Why won't the Obama Government ever shoot straight with us?

By Tom Quiner

“Existing policies were grandfathered in. If a policy was not extended, then that was up to the insurance company, probably because it would no longer be a very competitive policy.”

This was the defense made of Obamacare by a loyal, if contrarian, Quiner’s Diner reader. I thank him for his comment. He parrots HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius who looked Congress in the eyes this morning and said,  “There was no change.”
In other words, she suggests that millions have lost their existing health insurance, NOT because of changes in Obamacare regulations, but because insurance companies had a chance to unload millions of customers in the hope of moving them into more expensive coverage.
This doesn’t make any sense.
Take my example. My carrier said my current coverage would end next year due to the ACA. My new coverage will double in price if I stick with them. The only way I might get the price back down closer to what I’m currently paying is if I dump my current carrier and go with a new company found on the Obamacare exchange.
This scenario repeats itself around the country with millions of other with individual health insurance policies.
The Wall Street Journal points out today that all of these cancellations were part of the ACA plan:

“The millions of Americans who are receiving termination notices because their current coverage does not conform to Health and Human Services Department rules may not realize this is by design. Maybe they trusted President Obama’s repeated falsehood that people who liked their health plans could keep them. But Americans should understand that this month’s mass cancellation wave has been the President’s political goal since 2008. Liberals believe they must destroy the market in order to save it.”

The Wall Street Journal goes even further. They said these plans were intentionally outlawed:

“The political problem for the White House is that these choices are a threat toObamaCare. If too many people keep these policies instead of joining the government exchanges, ObamaCare could fail. HHS has thus reviewed the decisions of people in the individual market and found them wanting. HHS believes as a matter of political philosophy that everyone should have the same kind of insurance, and in the name of equity it wrote rules dictating the benefits that all plans must cover and how they must be financed.
In most cases these mandates are more comprehensive and thus more expensive than the status quo, but the ObamaCare refugees aren’t merely facing higher costs. The plans they want and are willing to pay for have been intentionally outlawed. Ponder that one.”

The Obama  Government refuses to shoot straight on this issue, as  they refuse to do on so many others.
At least Obamacare apologist, Clarence Page is honest about the lie.  Mr. Page is a liberal  columnist for the Chicago Tribune and regular MSNBC columnist, a stalwart member of the MSM.
He was asked if the president knew he was lying when  he told us we could keep our current coverage if that is what we wanted:

“Probably. Probably. But that’s one of those political lies, you know.”

He acknowledged the lie. The suggestion is that political lies are acceptable.
Mr. Page was asked if the president’s lie bothered him:

“Well, a lot of things bother me. You act like all lies are equal, right? Well, a lot of things bother me more than that, but not because of overselling his program. Every president oversells their programs. But just the fact that the whole process of putting Obamacare together disturbed me that he gave up too much early on, in my view.”

Mr. Page’s only regret seems to be that Obama gave up “too much” too early, in other words, that the plan wasn’t sufficiently a socialist plan. The lie was simply a necessary evil to get as far as they did. The means justify the ends.
Did the president lie? Yes.
That is the foundational tactic of the Obama government.