Add extreme weather to the list.
When france had to deal with what would qualify as a hot summer there were massive casualties among the elderly.
You haven't actually shown any sources that "the entire campaign was mismanaged under his watch" other than that it made the Daily Caller and Fox News and some blog dudes annoyed.
So you're ignoring the NBC link for a third time?
No, the first article is noting that many employers will need to transition to new plans. This isn't a new revelation or anything, since one of the stated features of the PPACA from day one was eliminating insurance plans that don't actually offer any protection to the people insured.
This is an article with a link-bait title that isn't backed by the text. Who is claiming that "millions [will lose] employer insurance"? No speaker is cited for this question, no evidence is cited that it will happen. They even go to a fairly right-leaning lobbying group for comment, and they don't claim anything like that. They just claim that premiums will increase faster than federal government projections.
Here's the source cited by the article itself for where they got the information:
But some big employers already have cut health-care coverage for employees, changed plans or reduced benefits, including the owner of the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurant chains, Home Depot and UPS. And a report in Forbes on Thursday noted that the administration’s own estimate, published in the Federal Register in July 2010, anticipated that more than half of employer-sponsored plans would be canceled by the end of this year.
So, they got it from the Federal Register, in a report by the Obama administration. So, who said it? Obama's own people. Interestingly, throughout the article they even cite page numbers within the Federal Register where you can find the information. Evidence:
“The Department’s midrange estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” the administration said on page 34,552 of the Register.
Oh, and where does it say the millions will be without insurance because of this?
That would affect more than 75 million people, a major disruption of the private insurance market. Under the law, they would be required to obtain a new plan.
Right there.
No, that article doesn't say that greenhouse gases (the mechanism of anthopogenic global warming) don't cause arctic warming. I'd be happy to discuss with you what it does say in some sort of relevant thread.
Considering the fact that it's obvious I'm the one who said it (that's what the semi-colon is for), I do not see what point there is in discussing it further. Especially since what I said isn't actually scientifically inaccurate.
Also, the mechanism of anthropogenic global warming isn't greenhouse gases; greenhouses gases are the mechanism of nearly all forms of global warming. The mechanism of AGW is causing those gases to increase within the atmosphere rapidly through industry.
You were scammed by an insurance company, who sold you a plan that didn't offer comprehensive coverage, because you thought it would help cover you in the case of medical emergency and meet the requirements of a law that required people to have comprehensive coverage, even though it did neither of those things. Now you can't have that plan any more, because those sorts of scam plans are now illegal. That is how the law is restricting scammers from scamming you.
It does not, however, prevent the insurance company from telling those suckers who believe that their scam plans were a good thing that the mean old government is making them take those scam plans away. I don't see how the government possibly could do that.
As opposed to, instead, legally selling me insurance that maybe one hospital in the local area takes, if that many?
Yeah, that doesn't stop them from scamming you. Just that they can screw you on coverage in even more inventive ways.
And what I'm saying is that government statements, especially ones known to be false before being made, should not be worded in such a way that they aid scams. It's basic public relations.
If you don't want your factual claims examined, stop proclaiming them in public. Do let me know when you're ready to make some sort of affirmative claim about Texas or your home state with more than "idk, google it". It's not my responsibility to find support for your baseless arguments.
I find it funny you call my arguments baseless. Need I point out which of us has already made baseless claims about the content of two articles and about another poster's words?
Also, I find it interesting you use those words when, in fact, I never said them. The affirmative claim I made about Texas is that I can find their budget online... which I already proved. So, please, call me when you're ready to stop putting words in my mouth and ready to talk about what I actually said.
From 2009, Obama was saying that pre-PPACA plans would be grandfathered in. MJ did not get a pre-PPACA plan.
I want a quote where he actually mentioned that pre-PPACA plans would be grandfathered in. An actual quote where he clearly, unequivocally says it.
From 2009, Obama was saying that pre-PPACA plans would be grandfathered in. MJ did not get a pre-PPACA plan.
That's not what he said, even he agrees that what he said was wrong, or did you not read the quote?
"With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan you can keep it . the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate."
President Barack Obama, news conference, Nov. 14, 2013
With a little highlighting.
Which part of "not being accurate," don't you understand? This is what President Obama said, not Fox News, not Tucker Carlson, not Rush Limburger, but President Obama. And to be honest, I don't ever remember hearing President Obama saying "pre-PPACA" (or any of its nicknames).
Of course maybe he should have read the bill, before Nancy Pelosi decided that “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Then he would have known that you wouldn't always be able to keep your plan or your doctor or your money.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm just asking you to show some sort of sustained outcry other than the revelation that what Obama said was wrong.
How about a CNN poll on the subject? A NBC poll from much earlier shows an outcry from before the October events our conversation has primarily centered upon.
Keep reading.
“The Department’s midrange estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” the administration said on page 34,552 of the Register.
That would affect more than 75 million people, a major disruption of the private insurance market. Under the law, they would be required to obtain a new plan.
So those employers are going to replace the old plan with a new, PPACA-conforming one, instead of replacing it with a new, renegotiated plan. It's correct that it's going to be a big upheaval, but it's not somehow a new revelation. These were year-by-year plans to begin with, and would be renegotiated every year even if the PPACA had never been passed. There are just now new rules for what must be covered, to prevent "fig-leaf" insurance that takes your money and doesn't actually insure you against anything.
Those people aren't "losing employer insurance", despite the link-bait article title.
Here's what the link-bait article title says: "Millions losing employer insurance not ruled out"
"Not ruled out" and "will definitely happen" are vastly different things. The article supports that, but does not claim at any point that a loss of insurance will happen.
I don't know how to make this clearer. Shut up about global warming in this thread that isn't about global warming.
It was relevant for making a point on how media can misrepresent things in what was a response on why I stick to blogs. You're the one who wanted to argue the global warming bit.
Ways such as?
See, this big law you're decrying just outlawed a whole pile of ways that the insurance companies were screwing people before. But that's somehow a bad thing because the insurance companies can come up with new scams? That's mindboggling.
I already answered your question on the ways. Scroll up and read my post. Note the question above it.
As for that summary you posted: I didn't say that bit you asked in a question. That's you putting words in my mouth again. I can say plenty of stupid stuff on my own, without any aid.
And, yes, the previous paragraph is meant to be funny. Seriously, if I want to make an argument, I'll make it. I don't need people making it for me. Plus, by making such of a leap of logic, you undermine the rest of your point enough I don't even have to counter it; it just ends up with no validity through association.
This is one of the links from your own list.
The problems with this being used as evidence:
1. Obama is not a woman.
2. Obama's first name is not Stephanie.
3. It was posted two months after the actual deadline under Obamacare.
4. The following quote:
A key point to remember is that while the Act makes many changes to the individual market, it specifically allows those who want to keep their current insurance to do so. Most of the Act’s protections apply only to new policies, allowing people to stick with their current plan if they prefer. It is true that a few protections apply to all plans, both new and old, but these protections—like limiting the share of premiums that insurers can devote to administrative costs—are designed to help consumers and cut health care costs.
I was insured on May 4th. By the wording of this, specifically the bolded part, my insurance should be legal under ACA. It wasn't due to the March deadline. It doesn't actually say anything that hints that some policies would not be legal in the article.