freeman3 wrote:Well, the difference is that when Bush lied or at least misled that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons he misled 100% of Americans and thousands of Americans died as a result of his deception. When you're addressing a crowd or a large group of people and say something is true with regard to the crowd and it turns out not to be true for 2 or 3% of that crowd is that a lie? The most you can say is that he lied to 3.6% of the American people and probably not even that many. If over 90% percent of Americans who had insurance get to keep their health care plan and their doctor, is it a lie when 5 or 10% of Americans did not? Did he say that those who bought their insurance on individual plans specifically got to keep their health care plan? If it turns out that a large percentage of Americans do not get to keep their health care plan then you got something. Otherwise...it's just spin.

Being wrong is not lying. Bush did not lie.

Obama was still lying on September 26th. This Monday, he was lying about what he said on the 26th.

A lie is a lie, no matter how many people you deceive..

2-3% ?
just about everyone is paying MORE for insurance, he promised we would pay less.

and that's the ACA lies, what about all the rest of them?

The grandfather clause in the ACA is pertinent as to whether Obama lied that people could keep their plan and coverage. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-ha ... alth-plan/

freeman3 wrote:The grandfather clause in the ACA is pertinent as to whether Obama lied that people could keep their plan and coverage. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-ha ... alth-plan/

No, what is pertinent is what he said, repeatedly.

Furthermore, even in his pseudo-apology, he told a lie that is going to come back to haunt him:

We are talking about 5% of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own. And even though it only affects a small amount of the population, it means a lot to them, obviously to get this letter canceled.

Just wait until the employer mandate kicks in. You're going to be looking at this as the "salad days" when the President was "popular," even though he's at about 40% in the polls now..You can, as Christie put it, "lawyer it" all you want--people know what he said.

So Obama told 3.6% of the country that they could keep their coverage and doctor but in fact it turns out a lot of 3.6% couldn't keep their doctor and pan...but even for those 3.6 percent the statement was true if they enrolled before March, 2010 and their plan did not change (because it would be grandfathered)...Yawn...

freeman3 wrote:So Obama told 3.6% of the country that they could keep their coverage and doctor but in fact it turns out a lot of 3.6% couldn't keep their doctor and pan...but even for those 3.6 percent the statement was true if they enrolled before March, 2010 and their plan did not change (because it would be grandfathered)...Yawn...

Really? Did he make ANY qualifying statement before this past Monday? Even one?

And, they knew policies would change, so yeah, it was a lie. You're yawning, but most Americans are not.

Just wait until the employer mandate costs millions more their coverage.

This is a political disaster.

This is more than a little funny. Liberals were crying about EVERYTHING that evil devil George Bush did, in fact they pretty much called him Satan in every reference. They cried about every single item yet they are blind to EVERYTHING Obama does, they "yawn" about it as if it were nothing yet face it, Obama has been far worse than GWB even when it comes to liberal ideals.

This is pretty funny
check out a blog from 2008 about how bad GWB was and compare it to Obama,
http://www.bengarvey.com/2008/08/07/31- ... president/
funny stuff, Obama has been far worse yet all we hear from the libs is "yawn"
Did you hear most conservatives support everything GWB did? Not here you didn't! Did we disagree with everything? Of course not, but what have liberals here complained of about Obama? NOTHING!

GMTom wrote:This is more than a little funny. Liberals were crying about EVERYTHING that evil devil George Bush did, in fact they pretty much called him Satan in every reference. They cried about every single item yet they are blind to EVERYTHING Obama does, they "yawn" about it as if it were nothing yet face it, Obama has been far worse than GWB even when it comes to liberal ideals.

This is pretty funny
check out a blog from 2008 about how bad GWB was and compare it to Obama,
http://www.bengarvey.com/2008/08/07/31- ... president/
funny stuff, Obama has been far worse yet all we hear from the libs is "yawn"
Did you hear most conservatives support everything GWB did? Not here you didn't! Did we disagree with everything? Of course not, but what have liberals here complained of about Obama? NOTHING!

Not true. They complain he's not liberal. They think he's a compromiser.

When Bush compromised, he got Democratic votes. When Obama compromises, he gets . . . Democratic votes!

http://www.forbes.com/special-report/20 ... u-map.html

The link above is a fairly comprehensive comparison of who's premiums are more and who's less when buying

individual i

nsurance ... (The 3 to 4 % of people who actually used to buy individual insurance. Not the numebrs who can now afford insurance for the first time, or people in group plans)
In New York Tom, the average is 40% less.
Of course yours isn't individual, its group insurance.... Bought through your company...

The only problem with the comparison is that's it only compares premium costs.And a thorough examination would also compare the value of the policies. Co-Pays, coverage exclusions, annual and life time limitations, access to care ... etc.
I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama a bald faced liar over his statements about "If you like your ..."
However it was a simplistic response to a complex question, and ultimately because of that, dishonest. And it was a politicians response when he needed to rise above that level and actually take the opportunity to explain the ACA.... Its too bad he gave in to the urge to use a sound bite that would resonate, rather than an explanation that would really communicate.
Criticism of the increases on individual rate increases that only look at premium increases, are equally as self serving and dishonest . Complaining because people have to pay more to get effective coverage, when their previous coverage was wholly inadequate and offered no genuine protection from financial calamities of a health problem is a failure to offer an honest assessment...
But then the arguments against the ACA have been leaning on anecdotes, and often when examined the anecdotes have been from misinformed or uninformed sources...
If the opposition to the ACA is largely dependent on the web service not working well, then time isn't on the side of the opposition Fate. Eventually the web developers get the bugs out....
The true clue to the possible success or failure are at the States where they have their own exchanges...that have launched with few web problems, and they've been generally successful .....

freeman3 wrote:So Obama told 3.6% of the country that they could keep their coverage and doctor but in fact it turns out a lot of 3.6% couldn't keep their doctor and pan...but even for those 3.6 percent the statement was true if they enrolled before March, 2010 and their plan did not change (because it would be grandfathered)...Yawn...

