If Obamacare is as glorious and transformative as its most vocal proponents claim, why do they skirt the truth about it?
The state-run health exchanges mandated by the legislation take effect today -- and coinciding with their appearance are laughable claims about the law from its chief apologists in media. (Audio clips after the jump)
Seeing how so-called health reform was enacted more than three years ago, and its supporters have obsessed on it ever since, all the while demonizing its opponents as ignorant racists akin to murderous jihadists, one wonders if bogus claims about Obamacare at this stage of the game are based on deliberate efforts to deceive and not on honest mistakes.
Two examples in recent days, both from radio libtalkers who also host shows on MSNBC. Here's the first, from stalwart Obama coatcatcher Al Sharpton (h/t for audio, Brian Maloney, mrctv.org) --
CALLER FROM GEORGIA: I was wondering, what were your thoughts on Congress and the Senate opting out with themselves and their staffers and now the unions are trying to opt out. Is there something that they know about this health care bill that we don't?
SHARPTON: Well, what they, uh, first of all, part of the bill is that you can opt out. And, uh, I think that some of them opt out because they have other kinds of insurance and other security. Others opt in because they have no way of being insured. So part of the bill is to give you options. Part of those that are uninsured is that they don't have any options.
Much as you can "opt out" of paying taxes. Granted, you'll likely end up in prison, but this too is just another option. Agreed, Rev. Sharpton -- anyone can "opt out" of Obamacare. What you neglect to mention is that they'll get whacked with progressively steeper fines for doing so.
A more blatant example of Obamacare deception comes by way of Sharpton's fellow Obama cultist Ed Schultz (audio)--
What is this going to do? I mean, companies are going to be making some health care decisions in their benefit package. There's no law that says that, well, this company has to offer this type of package. No, they've been choosing, they've been picking and choosing. I mean, major companies, they deal with insurance providers all the time, OK? What's in it for us? What can we do? Here's the actuary. Here's what you run, OK, you got 300 employees, this is what's happening, blah blah blah. There's no law that says that they absolutely have to offer health care as a benefit.
As for the distinction between "health care" and "health insurance," you'll notice that Schultz referred to companies having to make "health care" decisions pertaining to employee benefits and not "health insurance" decisions. It's a distinction that matters little when you're an employer with more than 50 workers and mandated to provide health coverage.
