Lying About Lies: Why Credibility Matters to Obama

[amZo]

It's not just Obama, I wouldn't trust any over simplified statement given by anyone. I little independent investigation and thought would allow a person to think differently. After Watergate, a lot of trust got eroded from public officials, so I usually (no matter who it is, Clinton, Bush, Obama. . . ) am surprised when anyone just says "oh [President, Senator, whoever] said X so it must be true". Am I saying it's okay to lie? No. Is it okay to mislead? No. Do we know people do it? Yes, so take everything with a grain of salt.

And Nikko, I think you may be assuming I am a total brainwashed liberal supporter. I've voted Republican many times (mainly in local races), and I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. I am not defending anyone by saying that voters should use their brains and do some independent thinking and research before just trusting someone's statement.

'Everybody does it'? This is the usual fall back when liars get caught. Everybody doesn't do this. You're trying to make Obama's character mainstream, it is NOT.

I've known from day one Obama has no character and lies as naturally as I breath. But many people only have the words of their leaders to go on, I understand there are people who can't see things for what they are like I do. I don't condemn them as fools. I think to smear the victims of this fraud as fools is outrageous. I get annoyed many people don't wise up too sometimes. But right now, millions of Americans are being hurt. Thousands of people who have chemotherapy scheduled, heart surgery, and other major surgeries are losing their coverage! The WSJ had an op-ed of a woman in this situation, she's losing her doctor and her coverage and the replacement plans she can't afford. I can't be flippant in these situations, it makes me mad as hell.

With all due respect, I don't know how you vote and haven't assumed anything, but it's not a time to blame the victims in this debacle. It's inappropriate IMO. Just sayin'.

(BTW, Watergate is your transformative experience regarding trust in government?  Mine is all of history, I believe I've done a little more research than thou  )

[DriftingCrow]

I do support bringing any fraud to light, and I do think we should make more laws/better enforce existing laws to hold politicians more accountable. We have laws that protect consumers from business fraud, SEC regulations are to protect investors from fraud, so we should also hold politicians accountable for fraudulent or misleading statements. Obama oversimplified the statement, he should've fully explained it to better inform voters who either are unable or just won't figure things out on their own.

Also, I am aware politicians have lied for all of history, not just Watergate. I do understand I am not as intelligent as you though.

Anyways, I am out of here. We both basically agree on the premise but it seems like there's still no meeting of the minds and it seems like there's just attempted point scoring for different teams going on.

[amZo]

We have laws that protect consumers from business fraud

We do for private sector companies, but not for government run programs which I'm certain the ACA designed goal is. There is no recourse regarding the government. They say no to your chemotherapy treatment because you're too old (hey, just take a pain pill yo).... tough luck, there's no next step, there's no hiring an attorney to sue your healthcare provider, etc.

Anyways, I am out of here. We both basically agree on the premise but it seems like there's still no meeting of the minds and it seems like there's just attempted point scoring for different teams going on.

I'm just much more skeptical I think, but I also understand there are good people we can elect to represent us, so I do my part in doing that. I believe we should hold people accountable, even politicians (especially politicians). I believe we're in this mess because there's no real accountability at the moment. If we're largely on the same page, I must have misunderstood some things you said. It happens.

[LizMarie]

We do for private sector companies, but not for government run programs which I'm certain the ACA designed goal is. There is no recourse regarding the government. They say no to your chemotherapy treatment because you're too old (hey, just take a pain pill yo).... tough luck, there's no next step, there's no hiring an attorney to sue your healthcare provider, etc.

I'm just much more skeptical I think, but I also understand there are good people we can elect to represent us, so I do my part in doing that. I believe we should hold people accountable, even politicians (especially politicians). I believe we're in this mess because there's no real accountability at the moment. If we're largely on the same page, I must have misunderstood some things you said. It happens.

Please quote for me the exact portion of the law whereby the government can deny you chemotherapy. All treatments remain the decision of you and your doctor under the ACA. There are no "death panels". This is not government run healthcare. This is simply healthcare insurance regulations. That is all that it is. Assertions to the contrary are false and since no such provision exists in the law that I have ever found, I am asking you to substantiate the above claim by providing the exact citation of US Code whereby the government can now make decisions about your healthcare.

