Remember all those promises President Obama made assuring Americans that they'd be able to keep their current healthcare plans under reform legislation he was championing?
Well, the New York Times reported Sunday that could come at a huge additional cost to many that may be impractical.
Much more surprising is the Times pointed out that this wasn't what Obama promised.
Although none of the following will shock those intelligent enough to see through the bait and switch as it was occurring, those in the media that aided and abetted this scam should be deeply ashamed:
As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country's biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.
The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.
But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.
The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.
But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.
Indeed.
As opponents of this awful legislation regularly informed the citizenry, costs would certainly rise producing a condition where folks would have to pay more if they wanted to keep their existing coverage.
The President and his Party promised otherwise, and their minions in the media assisted in making the sale to the American people.
Of course, and not surprisingly, the New York Times was part of the syndicate misrepresenting the facts.
Are their consciences being cleared by telling their readers the truth months later as the legislation they helped pass begins to take hold?
