Can we consider the option of just telling the whole truth?

[cthulu2016]

Yes, a bunch of trolls will keep posting the NBC story and others about how the endlessly repeated talking point about how there will be no changes for people who are happy with their current coverage was a lie. Over and over and over.

And the NBC report, and others, does willfully over-state the magnitude of the misleading. It is not as clear-cut and sweeping as Republicans and their stooges say.

And Lisa Myers really is a Republican stooge who shouldn't be employed as a journalist.

But there is some argument to be made for not lying in the first place... even if a full analysis reveals that the lie is a smaller lie than it might appear at first blush.

The HHS should have been guided at all times by a goal of making the ACA as close to what was promised (politically) is possible within the bounds of the legislation.

That if F'ing basic.

This does not mean that Sibelius should resign. It does not mean that Obama is a notably untrustworthy president... c'mon, the competition is Clinton and a bunch of Republicans. Obama is quite honest by such standards.

But the Orwellian bullshit about how what he really meant was X if you look at it sideways in the right light is contemptible.

I have seen a Politifact rating of "half true" posted as a defense. WTF? When did, "half true" become something to brag about?

This is not what you want to see from people like Josh Marshall when he is defending the ACA...

it's true that the White House did oversell how little change there would be in the individual insurance market. But saying that millions of people are getting 'cancellation notices' or 'losing their coverage' is deeply misleading...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-doozie

There is some merit to not over-selling in the first place.

What troubles me is the idea that all good people are supposed to lap up weird historical rewrites, like that the famed Obama talking point never meant what it plainly meant, or blame-the-victim stuff about how people who took it literally are stupid, or word-games about how minimal coverage wasn't really coverage, etc..

Orwellian bullshit is NEVER your friend... never, and nowhere. In no cause. For no purpose.

The HHS should have, in all discretionary actions, made the ACA as coincident with what was promised as possible. That should have been THE guide, wherever the question arose. Even if there was a better idea, political promises should be things to be respected. (The alternative view is frighteningly paternalistic and thus should not be taken lightly.)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. I disagree. Originally they were grandfathering in

Any individual plans that didn't meet ACA minimums. Then, as HHS was doing rules writing, they found insurance companies kept changing terms on these policies like deductibles, company's, etc.

When Obama made these statements in 2009, the law was being written exactly in that way. After it passed, there were many issues so they decided to ONLY grandfather in policies that hadn't changed since 2010.

Blame greedy fuck insurance companies--not Obama.