[TerriT]

Please quote for me the exact portion of the law whereby the government can deny you chemotherapy. All treatments remain the decision of you and your doctor under the ACA. There are no "death panels". This is not government run healthcare. This is simply healthcare insurance regulations. That is all that it is. Assertions to the contrary are false and since no such provision exists in the law that I have ever found, I am asking you to substantiate the above claim by providing the exact citation of US Code whereby the government can now make decisions about your healthcare.

Her point is not having any recourse should govt decide to do something. For example, Canada and it's glorious single payer system was ruled that their advisory board could decide life ending procedure's despite a families wishes by their supreme court. Just because something is not written into Obamacare today doesn't mean the door isn't open to these possibilities and that we don't have examples of what happens.

But we could discuss Sections 3403 and 10320 of Obamacare, IPAB if you want. Howard Dean called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and "The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on." Over the past three months, 22 democrats have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill.

Of course IPAB promises they will never, ever, ever do anything like that. Because we know we can trust them to keep their promises. Especially when people like Donald Berwick are put in charge: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'" I mean, he was just the presidents appointee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

Also, government regulations designed to control private industry while still maintaining an appearance of private ownership used to be more affectionately known as fascism. That's what makes them a bunch of liars. They pass these regulations then claim no ownership in the consequences of what happens when their regulations take effect, at which point they pose themselves as the solution to the problem they created.

But I'm wasting my time.

[TerriT]

About Obama's statement, I agree, he did say it repeatedly when he shouldn't have. I am just more surprised that there was people out there who actually relied on a politician's statement.

Millions of people believed him because it was a staple in his speeches for a year. And when I tried to warn people this was going to happen to them, they would tell me over and over again that he said "You can keep your insurance, so shut up."

I am also just curious as to your opinion. If a prospective employee should just go somewhere else if they're not wanted for non-employment reasons by a particular employer, does that also extend to patrons of businesses who could just go elsewhere if certain businesses don't like their kind? Did the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States decision go too far and create an obtrusive government by trying to end segregation among private businesses in the South?

It still happens today and we get into cases involving whether bakery owners have the right to not bake a gay wedding cake or whatever. I have a business, do I have the right to decline a client if I disagree with the product they want me to work on? Do banks have a right to decline financial transactions of their customers because they dislike their business? Do business owners have a right to run their business based on their religious beliefs? What happens when government is involved with housing and finance, deciding who is allowed to live where? Do people have the right to hold socially unacceptable beliefs?

But that particular case was about upholding the Civil Rights Act on the basis of the Commerce Clause. The commerce clause was widely blown open in Wickard v Filburn, which is something I do have a problem with, since it expanded the government to regulate nearly all economic activity on an unlimited basis and still does today. Although, ironically enough, they continue to prohibit the sell of healthcare insurance across state lines. The idea that the government would enact wheat production limits and set prices is horrific enough, but FDR, his new deal and his court packing scheme blew the constitution to shreds and we have essentially been adrift ever since. This is the same lot of progressives who rounded up 100,000+ citizens and threw them into internment camps based on an executive order which was also upheld as constitutional by the supreme court! Korematsu V US?

I find it nearly incomprehensible that our nation must rely on government regulations to control wheat growing to stop racist business owners from being racist. We fought a war over this and then government Jim Crow laws were created. We could try sticking with the whole "created equal" thing for a change and be done with it. Instead we find ourselves with mountains of regulations and rulings which we somehow need to wade through in order to try and be decent citizens. And it goes on and on, with each successive expansion of government either ignoring or rewriting the society to suit it's needs.

It's difficult to make nuanced arguments around civil rights laws because we fundamentally know racism and discrimination is wrong. We've always known it is wrong. We had multiple civil rights laws passed for nearly a century before 1964, including the 14th and 15th amendments, but government or the court kept interfering in one form or another. Did people sit down and say "oh well, it's the law of the land" after the court ruled on Dredd Scott? Or Plessy? Those who said "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred" were vindicated 50 years later.

The supreme court is not infallible. Neither is the government, not by a long shot.

Sorry, I wrote a lot but it's difficult to articulate these things, especially in the context of a forum post.

[michelle gee]

Her point is not having any recourse should govt decide to do something. For example, Canada and it's glorious single payer system was ruled that their advisory board could decide life ending procedure's despite a families wishes by their supreme court. Just because something is not written into Obamacare today doesn't mean the door isn't open to these possibilities and that we don't have examples of what happens.

Pure specualtion thats like saying the sky could fall!

