Obama on Defensive, Changes Lies
Now that the President has been beaten to a pulp with “If you have a health insurance plan, you can keep it”, his administration has switched tactics. Now they are saying that was the plan all along.
“One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured,” Obama said. “And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy.”
Under-insured by whose standards? The government’s?
But why the sudden about face from one lie to another lie?
“That’s what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made,” Obama said. “But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you’ve got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”
So, if the copay changes by $5, you can no longer keep your plan.
The thing is that the President had said if you, if YOU liked your plan, you could keep it. Not, “you can keep your plan as long as nothing changes in it, despite whether you like it or not”.
So, for me, a substandard plan is one that does not include maternity care. Regardless about what Kathleen Sebelius said yesterday before Congress, an INDIVIDUAL plan will not cover my wife. For it to cover my wife as well as me, it would have to be a FAMILY plan. My grandparents would have to purchase the same maternity coverage, although my grandmother is probably not going to have any more kids any time soon.
If you go to healthcare.gov, and look up what minimum essential coverage is, you get this:
The type of coverage an individual needs to have to meet the individual responsibility requirement under the Affordable Care Act. This includes individual market policies, job-based coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE and certain other coverage.
While I’m sure the definition is accurate, that really did not explain it. I think the government doesn’t want you to know what you will be forced to pay for.
In addition to that, I have to pay for pediatric services.
I have no children.
If I do, someday, have children (which is becoming more unlikely every day), I would buy a policy with pediatric services then.
My point is that the government is once again trying its one size fits all, square peg in the round hole approach to coverage.
When the government comes up with a plan that will result in about the same number of people being uninsured as it was designed to insure, you might want to reevaluate that plan. But Congress didn’t do that, because they knew they didn’t have enough time. Haste makes waste, and we get stuck with the bill.
The spinning doesn’t stop with the President, however. In a piece on CNN yesterday, progressive hack, errr, activist Sally Kohn wrote a piece called A canceled health plan is a good thing.
In her piece, Ms. Kohn makes the same claims as the President did in his speech, so either she wrote his speech for him, or she stole it from him.
But here’s what strikes me as odd:
Here’s what this boils down to:
Will some people lose their current insurance? Yes.
Will these same folks lose health insurance coverage? No.
So, if these people loses their health plan, and decide they can’t afford a new one under Obamacare, they won’t lose their health coverage?
How does that work exactly?
This whole kerfuffle ignores that insurance plans were changing all the time and premiums were skyrocketing pre-Obamacare. Suddenly, a whole range of bad behavior on the part of insurance companies is blamed on the Affordable Care Act. It’s just like employers trying to shaft their workers by cutting hours and benefits and blaming it on the Affordable Care Act, even though employer mandate provisions don’t take effect for another year.
Premiums were going up, yes, but they did not skyrocket until the Obamacare. People are now seeing how much they are skyrocketing, and they are angry. The thing is, Ms. Kohn is talking down to people, telling them that their premiums were skyrocketing before, so they have no right to complain that they are jumping 65% to 450%. That’s a good thing, according to her.
But there are two issues with the second half of that paragraph.
1. The employer mandate was not delayed for a year until AFTER companies were complaining about the burdens they would face.
2. According to other hacks in government, companies have not been cutting hours because of Obamacare. According to them, most new jobs that have been created are full time, not part time positions.
Oh, wait. Those “other hacks” are the WHITE HOUSE!
So which is it? You can’t have it both ways, or, as you like to say, you are not entitled to your own facts.
Here’s the problem with “editorials” and most “guest columnists”. They get onto whatever website, news program, magazine or newspaper will accept their column, and spout the parties talking points. No actually analysis, just showing that in a former life, they were actually parrots.