The New York Times brought out the big guns in defense of Obamacare.
Faced with a growing chorus of complaints about the keystone health insurance reform that bears Obama’s name, the New York Times shrugged.
They shrugged because that’s all they have left.
The shoulder shrug, by the way, is a sign of the lie.
The Times shrugged off the problems with the website, the problems with rising insurance premiums and the major problem with the president’s promise that if you like your insurance you get keep it.
The problem the president faces is that when he promised Americans they could keep their insurance he was either wrong and didn’t know it or he was lying and did know it.
It’s a problem with all the Democrat policies: They either are wrong or lying.
Because, now we know that you can’t keep your policy if you like it. You have to get a new policy that more often than not will cost you more because you are paying for someone else’s benefits.
“Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that [you could keep your insurance if you liked it],” writes the New York Times Editorial Board.
But what difference does it make they continue?
Those policies weren’t worth keeping anyway say the Manhattan liberals who think that $541 is a reasonable sum to pay monthly for parking.
“By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year”
“[I]nsurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees,” the New York Times says. “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.”
And MORE expensive.
It’s simple math: Cover more people, cover more things and you have increased costs. Someone pays, even if perhaps it might not be you. But if you’re insured already, it probably is you who does pay.
And in that case you were the very people who were promised that if you liked your insurance you could keep it.
In Other News: Wasserman-Schultz Planned Attack on "Sexist" Obama for Considering New DNC Chair | Michael Schaus