I don't get it. You basically interpret 'If you like your doctor you can keep him' To mean: '... when politicians haven't labeled the policy as a sham policy'.
It's *true* that if you like your doctor you can keep him. What you are not allowed to do is keep a scam insurance policy.
But he was directly responding to fears the government would label people's health insurance policies as sham policies and take them away.
The people who really want to keep bad insurance policies are outliers.
It sounds like you're saying Obama wasn't claiming anything at all.
He claimed lots of things, mostly to combat the ridiculous claims made by republicans (e.g. death panels, government telling you who your doctor will be, etc). People are naturally afraid of big changes. ACA was a big change. It is important that people realize that it will not involve the government forcing you to get a different doctor, and deciding when it is your time to die and killing you.
"If you like your doctor you can keep him" is basically true except for the following scenarios:
1. Your doctor doesn't want to be your doctor anymore (retirement, etc).
2. You currently had an inadequate insurance plan and are completely unwilling to pay more money for an adequate plan that includes your preferred doctor.
3. Your doctor decides to stop taking insurance.
4. Your company decides to switch insurence policies to one your doctor doesn't take.
These are things that would have prevented you from keeping your doctor even if the ACA had not become law, and they continue to be that way even after the ACA.
The only exception is that you are no longer allowed to buy inadequate insurance, which is a good thing, seeing what a serious problem it is. I'm sorry if you have to pay more money, but that's what a non-scam plan costs. For most people who already bought insurance their insurance is actually cheaper. For people with no insurance (or people with inadequate insurance), it will be more expensive.
I don't think anyone tried to hide that information.
You mean, change the law? Obama has said he will veto ANY attempt to change the law.
I don't think that includes efforts to make it better. There is a justified assumption that any changes to the ACA being offered by republicans are obvious attempts to kill it.
If republicans actually decided to try to make it better, and Obama worked with them to make it happen, you'd probably call him a liar again for lying about vetoing any attempts to change the law.
We can't possibly burn all the coal. Not even all the high grade coal, to say nothing of brown coal.
Wouldn't this still be true even if 0 coal was being replenished?
So the doctor that you've always been able to afford before is no longer available - not because the doctor charges more, but because the cost of the insurance that doctor will accept has quadrupled under Obamacare, and many people can no longer afford what they used to afford.
So you *could* keep your doctor in your hypothetical example if not for the fact that you can't afford it.
I will say that doctors will decide to stop accepting certain kinds of insurance even before the ACA. This is not a new thing that only existed after the ACA, and I don't think there is anyway to prevent doctors from changing what kind of insurance they accept even if the ACA were not passed.
It's simple math: the government says that you, as a customer, must suddenly begin to subsidize billions of dollars in new entitlement spending, and that prices you out of certain markets - one of which includes your long time doctor.
Actually it says you as a healthy 18 year old must subsidize sick old people.
And took away health care from millions of people.
Forcing people to switch to a new plan, does not count as taking health care away from people. Furthermore, even if you have no plan now, the fact that insurance companies can not refuse to cover you due to per-existing conditions, means that you will not be stuck uninsured. The worst that can happen is that you are forced to pay a fine for not buying insurance, and this fine is actually less than what it costs to buy insurance.
With an unconstitutional stroke of a pen, he directed the executive branch to ignore the basic requirements of the law he championed, but only long enough to slow down how it impacts election results for his party.
The supreme court says otherwise. This is what I am talking about when I say the detractors want the bill to be worse in an effort to turn public opinion against it, even if it means people not getting healthcare they need.
So let me ask you this. If Obama is a liar. Who is not a liar?
Now, compare by hash is perfectly fine if you do it right. In that case the computer producing bit-errors and the like while you do the hashing for a comparison is more likely than getting a hash collision. Yet for some reason Valery seems to not understand that, or at least did not back then.
It seems like she does understand this, but is saying that the comparison of collision rates to hardware failures is not appropriate.
On page 4 she says:
In other words, VAL-1 is SHA-1 except that the first two inputs map to the same output. This function has an almost identical probability of collision as SHA-1, but it is completely unsuitable for use in compare-by-hash. The point of this example is not that bad hash functions will result in errors, but that we can’t directly compare the probability of a hash collision with the probability of a hardware error. If we could, VAL-1 and SHA-1 would be equally good candidates for compare-by-hash. The relation-ship between the probability of a hash collision and the probability of a hardware error must be more complicated than a straightforward comparison can reveal.
