Monday, 04 November 2013

THE NEW YORK TIMES & THE MEANING OF "MISSPOKE"

Ken Berwitz

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of MISSPEAK

transitive verb

1:  to speak (as a word) incorrectly

2:  to express (oneself) imperfectly or incorrectly <claims now that he misspoke himself

With that in mind, there are the first three paragraphs of the New York Times' Saturday editorial on ObamaCare, in rust - with my comments in blue:

Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don't want. That, they say, violates President Obama's pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.  And that, Times editorial board, is exactly, precisely, 100% what happened.  Republicans are not stoking consumer fears and confusion, President Obama's lies about his health care legislation are.

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. Misspoke?  MISSPOKE?  That's no misspeak.  That's a flat-out lie.  How ridiculous do you guys want to look?  By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don't provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. In other words, by inserting these "minimum beneifts and consumer protections", Obama and his pals knowingly caused those policies to become illegal, therefore unkeepable.  What part of "he lied when he said they could keep their current insurance" is giving you trouble?  So they've sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies. Substandard?  That's your rationale?  Maybe to YOU, sitting in your midtown Manhattan offices,  they're substandard.  But the people who took them on wanted them.  Who died and appointed you the arbiter of what insurance is or is not acceptable?  Your arrogance is sickening.  (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.) And tens of millions more, according to one expert after another - several of whom have been quoted in this blog, up to and including the immediately previous entry.  You lie as much as Obama does.

But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.  Yep.  More comprehensive and at far higher cost.  Like, for example, middle aged men being required to pay for maternity and prenatal care.  Your editorial is a joke.  And so is ObamaCare.

This, readers, is what happens when a newspaper takes a position, and refuses to change it even when facts make that position ridiculous. 

Just like the bald guy who grows the hair on the side of his head a foot long, swirls it around the top of the head as best he can, and cons himself into thinking no one notices, the Times editorial board evidently thinks its clumsy, obvious attempts at wordsmithing will con people into thinking President Obama's overt lies are not lies at all.  He just "misspoke".  

Misspoke?  Yeah, ok.  Tha'll hold water....

Pathetic.


BARACK OBACKLASH?

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama is campaigning through northern Virginia with Democrat Gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. 

Reports are that he is not mentioning ObamaCare - not one word about it.

If Mr. Obama thought ObamaCare would help Mr. McAuliffe win, you can bet your bottom dollar he would be mentioning it early and often.  But he is avoiding it like Dracula avoided the cross.  What does that tell you about its toxicity level?

But not mentioning ObamaCare does not make it vanish.  

The question is, will Barack Obama's appearance on the campaign trail with Terry McAuliffe inherently generate thoughts of ObamaCare, and create a negative backlash? 

I hope they ask about that in the exit polls, because I'd love to know the answer.  And, I have a feeling, a great many Democrats who are apprehensive about their prospects for 2014 will want to know the answer as well....


AS THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO LIE ABOUT OBAMACARE.....

Ken Berwitz

First, a test to see if you should bother to read this blog:

"I know you've heard that some people have had their insurance policies cancelled,  But there are very few of them.  And they had lousy insurance.  Scam insurance.  Insurance nobody wants.  So the result will be that they wind up with better insurance.  And they'll pay less too.  A happy ending for everybody.  Honest. 

We're the Obama administration, so you can trust us. "

If you believe a word of that, stop reading.  You will be wasting your time.

If, on the other hand, you find yourself a bit skeptical...read the first three paragraphs from Jamie Weinstein's article at dailycaller.com:

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 Obamacares 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."

Since millions of people already have had their insurance policies cancelled, and since ObamaCare requires specific types of coverage for all policies which a great many people neither need nor want, does this ring a bit truer than the Obama claims?

Incidentally, in the last month, President Obama's approval rating has plummeted in most major polls to levels at or near the lowest of his presidency.  Do you figure the rollout of ObamaCare's web site, and the cancellations, might have something to do with this?

Now, the big political question:  it is one year until the mid-term elections, when the entire House Of Representatives and one-third of the entire Senate will be up for grabs.  Do you think that, once ObamaCare is in place for a year - and the general population has a truer idea of how many people will be bounced from their current insurance, or have it modified in a way that costs them more - this will help or hurt Democrats?  

I suggest you do some thinking about that.  Because I assure you with 100% certainty that both Democrats and Republicans are. 

Tell you what:  here's an easy way to keep track.  If, as the months go on, you find Democrats - not in safe races but in races they could lose - embracing ObamaCare, you'll know it's a winner.  If you find them distancing themselves from ObamaCare, you'll know it's a loser.

Enjoy the show... 

free' I hope if the federal government requires us to wear certain articles of clothes that they don't pick the awful tan that North Koreans wear. Since this a law, mandate and tax lets also hope they don't decide we all need better car and homeowner insurance. Maybe the commie/dem plan should just be put in to full swing and we rid ourselves of the responsibilities of being an adult (which I think is now 26 due to obamacare) and the government will take care of everything for us. From the countries I have seen with that system it looks real fun! (11/04/13)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!