• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama changes "you can keep it" slogan, makes it seem like we misunderstood him

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well at least Obama is sorry.

Not sorry for lying though. Nope. Not sorry about that.

Fire all these assholes
 
While I think O'Bummer mis-lead people, I blame the insurance companies for cancelling policies instead of modifying them to meet the law.
Really...how much would it have cost insurers to add maternity coverage for you single guys? It's not like you'd ever use it...and it doesn't cover your girlfriend, she'd have her own coverage. (and try as you may, you're not gonna knock up Rosy Palm)

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as adding maternity coverage to a policy form for men and adding $0 to the premium (since the expected utilization is zero). 45 C.F.R. § 156.80 mandates that an insurer develop a market-wide index rate that is applied equally to all polices. Just by being in the risk pool, males have to bear that index rate, of which maternity coverage is a component.

This is outside my area of expertise so what I'm wondering may be impractical or impossible to reasonably ask, but I wonder if there is enough data given to reach more soundly based estimates?

We have some studies that we've seen that attempt to compare, but even then they're prone to being inaccurate. Actuarial science is, despite its name, more of an art than a science and the underlying assumptions can make or break an analysis.

There's a reason that the Society of Actuaries and the American Academy of Actuaries have not weighed in on the issue: there is no fool-proof answer to the question, the markets are just too disparate to be compared.
 
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as adding maternity coverage to a policy form for men and adding $0 to the premium (since the expected utilization is zero). 45 C.F.R. § 156.80 mandates that an insurer develop a market-wide index rate that is applied equally to all polices. Just by being in the risk pool, males have to bear that index rate, of which maternity coverage is a component.
There's an unfortunate human tendency to assume that everything everyone else does is easy.

We have some studies that we've seen that attempt to compare, but even then they're prone to being inaccurate. Actuarial science is, despite its name, more of an art than a science and the underlying assumptions can make or break an analysis.

There's a reason that the Society of Actuaries and the American Academy of Actuaries have not weighed in on the issue: there is no fool-proof answer to the question, the markets are just too disparate to be compared.
Yet your earlier point about weighting for enrollment is entirely valid, and the lack of doing so makes me greatly mistrust the Manhattan Institute's honesty. There are a plethora of possible methodologies for any given subject, yet any methodology which appears to give one result when the actual result may be wildly different is too flawed to use. If the average premium increase for all possible choices is reported as 142% whereas by your own calculations the average premium increase for all previously insured individuals is more like 17%, then it's hard to believe they honestly selected that methodology without regard to ideology, or even with a reasonable weighting of ideology.

I still think it's a major problem for those whose premiums are increasing that much, especially for those receiving worse or no better insurance, but that point can be made honestly without pretending that everyone's premiums are increasing that much.
 
Yeah he clearly lied, or didn't totally understand what was going to happen.

My plan is being canceled, but there is an almost identical plan being offered for a lower price, and I have many more options than I did before, I will be able to get something that more suits my needs and will allow me to spend much less money every month.

Really? Lower price and its a better policy? I know all of this is anecdotal but we had to switch insurance companies to just take a minimal increase (versus a not so minimal increase) in cost. The plans differ a slight bit but close enough, at least as far as health insurance goes, for me to call them basically the same. I pay $5 more for the cheapest RX but get a free checkup a year. The more expensive RX will undoubtedly cost me a bit more but meh, its negligible so all in all I consider it the same.

Our old plan was going up by 30%, our new one costs us "only" 10% more than we paid last year.
 
Yes Obama was certainly wrong. He should have said

The vast majority of people will be able to keep their current plans except for the whose insurance is so crappy that it nearly rises to the level of fraud, like those who are paying out the ass after having been forced into high risk pools because they had the audacity to have a mild form of asthma. Those people plus the millions of people who will now qualify for medicaid and those who find out that they have been paying $300 a month with a high deductible and an expensive copay, all those will get a new insurance.

But that isn't pithy enough so 4 years later all those people whose idea of health care reform amounted to sticking their fingers in the ears and going LALALALALALALA can now pretend they actually care.
 
Yes Obama was certainly wrong. He should have said



But that isn't pithy enough so 4 years later all those people whose idea of health care reform amounted to sticking their fingers in the ears and going LALALALALALALA can now pretend they actually care.

If those plans are such crap, why are people finding nearly identical plans with Obamacare?
 
Yes Obama was certainly wrong. He should have said



But that isn't pithy enough so 4 years later all those people whose idea of health care reform amounted to sticking their fingers in the ears and going LALALALALALALA can now pretend they actually care.
You do realize politifact has already said he was outright lying, don't you (along with basically anybody else with a shred of decency and objectivity)? Why are you still arguing it?
 
You do realize politifact has already said he was outright lying, don't you (along with basically anybody else with a shred of decency and objectivity)? Why are you still arguing it?

So if your wife tells you "if you like your car you can keep it" ate you going to go out and buy a tank and then say "but you said I can keep my tank!"

Or does common sense tell you she was referring to the car you had at the time of the statement?
 
So if your wife tells you "if you like your car you can keep it" ate you going to go out and buy a tank and then say "but you said I can keep my tank!"

