That was then:
This is now:
On Monday The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by a San Diego woman who is a seven-year survivor of gall bladder cancer. She liked her health care plan and her doctors, but she was being summarily dropped.
Later that day the paper’s James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today online screed carried the headline: “How Low Can They Go? The White House attacks a cancer patient.”
It seems presidential assistant Dan Pfeiffer sent out a tweet saying, “The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance http://thkpr.gs/1hHgZjp via @TPHealth. The link is to an article at ThinkProgress.org with the same headline, blaming California health insurance competition for the cancellation. It claims the cancer patient can buy other insurance — though she liked her plan and wanted to keep it — and ignores the fact she is unable keep her doctors, specifically the ones in another state.
No matter how you parse the language and backtrack, the administration knew it was lying and did so repeatedly.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.” …
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
As one former administration official explained to the WSJ:
“You try to talk about health care in broad, intelligible points that cut through, and you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that,” the former official said.
The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.