The Crocodile Tears of The Right-Wing Liars

Lying liars that lie. How's it feel to be lied to by your own party?

View attachment 2089


Guess Who Really Wants to Take Away Your Insurance: Republicans

by Jonathan Cohn | October 30, 2013

Republicans are outraged that some Americans must give up their current insurance plans because they don't satisfy Obamacare's new regulations for benefits and pricing. Partly they are mad at President Obama, because he repeatedly said people who like their coverage would get to keep it. And that’s fine. As I said yesterday, Obama should have said "most" people, not "all" people. Readers can decide for themselves whether, by the standards of politics, that’s a felony or misdemeanor.
But Republicans are also making a substantive argument here. It’s unconscionable, they say, that lawmakers would force people to give up their current coverage. Just a few minutes ago, during congressional testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, an angry Representative Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee practically screamed at the witness: “You’re taking away their choice!”
It’s good politics, I’m sure. It’s also breathtakingly cynical. Republicans have repeatedly endorsed proposals that would take insurance away from many more Americans—and leave them much, much worse off.
Start with the federal budgets crafted by Paul Ryan. You remember those, right? Those proposals passed through the House with unanimous Republican support and were, in 2012, a basis of the Republican presidential platform. Those budgets called for dramatic funding cuts to Medicaid. If Republicans had swept into power and enacted such changes, according to projections prepared by Urban Institute scholars and published by the Kaiser Family Foundation, between 14 and 20 million Medicaid recipients would lose their insurance. And that doesn’t even include the people who are starting to get Medicaid coverage through Obamacare’s expansions of the program. That's another 10 to 17 million people.
And it’s not just people on Medicaid who would lose coverage if Republicans got their way. While Republicans in Congress have not unified by a single alternative to Obamacare, a building block of virtually every proposal in circulation is to equalize the tax treatment of employer-sponsored insurance and individual insurance—which, in layman’s terms, means making it much more appealing for somebody who gets coverage on the job to buy coverage on his or her own. Typically these proposals would allow insurers selling individual coverage to continue some of their current practices, like charging higher premiums or refusing to cover certain services for people with pre-existing conditions, or offering coverage with serous gaps in benefits. Most experts believe such reforms would hike the cost of employer plans, as only sicker people remained on them, potentially creating a “death spiral” that would lead to fewer employers offering plans. (Even the more optimistic estimates assume erosion of employer-sponsored insurance.)
Note the difference in scale here. Nobody knows exactly how many people are giving up non-group policies because insurers are reacting to Obamacare regulations. But it's probably in the millions—and still substantially less than the number of people who would lose insurance if Ryan's proposal for Medicaid became law.
More important, though, look at the kind of change taking place. Almost everybody giving up a non-group policy today has the option to get new insurance either through Medicaid or one of the new Obamacare marketplaces. Some people will pay more for these policies, some will pay less, but everybody will be getting coverage that includes an array of "essential" benefits, limits out-of-pocket spending, and can never be taken away or limited because the policyholder gets sick. In other words, everybody ends up with comprehensive, stable insurance. It may not be the policy he or she has today. But the vast majority of people with non-group market don’t keep the same policy for more than two years anyway.
Under the Republican plan, by contrast, people losing employer insurance would end up in the dysfunctional, non-reformed individual market—the one full of confusing, junk policies that might not cover basic services like maternity or mental health or have huge gaps in coverage. And the people losing Medicaid? They would end up with … nothing at all.
The real issue here isn’t simply Republican opportunism and hypocrisy—although, please, let’s not ignore that either. The real issue is about the true trade-offs of policy. Both sides offer them. With Obamacare, a small number of people lose their current insurance but they end up with alternative, typically stronger coverage. Under the plans Republicans have endorsed, a larger number of people would lose their current insurance, as people migrated to a more volatile and less secure marketplace. Under Obamacare, the number of Americans without health insurance at all will come down, eventually by 30 or 40 million. Under most of the Republican plans, the number of Americans without insurance would rise.
Honest Republicans would justify their policies by arguing that Medicaid is a wasteful, inefficient program not worth keeping—and their changes, overall, would reduce health care spending while maximizing liberty. In other words, forcing people to give up their coverage is worth it. I don’t agree with those arguments, but they are honest. But they should stop pretending that it’s possible to address the problems of American health care without disrupting at least some people’s insurance arrangements—because, after all, they want to do the very same thing.
Source URL: http://www.newrepublic.com//article...ellation-letters-cynical-republican-hypocrisy

 

This article is far too long for any RWer here to read, let alone fully comprehend. That aside, the article illustrates the point that the Right's only concern when it comes to choice is making sure that the insurance companies can choose who to insure, who not to insure, what to cover and what not to cover and how much to charge for the coverage should they decide to offer it. Ayn Rand would love it.

 

It's really hard to take people this corrupted by utter stupidity seriously. If they can't even be honest with themselves, they certainly can't be honest with anyone else.

 

Ouch! ...another Liberal cut & paste!

What's YOUR opinion, Joe? Boil it down for us.

 

He's isn't capable of voicing his own (or an original) opinion because he has none.

 

In my opinion, you're a douche bag. There ya go!

 

Well, we already knew you were handy with the personal attacks but beyond that, there just isn't much there.

 

Careful, David. He might threaten you.

 

There you go. That is the most independent comment he has made!

 

Yeah, these internet bully-types are pathetic. I don't believe moron joe's behavior comes from him being a tough guy but rather it's his ego. You know, in his position, he bullies all those young co-eds so he's ill-prepared when someone doesn't agree with his far left radical garbage. Which causes him to strike out in anger.

 

View attachment 2095

 

And....

View attachment 2096

 

Let me, I mean them, put it this way....

But they (The GOP) should stop pretending that it’s possible to address the problems of American health care without disrupting at least some people’s insurance arrangements—because, after all, they want to do the very same thing.

 

That's fine...just don't lie about it to the American people. If it makes sense, they'll vote for it...no bait & switch required. The Democrats ran an election under totally false pretenses. I think the 2012 election should be nullified and rerun.

 

In a different thread, the liberals here have already said they don't care if they're lied to. In fact, they expect it. In Obama's case, they certainly got what they expected.

 

Has anyone here even read Peter's only three rules for this forum?? No discussion going on here, just trashing one another.

 

I hate all the trash talk. Unfortunately, even the Admins take part...Peter has no one enforcing a civil discourse.

 

LOL care to show me were I have possibly Trash talked you Yakpoo? Now would you really like me to strictly enforce the polite talk?
Please tell me and I will do so with a vengance You have already complained because I edited out a racist comment made by you.

So the choice my friends is yours

 

I think the term, or hyperbole that this "lie" is just plain politics as usual serving as an excuse for not reading the ACA language in the first place. If the Right wing hate merchants had read the ACA legislation, clearly they would understand that some insurance policies would not meet the standards of the new law and would be forced from the marketplace. While you can't make private insurers sell health insurance if they don't want to, you can make them sell health insurance that meets a defined standard if they choose to sell insurance. Cars for example, have to meet standards before they can be sold in this country. Electronics have to meet standards before they can be sold in this country. Infant carseats, cribs, and strollers have to meet standards before they can be sold in this country. All kinds of products meet federal standards, why should health care be any different?
Point is that calling this a "lie" by Obama is really ignoring that fact that this law was designed to eliminate junk insurance that does nothing to prevent people from bankruptcy because the actual coverage is so pathetic. I think it is just easier to vilify a political foe than to accept responsibility for not understanding, not reading, not even trying to work with the opposition to produce better legislation. The fact is, the Right wing is simply catering to a group of fanatics that will never be pleased or accept anything less than their way or scorched earth. They can't win through the election process, they can't win through the legislative process, and they can't win in the courts so they prefer to burn it all down to try and get what they want. Whatever happened to the idea of democracy? Why has fanatical ideology become their preferred choice? America can't let them win any more than Germany should have let the Nazi's win and rise to power. Fanaticism leads to chaos and extremism and uncompromising ideology is the first step in that direction.

 

Oh Lucy, you are closing the barn door long, long after the cows have been spotted in the next county. The mods used to enforce the rules quite strictly but it was a lot of work due to the immaturity of supposed adults. Some of the more polite people were driven away by the vitriol and never returned. I don't feel that the mods should have to police the conversation of supposed adults. The forum has evolved/devolved to people sniping at each other and then acting offended when it happens to them as if they have never done the same or crosses some personal line they happen to have. There is no real conversation going on and I doubt the mods will change that no matter what they do so why should they spend all their time babysitting a bunch of stupid kids. I include myself in the group. Hey, when in Rome.