Or does common sense tell you she was referring to the car you had at the time of the statement?
Take up this argument with all the major news publications, politifact, and basic ability to comprehend the spoken word.

Again, you are arguing something already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to not be the case. You should be asking yourself why you are still defending a guy who already apologized for saying what you said he didn't say.
 
Take up this argument with all the major news publications, politifact, and basic ability to comprehend the spoken word.

Again, you are arguing something already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to not be the case. You should be asking yourself why you are still defending a guy who already apologized for saying what you said he didn't say.

He defends because he must. He's a neocon in thinking.
 
Yes Obama was certainly wrong. He should have said



But that isn't pithy enough so 4 years later all those people whose idea of health care reform amounted to sticking their fingers in the ears and going LALALALALALALA can now pretend they actually care.


That would also be a lie. You have no evidence that the plans were bad, or crappy. some were very good plans, that people are losing.

Its a pitty so much of the left is so far up Obama's ass that no matter what he does they excuse. He'd rape you mom and you'd say its ok.
 
I really wish there was an objective/statistically-valid way to compare the turnover and increases in price people are seeing versus annual averages for the past decade or so. Because I've had my plans 'cancelled' at least a half dozen times in the past decade and small to not-so-small increases in premiums most years too, as the insurance companies cope with increasing medical costs and my union bargains for better deals. It's probably impossible to get any good data on it, but it seems very likely there's a lot of confirmation bias going on in the 'suddenly my plans was cancelled and rates going up!' crowd, whereas only some is due to Obamacare. Or I could be wrong and it's all due to Obamacare! I just wish there were good stats. Does anyone know of any for a source that's at least semi-reputable (ie not Heritage Foundation or HuffPost level)?
 
So if your wife tells you "if you like your car you can keep it" ate you going to go out and buy a tank and then say "but you said I can keep my tank!"

Or does common sense tell you she was referring to the car you had at the time of the statement?

WOW are you retarded?

This would be more like your wife tells you can keep your car if you like it, later down the road you put on some new rims/tires and then get told well sorry but your car has changed you have to get rid of it now.

Sorry but Obama straight up lied anybody that tries to deny that is a freaking idiot.

Not that I'm surprised all politicians are full shit. They are all scum that don't know shit, but think they know everything. Yet, you people keep electing the ones in office because they're with your party. Who cares what they stand for right, as long as they are R/D is all that matters.
 
Nothing on "Obamacare" exchanges has a lifetime cap. Lifetime caps are illegal now

Blanket statements are dangerous; lifetime caps are illegal only on essential health benefits, and then only when expressed in dollars, and then mostly in the individual and small group markets.
 
Blanket statements are dangerous; lifetime caps are illegal only on essential health benefits, and then only when expressed in dollars, and then mostly in the individual and small group markets.

FWIW I appreciate your insights you've given. Almost no thought is given to analysis, but there is much religious fervor. To borrow from the bible "I have not seen such faith, no not in all of Israel". It's good to have someone knowledgeable posting without a mandate to convert.
 
Take up this argument with all the major news publications, politifact, and basic ability to comprehend the spoken word.

Again, you are arguing something already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to not be the case. You should be asking yourself why you are still defending a guy who already apologized for saying what you said he didn't say.

He apologized for people misunderstanding... He didn't say he lied.
 
FWIW I appreciate your insights you've given. Almost no thought is given to analysis, but there is much religious fervor. To borrow from the bible "I have not seen such faith, no not in all of Israel". It's good to have someone knowledgeable posting without a mandate to convert.

This, This, This. I know I can be a real partisan dumbshit, but I thank reasonable people like Sacto that stick to the facts and are even polite about it.
 
He apologized for people misunderstanding... He didn't say he lied.

How can one misunderstand what he clearly stated multiple times?

He did not use fancy or political words.
The biggest words were insurance and coverage
 
How can one misunderstand what he clearly stated multiple times?

He did not use fancy or political words.
The biggest words were insurance and coverage

The biggest offense is "you can keep it", like we need permission to keep our healthcare or by the grace of Obama allowed.

Turns out we can't and aren't allowed because of obamacare. All predicted by only smart people.
 
How can one misunderstand what he clearly stated multiple times?

He did not use fancy or political words.
The biggest words were insurance and coverage

This made me think of something I had read, that 20% of the population is clinically insane.

There are a bunch of different definitions of insanity. One is being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (legal defense).

It isn't just a broken promise; he was saying this even after he knew it wasn't true. This compares starkly to the typical 'broken political promise'.

My point is, if someone looked up the evidence and still thinks Obama did not lie repeatedly, they're probably one of the 20%'ers and frankly not worth talking to.
 
This made me think of something I had read, that 20% of the population is clinically insane.

There are a bunch of different definitions of insanity. One is being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (legal defense).

It isn't just a broken promise; he was saying this even after he knew it wasn't true. This compares starkly to the typical 'broken political promise'.

My point is, if someone looked up the evidence and still thinks Obama did not lie repeatedly, they're probably one of the 20%'ers and frankly not worth talking to.

Liberism is a mental disease, a defect of the mind. Time to eliminate those minds and brains. They are tearing down our country.
 
Back
Top