I have never heard of Val Henson before just right now, so I don't have any dog in this fight, but it seems like your characterization of what she doesn't understand is over-simplified.
Hillary Clinton killed the ambassador? I guess Bush must have killed all the people on 9/11 then.
I fucking hate Hillary. I think she is a despicable person. But that doesn't mean everything is her fault. The desperate attempt by republicans to pin something from benghazi on her, just seems pathetic. As someone who would love to see Hillary go down, I wish republicans weren't so dumb.
Still backwards. It's as much about whether the insurer wants to include that doctor's practice as it is about whether that doctor wants to make the (substantial) investment in tying themselves, contractually and logistically, with a given insurer. In most cases, it's the insurer deliberately choosing to work only with a network of doctors and facilities that is limited in size, in order to allow them to manage expenses so they don't go broke taking on the legally mandated huge new collection of people who will cost them more than they will ever pay.
What I am saying is that unless the doctor doesn't take *any* kind of insurance, then you should be able to get the kind of insurance that the doctor accepts, and get the doctor you want. The fact that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage should make this even easier to do than before.
But you're not asking yourself WHY they don't like Obama. It's because they don't like what he stands for and preaches, ideologically.
I don't like what he stands for and preaches ideologically, which is why I didn't vote for him. What I don't understand is why people hate him so much. I can disagree with someone without hating them. I actually like lots of people I disagree with and dislike lots of people I do agree with. Despite my ideological disagreement with Obama, he (unlike most other politicians, seems very reasonable, unlike the people who seem to be opposing him just for the sake of opposing him.
Some people don't like the concept of the Nanny State's top-heavy, bureaucratic swamp being in charge of more and more of their lives.
I don't like the nanny state either. What I like even less is people dying because they have no insurance and can't afford treatment. I am willing to let people deal with the consequences of their decisions for just about everything as long as that consequence is not their premature death.
I am fine with forcing people to plan for their own healthcare. They are not responsible enough to be trusted to do it themselves. For every other thing, I think the best way to shape behavior is to let people make mistakes and let the consequences be the deterrent for making those mistakes again. But it is because I want people to thrive, not because I want to keep my own money for myself, which is why I treat healthcare differently.
And yes government healthcare is a disaster. The only thing worse is private healthcare. We are paying more for healthcare in the US (even with insurance), than other countries are paying (without insurance), and getting worse care. We don;t have the best healthcare in the world, we only have the most expensive healthcare.
Because in the case being discussed, he KNEW that over half the country was actively disliking the prospects of the new law
It seemed like the majority was in favor of it at the time, and even more people are in favor of it now. The people who are not in favor of it are basically people who hate Obama and everything he wants to do, regardless of what it is.
I actually didn't support the bill because I thought it could be done better (i.e. in a way that better decreases the costs of healthcare, and doesn't let insurance companies get away with all the BS they still get away with now).
That said, it seemed like other people hated the bill because of who was behind it. And they actually worked (and to a large degree succeeded) in making it worse in order to try to kill it. This is something I don't understand. Why not try to make it better rather than worse?
You wonder why people don't like him? It's because people don't like someone who looks them in the eye for months straight and simply lies to them, repeatedly and deliberately. The question isn't why people dislike that, it's how can anyone say they DO?
And yet those same people seem to have no problem with other politicians lying to them for selfish reasons, and I can't understand the double standard.
All the nit picky things they point out in Obama they ignore much worse in other politicians.
Obama's "lies" got lots of people healthcare they wouldn't otherwise have. Bush's lies got thousands of American soldiers killed for nothing (not to mention Iraqi civilian lives and trillions of dollars). But Obama is the bad guy. As someone who actually voted for republicans in the last 2 elections, I just don't get the effort spent to find evil in Obama and ignore it in other people.
I don't have your faith in the "well running market", but I generally agree with your approach.
I don't have "faith" in markets be perfect. In fact I think I said " We don't ever get that perfect market, but we should be striving for that."
Unfortunately, I know of no way to accomplish this. E.g., regulatory capture is an unsolved problem, because those in power don't *want* it solved.
I don't claim that a a solution to this problem exists. All I am claiming is that the economic problems are not hard, and economists on either side of the left/right keynes/austrian divide could probably agree on solutions that are better than what we have.
