Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   The Liar in Chief suddenly doesn't recall saying you can keep your health-care plan. Fark: 29 times. Double-down: Videotaped   (dailycaller.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Obama, health cares  
•       •       •

1004 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:59 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



386 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-05 02:43:02 PM  

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.


He will not, though....because it's never his fault.
 
2013-11-05 02:45:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: If there's any side that's a master of "Call it the opposite of what it does," that would be conservatives.

Sorta like how "No Child Left Behind" actually left a lot of children behind.

You DO know that Ted Kennedy was behind that, right?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

"Proposed by George W. Bush, co-authored by John Boehner, George Miller, Edward Kennedy, and Judd Greg"

Yup. All Ted Kennedy.
 
2013-11-05 02:48:51 PM  

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


I'm not even sure this counts as  lying. Is it lying to say you're gonna kick someone's ass if they don't stop annoying you? It's just phrasework. What Obama said was a great talking point, but not exactly a lie, because a reasonable person  would assume some plans violate the law and are shiat. Misleading, certainly, and he needs to own up to it, but I wouldn't class it as a lie.

Also, people are seriously whining that they're being forced to buy real insurance instead of pay for the privilege of nothing. That's kind of spectacular in and of itself.
 
2013-11-05 02:52:49 PM  

PsiChick: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.

I'm not even sure this counts as  lying. Is it lying to say you're gonna kick someone's ass if they don't stop annoying you? It's just phrasework. What Obama said was a great talking point, but not exactly a lie, because a reasonable person  would assume some plans violate the law and are shiat. Misleading, certainly, and he needs to own up to it, but I wouldn't class it as a lie.

Also, people are seriously whining that they're being forced to buy real insurance instead of pay for the privilege of nothing. That's kind of spectacular in and of itself.


It was a great talking point because it WAS a lie. "If you have insurance today you will probably be able to keep it" is a shiatty sounding talking point. Hence, the lie
 
2013-11-05 03:00:53 PM  

Skleenar: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.

Wait, what?

You are suggesting that Congress was depending on the President's characterization of their bill to determine whether or not it was worthy of passage?

That's some pretty potato logic right there.


heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."
 
2013-11-05 03:02:30 PM  

skullkrusher: PsiChick: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.

I'm not even sure this counts as  lying. Is it lying to say you're gonna kick someone's ass if they don't stop annoying you? It's just phrasework. What Obama said was a great talking point, but not exactly a lie, because a reasonable person  would assume some plans violate the law and are shiat. Misleading, certainly, and he needs to own up to it, but I wouldn't class it as a lie.

Also, people are seriously whining that they're being forced to buy real insurance instead of pay for the privilege of nothing. That's kind of spectacular in and of itself.

It was a great talking point because it WAS a lie. "If you have insurance today you will probably be able to keep it" is a shiatty sounding talking point. Hence, the lie


But, as has been pointed out, he was a) assuming people  didn't like shiatty plans and b) assuming insurance companies wouldn't change plans, which is outside of his control. So that's not exactly lying--in point b he can't even control what happened.
 
2013-11-05 03:02:56 PM  

ferretman: Skleenar: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.

Wait, what?

You are suggesting that Congress was depending on the President's characterization of their bill to determine whether or not it was worthy of passage?

That's some pretty potato logic right there.

'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."


It also applies to stool.

/when did I have corn?
 
2013-11-05 03:04:46 PM  

PsiChick: But, as has been pointed out, he was a) assuming people  didn't like shiatty plans


this is not even true, you could keep your shiatty pre 3/2010 plan as long as it hasn't been substantially changed
 
2013-11-05 03:10:31 PM  
 
2013-11-05 03:11:59 PM  

Jackson Herring: PsiChick: But, as has been pointed out, he was a) assuming people  didn't like shiatty plans

this is not even true, you could keep your shiatty pre 3/2010 plan as long as it hasn't been substantially changed


Well, that was point b. But I think he also assumed that people didn't like shiatty plans, because, y'know...who'd have thunk?
 
2013-11-05 03:22:38 PM  

grumpfuff: Yup. All Ted Kennedy.


I did not say "All", did I?

