Politifact throws Obama under the bus.

[Quantum Windbag]

When they can't cover for the lies you know it is way over the line.

Our ruling
Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."
Saying there’s "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-jarrett-says-nothing-obamacare-forces-peop/

 

[Mr. H.]

That could be true.

Rather than my insurer dropping my current policy and offering a similar ACA compliant policy, I could call them up and say "hey- let's keep my policy and add maternity & newborn as well as substance abuse. While we're at it- I want you to increase my premiums by 120% and jack them deductibles/out-of-pockets/and copays!"

That way it's my call, and Obama isn't a liar! I'm willing to take a fall for that guy any day.

 

[edthecynic]

When they can't cover for the lies you know it is way over the line.

Our ruling
Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."
Saying there’s "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-jarrett-says-nothing-obamacare-forces-peop/

Let's see what else it says:

It’s insurers who are choosing to close plans, Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn’t step in" to force cancellations. Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

"it’s technically true that the insurer makes the final decision"

"Under the law, insurance plans -- either those purchased through an employer or on the individual market -- may be "grandfathered" if they have operated continuously since before the law’s enactment and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law’s requirements, such as mandatory coverage for emergency and maternity care."

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When they can't cover for the lies you know it is way over the line.

Our ruling
Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."
Saying there’s "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False.

PolitiFact | Valerie Jarrett says 'nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.'

Let's see what else it says:

It’s insurers who are choosing to close plans, Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn’t step in" to force cancellations. Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

"it’s technically true that the insurer makes the final decision"

"Under the law, insurance plans -- either those purchased through an employer or on the individual market -- may be "grandfathered" if they have operated continuously since before the law’s enactment and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law’s requirements, such as mandatory coverage for emergency and maternity care."

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

You forgot to point out that Republicans are sabotaging Obamacare because they are racists.

 

[Mr. H.]

When they can't cover for the lies you know it is way over the line.

Our ruling
Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."
Saying there’s "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False.

PolitiFact | Valerie Jarrett says 'nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.'

Let's see what else it says:

It’s insurers who are choosing to close plans, Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn’t step in" to force cancellations. Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

"it’s technically true that the insurer makes the final decision"

"Under the law, insurance plans -- either those purchased through an employer or on the individual market -- may be "grandfathered" if they have operated continuously since before the law’s enactment and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law’s requirements, such as mandatory coverage for emergency and maternity care."

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

That sounds like a motherfucking lie to me.

If it lies like a duck, if it fucks like a duck, then it's a lying motherfucking lying laying duck.

Get the fuck over yourself ed.

 

[Mr. H.]

""if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision..."

THIS is the ultimate in perverse propaganda.

The ACA, by edict, REQUIRES the termination of non ACA compliant policies.

So tell me.. exactly WHO is fucking WHOME?

 

[Mr. H.]

""if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision..."

This here is the epitome of an oxymoron. The "insurer's decision" being based upon the rules of the ACA. which dictate adherence to the ACA regardless of current policy status.

In other words... Obama has once again fucked us up the ass.

 

[Mr. H.]

You clueless clowns.

Without any picture whatsoever.

Blithe liberals. Thanks for nothing you fuckers.

 

[edthecynic]

""if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision..."

THIS is the ultimate in perverse propaganda.

The ACA, by edict, REQUIRES the termination of non ACA compliant policies.

So tell me.. exactly WHO is fucking WHOME?

THAT is simply a bold-faced lie!

Again from the link in the OP;

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

 

[Mr. H.]

""if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision..."

THIS is the ultimate in perverse propaganda.

The ACA, by edict, REQUIRES the termination of non ACA compliant policies.

So tell me.. exactly WHO is fucking WHOME?

THAT is simply a bold-faced lie!

Again from the link in the OP;

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

So, throw the blame at the insurance co's. LOL
It's how the goddamn legislation was written. Slick ploy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

""if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision..."

THIS is the ultimate in perverse propaganda.

The ACA, by edict, REQUIRES the termination of non ACA compliant policies.

So tell me.. exactly WHO is fucking WHOME?

THAT is simply a bold-faced lie!

Again from the link in the OP;

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

From your post.

