WhiteHouse.Gov Still Lying about Keeping Your Health Insurance

This was on the White House web site at 5:30 EST today, October 29, 2013.  Look at the second to last paragraph.  You can click to enlarge.

click to enlarge

 

In case you can't read it, here is just that paragraph full size

white-house-two

I am as cynical as one possibly can be about politics and this even amazes me.

  • Tom Lindmark

    I assume that you realize you will become one of many who statistically validate Obamacare.

    You and most of the other millions who are getting cancellation notices still require insurance regardless of your indignation. Accordingly you will enroll through the exchanges (they will eventually work regardless of cost) and probably assist in exceeding the 7 million enrollee target established by the administration. Effectively the program is creating its own demand which doesn't rely on enticing the uninsured off the bat.Did they know this going in? Of course, and setting aside their craven assurances that this wouldn't happen, it actually is a rather brilliant strategy, albeit one that required serial lies by the President of the US. Sometime in probably January or February, maybe earlier, they will begin trumpeting the news that millions more have signed up than originally hoped for and though the delay was unfortunate, the wait was certainly worth it. Long forgotten for most and certainly by the MSM will be the angst, deceit and disenfranchisement which accompanied the success. They have played a brilliant game of chess.

    For the record, I'm not a fan of Obamacare and I haven't read all of the comments on your posts about this subject so if this comment is redundant I apologize.

  • nehemiah

    Jay Leno had a good line about the bogus Obamacare.gov websites developed to obtain personal data fraudulently. He said you could tell they were frauds because the worked.

  • JoshK

    Am I the only person who is upset at seeing language about "insurance company abuses" coming from the fedral government? This villification of business is terrible. Argentina, here we come!

  • bigmaq1980

    "Long forgotten (by Jan/Feb) for most and certainly by the MSM will be the angst, deceit and disenfranchisement which accompanied the success"

    Assumes that alternative media and the GOP (and lesser extent other parties - Libertarian, Conservative, etc) also drop this, or fail to leverage this.

    On something that affects people so directly, I doubt it will soon be forgotten by those people. Not for 2014 anyway...maybe 2016 where the Dem leader can say they had "nothing to do with it" and would have "done a better job" implementing it.

    Also, we don't know what is in store for 2015. My bet is major price (up) and plan coverage (down) adjustments, as reality hits.

  • bigmaq1980

    "Bait and switch"

    Perhaps government is immune to its own laws against this practice.

  • Methinks1776

    Yes, it's as good or better than "created or saved X number of jobs". The herd of cattle will be tricked into slowly making its way into the abattoir. Always.

    Watching in horror, my family in Moscow is having disturbing flashbacks. "Don't miss the last boat", they say. I'm sure everyone thinks this is mighty dramatic, but then they thought it was dramatic to say that Obama was lying when he said you could keep your plan or that insurance rates will skyrocket as a result of Oblundercare or that the Japanese might be imprisoned during the second world war or that gold would be confiscated from Americans or that John Roberts would rubber stamp Oblundercare or that the U.S. government would do a far better and more thorough job spying on its citizens than the KGB did spying on us or....I could make this the longest sentence in history, but you get the picture.

  • Tom Lindmark

    Keep in mind two things.
    1. A chunk of the people who lose their private coverage are going to be eligible for subsidies and may end up with coverage with less out-of-pocket. Whether that coverage is better or worse will only be a secondary consideration to their reduced premiums. The number who are truly aggrieved will be less than the aggregate number who are forced onto the exchanges. The ones who come out ahead will be the poster children for the nightly news and 60 Minutes in order to validate the narrative that destroying the private insurance market was the right course.
    2. As constructed, an individual's share of premium is calculated as a percentage of their gross income. If premiums increase participants who qualify for subsidies don't pay more, the taxpayer foots the increase. Therefore, increasing prices are less of a threat than might first meet the eye. By the same logic, there is little reason to adjust coverage down in order to control costs. For the first few years of implementation cost is not a consideration given the fact the government picks up the tab. Eventually, of course, the rubber meets the road and everyone gets whacked, but that won't happen until we're all part of the plan.
    Note that the design of the subsidies is a disincentive to increasing income. Not at all unlike a number of other entitlement programs.

  • bigmaq1980

    A program this big will have winners and losers.

    Obviously, anyone who wanted but couldn't get insurance before, or was put on a more expensive high risk pool will come out ahead. The insurance will help them, but can they afford the deductibles, fees, copays, etc. That is yet to be seen.

    Some will get subsidized (through tax credits) for policies that are probably more expensive than they already have. They are winners...sort of. They will have to pay now for the benefit of lower taxes later. Also, similar issue on deductibles, fees, etc.

    Some will be required to take a policy that has more coverage than they wanted and therefore costs more than their pre-Obamacare plan will be losers. Or it has more coverage, and possibly for same or cheaper cost, but with higher deductibles, fees, etc.

    Some, particularly the young, will be required to take a policy that they might otherwise have not. Not saying no insurance is a good choice, but it is (correction...was) their choice.

    This is all the segment of the population that don't have coverage under an employer plan. Not sure how folks who remain under an employer plan are affected. However, we are seeing secondary effects, such as companies dropping coverage, in part or whole, and directing folks to Obamacare exchanges. Winners or losers...who knows?

    Ultimately, there is no free lunch, and the cost of absorbing the extra people, assuming most get some level of subsidy that currently does not exist, will have to be borne somewhere. Some will be baked into premiums - either for the Obamacare market, or/and the corporate market - people will not be happy to see their increases. If government "picks up the tab": Taxes are a no go so long as the GOP have the House. Borrowing more is possible, but that would be counter to the "recovery" narrative.

    I don't think we can predict exactly how it will play out into 2015 and beyond. My "bet" is based on unintended consequences and "unanticipated" changes in behavior because of policy induced incentives. One example, what if people just choose to hold off on buying insurance because the penalty in nominal in comparison? This could make the "technical glitches" appear minor in comparison.

    It is a major change touching just about everyone in some way. Almost by default that is cause for major angst in the populace. This will not be something that everyone will "get over" or easily "forget". The "losers" will provide enough fodder for this debate to continue for some time.

    My only question then is can the GOP and free market advocates/allies capitalize on the debacle so far and make the case out of this? Or, will they let the Dems and the MSM strategically define the discussion around this, as they have on so many other cases?

  • irandom419

    The question is why did they wait this long to protect us from insurance companies? I thought they cared about the little guy, by increasing the cost of government to put him out of work.