The solution I can see to regulatory capture is a more informed electorate, although I don't see how we get to that. But I don't see any solution that doesn't involve a more informed electorate.
No, you're not understanding what happened. The new law made lots of insurance policies no longer allowed.
I understand that. Recall that I described the example of bad scam policies, and how I thought getting rid of those would be a good thing, even if the people who purchased them might think they want them.
For example: if you're a married couple 80 years old, you still have to carry, by law, insurance that includes full maternity care.
I understand this too. I too as a younger person may not want insurance that covers hip replacements until I think I might need them. The good news is that the cost of insuring an 80 year old for maternity care is probably pretty cheap, just like insuring an 18 year old for a hip replacement is probably really cheap (since neither is very likely). What's nice about this arrangement is that a lot of confusion in terms of what is covered and what isn;t is simplified for not much more cost, and in rare cases when people get pregnant (when they thought they couldn't) or in the odd cases where a college kid actually needs a hip replacement is still covered.
So a lot of existing insurance simply evaporated.
I suppose you could choose to look at it this way if you want. The other way you could look at it is that your existing plan might have become more comprehensive and more expensive, if they happened not to be deemed comprehensive enough.
I don;t doubt there are some examples where it doesn't work well. I also know for sure that there are examples of people who basically had very cheap scam insurance that are angry that they are now forced to pay more for something rather than less for nothing. But I am constantly hearing about people getting what they think is affordable insurance only to find it covers nothing they need, and they are completely screwed. But given the nature of insurance, those people may not ever know how precarious their position was especially if they were forced to switch to a more comprehensive insurance before they ever tried to use their old one for something big.
They then had to go find a way to buy new insurance - usually at much higher prices, often from a different carrier
So you are describing a scenario where your existing doctor no longer accepts insurance? I'm not sure why you can't get the insurance your preferred doctor accepts.
This isn't a matter of the doctors retiring.
I realize this is not an all encompassing example. I merely mentioned it as an example of someone "not being able to keep their doctor", but not necessarily due to "Obama's lies".
This is about the law forcing people to buy very expensive new health insurance from a new provider that - because of all of the heavy new requirements of what and who they must now cover - greatly reduce the number of doctors they'll work with.
The law doesn't force people to buy very expensive insurance nor does is force people to get a new provider. The law forces people to buy insurance that meets minimum government requirements (i.e. it removes the option to buy insurance that doesn't meet these guidelines).
Imagine this example:
The government passes a law saying all automobiles must have seatbelts. Obama comes out and says "Don't worry, you can still buy the same cars, they will just have seatbelts in them". One company decides it would rather close up shop than take orders from Obama and sell cars with seatbelts. Was Obama lying when he said you can buy the same cars? What if you wanted to specifically buy a car with no seatbelt, and not pay the extra cost of a car with a seatbelt?
This is how I basically look at it. Obama is saying "Don't worry there is still going to be Ford trucks with seatbelts, and toyota camrys with seatbelts, etc". Unfortunately if you really wanted to buy a car with no seatbelt, or if you really wanted to spend $200 less and risk driving without a seatbelt you are out of luck (and that was no doubt intentional). Was he lying? I guess technically. But why focus on that when there is a car company lying to cover up how many people die in accidents that seatbelts could prevent. To me the motivation for why someone is "lying" really matters.
And so people lost access to their familiar doctors, despite Obama's promise that no such thing would happen - remember, he said nobody would have to leave their plans (a lie).
Is it lying when a parent tells their child "this shot is going to be for your own good, and it will only hurt for a second", even though the parent knows that 0.1% kids have an allergic reaction to the shot and it will actually hurt a lot and be a bad thing?
If someone asked "What if someone likes their plan but it doesn;t meet the requirements, can they keep it?" I don't know, but I suspect Obama would have said "No, but you probably wouldn't want to.
And here is the thing. We can't even have nuanced conversations anymore in politics. Everything needs to be in 20 second sound bytes for the news to cover it. And if you don;t speak in 20 second sound bytes, the news will convert your speech into those snippets as they see fit.
So I see what Obama said as basically true, even if it wasn't technically true for every single person. And I think on the whole it probably has done a lot of good for society. I'm sorry if you were one of the people who got a raw deal.
As a person who can't stand 99% of politicians, democrats included, I just don't get the animosity directed toward Obama. One of the few politicians who seem like they legitimately care about helping people, and don't seem to be in it for their own benefit, and there are more people than ever saying he's a liar, and arrogant, and seem to just hate the guy.