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

Since the entire discussion was quite long, I will just get to why simply echoing Jarret does not make you right.

Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended.

 

[edthecynic]

""if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision..."

THIS is the ultimate in perverse propaganda.

The ACA, by edict, REQUIRES the termination of non ACA compliant policies.

So tell me.. exactly WHO is fucking WHOME?

THAT is simply a bold-faced lie!

Again from the link in the OP;

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

From your post.

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

Since the entire discussion was quite long, I will just get to why simply echoing Jarret does not make you right.

Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended.

And in this case "echoing" means "confirming." Whereas your snippet at the end comes from some UNNAMED "expert" with no credentials echoing the GOP bullshit of "original intent." Notice how the Right can change any law, including the Constitution, by claiming to know the "original intent" of everything. But don't anyone else try it, only the Right are allowed to read minds, it's in THEIR Constitution!

So Politifact admits what Jarrett said was true but they choose to INTERPRET the law different from what it ACTUALLY says!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

THAT is simply a bold-faced lie!

Again from the link in the OP;

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

From your post.



Since the entire discussion was quite long, I will just get to why simply echoing Jarret does not make you right.

Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended.

And in this case "echoing" means "confirming." Whereas your snippet at the end comes from some UNNAMED "expert" with no credentials echoing the GOP bullshit of "original intent." Notice how the Right can change any law, including the Constitution, by claiming to know the "original intent" of everything. But don't anyone else try it, only the Right are allowed to read minds, it's in THEIR Constitution!

So Politifact admits what Jarrett said was true but they choose to INTERPRET the law different from what it ACTUALLY says!

sorry, I don't have a copy of the "Stupid Definitions to Defend Outrageous Positions" dictionary.

Here is what mine says.

1
a : the repetition of a sound caused by reflection of sound waves
b : the sound due to such reflection

2
a : a repetition or imitation of another : reflection
b : repercussion, result
c : trace, vestige
d : response

3
: one who closely imitates or repeats another's words, ideas, or acts

4
: a soft repetition of a musical phrase

5
a : the repetition of a received radio signal due especially to reflection of part of the wave from an ionized layer of the atmosphere
b (1) : the reflection of transmitted radar signals by an object (2) : the visual indication of this reflection on a radarscope

Echo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Antares]

When they can't cover for the lies you know it is way over the line.

Our ruling
Jarrett said it was a "fact" that "nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans."
Saying there’s "nothing" in the law that forces people out of their health plans is a pretty extreme claim -- one that implies that insurers who pull the plug on non-Obamacare-compliant plans are acting in some sort of government-free vacuum. Even if it’s technically true that the insurer pulls the plug on a plan, the insurer will only be doing this because the law itself and its implementing regulations have created a context in which, sooner or later, old-fashioned plans will inevitably pass into oblivion -- as the law always intended. We rate the statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-jarrett-says-nothing-obamacare-forces-peop/

Let's see what else it says:

It’s insurers who are choosing to close plans, Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn’t step in" to force cancellations. Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

"it’s technically true that the insurer makes the final decision"

"Under the law, insurance plans -- either those purchased through an employer or on the individual market -- may be "grandfathered" if they have operated continuously since before the law’s enactment and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law’s requirements, such as mandatory coverage for emergency and maternity care."

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn’t step in" to force cancellations.

True, the ACA itself does that.

Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

True.
The insurers chose to become ACA compliant, therefore all plans that did not meet th basic requirements of the law had to be replaced.

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies.

Except that "grandfathered plans" are NOT being terminated, this is a red herring and the gullible are falling for this intentional misdirection.

The plans that are being terminated are those that are not ACA compliant..

Hope that clears it up for you. This entire thing is nothing more than political sleight of hand.

 

[edthecynic]

From your post.

Since the entire discussion was quite long, I will just get to why simply echoing Jarret does not make you right.

And in this case "echoing" means "confirming." Whereas your snippet at the end comes from some UNNAMED "expert" with no credentials echoing the GOP bullshit of "original intent." Notice how the Right can change any law, including the Constitution, by claiming to know the "original intent" of everything. But don't anyone else try it, only the Right are allowed to read minds, it's in THEIR Constitution!