But in case you missed it because you were too young at the time and only read about it later or something, here's the rest of that story as told by Time magazine in a piece titled Ted Kennedy's Top Legislative Battles:

"One of this generation's most sweeping education reform laws may not have been passed without Sen. Kennedy's strong support. Kennedy worked closely with President George W. Bush to advance the No Child Left Behind Act, one of Bush's earliest accomplishments and, critics say, his last meaningful attempt at bipartisanship. Their unlikely alliance on the measure led Bush to jokingly reference "my friend Ted Kennedy" in his 2002 State of the Union speech, delivered weeks after the law was passed."

You might also note that Bill Clinton called it a "trainwreck" and blamed Ted Kennedy for its flaws.

Here's a nice article from a newspaper in Bush's home state a few years ago: "There's probably not a better example of Ted Kennedy's skills as a legislator than his work on No Child Left Behind, the law that Sen. Kennedy, Democratic Rep. George Miller, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg and GOP Rep. John Boehner worked on with the Bush administration in 2001."

Bottom line is that this bill was VERY bipartisan. Perhaps the last time we saw anything so bi-partisan, except the Iraq war resolution and the Patriot Act. (think about that).

On Jan. 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) into law with overwhelming bipartisan support. The final votes were 87-10 in the Senate and 381-41 in the House. Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Congressmen George Miller (D-CA) and John Boehner (R-OH) were its chief sponsors in the Senate and the House.

So here's the thing: If you are looking to sling mud about ONE party doing something, you should make sure you are educated on the subject and maybe pick an example that is NOT so extremely bipartisan.
 
2013-11-05 03:31:02 PM  

Garet Garrett: You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?


GWB's second term.
 
2013-11-05 03:46:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So here's the thing: If you are looking to sling mud about ONE party doing something, you should make sure you are educated on the subject and maybe pick an example that is NOT so extremely bipartisan.


My apologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003

No, it didn't get passed. But, admittedly, is a much better example.

Or perhaps "Party of personal responsibility" *

*except when they lose or do something wrong, then it's everyone else's fault.

Really, I can go on, I just don't care.
 
2013-11-05 03:47:56 PM  

El Pachuco: Garet Garrett: You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?

GWB's second term.


House budget "negotiations"?
 
2013-11-05 04:01:24 PM  

Skleenar: ferretman: 'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."

Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
On March 9, the Speaker of the House spoke to the National Association of Counties about the health care bill that was days away from final passage. This was the phrase that launched a thousand campaign ads. Nine months later, this is remembered as Pelosi admitting what Tea Partiers had feared: that Democrats were ramming through bad bills without reading them. That wasn't actually what she was saying. The full quote:
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Pelosi was trying to say that the press was only reporting he-said-she-saids about the bill, and that its benefits would become clear, and popular, once it passed. They did become clear, though they have yet to become popular.


Yeeeaaahh...Slate' a notorious liberal rag attempts to cover-up Nancy Pelosi's original statement by stating 'THEY' know what Nancy rrreeeaaaalllllyy meant.
 
2013-11-05 04:18:53 PM  

Skleenar: ferretman: 'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."

Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
On March 9, the Speaker of the House spoke to the National Association of Counties about the health care bill that was days away from final passage. This was the phrase that launched a thousand campaign ads. Nine months later, this is remembered as Pelosi admitting what Tea Partiers had feared: that Democrats were ramming through bad bills without reading them. That wasn't actually what she was saying. The full quote:
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Pelosi was trying to say that the press was only reporting he-said-she-saids about the bill, and that its benefits would become clear, and popular, once it passed. They did become clear, though they have yet to become popular.


her phrasing was still poor, regardless of context.
 
2013-11-05 04:29:12 PM  

Phinn: *** ATTENTION.  YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE ***

The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary states that all anteObamaCare health plans shall be referred to as "Junk," or "Doubleplusjunk."

Referring to anteObamaCare plans as "better" or "desirable" in any way is doubleplusungood.

All Miniplenty Healthcare is bellyfeel good.

All statements regarding buying other healthcarewise plans is ungood ownlife behavior, and is thoughtcrime.

Sincerely yours,
Miniluv


Snark aside, technically calling these plans illegitimate and non-compliant under the ACA is perfectly accurate.

On a more fundamental level, calling something health insurance which doesn't properly look after you when you get sick is the bigger bullshiat at play here than what they are trying to pin on Obama.
 