But we could discuss Sections 3403 and 10320 of Obamacare, IPAB if you want. Howard Dean called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and "The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on." Over the past three months, 22 democrats have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill.

"His critique begins by claiming that the board "is essentially a health-care rationing body," even though the legislation specifically states that the board is not allowed to make any recommendations that would ration care."

Of course IPAB promises they will never, ever, ever do anything like that. Because we know we can trust them to keep their promises. Especially when people like Donald Berwick are put in charge: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'" I mean, he was just the presidents appointee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

Here is what he really said: BERWICK: We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that they currently use cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2010/07/08/beck-distorts-berwick-comment-to-claim-appointm/167455

Also, government regulations designed to control private industry while still maintaining an appearance of private ownership used to be more affectionately known as fascism. That's what makes them a bunch of liars. They pass these regulations then claim no ownership in the consequences of what happens when their regulations take effect, at which point they pose themselves as the solution to the problem they created.

What do you call a healthcare provider that has 88% of the market in a state? Monopoly! That is exactly what they have in many states.
"The American Medical Association in Chicago released a study Wednesday showing that "anticompetitive market power is widespread for each of the three most popular managed care plans in the U.S.," and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has a "near-monopoly. Alabama too BCBS has 88% of the market."
http://www.grbj.com/articles/75593-blue-cross-market-share-represents-near-monopoly-according-to-ama

But I'm wasting my time.

You certainly are!

[LizMarie]

Since Medicare has been in existence it has fought for and kept prices down. You lack historical authenticity for the charge that the "might" do this. That is fear mongering at its worst. The US might nuke its own cities someday too, right? So let's not be absurd here.

But healthcare is already rationed - by price. While you may think this is morally acceptable, many of us do not.

The primary causes of high prices in healthcare in the United States are the AMA (by colluding with medical colleges to control the supply of physicians) and from primarily Republicans (but some Democrats as well) who have granted numerous anti-trust exemptions to the healthcare industry over the last 60 years. Far right wing conservative blogger, Karl Denninger, in his book "Leverage" has an entire chapter devoted to this problem but very few other financial commentators discuss the impact of anti-trust exemptions on US healthcare. What other industry is allowed to quote prices after the fact? What other industry is allowed to have private boards enforced by state and local governments that issue "certificates of need" to limit the opening of new clinics? The entire rise in healthcare costs has nothing to do with the federal government and has been going on at an average of 9% annually since Reagan was president. That's approximately 4 doublings after 30 years (shorthand rule of 72) and that number is consistent with the prices that Medicare has seen too - from $53 billion in 1980 to $900 billion now. Likewise, private costs have soared as well, again because we do not regulate healthcare providers or insurers.

Insurers increased their profits 500% from 2001 to 2008 - from $2.5 billion profits among all healthcare insurers in 2001 to $12.5 billion in 2008. You ask where your increased healthcare dollars go? They go to insurance CEOs who have steadily raised their own salaries and bonuses to obscene levels.

If you want to attack the problem, pure free markets are not the way to go with an inelastic commodity like healthcare. Instead I suggest studying why Germany has a single payer healthcare system that is totally privately funded and spends just 9% of GDP to cover 98% of the population (versus our 18% of GDP to cover 74%), achieving longer life spans, far lower infant mortality, and far lower rates of chronic disease than in the US. The German system, to me, looks like pure genius. They removed profit seeking in the two least beneficial sectors of the healthcare chain, left in profit seeking for nurses, doctors, and small clinics, and the results are nothing short of amazing.

The German healthcare solution teaches that the "profits at any cost" mantra is nonsense and that we should ask where and when we want profit seeking to occur or not occur. That's a lesson that our grandparents learned during the Great Depression when they set up things like Municipal Utility Districts and granted limited but regulated monopolies to things like power companies and phone companies. It's a shame we're having to relearn that lesson.

[LizMarie]

I would also caution against assuming the ACA itself is to blame for cancellations. Thus far there are estimates of approximately 4 million cancellations nationwide, yet in California alone, 900,000 of these cancellations have been found fraudulent and the state is taking Blue Cross to court over this matter.

That's 25% of the cancellations across the entire country are fraudulent cancellations! Kentucky fined another insurer for fraudulently cancelling 65,000 policies.

The question free market advocates now have to ask themselves is if "free market" entities will behave in such clearly irrational and illegal manners, then why shouldn't we regulate these entities far more heavily?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/10/1254596/-Another-Health-Insurer-Caught-Falsely-Cancelling-Thousands-of-Health-Plans?detail=facebook

[dalebert]

I wonder if this debacle will enlighten some folks out there that laws are not magic spells that can conjure resources out of thin air.

[Shantel]

I'd participate but the voices are getting entirely too shrill, may I suggest dueling pistols?

[DriftingCrow]

I'd participate but the voices are getting entirely too shrill, may I suggest dueling pistols?

Good idea Auntie, I'll pick up the Super Soakers. 


Debates are good for democracy, but we need to respect the opinions of others. Not everyone is going to agree, but we can still talk for the hopes of better understanding.

[amZo]

I'd participate but the voices are getting entirely too shrill, may I suggest dueling pistols?

Well that would totally ruin the element of surprise!

But healthcare is already rationed - by price. While you may think this is morally acceptable, many of us do not.

Correct, it's axiomatic. Under free markets each individual determines their ration. Up until obamacare, you could self-insure up to a reasonable deductible and pay around 100-140 dollars a month. The vast majority of Americans could afford this. Under government run programs, a government bureaucrat determines your ration. Hmmm... I trust my decisions over some political hack, will we have enough IRS agents to run the death panels? They quite busy targeting Tea Parties and individual donors of republicans!

I wonder if this debacle will enlighten some folks out there that laws are not magic spells that can conjure resources out of thin air.

I hope so, if it does, then this dark cloud will have a silver lining after all...

[amZo]

This article discusses and has some ACTUAL federal government funded ads for obamacare. This is not a hoax, these are confirmed ads. Juxtapose these with parents sitting around their kitchen table who have lost their current insurance (they were promised they'd be allowed to keep) because of the 'ACA' law, and are trying to figure out where they're going to get the additional $10,000 a year to pay for coverages they don't need.   

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/12/gross-new-ad-obamacare-is-a-good-plan-for-promiscuity/


Regarding Obama's credibility crisis, this is very good....

http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destroying-his-credibility/

[Ludwig]

I would also caution against assuming the ACA itself is to blame for cancellations. Thus far there are estimates of approximately 4 million cancellations nationwide, yet in California alone, 900,000 of these cancellations have been found fraudulent and the state is taking Blue Cross to court over this matter.

That's 25% of the cancellations across the entire country are fraudulent cancellations! Kentucky fined another insurer for fraudulently cancelling 65,000 policies.

The question free market advocates now have to ask themselves is if "free market" entities will behave in such clearly irrational and illegal manners, then why shouldn't we regulate these entities far more heavily?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/10/1254596/-Another-Health-Insurer-Caught-Falsely-Cancelling-Thousands-of-Health-Plans?detail=facebook

I am sorry, but virtually none of what you wrote is accurate.  Not even your tabloid source (DailyKos) goes that far.

... yet in California alone, 900,000 of these cancellations have been found fraudulent...

Nothing has been found fraudulent.  Two cancelled policy holders have made allegations, and then only about "tens of thousands" of policies.  Allegations are not proof, and anyone can bring a law suit for any reason.  I could sue you for emotional distress for posting such misrepresentations!  (I would lose, just as the plaintiffs here will lose.) Let us see what the source (IBTimes) Kos quoted actually said ...

"The lawsuits, filed Monday in Superior Court, may signal an emerging customer pushback against the approximately 900,000 cancellations in California alone of individual health insurance policies that will take effect Dec. 31....

"The two lawsuits allege that Anthem Blue Cross, California's largest insurer and a unit of insurance giant WellPoint Inc. (NYSE:WLP), deceptively enticed tens of thousands of Californians to switch out of their grandfathered plans, a practice known as "twisting," in violation of a state law and to cut its own costs."

There are no findings that 900,000 cancellations are fraudulent.

"... the state is taking Blue Cross to court over this matter."

The state has taken no action.  Please read:

"The plaintiffs are Catherine Coker and Paul Simon, who has battled melanoma and ulcerative colitis, according to the Los Angeles Times....

"The plaintiffs says that Anthem played up the possibility, even likelihood, that premiums of grandfathered plans could go up sharply and failed to mention the possible consequences of replacing a grandfathered plan. Further, the insurer misrepresented that certain Obamacare-required benefits like no pre-existing condition limits for dependent children would be available only in non-grandfathered health plans, when in fact such benefits must be incorporated into grandfathered and non-grandfathered plans, the lawsuits argue."

