Hmm, I Don’t Remember Obama Saying the Following … Obamacare Architect Zeke Emanuel Says, “If You Want to Pay More For An Insurance Company that Covers Your Doctor, You Can Do That”
Can you imagine how the 2012 Presidential election would have turned out if Barack Obama had told the truth and said, if you like your healthcare plan and doctor, you can pay more to keep them?
Barack Obama said to pass Obamacare and to get reelected, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD! Well, we all know that was a lie. Guess what else was a lie, keeping your doctor if you liked them and paying less. The latest misrepresentation coming to light has to do with individuals being able to keep their doctors. Obama stated, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But of course that was another Obama lie. Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel said on Fox News Sunday as he was dodging Chis Wallace’s questions to keeping one’s doctor, “the president never said that you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country that you want to go to.” Well, that was never the question.
It’s not that simple. In order to participate in health-insurance exchanges, insurers needed to find a way to tamp down the high costs of premiums. As a result, many will narrow their networks, shrinking the range of doctors that are available to patients under their plan, experts say.
“Many people are going to find out that the second part of the promise — that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor — just wasn’t true,” says Gail Wilensky, who directed the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush. Factcheck.org labeled the promise “misleading,” noting that while the law doesn’t contain provisions designed to force people to pick new doctors, a switch may be inevitable for some. “The President simply can’t make this promise to anyone,” the site wrote.
Unbelievable, the gall of these people that they are now passing Obamacare off as a choice. The government is forcing people to buy an insurance that they say is okay or face a tax (penalty) and that is a choice? Individuals were perfectly fine with the coverage and doctors they had, but the government as now made it a choice that Americans must pay more to keep the very choice that they already had. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The host, Chris Wallace: “President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan? Isn’t it a fact, sir, that a number, most, in fact, of the Obamacare health plans that are being offered on the exchanges exclude a number of doctors and hospitals to lower costs?”
Zeke Emanuel: “The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to.”
Chris Wallace: “No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”
Zeke Emanuel: “He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”
Chris Wallace: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”
Zeke Emanuel: “Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits.The issue isn’t the selective networks. People keep saying, Oh, the problem is you’re going to have a selective network–”
Chris Wallace: “Well, if you lose your doctor or lose your hospital–”
Zeke Emanuel: “Let me just say something,” said Emanuel. “People are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”
Chris Wallace: “Which will mean your premiums will probably go up.”
Zeke Emanuel”They get that choice. That’s a choice they always made.”
Chris Wallace: “Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words –
AP-GfK Poll: What a Sad Commentary of Today’s Society, Two-Thirds Say People Can’t Be Trusted … #You Lie
When did “Trust” become a 4-letter word … Who will be the role models?
As the AP article says, ‘In God we trust, maybe, but not each other’. How sad. What a sad commentary on where our society has gone where Americans don’t trust each other anymore. It is one thing to have blind trust and rose colored glasses, it is quite another to have trust be remain skeptical and always question. However, the trust trends, or lack thereof have rose dramatically in the last 40 years. I think it is no surprise that it would be based on the Watergate years. But what has changed in that respect where people would think at the very least that their President could set the image of trust. But that is certainly not the case today as Americans found out that Barack Obama was lying when he told “We the People” that if you liked your healthcare plan, you could keep your healthcare plan, PERIOD! That coupled with all to many scandals like IRS-gate, AP-gate, Fast & Furious, Benghazi-gate, NSA-gate, Rosen-gate, etc. How could people really trust when they see all of these lies going on around them?
But it is larger than just politics. We need something to reverse the trend so that individuals want to trust others.
These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted. Half felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.
Forty years later, a record high of nearly two-thirds say “you can’t be too careful” in dealing with people.
An AP-GfK poll conducted last month found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than one-third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling.
“I’m leery of everybody,” said Bart Murawski, 27, of Albany, N.Y. “Caution is always a factor.”
Does it matter that Americans are suspicious of one another? Yes, say worried political and social scientists.
What’s known as “social trust” brings good things.
A society where it’s easier to compromise or make a deal. Where people are willing to work with those who are different from them for the common good. Where trust appears to promote economic growth.
Trust has to be earned, it does not grow on trees. And once trust is broken, it takes years, sometimes forever to repair. So, is it too late to reverse this trend? Some say that it is. Is it possible to go back to a simpler time and instill not only trust, but values in people to act accordingly? The question really is, who will step up and play the adult to make “TRUST” a valued principle?
In fact, some studies suggest it’s too late for most Americans alive today to become more trusting. That research says the basis for a person’s lifetime trust levels is set by his or her mid-twenties and unlikely to change, other than in some unifying crucible such as a world war.
People do get a little more trusting as they age. But beginning with the baby boomers, each generation has started off adulthood less trusting than those who came before them.
The best hope for creating a more trusting nation may be figuring out how to inspire today’s youth, perhaps united by their high-tech gadgets, to trust the way previous generations did in simpler times.
There are still trusters around to set an example.
Posted December 1, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
#You Lie, AP Telephone Scandal, Benghazi-Gate, Child Welfare, Ethics, Fast & Furious, FOX-gate - James Rosen, Good & Evil, Government, Greed, Gutter Politics, Internet, IRS-gate, Liars, Misleader, Misrepresentation, NSA, Personal Choice, Polls, Role Models, Scandal, The Lying King, Tyranny, WTF | 2 comments
Mississippi Passes ‘Anti-Bloomberg Bill,’ Banning Limits on Portion Sizes & Posting of Calorie Counts Requirements … Well, I hope [Mayor Bloomberg] will remember, A Southern man don’t need him around anyhow … “
MISSISSIPPI BURNING BLOOMBERG’S PORTION SIZES AND CALORIE COUNTS …
Mississippi lawmakers have overwhelmingly passed a bill called the ”anti-Bloomberg bill.” The bill does just the opposite from what the liberal mayor of NYC has inflicted upon the Big Apple. The “anti-Bloomberg bill” would ban communities from requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on menus or limit portion sizes. It is not up to the government to tell an individual what to eat or drink or to prevent one from doing to. Is it smart to eat healthy and use some common sense on what one eats, yes. However, it is about personal choice and personal responsibility.
Lawmakers in Mississippi — the most obese state in the nation — have overwhelmingly approved what they’re calling the “anti-Bloomberg bill.”
It would ban communities from requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on menus or limit portion sizes, as Mayor Bloomberg tried to do with his proposed ban on large sodas. Also forbidden: any local rule banning toys from being distributed with kids’ meals.
The governor is expected to sign it.
When asked about the law, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was highly critical of the bill and called it a farce. Guess what Mayor Bloomberg, no one cares what you think in Mississippi. It may not quite be Lynyrd Skynyrd’s ’Sweet Home Alabama,’ but Mississippi is singing, “Well, I hope [Mayor Bloomberg] will remember, A Southern man don’t need him around anyhow … “
Mr. Bloomberg was highly critical of the legislation when he was asked about the bill this morning in an interview on CBS.
“You know, Saturday Night Live couldn’t write this stuff,” Mr. Bloomberg exclaimed. “How can somebody try and pass a law that deliberately says we can’t improve the lives of our citizens? It’s just farce. Nobody would believe it if you wrote it in the book.”
Mr. Bloomberg proceeded to tout his efforts to improve public health.
How do we say this politely? Mayor Bloomberg, it’s none of your F’n business what people are eating. Especially in Mississippi. It is not your place to tell some one what they can and cannot eat. Worry about your 80% illiteracy reading rate for high school graduates in NCY. THAT IS YOUR JOB! Personal responsibility and personal choice is not.
LIBERAL LOGIC: IT’S CONSIDERED PERSONAL CHOICE TO HAVE AN ABORTION BUT NOT TO SUPERSIZE SIZE A MEAL.