Oh, and he knew he was lying 3 years ago.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... r-coverage

Read it and weep. He lied.

The president admits that 3 percent of the country MIGHT have to change coverage and you call him a liar. He was not attempting to lie to such a small percentage of the American people. He was attempting to assure the vast majority of Americans that they were able to keep their health care plan and their doctor. And that was a true statement. You wanted him to water down that statement and say "well, all of you get to keep your plan except for those who bought individual plans that were not grandfathered". Give me a break. There were legitimate fears out there that the ACA, being such a huge reform, would cause most people to lose their good health care plans. And the president accurately reassured them that almost all Americans with health insurance would get to keep their plan.
Why do you think Republicans were silent about this effect on the individual plans before? I'll tell you why--it would have highlighted the fact that almost all Americans would get to keep their health care plans that they currently have.
This is a brief little blip that will go away because there is nothing substantial here. As per usual, another made-up scandal. What's happening on Benghazi lately? Other than CBS being exciorated for using a source that lied.

And Bush did lie and many people died--that was not a made-up scandal. Lying to start a preemptive war--he should have been removed from office. And here you are parsing whether Obama lied when a statement was true to 96.4 of Americans but might have been inaccurate for 3.6 percent...

rickyp wrote:I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama a bald faced liar over his statements about "If you like your ..."
However it was a simplistic response to a complex question, and ultimately because of that, dishonest.

Of course you wouldn't call him a liar. I mean, all he said was, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period." Michael Ramirez catches it well:

And it was a politicians response when he needed to rise above that level and actually take the opportunity to explain the ACA.... Its too bad he gave in to the urge to use a sound bite that would resonate, rather than an explanation that would really communicate.

I could give that to you, IF he had said it once. Instead, he said it dozens of times (see link in my post above--36 times on video). And, (also in previous link) he said this in 2010:

CANTOR: …Because I don't think you can answer the question in the positive to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want, in the kind of bill that you are proposing:

OBAMA: Since you asked me a question, let me respond. The 8 to 9 million people you refer to that might have to change their coverage -- keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we are talking about -- would be folks who the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates would find the deal in the exchange better -- would be a better deal. So, yes, they would change coverage because they got more choice and competition.

So, he knew that. Yet, instead of telling people that a few would be inconvenienced for the greater good, he lied. Of course, the "few" seems to be growing all the time. And, we've not even seen what havoc the employer mandate will wreak yet.

Criticism of the increases on individual rate increases that only look at premium increases, are equally as self serving and dishonest .

So true--because it ignores the increases in out-of-pocket expenses too, which are sometimes incredible all by themselves. It also ignores the narrowing of networks, which can't be measured in dollars and cents.

Complaining because people have to pay more to get effective coverage, when their previous coverage was wholly inadequate and offered no genuine protection from financial calamities of a health problem is a failure to offer an honest assessment...

Not any more or less dishonest than claiming making people pay significantly more for fewer options and unneeded coverage is an honest assessment. Furthermore, most Americans would prefer the option of deciding for themselves what is "adequate." Many people are losing coverage that met their needs and being forced into policies that are well above them. Of course, that's the idea--get people to pay for more than what they need so they can bear the burden for others. It's a sneaky tax and that's the Obama way (see coal regulations).

But then the arguments against the ACA have been leaning on anecdotes, and often when examined the anecdotes have been from misinformed or uninformed sources...

Actually, the arguments against the ACA are based on facts. You don't like them, but you can't refute them.

If the opposition to the ACA is largely dependent on the web service not working well, then time isn't on the side of the opposition Fate.

If that's what it was, you'd be right. It's not, so you're wrong.

But, the website doesn't look like it's going to be done on time.

Eventually the web developers get the bugs out....
The true clue to the possible success or failure are at the States where they have their own exchanges...that have launched with few web problems, and they've been generally successful

Successful? Oh, because you say so? That's why even Democrats are running for the hills? Even liberals are mocking the whole program and the President's honesty?

You're so funny.

freeman3 wrote:And Bush did lie and many people died--that was not a made-up scandal. Lying to start a preemptive war--he should have been removed from office. And here you are parsing whether Obama lied when a statement was true to 96.4 of Americans but might have been inaccurate for 3.6 percent...

So lame. The only defense for the ACA is "Bush lied!" Well, no, he didn't.

Yes he did!

No he didn't!

Again, do you want a list of all the agencies and all the Democrats who said the same things Bush did? Was Bush in charge of Russia, Israel, Britain? Bill Clinton? HIllary?

Pathetic.

GWB was "an idiot" and an evil genius who controlled most of the world--at the same time. Cognitive dissonance is a major indication you have BDS. That and the fact that he's been out of office for 5 years and yet you're still using him as an excuse and a defense.

I'm not parsing anything. Obama lied.

And, it's not just 3.6% of Americans (as if that would be okay). There are going to be many more millions losing their policies. If not, why are Democrats panicking?

So, keep carping. Politically, you're losing. Deal with it.