So Politifact admits what Jarrett said was true but they choose to INTERPRET the law different from what it ACTUALLY says!

sorry, I don't have a copy of the "Stupid Definitions to Defend Outrageous Positions" dictionary.

Here is what mine says.

1
a : the repetition of a sound caused by reflection of sound waves
b : the sound due to such reflection

2
a : a repetition or imitation of another : reflection
b : repercussion, result
c : trace, vestige
d : response

3
: one who closely imitates or repeats another's words, ideas, or acts

4
: a soft repetition of a musical phrase

5
a : the repetition of a received radio signal due especially to reflection of part of the wave from an ionized layer of the atmosphere
b (1) : the reflection of transmitted radar signals by an object (2) : the visual indication of this reflection on a radarscope

Echo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But you do have a link to "actual definitions that reflect context," but you are just too stupid and lazy to read far enough into it!!

From your own damn link,
Full Definition of ECHO

intransitive verb
1
: to resound with echoes

2
: to produce an echo

transitive verb
1
a : repeat, imitate <children echoing their teacher's words>
b : to restate in support or agreement <his successor echoed his opinion>
c : to be reminiscent of : evoke <music that echoes an earlier time>

2
: to send back (a sound) by the reflection of sound waves

See echo defined for English-language learners »

Examples of ECHO

1. The music echoed through the church.
2. Laughter echoed across the lake.
3. Their voices echoed in the hall.
4. His warnings are echoed by many other experts in the field.
5. “It's in Rome.” “In Rome?” she echoed.
6. Others have echoed her criticisms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And in this case "echoing" means "confirming." Whereas your snippet at the end comes from some UNNAMED "expert" with no credentials echoing the GOP bullshit of "original intent." Notice how the Right can change any law, including the Constitution, by claiming to know the "original intent" of everything. But don't anyone else try it, only the Right are allowed to read minds, it's in THEIR Constitution!

So Politifact admits what Jarrett said was true but they choose to INTERPRET the law different from what it ACTUALLY says!

sorry, I don't have a copy of the "Stupid Definitions to Defend Outrageous Positions" dictionary.

Here is what mine says.

1
a : the repetition of a sound caused by reflection of sound waves
b : the sound due to such reflection

2
a : a repetition or imitation of another : reflection
b : repercussion, result
c : trace, vestige
d : response

3
: one who closely imitates or repeats another's words, ideas, or acts

4
: a soft repetition of a musical phrase

5
a : the repetition of a received radio signal due especially to reflection of part of the wave from an ionized layer of the atmosphere
b (1) : the reflection of transmitted radar signals by an object (2) : the visual indication of this reflection on a radarscope

Echo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But you do have a link to "actual definitions that reflect context," but you are just too stupid and lazy to read far enough into it!!

From your own damn link,
Full Definition of ECHO

intransitive verb
1
: to resound with echoes

2
: to produce an echo

transitive verb
1
a : repeat, imitate <children echoing their teacher's words>
b : to restate in support or agreement <his successor echoed his opinion>
c : to be reminiscent of : evoke <music that echoes an earlier time>

2
: to send back (a sound) by the reflection of sound waves

See echo defined for English-language learners »

Examples of ECHO

1. The music echoed through the church.
2. Laughter echoed across the lake.
3. Their voices echoed in the hall.
4. His warnings are echoed by many other experts in the field.
5. “It's in Rome.” “In Rome?” she echoed.
6. Others have echoed her criticisms.

Funny how your link doesn't say what you say it does.

 

[edthecynic]

sorry, I don't have a copy of the "Stupid Definitions to Defend Outrageous Positions" dictionary.

Here is what mine says.

Echo - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But you do have a link to "actual definitions that reflect context," but you are just too stupid and lazy to read far enough into it!!

