The "Not Factually Accurate" President
On February 25 of last year, President Obama met with Republicans at the so-called health care summit. During the summit, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander argued that health insurance premiums would rise due to the government mandates included in ObamaCare. Obama challenged that assertion as being "not factually accurate" and claimed that "the cost for families for the same type of coverage as they're currently receiving would go down 14 to 20 percent." Watch the full exchange:
So who turned out to be "not factually accurate," Obama or Alexander? If your experience in any way mirrors my own, that's not difficult to decipher. In December, I wrote about a notice I'd received in the mail from my insurance company informing me of a rise in my health insurance premiums of 22 percent. Today, I received another notice about yet another increase of 11.5 percent, bringing the total increase of my premiums since the enactment of ObamaCare to a whopping 36 percent. To add insult to injury, the deductible was raised 18 percent.
I don't know how many Americans share a similar situation, but this issue strikes me as one that Republicans seeking office must not abandon as we approach the 2012 elections. There's nothing quite like the government disruption of one's personal health and well-being to get the blood boiling and the anti-incumbent sentiment soaring.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Has there ever been a president whose assurances (usually coupled with sneering denigration of those who dispute him) are as worthless?
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Obama has a gift. He can lie with a straight face. Costs are up, quality is down.
May '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
I've done the Responsible Thing. My job does not give me health insurance, so I have a plan to cover me in case of some medical crisis. Otherwise, I pay out of pocket for everything.
In a year my premium has increased 80 percent.
Edited on Apr 26, 2011 at 4:01pmMay '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
I have a high-deductible policy that is no longer permitted under Obamacare. I got grandfathered in, but my insurance company knows I can't switch without losing my grandfathered status (and thus paying higher premiums for a lower deductible and other mandated "benefits" I don't want to pay for), so they jacked up my premium 30%.
Thanks Obama!
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
I enjoyed reading Media Matters "fact check" on the exchange between Obama and Alexander and reminding myself what a pack of liars they are.
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
PJ: I have a high-deductible policy that is no longer permitted under Obamacare. I got grandfathered in, but my insurance company knows I can't switch without losing my grandfathered status (and thus paying higher premiums for a lower deductible and other mandated "benefits" I don't want to pay for), so they jacked up my premium 30%.
Thanks Obama! · Apr 26 at 3:41pm
Yes, this is the precise situation I'm in.
Makes me wonder if Obama will try to run on the "success" of ObamaCare in 2012 or if he'll completely ignore it.
Jul '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
My premiums are up over 40% and my insurer has started playing stupid delaying games with claims and trying to disallow claims for vital services. That means in two months I'll see another big rise in premiums. Obama lied with my insurer's money and the jug-eared fool is counting on getting my vote for his "good deed." And, of course, the Regime is waiting to swoop down from the rafters with price controls, to finish off the American health care market.
Most Presidents have been around the block once or twice and are able to avoid diving into the weeds and making dubious promises about particular outcomes. Obama's career is one long, teleprompted spewing of thoughtless promises he hasn't the slightest notion of how he could deliver.
The more time he parties, vacations, and golfs, the safer the American people.
Dec '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
C'mon Diane - Go easy on POTUS, he only lies when he opens his yap... I agree with Sisyphus, the more he's away on vacation, the easier it is on the rest of his subjects (I've given up on the term "citizen" these days).
Aug '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
It's perhaps worth noting that Sebelius has been trying to prevent insurance companies from explaining to you that your premium hikes are due to Obamacare. This raises the Orwellian possibility that you can't prove that the president was wrong in his argument with Alexander because it's illegal to provide evidence to that effect.
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
This issue is right in their own mailboxes and the media still won't cover it. Diane you are now the "mainstream media" on this issue!
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Indeed. But as I cited after my first premium increase, that hasn't stopped my insurance company from blaming the rate hikes, at least in part, on
Jul '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Health insurers are still trying to wade through the devilish morass of Obamacare. The way the thing is structured and the way it phases in, they can't tell what is allowed, what isn't allowed and what their business model will have to look like going forward.
That sort of uncertainty has to be priced into their current product.
To me, the worst practical effect of Obamacare is that it bars people from switching to high-deductible plans with HSA's. These plans are the very best alternatives from a cost/benefit standpoint.
Decades ago, high-deductible plans - then known as "hospitalization" plans - were the norm. People either paid out of pocket for their day-to-day care or bought supplemental plans.
Then the unholy trio of labor unions, doctors and women's groups banded together to get politicians to mandate all sorts of bells-and-whistles coverage. Suddenly, even though a consumer might be quite happy with inexpensive catastrophic-care insurance, he was forced to subsidize everyone else's first-dollar care, driving up demand and raising prices.
Jun '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
If you can't get universal government healthcare in one step, you do it in two steps. 1) Destroy the business model (and market) for the common types of private health insurance. 2) Create a lower-quality government-run (and subsidized) replacement for the health insurance that consumers can no longer afford.
Feb '11
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Obama is a shameless baldfaced liar.
Why doesn't the GOP just say so?
Everybody likes Paul Ryan, right?
Yeah, me too. Except I saw a caption to a response he gave to some Obama lie-fest.
He said it was "too partisan".
Huh? Why are GOP politicians- even the good ones like Ryan- so unwilling to respond to the endless rabid hostility and lying contempt dished out by the left?
That's a form of failure. They need to speak truth to power- as the saying goes- and just come out and say Obama is lying.
Whining about "partisanship" is just whining.
Jul '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
You must be in an HMO. I've always avoided them like the plague. Employers like them because they're cheaper than PPO or POS plans -so, to sucker employees into choosing the HMO, they manipulate the employees' share of premiums in order to make the cost of PPO and POS plans very unattractive by comparison to the HMO's.
The bosses always took the PPO or POS plans, while the blue collar and lower-paid administrative employees were gently guided to the HMO.
When HSA plans emerged, I tried like crazy to pitch them to our employees because they were such a good thing. But people were too hung up on the high deductibles: they'd become so addicted to the entitlement of first-dollar coverage that they just didn't want understand the bigger picture.
Edited on Apr 26, 2011 at 4:54pmOct '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
I think the healthcare 'summit' shows that Obama has this strange way of debating the issues: he doesn't try to win, he tries to get you to forfeit. It's really bizarre. Unfortunately, he can make the statements when everyone sees it but it may not be demonstrated to be false until later, when no one is around to hear it.
May '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Obamacare and gas prices. Fight things on that battleground, and we win if we nominate a disabled turkey like the South Park kids.
Mar '11
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
For the life of me I can not understand why the Republican party doesn't have a plethora of candidates clamoring to be President. Obama seems vulnerable yet the GOP seems to be adopting the MSM attitude that Obama is a shoo-in. Why isn't the Republican field stronger? I would love to see Mitchell, Christie, Jindal, Paul Ryan running for President.
May '10
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
Just got a Tweet (I capitalize that for the irony) linking to the WaPo piece saying "the administrattion is moving aggressively to change the conversation about gas prices."
Hey, yo! Over here, administration. The conversation on gas prices consists of words not fit for Ricochet, and they ain't directed at Mysterious Speculators who are going to be rounded up by meddling kids.
Is nobody in the room telling these people "y'know, maybe it's not the messaging"?
Re: The "Not Factually Accurate" President
I've asked Bill Whalen, Ricochet's own political analyst/strategist, to weigh in on this fascinating NYT's The Caucus post, which explains why many Republicans are sitting the 2012 election out. Stay tuned for his response.