The allegation is that the insurance companies followed the law as written and regulated!!  That is exactly  what the law says ... non-conforming policies must be upgraded, and if a policy is changed in the slightest degree, it must be cancelled.

Insurance companies can not lawfully, or economically, be forced to make available all of Obamacare goodies at the cost of the old policy.  That is socialist nonsense.

Why is it that all of the Obamaphiles here feel the need to misrepresent things so badly?  This law is a disaster for not just the trans community, but for the nation.  Nothing this Administration says can be trusted in the least.

[LordKAT]

Correct, it's axiomatic. Under free markets each individual determines their ration. Up until obamacare, you could self-insure up to a reasonable deductible and pay around 100-140 dollars a month. The vast majority of Americans could afford this. Under government run programs, a government bureaucrat determines your ration. Hmmm... I trust my decisions over some political hack, will we have enough IRS agents to run the death panels? They quite busy targeting Tea Parties and individual donors of republicans!

The only plans that actually covered more than a limited amount of major medical cost closer to $700 or more per month. I have tried to get private insurance and not once have I found anything for less that was worth even having.

[amZo]

The only plans that actually covered more than a limited amount of major medical cost closer to $700 or more per month. I have tried to get private insurance and not once have I found anything for less that was worth even having.

Just not true (well, maybe for you and the plan you were seeking and the state you reside). Mine was $120 a month and went to $180 a month once obamacare was passed 3.5 years ago. As I say, I self-insure my routine care, I only want coverage for major illness. I'm losing it in a month and a half with no alternatives at the moment.

For all of you on employer plans, this is coming your way next year... and time does fly.  Many suspect employers will drop employees, and those who don't may begin to drop family members from their plans.

Actually, it seems to be happening aready..... (story below)

"Officials at one one of the nation's oldest and most elite historically black colleges are citing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the reason they have cancelled a school-wide affordable health care plan they had offered students.

The official website for Bowie State, a Maryland public school less than an hour's drive from Washington D.C., explains that Obamacare's new regulations would force the cost of the insurance to rise from $50 to $900 a semester."

http://campusreform.org/?ID=5235

[michelle gee]

This article discusses and has some ACTUAL federal government funded ads for obamacare. This is not a hoax, these are confirmed ads. Juxtapose these with parents sitting around their kitchen table who have lost their current insurance (they were promised they'd be allowed to keep) because of the 'ACA' law, and are trying to figure out where they're going to get the additional $10,000 a year to pay for coverages they don't need.   

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/12/gross-new-ad-obamacare-is-a-good-plan-for-promiscuity/

LIES! These are not funded by the Govt.

[amZo]

LIES! These are not funded by the Govt.

I told you it would be hard to believe. It's for real.

[TerriT]

Pure specualtion thats like saying the sky could fall!

lol, we look at past events to predict future actions and one reason we limit govt is because every time they have said they would never do something, they turned around and did, usually "for our own good." Patriot act, anyone?

Here is what he really said: BERWICK: We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

Did I miss something? I merely left out the part where he gets even worse. Sorry, I will fully quote the horrible, damning things these progressives say in the future.

Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that they currently use cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2010/07/08/beck-distorts-berwick-comment-to-claim-appointm/167455

In the private sector, you have recourse. The assertion here is that evil insurance companies are rationing your care but we, the govt, can ration it even better and you will have no alternative. You are effectively making the case that health care is already rationed but benevolent govt in all it's glory would never dare such a thing. Except Medicare has a higher denial rate than any private insurance company. Sorry, those are just facts provided by the AMA who you quote below.
Report Card

What do you call a healthcare provider that has 88% of the market in a state? Monopoly! That is exactly what they have in many states.
"The American Medical Association in Chicago released a study Wednesday showing that "anticompetitive market power is widespread for each of the three most popular managed care plans in the U.S.," and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has a "near-monopoly. Alabama too BCBS has 88% of the market."
http://www.grbj.com/articles/75593-blue-cross-market-share-represents-near-monopoly-according-to-ama

Yet, you advocate a single payer system? Is there such a greater monopoly than, 1?

You certainly are!

LMAO, I feel like this must be a parody account of cut and paste statements. Even the av makes it look like you're talking out of your ass.