From: Leroy N. Soetoro on
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/06/14/surprise-you-can-keep-your-
coverage-is-not-so-truthy/

The most obviously false claim that President Obama made during the
health-care debate � and there were many � was that, regardless of the new
law he sought, you could keep your current health coverage if you were
satisfied with it. It was obviously false because existing plans were
still going to be made to comply with certain mandates after a grace
period, and new mandates always cost something for someone � the health
consumer, the employer subsidizing the coverage or, most likely, both.

Some of us were pointing out that this wasn�t true in one iteration of the
health bill almost 11 months ago. But since the president kept repeating
his claim (albeit with ever-evolving nuance to cover himself), I guess
fresh confirmation that it isn�t so qualifies as news. From the Associated
Press:

Over and over in the health care debate, President Barack Obama said
people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many
employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the
new law. In just three years, a majority of workers � 51 percent � will be
in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange
projections in the draft.

Republicans said Obama broke his promise. Employer groups were divided.

The rest of the article covers the debate between those who say the
president broke his promise and those who say, Eh, yeah, but don�t worry
because you�ll like the new benefits.

The latter argument is a nice spin job, but it misses the point. The
president didn�t say, �No one will have worse coverage after I�m done.� He
said, directly and repeatedly, that he wasn�t forcing anyone into anything
� a claim made to convince Americans that nothing would change for those
who were already content.

His administration is now debating whether that promise has passed its
expiration date. And keep in mind that its decision now will be subject to
change. If the law gives the executive branch latitude to make this
decision, that decision can always be reversed or modified.

In the real world, consumers have to balance the worth of new benefits
against their cost. When you aren�t given the choice of accepting the new
benefits or not, you�re left paying for them whether or not you like or
can afford them.

It�s another way this new law makes our system more, not less, broken.


--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New York's
million dollar tax evasion. On February 25, 2010, the House ethics
committee has concluded that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B.
Rangel knowingly accepted Caribbean trips in violation of House rules that
forbid hidden financing by corporations. Democrat criminal Nancy Pelosi
is deliberately ignoring the million dollar tax evasion of Democrat
Charles Rangel.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to be forced to remove Charles B. Rangel
from the House Ways and Means Committee.

Felony President.

Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.

18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position,
compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or
made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special
consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as
consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the
support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in
connection with any general or special election to any political office,
or in connection with any primary election or political convention or
caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---