« | »

WP Finally ‘Fact Checks’ Obama’s 6 Year Old Lie

From the (ludicrous) ‘fact checker’ at the Washington Post:

Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan

By Glenn Kessler |October 30 | 2013

… Many readers have asked us to step back into time and review these statements by the president now that it appears that as many as 2 million people may need to get a new insurance plan as the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, goes into effect in 2014…

Where has the Washington Post’s ‘fact checker’ been for the last six or so years? Why are they only ‘fact checking’ this major promise now that it is too late to do anything about Obama-Care? (That is a rhetorical question, of course.)

The Facts

The president’s pledge that “if you like your insurance, you will keep it” is one of the most memorable of his presidency.

And yet the Washington Post couldn’t be bothered to investigate it until now. In fact, this lie was a central issue in every election in recent years: 2008, 2010, 2012. But the Post spent most of its time calling Obama-Care opponents ‘liars.’

It was also an extraordinarily bold — and possibly foolish — pledge, unless he thought he simply could dictate exactly how the insurance industry must work…

You see? It’s the damn insurance companies who are making Obama look bad. If he could control the insurance they would never let them cancel anyone and drive them into the Obama-Care exchanges. (But that wasn’t the plan at all. No way.)

One might excuse the president for making an aspirational pledge as the health-care bill was being drafted, but it turns out he kept saying it after the bill was signed into law. By that point, there should have been no question about the potential impact of the law on insurance plans, especially in the individual market…

"No question"? Then how come no one at the Washington Post or anywhere else in the ‘mainstream media’ ever questioned his lie?

The law did allow “grandfathered” plans — for people who had obtained their insurance before the law was signed on March 23, 2010 — to escape this requirement and some other aspects of the law. But the regulations written by HHS while implementing the law set some tough guidelines, so that if an insurance company makes changes to a plan’s benefits or how much members pay through premiums, co-pays or deductibles, then a person’s plan likely loses that status.

If you dig into the regulations (go to page 34560), you will see that HHS wrote them extremely tight. One provision says that if co-payment increases by more than $5, plus medical cost of inflation, then the plan can no longer be grandfathered. (With last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent, that means the co-pay could not increase by more than $5.20.) Another provision says the co-insurance rate could not be increased at all above the level it was on March 23, 2010.

Notice that this ‘fact checker’ is either pig ignorant or he is purposefully ignoring the fact that unions will have their plans grandfathered, while the rest of us will not.

While one might applaud an effort to rid the country of inadequate insurance, the net effect is that over time, the plans would no longer meet the many tests for staying grandfathered. Already, the percentage of people who get coverage from their job via a grandfathered plan has dropped from 56 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013…

And very soon it will only be union plans that are left ‘grandfathered.’ But why mention that detail?

In the individual insurance market, few plans were expected to meet the “grandfathered” requirements, which is why many people are now receiving notices that their old plan is terminated and they need to sign up for different coverage. Again, this should be no surprise…

And yet it’s a surprise to the Washington Post and the rest of the so-called news media.

Moreover, it’s certainly incorrect to claim, as some Republicans have, that people are losing insurance coverage. Instead, in virtually all cases, it’s being replaced with probably better (and possibly more expensive) insurance…

What a preposterous lie, even by Mr. Kessler’s low standards. If you have to go into a new plan with higher premiums, you have lost your old coverage. You have lost your plan.

The Pinocchio Test

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

And yet it was never ‘fact checked’ until now.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

Four Pinocchios

And it only took the Washington Post’s ‘fact checker’ six plus years to figure this out. Congratulations.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, October 31st, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “WP Finally ‘Fact Checks’ Obama’s 6 Year Old Lie”

  1. captstubby

    “he kept saying it after the bill was signed into law.”

    even he didn’t read it.