I don't know if you fall into this category or not (I won;t presume to know), but a lot of people just don't want Obamacare to succeed because they don't like Obama. There were numerous cases of people claiming their insurance had gone up, but it turned out they didn't even really try to get better plans by going on the health care exchanges. They just gave up and decided Obamacare was broken and made a big stink. I remember one case where a reporter did some investigations into a particular case and found the person could actually get a better plan for less money on one of the exchanges and the person said they didn;t trust the exchanges if they were run by Obama or something to that effect.
I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't like the ACA enough to support it, but I feel like the vitriol against Obama and Obamacare is just ridiculous, especially considering all the things going on in Washington that are far more worthy to hate.
I don't think anyone really knows how fast it is being made, or what the total amount really is...
I know I certainly don't, which is why I wanted a citation.
I am not really on any extreme side of this debate, I just thought I saw a claim that contradicted my worldview (which happens frequently), and wanted a citation to determine for myself if it was credible.
As it turns out I think the statement was simply very misleading, even if *maybe* technically true.
I'm pretty open to differing points of view. I don't think there is much to be gained by attaching an ideology that you are bound to defend at all costs. When when I do decide to drink the kool-aid of an ideology, I am very careful about what it is (e.g. scientific method, rules of logic, etc)
He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people.
I don't doubt this is the case. I suspect there are some doctors that retired simply to spite obamacare. My point is that I understood Obama's statement to mean "This law won't prevent you from keeping your doctor, should your doctor still want to be your doctor". I don't expect Obama to guarantee that everyone's doctor will still want to be their doctor.
It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care
1. Getting rid of insurance plans that don't offer enough protection is important (regardless of whether you agree with the specific rules defined in the ACA. My wife who works in the industry finds lots of people who think they are insured, only to find out they have been buying insurance that covers almost nothing they might actually want (i.e. they are scams) 2. Your insurance covers other people's maternity as well. You may not feel like that's fair, but they are covering your hip surgeries, etc.
The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.
So nobody being treated at the 2 nearest and best hospitals is insured? Or are they just paying more?
Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately.
It sounds like you've just decided Obama is a liar and everything he says can only confirm that belief.
I'm not even going to bother to dispute this. I highly doubt Obama has never lied in a speech to the country.
I will offer a counterexample. My mother's insurance costs actually went down from the ACA. I suspect that despite many differing claims of insurance rates going up or down, what really needs to be considered is that levels of coverage have also been going up and down for those same people, and that difference isn't always as obvious as the dollar amount coming out of your paycheck.
You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen.
From how I interpreted it, Obama didn't lie, especially relative the the level of lies I have come to expect from politicians. My company switched from bluecross to aetna after ACA passed. I had to switch my primary care doctor because of it. The fact that this happened *after* the ACA does not mean it was *because of* the ACA. It was my company that decided to switch insurance companies. Even if they did it because of the ACA for whatever reason, that switch is on them. They could have kept bluecross, but they decided to switch to aetna. And it's not the first time they switched. Even before the ACA, they switched from from a different one (can't even remember who) to bluecross.
He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway.
I think it's true that Obama never intended to ensure that companies would be forced to keep the same insurance policies for their workers. I didn't think this counted as a "not being able to keep your doctor because of the ACA", I counted it as "not being able to keep your doctor because your company changed providers"
What I don't understand is why you're trying to spin it for him. What do you gain by attempting to back up the deception?
I'm not trying to spin anything. I didn't even vote for the guy. I think he is one of the more honest politicians I have known especially for a president, but I don't really agree with his approach in general. I am not a democrat nor a republican. I am an independent.
I don't gain anything by advocating for anybody. I am just calling it as a see it.
I feel like I am generally unbiased when it comes to Obama and the ACA. I wasn't a supporter of either. I felt like Obama was an honest enough person, and the goal noble enough, but I just didn't think it was being done in a good enough way. That said, I think it's good that more people are insured, and that people can;t be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Just because I am defending one particular aspect of the ACA (whether or not Obama lied about whether you can keep your doctor), doesn't mean I like the whole thing. I feel as if I am in a unique position to comment from a dispassionate perspective. I don't love the guy, nor do I hate him.
If anything it seems like you hate him. And if you do, I would suggest that maybe your judgement is clouded.