From your own damn link,
Full Definition of ECHO

intransitive verb
1
: to resound with echoes

2
: to produce an echo

transitive verb
1
a : repeat, imitate <children echoing their teacher's words>
b : to restate in support or agreement <his successor echoed his opinion>
c : to be reminiscent of : evoke <music that echoes an earlier time>

2
: to send back (a sound) by the reflection of sound waves

See echo defined for English-language learners »

Examples of ECHO

1. The music echoed through the church.
2. Laughter echoed across the lake.
3. Their voices echoed in the hall.
4. His warnings are echoed by many other experts in the field.
5. “It's in Rome.” “In Rome?” she echoed.
6. Others have echoed her criticisms.

Funny how your link doesn't say what you say it does.

The perpetual dumb act again, and you have claimed you could out debate me on anything!

As I even pointed out to you, I used YOUR OWN link, I just used the correct form of the word "echo" in the context of how it was used in the quote! You used the NOUN "echo," but the quote used the TRANSITIVE VERB "echoing," and I gave that definition, FROM YOUR OWN LINK.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But you do have a link to "actual definitions that reflect context," but you are just too stupid and lazy to read far enough into it!!

From your own damn link,
Full Definition of ECHO

intransitive verb
1
: to resound with echoes

2
: to produce an echo

transitive verb
1
a : repeat, imitate <children echoing their teacher's words>
b : to restate in support or agreement <his successor echoed his opinion>
c : to be reminiscent of : evoke <music that echoes an earlier time>

2
: to send back (a sound) by the reflection of sound waves

See echo defined for English-language learners »

Examples of ECHO

1. The music echoed through the church.
2. Laughter echoed across the lake.
3. Their voices echoed in the hall.
4. His warnings are echoed by many other experts in the field.
5. “It's in Rome.” “In Rome?” she echoed.
6. Others have echoed her criticisms.

Funny how your link doesn't say what you say it does.

The perpetual dumb act again, and you have claimed you could out debate me on anything!

As I even pointed out to you, I used YOUR OWN link, I just used the correct form of the word "echo" in the context of how it was used in the quote! You used the NOUN "echo," but the quote used the TRANSITIVE VERB "echoing," and I gave that definition, FROM YOUR OWN LINK.

You said that echoing means confirming. The page you used to defend that definition says that echo means "Restate in support or agreement," nothing about confirming, even if he was actually repeating the idiotci words that Jarret spouted.

Feel free to keep laughing.

 

[edthecynic]

Funny how your link doesn't say what you say it does.

The perpetual dumb act again, and you have claimed you could out debate me on anything!

As I even pointed out to you, I used YOUR OWN link, I just used the correct form of the word "echo" in the context of how it was used in the quote! You used the NOUN "echo," but the quote used the TRANSITIVE VERB "echoing," and I gave that definition, FROM YOUR OWN LINK.

You said that echoing means confirming. The page you used to defend that definition says that echo means "Restate in support or agreement," nothing about confirming, even if he was actually repeating the idiotci words that Jarret spouted.

Feel free to keep laughing.

Yeah, I'm still laughing, cause you apparently missed example 4 even though I highlighted it for you!

 

[auditor0007]

When they can't cover for the lies you know it is way over the line.

PolitiFact | Valerie Jarrett says 'nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.'

Let's see what else it says:

It’s insurers who are choosing to close plans, Carney said, noting that "the administration doesn’t step in" to force cancellations. Instead, he said, "the insurer is making a decision to basically cancel the plan and reissue or offer the individual a new plan with different benefits or different costs."

"it’s technically true that the insurer makes the final decision"

"Under the law, insurance plans -- either those purchased through an employer or on the individual market -- may be "grandfathered" if they have operated continuously since before the law’s enactment and have made no significant changes. This means the insurer can keep the insurance plan essentially as is, without having to implement many (though not all) of the new law’s requirements, such as mandatory coverage for emergency and maternity care."

Health policy experts told us that, in a technical sense, insurers are pulling the plug on these old, grandfathered policies. Echoing what Jarrett tweeted, Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor, said that "if a grandfathered plan is being terminated, it is the insurer’s decision -- nothing in the law requires it."

That sounds like a motherfucking lie to me.

If it lies like a duck, if it fucks like a duck, then it's a lying motherfucking lying laying duck.

Get the fuck over yourself ed.

Actually, this is pretty much true. My kids have their own policies separate of mine and theirs are grandfathered in. I can keep them or go with a new plan; my choice.