Liberty Planet Weblog

Archive for the ‘Lies’ Category

President Obama said Thursday that he is “sorry” that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his promise that no one would have to give up a health plan they liked.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

Obama’s comments come 10 days after NBC News’ Lisa Myers reported that the administration has known since the summer of 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their insurance under the law.

Obama has made repeated assurances that “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan” with Obamacare.

Consumers who buy insurance on their own — about five percent of the population — are at risk of being forced off their current policies because their plans have changed and don’t meet the new standards of the Affordable Care Act.

Obama’s statement has been called into question as Americans have begun to receive cancellation notices, effectively forcing them to enroll in a new plan either with their current insurer or through the government exchanges, in many cases at a higher rate.

Guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services dating back to July 2010 estimated that “40 to 67 percent” of the 14 million consumers in that marketplace could lose their policies due to turnover in the individual insurance market, NBC News found.

That part of the law does not impact the 80 percent of Americans who receive their health insurance through employers or through Medicare or Medicaid.
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law,” Obama said in the interview Thursday. “And, you know, that’s something I regret. That’s something we’re gonna do everything we can to get fixed … We’re looking at a range of options.”

After the initial NBC News report, the administration insisted that the president did not mislead Americans, arguing that the law could not have accounted for insurers altering existing plans after passage of the law.
Yet earlier this week, Obama tweaked his promise, acknowledging that plans that have been substantially changed since passage of the law would no longer be “grandfathered” into acceptance under the ACA.

“If you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed,” he said.

On Thursday, Obama said many of the people being canceled could get better cheaper plans in the marketplaces, but he acknowledged glitches are preventing that.
“The majority of folks will end up being better off,” he said. “Of course, because the website not working right they may not know it.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney has also argued those being forced to find new plans will receive better quality of coverage.

“What we’re talking about here is the five percent in the country who currently purchase insurance on the individual market,” Carney said last month. “And that market has been like the Wild West. It has been under-regulated, it is the place where Americans have most keenly felt the challenges posed by the insurance system in this country.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Katherine Sebelius acknowledged in a hearing Wednesday that a “majority” of those in the individual market would end up with plans with better coverage while “others will have to choose” an ACA-compliant policy.

In Thursday’s interview, Obama defended his health secretary and argued that the website bugs aren’t necessarily her fault: “Kathleen Sebelius doesn’t write code. She wasn’t our IT person.”

Frustration among even some Democrats supportive of the Obamacare bill boiled over this week as coverage of the dropped plans continued.

Sen. Max Baucus, the Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman and a key author of the bill, called the problems “unacceptable” during a hearing at which Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was grilled on Wednesday.

“It has been disappointing to see members of the administration say they didn’t see the problems coming,” he said.

House Speaker John Boehner responded to the president’s comments Thursday, saying, “an apology is certainly in order, but what Americans want to hear is that the president is going to keep his promise.”

Pointing to a scheduled House vote next week on a measure that would allow insurance companies to continue policies that don’t meet the ACA’s standards, Boehner added, “if the president is sincerely sorry that he misled the American people, the very least he can do is support this bipartisan effort. Otherwise, this apology doesn’t amount to anything.”

Source: NBC News

A video put together by The Washington Free Beacon reveals how the president lied over and over again from 2009 to the present day, giving false reassurances regarding the health care plans of Americans.

“If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” Obama stated again and again and again, in the same monosyllabic tone that clearly put many to sleep.
The clip even includes footage from Fox news, broadcast just five weeks ago, where the president states that under Obamacare “you don’t have to do anything” if you already have insurance.

Watch the video and continue reading at: Infowars

If Obamacare is fully implemented, 68 percent of Americans with private health insurance will not be able to keep their plan, according to health care economist Christopher Conover.

Conover is a research scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview with The Daily Caller, he laid out what he estimates the consequences of Obamacare’s implementation will ultimately be.

“Bottom line: of the 189 million Americans with private health insurance coverage, I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014,” he said in an email. ”But of these, ‘only’ the 18 to 50 million will literally lose coverage, i.e., have their plans entirely taken away. This includes 9.2-15.4 million in the non-group market and 9-35 million in the employer-based market. The rest will retain their old plans but have to pay higher rates for Obamacare-mandated bells and whistles.”

Conover also says it is hard to imagine President Obama didn’t know these statistics when he was flacking for his health care bill by promising Americans they could keep their health insurance if they liked it.

“If President Obama himself believed this the first time he said it, he was poorly advised,” Conover said.

“The problem is that he said it at least 24 times, most of which occurred after his own rule-writers had estimated that 49-80 percent of small employer plans would have lost their grandfather status by 2013, along with 34-64 percent of large employer plans. The same rule estimated that each year 40 to 67 percent of non-group plans not already grandfathered would lose their grandfather status. Given how extensively presidential statements — especially to a joint session of Congress — are vetted and fact-checked, it is pretty inconceivable that President Obama was not aware that he was engaged in some degree of truth-twisting.”

See TheDC’s full interview with Conover below:

Some current and former Obama administration officials are now admitting that the president’s “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” promise is not technically true. But, they argue, it is only not true for a very small percentage of those insured. Do you agree with that assessment?