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
    the next Media elected Nation Socialist

    revised motto;

    ‘from each according to their means, to NONE according to their needs’

  2. The bottom line is that according to this article, the government decides what is “adequate” coverage for every single American. And that one size fits all (or 3 sizes fit all, bronze, gold, and platinum).

    in virtually all cases, it’s being replaced with probably better (and possibly more expensive) insurance… as determined by the criminal heading HHS. Notice the “VIRTUALLY” all cases, and “PROBABLY” better insurance. I wonder how many millions there are in a VIRTUALLY.

    When a regulation is drafted that says you have to have insurance to cover maternity leave and the possibility of your uterus falling out even if you are a 50 year old unmarried man, whose existing coverage (that he liked and was perfectly adequate until Sebelius decided that it wasn’t) is going to have to be “changed” and therefore ungrandfathered. Wham bam thank you maam. You lose your coverage because the government says your 50 year old male body HAS to be covered for the possible consequences of having anatomy that you don’t have.

    This has to be the single greatest insanity to be imposed on Americans in the history of America. The sad part is that if you break it down far enough it sounds just like every government program.

  3. canary

    A picture comes to mind of Obama down in a deep cave below a 35,000 mile thick eternal spreading mass of solid steel. There he must sit and write a law forever and ever and all eternity.

  4. captstubby

    while going through my files tucked away in a hundred folders on the external harddrive, i found this oldie.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....redirect=1

  5. canary

    in·ter·im
    ˈintərəm/Submit
    noun
    1.
    the intervening time.
    “in the interim I’ll just keep my fingers crossed”
    synonyms: meantime, meanwhile, intervening time; More
    adjective
    adjective: interim
    1.
    in or for the intervening period; provisional or temporary.
    The entire part II starts with “interim” final and goes on with a (temporary) in parenthesis after grandfather.

    “an interim arrangement”
    synonyms: provisional, temporary, pro tem, stopgap, short-term, fill-in, caretaker, acting, transitional, makeshift, improvised, impromptu More
    antonyms: permanent
    BRIT.
    relating to less than a full year’s business activity.
    “an interim dividend”
    adverbarchaic
    adverb: interim
    1. meanwhile.

    This rhetoric Kessler came up with for the Washington Post to come up with to defend a grand lie to the world, most likely was pieced together in a few hours with no way to confirm that it was not produced by some clicking buttons and no end in site. Just as with the complaints by the Republicans when the Democrats would stay up all night with pizza rewriting the bill, we heard the same complaints by the Republicans such as John McCain’s description that the Democrats kept changing the way bills were written. He said it if as if baffled and dismayed.

    A picture comes to mind of Obama down in a deep cave below a 35,000 mile thick eternal spreading mass of solid steel. There he must sit and write a law forever and ever and all eternity.

    Picture next to Obama in the same deep cave beneath the earth writing a law for all eternity and no rest, Nancy Pelosi saying over his shoulder “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it….keep writing Obama….keep writing Obama….” forever and ever with no end.
    won’t know what’s in it until after we pass it.

    • canary

      oops. I meant to say if the Washington Post had began at the beginning of the little piece they made available, they would have seen this is an “interim” “temporary” writing of Part II and not permanent yet, until some more clicking is done, and if they’d read before the part in the page number they sited, after “grandfather..” in parenthesis (temporary) which is so confusing as to reminding the reader if “grandfathering part was “temporary” which Obama left out of his promise which turned out to be a lie, or if it was a reminder that this entire b.s. was temporary until it could be made permanent, which it’s likely nothing this administration has written will ever remain permanent as long as Democrats and Dictators in charge will spend 24/7 click clicking away changing things at whim that no one would be able to keep up with.

      It would be nice if the Washington Post hired thousands of employees to take on the task of “digging” through what must well be past 70,000 pages by now being the year of 2013. They can work along side Obama and Pelosi digging and digging and digging…..forever and ever.
      click tap click tap…..

  6. captstubby

    see, if the House and Senate and Washington Post actually did their job,

    well, you know how it turned out.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »