Oh, Politifact...

[clownboy]

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)

And unfortunately, because of Obamacare there are more part time, no benefit jobs in their future. Yeah, that's an improvement. And you didn't have to worry about pre-existing conditions in the first place since you are on a group plan through your employer.

I agree, those things you mentioned are good, so why didn't the POTUS and dem congress sack up and just pass those regulations? Would have been a small bill, and maybe they would have actually read the darn thing before passage.

 

[Zyphlin]

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.

When a statement is made in an absolute, as Cantor's was and Obama's indisputably was, then they are making a statement with a clear "true" or "false" connotation. BOTH of their statements were outright FALSE because both made a broad, sweeping statement, and both's broad sweeping statement was absolutely incorrect.

When one "guarantees" that something will not happen, and that thing DOES happen, then your guarantee was false regardless if you managed to make good on 90% or 10% of the time.

 

[Boo Radley]

June 2012 - Poltifact caught giving its Politopinion.

Nailed it, Politifact. Nailed. It.

What part was nailed? From the article:

Even before the coverage mandate has taken effect, the number of companies that switch their plans each year has been substantial. The health care law is expected to increase that rate modestly, not exponentially as Cantor says.

 

[Boo Radley]

When a statement is made in an absolute, as Cantor's was and Obama's indisputably was, then they are making a statement with a clear "true" or "false" connotation. BOTH of their statements were outright FALSE because both made a broad, sweeping statement, and both's broad sweeping statement was absolutely incorrect.

When one "guarantees" that something will not happen, and that thing DOES happen, then your guarantee was false regardless if you managed to make good on 90% or 10% of the time.

That is true, which has long been a problem with our leaders. The truth is often much less certain, even if we didn't have reform at all.

 

[paddymcdougall]

And unfortunately, because of Obamacare there are more part time, no benefit jobs in their future. .

But this isn’t actually happening on any significant scale. If it were, one would have seen the number of workers putting in twenty-six to twenty-nine hours increase in 2013, as businesses prepared for the employer mandate before it was delayed. According to a study from the Center on Economic and Policy Priorities, however, the opposite actually happened: there were slightly fewer twenty-six- to twenty-nine-hour workers in 2013 as the mandate date approached. Despite whatever individual examples Republicans may trot out, no significant amount of people are being forced to work less hours because of the ACA.

Nothing Ted Cruz Said About the ACA Today Is True | The Nation

 

[Mithros]

When a statement is made in an absolute, as Cantor's was and Obama's indisputably was, then they are making a statement with a clear "true" or "false" connotation. BOTH of their statements were outright FALSE because both made a broad, sweeping statement, and both's broad sweeping statement was absolutely incorrect.

When one "guarantees" that something will not happen, and that thing DOES happen, then your guarantee was false regardless if you managed to make good on 90% or 10% of the time.

Obama's statement was not true. There's no question about that. However, there was more truth in Obama's statement than Cantor's. Assigning them the same rating would be wrong, and a good example of a false equivalence.

So first what should Cantor's statement get? Pants on Fire or False? No, there was some truth to his statement. He just conflated a few with all. So mostly false seems like a fair assessment. Obama conflated all with most. So mostly true seems to be fair.

What are the alternatives?

 

[BWWzfc]

Pulling one out of the archives ...

When a statement is made in an absolute, as Cantor's was and Obama's indisputably was, then they are making a statement with a clear "true" or "false" connotation. BOTH of their statements were outright FALSE because both made a broad, sweeping statement, and both's broad sweeping statement was absolutely incorrect.

When one "guarantees" that something will not happen, and that thing DOES happen, then your guarantee was false regardless if you managed to make good on 90% or 10% of the time.

Loved your comparison of these two guarantees, one explicit and one courtesy of PolitiFact's interpretive shenanigans, but the context of Cantor's statement is critical to understanding what he's saying.

Both Obama and Cantor talked about people liking their health care. Obama said people who like their health care will keep it. Cantor said people who like their health care will not keep it. Cantor wasn't making a guarantee or selling a bill as was Obama. Cantor was saying that Obama's guarantee was worthless. His statement was no more than a negation of Obama's guarantee.

 

[Kobie]

Pulling one out of the archives ...



Loved your comparison of these two guarantees, one explicit and one courtesy of PolitiFact's interpretive shenanigans, but the context of Cantor's statement is critical to understanding what he's saying.

Both Obama and Cantor talked about people liking their health care. Obama said people who like their health care will keep it. Cantor said people who like their health care will not keep it. Cantor wasn't making a guarantee or selling a bill as was Obama. Cantor was saying that Obama's guarantee was worthless. His statement was no more than a negation of Obama's guarantee.

Obama's statement was unquestionably false. SO WAS CANTOR'S.

I liked my plan, and I got to keep it. Largely because of where I live and the insurance regulations my state already had in place that exceeded the ACA's mandate, but yes, I kept my plan. Does that not make, for me personally, Obama's statement true and Cantor's false?

Of course not, because they were both blanket statements, neither of which were 100% true or false.

By your rationale, if ONE PERSON loses coverage under the ACA, Obama's statement is unequivocally false, but unless EVERYONE loses their coverage under the ACA, Cantor's statement is unequivocally true.

 

[BWWzfc]

Obama's statement was unquestionably false. SO WAS CANTOR'S.

I liked my plan, and I got to keep it. Largely because of where I live and the insurance regulations my state already had in place that exceeded the ACA's mandate, but yes, I kept my plan. Does that not make, for me personally, Obama's statement true and Cantor's false?

Of course not, because they were both blanket statements, neither of which were 100% true or false.

So far, we're ignoring the understanding I suggest for Cantor's statement. As for Obama's statement being true for you, you do realize that President Obama wasn't speaking just to you, right? What was his purpose in making that statement?

By your rationale, if ONE PERSON loses coverage under the ACA, Obama's statement is unequivocally false, but unless EVERYONE loses their coverage under the ACA, Cantor's statement is unequivocally true.

1) (Obama's statement) I don't advocate wooden-literal interpretations. What was Obama trying to communicate? He was trying to communicate that the ACA was non-disruptive. Those who liked the current arrangement would keep it, except they'd pay less for their insurance. Great news! It's news Obama knew had to be false based on his own administration's assessments.

2) (Cantor's statement). It doesn't appear that you're following my rationale for understanding Cantor's statement. Under my rationale, if Obama's statement is false (if the ACA is disruptive instead of non-disruptive) then Cantor's is true. By the time Cantor spoke, everyone knew that millions of people were going to have their insurance policies canceled. And that occurrence was perfectly predictable given the wording of the law and the administration's rulemaking. And it could have been worse. If Obama hadn't decided to rewrite the law on the fly then the disruption would have been even more obvious as the employer mandate took effect.

One statement was misleading and likely intentionally so (Obama's) unless the president isn't as smart as advertised. The other (Cantor's) was obviously true unless interpreted outside its (obvious, in my opinion) context as a direct response to Obama's guarantee.

 

[mpg]

Obama's statement was unquestionably false. SO WAS CANTOR'S.

politifact rated Obama's statement as "half true" and Cantor's as "mostly false".

 

[Zyphlin]

Obama's statement was unquestionably false. SO WAS CANTOR'S.

e.

And cantors was rated as such with mostly false

Obamas meanwhile was rated as half true

Obama claims a guarantee, and they excuse it was him not really meaning guarantee, thus half true

Cantor doesn't claim a guarantee, and they claim that's what he really meant, this mostly false

You're correct, both statements were false based on the facts and what they said. Which highlights the issue with how they were rated

 

[voyager1]

And cantors was rated as such with mostly false

Obamas meanwhile was rated as half true

Obama claims a guarantee, and they excuse it was him not really meaning guarantee, thus half true

Cantor doesn't claim a guarantee, and they claim that's what he really meant, this mostly false

You're correct, both statements were false based on the facts and what they said. Which highlights the issue with how they were rated

The difference between half true and mostly false really comes down to "was there any truth to the statements." Cantor was way off and Obama was off for some people. If one deals with everything in black/white then I can see how people might see bias.

What should be concerning to anyone is how many statements get less then a true. Doesn't matter the party or news source.

 

[Boo Radley]

And cantors was rated as such with mostly false

Obamas meanwhile was rated as half true

Obama claims a guarantee, and they excuse it was him not really meaning guarantee, thus half true

Cantor doesn't claim a guarantee, and they claim that's what he really meant, this mostly false

You're correct, both statements were false based on the facts and what they said. Which highlights the issue with how they were rated

Because largely he couldn't have meant it a guarantee. As Obama doesn't run the insurance industry, and as they weren't letting people keep what they had even before ACA, no logical person would have expected a guarantee. He had to mean he wasn't doing anything to make them change, and he wasn't. Do you suppose we should not use logic at all?

 

[Carleen]

politifact rated Obama's statement as "half true" and Cantor's as "mostly false".

The " you can keep your plan if you like it". Was a "pants on fire" on politifact. For Obama

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because largely he couldn't have meant it a guarantee. As Obama doesn't run the insurance industry, and as they weren't letting people keep what they had even before ACA, no logical person would have expected a guarantee. He had to mean he wasn't doing anything to make them change, and he wasn't. Do you suppose we should not use logic at all?

How can one politician stating a guarantee not be expected to uphold it and a politician not stating a guarantee be expected to hold it up as a guarantee? Seems like a double standard to me. :shrug:

I don't know about others but when someone says that they "guarantee" something they darn well better uphold their promise.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

How can one politician stating a guarantee not be expected to uphold it and a politician not stating a guarantee be expected to hold it up as a guarantee? Seems like a double standard to me. :shrug:

I don't know about others but when someone says that they "guarantee" something they darn well better uphold their promise.

"Well that's just because, like, reality has a liberal bias, man."

 

[Boo Radley]

How can one politician stating a guarantee not be expected to uphold it and a politician not stating a guarantee be expected to hold it up as a guarantee? Seems like a double standard to me. :shrug:

I don't know about others but when someone says that they "guarantee" something they darn well better uphold their promise.

Because there is a context, and it was something he could not guarantee. It had to relate to his actions and not the insurance business as a whole. That's just logical. And I mentioned this back when he said this.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because there is a context, and it was something he could not guarantee. It had to relate to his actions and not the insurance business as a whole. That's just logical. And I mentioned this back when he said this.

Then maybe he shouldn't have made the promise.

 

[Boo Radley]

Then maybe he shouldn't have made the promise.

Or be more clear. But that doesn't excuse us pretending it was something it wasn't. Must we assume we're incapable of logical thought?

 

[TobyOne]

It was obviously a guarantee. He could have included a condition in the law that people could keep their current policy. Thats probably what people thought he meant. The "period" at the end of the statement doesn't equate to "as far as I know" or "its up to insurance companies, ask them".

What really makes it a total lie is that he *knew* people would lose their policies because some policies were to be declared non-compliant with the new law. Plus, he *knew* that networks would be redefined so that carriers could recoup some losses from being forced to insure unhealthy people. So, he knew that some people would lose their doctor. He's a lying sack of **** and if you don't see it you're wither wearing Obama knee pads or another lying sack of ****.

Because largely he couldn't have meant it a guarantee. As Obama doesn't run the insurance industry, and as they weren't letting people keep what they had even before ACA, no logical person would have expected a guarantee. He had to mean he wasn't doing anything to make them change, and he wasn't. Do you suppose we should not use logic at all?

 

[Boo Radley]

It was obviously a guarantee. He could have included a condition in the law that people could keep their current policy. Thats probably what people thought he meant. The "period" at the end of the statement doesn't equate to "as far as I know" or "its up to insurance companies, ask them".

What really makes it a total lie is that he *knew* people would lose their policies because some policies were to be declared non-compliant with the new law. Plus, he *knew* that networks would be redefined so that carriers could recoup some losses from being forced to insure unhealthy people. So, he knew that some people would lose their doctor. He's a lying sack of **** and if you don't see it you're wither wearing Obama knee pads or another lying sack of ****.

I'm afraid that's just not logical. And know, he couldn't have known either as there is no logical reason ACA would lead to that. There are, however, many reasons and motives that might just as there was before ACA. And no, a logic you don't want to follow is not evidence of bias. Instead of whining about bias, make a logical argument.

 

[TobyOne]

You have no business invoking what you consider "logic". Obamacare lead to policies being noncompliant because they did it on purpose. For example, all policies with lifetime limits were non-compliant. This was most policies. Some policies didn't provide BC or mental health, this was mandated in the ACA. For Obama to say that you could keep your policy was complete BS and he knew it. Logic. Pfft. You should look that word up before you try to use it again.

I'm afraid that's just not logical. And know, he couldn't have known either as there is no logical reason ACA would lead to that. There are, however, many reasons and motives that might just as there was before ACA. And no, a logic you don't want to follow is not evidence of bias. Instead of whining about bias, make a logical argument.

 

[Boo Radley]

You have no business invoking what you consider "logic". Obamacare lead to policies being noncompliant because they did it on purpose. For example, all policies with lifetime limits were non-compliant. This was most policies. Some policies didn't provide BC or mental health, this was mandated in the ACA. For Obama to say that you could keep your policy was complete BS and he knew it. Logic. Pfft. You should look that word up before you try to use it again.

As they should be, but none of that means anyone had to lose a policy. Remember there is a trade off. Insurances improve and they get more customers. Because of this, they only needed to add a little and not have anyone lose anything. The law didn't make anyone lose a policy. Just as it didn't when people lost them before ACA. So, your emotional reply doesn't change the facts.

 

[jmotivator]

How can one politician stating a guarantee not be expected to uphold it and a politician not stating a guarantee be expected to hold it up as a guarantee? Seems like a double standard to me. :shrug:

I don't know about others but when someone says that they "guarantee" something they darn well better uphold their promise.

Obama couldn't guarantee anything so his guarantee shouldn't be seen as a guarantee. Cantor couldn't guarantee anything, guaranteed nothing so obviously he was guaranteeing it. See? Simple!

 

[Middleground]

You are right... I didn't see that... The fact that they give him a "half true" is a joke. They chose to examine his exact words, rather than the message those words actually conveyed. It reminds me of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." I'm sure they would have given that one a half truth too.

Well those were his exact words, no? So how could it be any different?