2013-11-05 04:38:43 PM  

ferretman: Yeeeaaahh...Slate' a notorious liberal rag attempts to cover-up Nancy Pelosi's original statement by stating 'THEY' know what Nancy rrreeeaaaalllllyy meant.


You might have missed the point that she wasn't talking to her fellow congressmen, but to a group of constituents.

You brought this quote up in response to me saying that it was stupid to think that the Congress was relying on Obama's word as to what was in the bill.  The reasonable assumption is that you must have thought that Pelosi was telling her caucus this or somehow admitting that she didn't know what was in it.

Either way, it was a pretty potato point.
 
2013-11-05 05:02:12 PM  

grumpfuff: Really, I can go on, I just don't care


Sure you could. And you just did. But why? Why continue to view the government in terms of a completely fictitious binary politico dichotomy. You aren't on the team.

Once you have started down the "White people One team be like this and black people Other Team be like that" path, you've already lost ground on a rational analysis, because you have begun from an emotional, often irrational set of preconceptions prejudices and conclusions that can only cloud the issue.

This sort of thing is just a typed out version of playground "your mamma so fat" burn rings. Shall we point out that the democrats called theirs the AFFORDABLE Care act? uh-oh! Buurn! Who gets the cookie? What's prize?

The prize is won by the extremes who rely on highly motivated, and uncritical supporters to hand them power with no expectation of specific performance. No one is questioning whether something is a GOOD policy because they have trained anyone under the age of 30 to concern themselves with "winning" a game that doesn't exist.

/now get off my lawn
 
2013-11-05 05:03:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Phinn: *** ATTENTION.  YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE ***

The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary states that all anteObamaCare health plans shall be referred to as "Junk," or "Doubleplusjunk."

Referring to anteObamaCare plans as "better" or "desirable" in any way is doubleplusungood.

All Miniplenty Healthcare is bellyfeel good.

All statements regarding buying other healthcarewise plans is ungood ownlife behavior, and is thoughtcrime.

Sincerely yours,
Miniluv

Snark aside, technically calling these plans illegitimate and non-compliant under the ACA is perfectly accurate.

On a more fundamental level, calling something health insurance which doesn't properly look after you when you get sick is the bigger bullshiat at play here than what they are trying to pin on Obama.


Is that anything like calling a mandatory payment "insurance" when it's actually a tax?
 
2013-11-05 05:16:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Sure you could. And you just did. But why? Why continue to view the government in terms of a completely fictitious binary politico dichotomy. You aren't on the team.

Once you have started down the "White people One team be like this and black people Other Team be like that" path, you've already lost ground on a rational analysis, because you have begun from an emotional, often irrational set of preconceptions prejudices and conclusions that can only cloud the issue.

This sort of thing is just a typed out version of playground "your mamma so fat" burn rings. Shall we point out that the democrats called theirs the AFFORDABLE Care act? uh-oh! Buurn! Who gets the cookie? What's prize?

The prize is won by the extremes who rely on highly motivated, and uncritical supporters to hand them power with no expectation of specific performance. No one is questioning whether something is a GOOD policy because they have trained anyone under the age of 30 to concern themselves with "winning" a game that doesn't exist.


So vote Republican..
 
2013-11-05 05:29:25 PM  

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that, because the law allowed the policies to continue, the policies wouldn't end some other way.
 
2013-11-05 05:35:24 PM  

Skleenar: So vote Republican..


Why? Are you are a party loyalist?

I don't.

Vote CANDIDATE. Vote POLICY.
 
2013-11-05 05:38:25 PM  

Phinn: Is that anything like calling a mandatory payment "insurance" when it's actually a tax?


services have all kind of "mandatory" payments, it doesn't make them a tax.

if you want to live somewhere, you have a mandatory payment called "rent" or "mortgage" (granted, mortgages to come with a property tax)

if you get caught speeding or parking illegally, you have to pay a "find"

if you go to the doctor, typically, you have to pay their "fee" or possibly later a "bill"
 
2013-11-05 05:39:00 PM  

ManateeGag: "find"


*fine* - f'n fat finger.
 
2013-11-05 05:40:19 PM  

DeaH: I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that


I agree.

If you knew that he knew in June of 2010 that not only individual insured, but 66% of small businesses and 45% of large businesses were expected to see their plans canceled and replaced with something else, what would you conclude?
 
2013-11-05 06:23:08 PM  

ManateeGag: Phinn: Is that anything like calling a mandatory payment "insurance" when it's actually a tax?

services have all kind of "mandatory" payments, it doesn't make them a tax.

if you want to live somewhere, you have a mandatory payment called "rent" or "mortgage" (granted, mortgages to come with a property tax)

if you get caught speeding or parking illegally, you have to pay a "find"

if you go to the doctor, typically, you have to pay their "fee" or possibly later a "bill"



If you can't choose not to buy it, it's a tax.

You didn't read the Supreme Court opinion, did you?
 
2013-11-05 06:26:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that

I agree.

If you knew that he knew in June of 2010 that not only individual insured, but 66% of small businesses and 45% of large businesses were expected to see their plans canceled and replaced with something else, what would you conclude?


If I saw the record in question and it said that, I would think Obama was a liar.
 
2013-11-05 06:48:08 PM  

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


What I find equally irritating are those relying on a political speech for the purpose of forecasting the insurance market. Seriously. Could you not have made a little effort toward getting your sh*t , folks?
 
2013-11-05 08:45:56 PM  

ManateeGag: s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.

so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?


Sorry for the late response. I believe the term for someone that has repeatedly and intentionally told falsehoods is "liar".

Whatever else you imagined you were responding to has nothing to do with me, and in no way reduces this lie, told by our president.

I want single payer, so I want obamneycare to fail.
 
2013-11-05 08:50:23 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: ManateeGag: s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.

so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?

Whatever he needs to be to suit the talking point at hand:

Killing of OBL - Empty suit that ordered ST6 to stand down but the military did it anyway
Benghazi - Empty suit that sat by idly doing nothing and/or ordered a stand down
Libya - Vicious war monger that took out a peaceable leader and nation
Maersk Alabama - Vicious killer that ordered the assassination of Muslim youths
IRS - Powerful leader than oversees every aspect of every agency, ordering the audits
BP Oil Spill - Empty suit during the response
West, Texas Fertilizer Plant - Micromanager, ordering regulations not be enforced


Nah, I don't use those. But I've gotten a kick out of all the "Whatev's, a politician lying, boo-hoo!" And, "Naw, it's the insurance companies' fault!" Horseshiat some folks have been running with.
 
2013-11-05 10:27:24 PM  

DeaH: BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that

I agree.

If you knew that he knew in June of 2010 that not only individual insured, but 66% of small businesses and 45% of large businesses were expected to see their plans canceled and replaced with something else, what would you conclude?

If I saw the record in question and it said that, I would think Obama was a liar.


The article he's citing itself cites a review of interim insurance regulation published in the Federal Register. It makes for some really dry reading, but here's the direct quote.

Federal Register (p34551):

In total, approximately 66 percent of small employers and 48 percent of large employers made a change in either cost sharing or premium contribution during 2009 that would require them to relinquish grandfather status if the same change were made in 2011.

That being said, this is a bizarre thing to biatch about. The employer mandate was delayed by a year, so we won't actually see how that market is affected for quite a while.

Put another way, we get to do this all again next year, but at a louder volume.
 
2013-11-05 10:38:43 PM  

Elegy: Put another way, we get to do this all again next year, but at a louder volume.


Do you feel sometimes that there is a parallel between the roll-out of ACA and the way you cook a lobster?
 
2013-11-06 09:57:17 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Once you have started down the "White people One team be like this and black people Other Team be like that" path, you've already lost ground on a rational analysis, because you have begun from an emotional, often irrational set of preconceptions prejudices and conclusions that can only cloud the issue.


When the Republicans go back to putting country above party, I'll go back to taking them seriously.

Both sides may be bad. But one side is clearly worse.
 
2013-11-06 10:52:27 AM  

grumpfuff: When the Republicans go back to putting country above party, I'll go back to taking them seriously. Both sides may be bad. But one side is clearly worse.


Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.
 
2013-11-06 11:08:48 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: When the Republicans go back to putting country above party, I'll go back to taking them seriously. Both sides may be bad. But one side is clearly worse.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.


No problem.

/registered Independent
 
Displayed 36 of 386 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report