Absolutely not. Technically, every single health plan in the country already has been subject to at least some new Obamacare requirements. That is, even “grandfathered” plans and self-insured plans were required to eliminate lifetime and annual limits and to cover dependents up to age 26 on their parent’s plan. Each of these “improvements” in coverage costs money, just as every feature you add to your car costs money (anti-lock brakes, all-wheel drive). For instance, an Aon Hewitt survey of insurers showed that expanding dependent coverage to age 26 could increase premiums by 1 percent for some in the large group market, 2 percent in the small group market and up to 3.5 percent in the non-group market.

So strictly speaking, NO ONE who was entirely satisfied with their pre-Obamacare coverage has been able to keep it. But the degree of new restrictions/added costs is a continuum, with the added requirements/costs imposed in the following order

Continue reading at: Daily Caller

I have gotten a number of emails about a study in the American Journal of Public Health entitled: “The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010.

I don’t have time to do more than glance at this paper, but here are some very superficial initial thoughts.

1) Using state level data the study claims a positive relationship between the percentage of suicides committed with guns (they call this the gun ownership rate rather than what it actually is) and the firearm homicide rate. The big problem with their measure of gun ownership is that it picks up a lot of demographic information that may itself be related to homicide and to crime.

2) Do we care about total murders or murders involving guns?

3) “None of the existing panel studies examined data more recent than 1999.” Presumably this is what is causing some left wing outlets to claim “Largest Gun Study Ever.” The authors seem completely unaware of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime that looked at data up through 2005 — six years longer than they claim. Of course, my research also started with 1977, not 1981 as they did. Of course, I have also used county and city level data and have many more observations than they have. My research has run regressions with up to 96 times more observations that the 1,000 that they point to in this paper. While I account for hundreds of factors, these guys account for almost none (6 in their final reported model (23 unreported in bivariate estimates — meaning just running one of these variables at a time in explaining firearm murder rates). It would be nice if Mr. Zack Beauchamp was notified that these authors are apparently unaware of any of my research since “1988” [sic] (they couldn’t even get the year right for my first edition of MGLC).

4) No explanation is offered for why they leave Washington, DC out of their regressions. I can offer one: it weakens their results.

5) Only a very small percentage of the prison population are there for murder. Possibly a percent or two in any given year. Do changes in the share of the prison population for larceny or burglary really help explain a lot of the variation in murder rates? A more direct measure would be the arrest rate for murder and/or the number of people in prison for murder and/or the death penalty execution rate.

6) “To develop a final, more parsimonious model, we first entered all variables found to be significant in bivariate analyses (we used a Wald test at a significance level of .10) into 1 model. We then deleted variables found not to be significant in the presence of the other variables, assessing the significance of each variable with a Wald test at a significance level of .05.” — The problem here is that the resulting statistical significance levels don’t mean what these authors seem to think that that do. The levels of significance for a regression assume a random draw. If you 23 specifications and then pick the variables that are significant, the variables that you are picking were picked in a biased manner.

7) Six variables is what they finally include in their “Final Model.” Leaving out variables that affect the murder rate will cause the other variables to act as a proxy for these left out variables. This gets back to my point (1).

8) Even if all these issues were dealt with, they have completely ignored the issue of causation. Is it increased crime that results in more guns or the reverse?

Source: John Lott

The White House released a 4-page document setting forth its case for use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

Please read the full point by point rebuttal at: Zero Hedge

By Dr. Mercola

Earlier this year, Coca-Cola Company rolled out an ad campaign encouraging people to unite in the fight against obesity. The irony of the situation was not lost on most people however, and the ads drew fire from consumers, consumer advocates and obesity experts1,2 alike.

After all, there’s no doubt that soda is one of the primary beverages responsible for skyrocketing obesity rates, and Coke’s campaign was seen as little more than an effort in damage control.

Soda sales are down, and Coca-Cola should be applauding this fact as it is matched by some small improvements with our childhood obesity rates. Instead, they are marketing sodas harder than ever to make up for lost sales.

Coca-Cola believes a calorie is just a calorie, and if you consume more than you burn – that’s why you become obese. In other words, their products and marketing to children are not to blame – the problem is that Americans just don’t exercise enough.

Now, Coca-Cola Co. has launched another ad campaign—this time to assure consumers that its no- or low-calorie beverages containing the artificial sweetener aspartame are a safe alternative.

As reported in the featured article by AdWeek3:

“It’s Coca-Cola’s first ad explicitly defending its use of artificial sweeteners in an ad, but the print execution is an extension of the company’s campaign, launched this January, to combat detractors who blame it for contributing to obesity, by pointing to the host of diet and other beverages it sells beyond traditional, sugary cola.”

According to the ad, aspartame is a “safe, high-quality alternative to sugar.” Clearly they’ve not reviewed the hundreds of studies on this artificial sweetener demonstrating its harmful effects… Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson issued the following statement in response to Coca-Cola’s new ad4:

“Aspartame has been found to cause cancer5 — leukemia, lymphoma, and other tumors—in laboratory animals, and it shouldn’t be in the food supply.

We certainly want Coca-Cola to shift its product mix toward lower- and no-calorie drinks, but aspartame’s reputation isn’t worth rehabilitating with this propaganda campaign. The company would be better off phasing out its use of aspartame and accelerating its research into safer, natural sweeteners such as those extracted from the stevia plant.”

Source: Mercola

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 33,931 hits


Top Clicks

  • None