's blinkered and blinded cloistered supporters are supporting his lies and back peddling..much the same way Jim Jones supporters went to their death with koolaid on their lips. Liberals can't approach the edge of a cliff without jumping off.
I'm surprised that by now there is still no movement to impeach. He sold the ACA fraudulently and used it as a major platform for getting him reelected. Now it turns out he has lied about it. If we as people and our congress do not hold this man accountable, we have set a terrible precedece for even worse to come. What do you guys think will happen if Hillary gets elected? Think our debt will decrease? What about our foreign policy, which is already a disaster?
There is no legal basis for impeachment. Whether or not we like Obama and the ACA doesn't matter. Lying to citizens is not illegal. Sorry, but that's how the system is set up. You can't toss someone without a reason based on established law. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is not a moral phrase.
Obviously, you see no problem with it. As for high crimes and misdemeanors, how about providing aid and comfort to the enemy? That's treason, my friend. That is punishable. His ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and his financial aid to them are undenyable. The NSA issue is up for debate, as I understand this spying on Americans goes back decades, although expanded after 2011, by this administration. What about the IRS targeting, which clearly has Obama's hands all over it? I disagree with you that lying is not impeachable, considering this was a campaign based on outright fraud, that got him reelected. If some real investigating would take place, I'm certain Obama is impeachable. So far he's like the teflon Don. He just can't be touched.
For one thing, no national level politician is going to recommend impeachment because another national level politician lied. That just isn't going to happen.I'm surprised that by now there is still no movement to impeach. He sold the ACA fraudulently and used it as a major platform for getting him reelected. Now it turns out he has lied about it. If we as people and our congress do not hold this man accountable, we have set a terrible precedece for even worse to come. What do you guys think will happen if Hillary gets elected? Think our debt will decrease? What about our foreign policy, which is already a disaster?
The biggest offense is "you can keep it", like we need permission to keep our healthcare or by the grace of Obama allowed.
Turns out we can't and aren't allowed because of obamacare. All predicted by only smart people.
Plans from before the ACA passed were grandfathered in. Insurance companies then sold insurance that they knew would be banned. Sorry but Obama did not lie... just like I said when this first became a national issue.
They're pulling the rest of us over with them. Look at the increase in the debt. When we crash as the bottom of the chasm, they'll turn and blame us.
Plans from before the ACA passed were grandfathered in. Insurance companies then sold insurance that they knew would be banned. Sorry but Obama did not lie... just like I said when this first became a national issue.
Well said, sir.To be fair, this statement isn't true. To begin with, while the ACA was passed March 23, 2010 it did not contain any of the substantive rules about grandfathering other than the requirement for the coverage to be in effect as of 3/23/10. The rules fleshing out the law wouldn't become known until about three months later (June 17, 2010) when CCIIO published OCIIO-9991-IFC, detailing the requirements for a policy in effect 3/23/10 to retain its grandfather status. This is important for three reasons:
1. There was a gap of about three months when insurers were issuing plans without knowing if the new issuances would be grandfathered;
2. The insurers also had no idea what the rules around retaining grandfather status would be; and
3. OCIIO-9991-IFC is an interim final rule. This effectively means that the rule has never gone through the proper vetting process, including public comment. Unlike so many of the other rules, the content of this one was a "surprise" to all parties involved.
To follow, your allusion that insurers are to blame for selling policies "that they knew would be banned" is disingenuous. While the interim final rule was published 6/17/10, giving insurers a "head's up" as to what wouldn't be allowed, it did not tell them what would be allowed. You may editorialize whatever reason you choose, but the fact remains that crucial regulations were not released in a timely fashion. For example, the state-specific Essential Health Benefit packages were not announced until the release of CMS-9980-F on February 20, 2013. Some non-crucial rules are even still being released (SEE: CMS-4140-F, concerning mental health parity, released November 8, 2013). Given that no insurer could possibly market an ACA-compliant product prior to the EHB announcement on 2/20/13, that means that there were approximately 32 months from when the insurers were told what they couldn't sell to when they were told what they could sell. What were they supposed to do during those 32 months? Should the industry have shut down, not selling a single new policy until they were told what would be compliant as of 1/1/14? Should they have gone to the dartboard, investing millions of dollars in new plan designs without knowing if they'd be compliant (and facing the same prospect they do now, where if a plan wasn't compliant they "should have known it would be banned")?
Well said, sir.
It occurs to me that if the Obama administration finds those with significant private sector experience too abhorrent to employ, they could have saved themselves and the nation a great deal of headaches by employing those with your experience in government. You'd have a reasonably good grasp on what the industry can do and how quickly, especially how much lead time must be given on regulations to have them successfully implemented. Simply understanding that could have led to a stepped introduction where insurance companies knew with confidence that the plans they could sell would last long enough to make them worthwhile as well as a reasonably good idea of how quickly new policies can be sold and implemented. I suspect that the reason state exchanges have generally been more successful is not only better management of the technical end, but also leaning on state regulators with experience and knowledge of health care and the health insurance industry. By contrast, the federal government has only Medicare/Medicaid regulators with the habit of seeing themselves as hammers and all others as bothersome nails - and they appear to have made little use even of those.