• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oh, Politifact...

Slyfox696 said:
If this was your best attempt to sum up what I said, allow me some constructive criticism. You're not very good at summaries and you should probably never go into any field which requires you to condense lots of information into a little.
Click to expand...

First you argue that what he said wasn't a lie.... Then when you finally acknowledge that what he said was a lie, you try and justify that lie.

I think my summary was spot on.
 
code1211 said:
If missing entirely means nailed it, then you, too, have nailed it.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. Obviously Politifact was Politifalse.
 
pbrauer said:
The way I read it, they're not wrong:
Click to expand...

Of course that is how you read it. And you are wrong too. For millions of Americans ACA did force them out of their health insurance.
 
Slyfox696 said:
America is lied to all the time. You act as if that's some great offense. Do you feel Democrats lied about Obamacare? Obviously. Have Republicans lied about Obamacare? Obviously.
Click to expand...

Since you've brought up summarizing skills, let's see yours. How have Republicans lied about Obamacare?

Disclaimer: I am not a Republican.
 
Grim17 said:
First you argue that what he said wasn't a lie.... Then when you finally acknowledge that what he said was a lie, you try and justify that lie.

I think my summary was spot on.
Click to expand...
I think you're making too much of what he said. I don't think he should have said it because there is no way he could have stopped the health insurance companies from cancelling people's policies. If you want to say he lied, fine, where do you go from there? The GOP said they wanted to replace Obamacare but as yet, they haven't even tried. Did they lie? As for agendas, I think most liberals would have prefered the public option or a way where all Americans could buy into Medicare. As it is, I predict Obamacare will be successful and people will love it just like they love Medicare Part D today. That love wasn't there when the Bush administration implemented it.
 
jmotivator said:
Of course that is how you read it. And you are wrong too. For millions of Americans ACA did force them out of their health insurance.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but we will have to wait and see.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No let me help you with it because i dont think you read your own article: "*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actuary estimated 1 million fewer people will be covered by employers."
Click to expand...

I don't think in means what you think it means.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
1 million people being covered by employees? Thats what the big claims is being said because of Obamacare...
Click to expand...

"estimated 1 million fewer people will be covered by employers"

Parse that statement again.

And that is one estimate on the effects of the Employer mandate which is still looming in 2015. If it goes anything like the individual market is going the estimate is way off.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The problem is, that every policy did change at the very least, or dropped people at the very worst. It may sound like picking nits, but it's true, and therefore makes the statement true, or at minimum, using their scale, Mostly True, rather than Mostly False. People don't have the same plans they did back in 2009. Mine has changed two times, for the worse, with higher co-pays, higher premiums and less coverage, which the less coverage was a direct result of the ACA coverage mandates.
.
Click to expand...


My work re-evaluates the policies every year, regardless of ACA or not. They sent us a letter recently saying that our policy exceeds the guidelines in the ACA, so they would continue offering it, and we didn't need to go to the exchanges. But we're switching providers next year; I'll hear the details on Monday at an info webinar.

But even if the ACA had never been enacted - every year, my company adjusts rates, they adjust coverage, they adjust minimums, etc. Has nothing to do with the ACA, has everything to do with insurance. At least with the ACA, I'm guaranteed no lifetime limits; no exclusion for pre-existing conditions; and i can cover the kids until they are 26 if they don't get jobs with health insurance (one is working two part-time jobs; the other did get health insurance until the place where she was working got defunded by the state...now she is also working two part-time jobs. So neither of them have insurance right now)
 
paddymcdougall said:
My work re-evaluates the policies every year, regardless of ACA or not. They sent us a letter recently saying that our policy exceeds the guidelines in the ACA, so they would continue offering it, and we didn't need to go to the exchanges. But we're switching providers next year; I'll hear the details on Monday at an info webinar.

But even if the ACA had never been enacted - every year, my company adjusts rates, they adjust coverage, they adjust minimums, etc. Has nothing to do with the ACA, has everything to do with insurance. At least with the ACA, I'm guaranteed no lifetime limits; no exclusion for pre-existing conditions; and i can cover the kids until they are 26 if they don't get jobs with health insurance (one is working two part-time jobs; the other did get health insurance until the place where she was working got defunded by the state...now she is also working two part-time jobs. So neither of them have insurance right now)
Click to expand...

There are lots of parts of the ACA that needed to be implemented, like the ones you stated. I'm glad to hear the your plan is the same. Mine isn't, and you're the first I've heard of in this position, which is good.

Thanks for sharing that positive information.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ok... And this is whats being said today.
Click to expand...

We are talking today about the 17 million Americans that buy their own insurance. The Employer mandate doesn't come until 2015.

And the estimates are absurdly low. Fast food alone will be cutting millions since most of their employees will be eligible for the new Medicaid. None of those people will remain in the private insurance market, ending in a net drag on the ACA program.
 
Grim17 said:
First you argue that what he said wasn't a lie
Click to expand...
No, I admonished you for criticizing Politifact's rating Obama's actual words, not the words some people interpreted them to mean. Then I informed you Obama's words have not been a lie to me.

Like I said, you are not very good at summaries.

I think my summary was spot on.
Click to expand...
Which is why I suggested you never go into a field which requires you to condense lots of information into a little.
nota bene said:
Since you've brought up summarizing skills, let's see yours. How have Republicans lied about Obamacare?

Disclaimer: I am not a Republican.
Click to expand...
The two which I always use as examples are the death panels and the real estate tax.
 
head of joaquin said:
In conservativebizarroworld: facts are opinions and opinions are facts.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case, in reality, something stated as fact was really just a retarded lie.

But that's a common occurrence when a leftist lawyer becomes a politician in charge of something or another - that's a trifecta of deceit right there, almost can't be helped.

It's also a common occurrence for the media to be in the tank for the left and misrepresent reality to that end.
 
jmotivator said:
June 2012 - Poltifact caught giving its Politopinion.

Nailed it, Politifact. Nailed. It.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is kind of funny....

Obama states "Here’s a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance." He's ACTUALLY stating it as a guarantee, and Politifact gives that a "half true" and basically judges it based on their opinion of what Obama really meant.

Cantor states "The people who have health care and like it in this county are not going to be able to keep what they have." He doesn't say the word guarantee, but Politifacts opinion is that he is suggesting a guarantee and rate it as "mostly false."

Wow, just...wow.

This is why I never go to a single fact checker when I want some facts about a subject and I DEFINITELY never take a single fact checkeres OPINION about the level of truthfulness as any kind of "fact" in and of itself.

Cantor's statement was false. He stated it in a broad fashion, which was dumb, and it's wrong. Some people in the country who have their health care and like it ARE able to keep it.

Obama's statement was ALSO false. He stated, in a broad fashion AND indicating it as a guarantee, that if you like it you get to keep it. There are people who liked their insurance that can't keep it, either because their plans aren't grandfathered or because Obamacare regulations forced the plan to be intenable which caused the insurance companies to change it or companies to change it.

Not surprisingly, the other two major fact checkers disgaree greatly with Politifact on this issue...The Fact Checker gave the statement their equivilent of "pants on fire" and FactCheck.org labeled it misleading and declared it one of it's "Whoppers" in 2010 and in 2012.

This is the issue with the fact checker groups...they can display facts, but ultimately they're giving an OPINION on the level of "truth" in play. On top of it all of them, but politifact especially, have a tendancy to make assumptions and implicatoin about what's said make their judgements based in part on those assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Okay, that is kind of funny....

Obama states "Here’s a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance." He's ACTUALLY stating it as a guarantee, and Politifact gives that a "half true" and basically judges it based on their opinion of what Obama really meant.

Cantor states "The people who have health care and like it in this county are not going to be able to keep what they have." He doesn't say the word guarantee, but Politifacts opinion is that he is suggesting a guarantee and rate it as "mostly false."

Wow, just...wow.

This is why I never go to a single fact checker when I want some facts about a subject and I DEFINITELY never take a single fact checkeres OPINION about the level of truthfulness as any kind of "fact" in and of itself.

Cantor's statement was false. He stated it in a broad fashion, which was dumb, and it's wrong. Some people in the country who have their health care and like it ARE able to keep it.

Obama's statement was ALSO false. He stated, in a broad fashion AND indicating it as a guarantee, that if you like it you get to keep it. There are people who liked their insurance that can't keep it, either because their plans aren't grandfathered or because Obamacare regulations forced the plan to be intenable which caused the insurance companies to change it or companies to change it.

Not surprisingly, the other two major fact checkers disgaree greatly with Politifact on this issue...The Fact Checker gave the statement their equivilent of "pants on fire" and FactCheck.org labeled it misleading and declared it one of it's "Whoppers" in 2010 and in 2012.

This is the issue with the fact checker groups...they can display facts, but ultimately they're giving an OPINION on the level of "truth" in play. On top of it all of them, but politifact especially, have a tendancy to make assumptions and implicatoin about what's said make their judgements based in part on those assumptions.
Click to expand...

Your bias is showing.

Obama's statement was true for the 90% of the people who have individual insurance that meets a certain minimal set of requirements. It was false for 10% of the 17%? of individuals who buy health insurance on the open market as well as 3% of people who have employer coverage.

Cantors statement was exactly the opposite.

Adding that up, Obama's statement was true for better than 95% of people with health insurance. Cantor's statement was true for 5% of the people with health insurance.

Seems like half true, mostly false is the proper way to score it.
 
Mithros said:
Obama's statement was true for the 90% of the people who have individual insurance that meets a certain minimal set of requirements.
Click to expand...

You see that part I highlighted? Well that's the part that Obama chose to leave out of his promise to the American people that they would be able to keep their coverage if they wanted to.

It was false for 10% of the 17%? of individuals who buy health insurance on the open market as well as 3% of people who have employer coverage.
Click to expand...

No, it was false PERIOD. He didn't say some people, or a certain group of people, or people with certain types of insurance, he said if a person (any person) likes the coverage they have, they would be able to keep it. That sir is indisputably a false statement.

Cantors statement was exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

Cantor's statement was also incorrect, but his statement doesn't result in millions of people losing their health coverage or having to pay substantially more for different coverage they didn't want in the first place.

Adding that up, Obama's statement was true for better than 95% of people with health insurance.
Click to expand...

That's liberal math... In the real world, the math adds up to "Obama lied to the American people PERIOD.


Seems like half true, mostly false is the proper way to score it.
Click to expand...

That's because you score it based on how many people you believe the lie will effect, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a lie.

You determine a statement's truthfulness by comparing it to the facts... Obama's statements did not match the facts, which ordinarily would make them false or misleading statements, but since we now know he was informed over 3 years ago by several people that what he was telling the American people wasn't true, yet chose to continue making those statement anyway, that makes them a lie and him a liar.

There is absolutely no way around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom