Posted on 11/03/2013 12:02:50 PM PST by Hojczyk
Suppose BHO Insurance Co. decides it wants to corner its state's market in automobile coverage. It begins an aggressive ad campaign offering a too-good-to-be-true deal: Sign up with us, and we'll give you better coverage at lower premiums. We're so sure you'll love our deal that if you like the terms of your existing policy, you'll be able to keep them--GUARANTEED!
The ad campaign, with the company's charismatic president acting as pitchman, is a smashing success. The competing companies lose so much business that they declare bankruptcy or are acquired by BHO. But BHO's policies are more expensive, and they include "comprehensive" coverage most customers neither need nor want. Take it or leave it, the company says, reneging on its guarantee in the knowledge that state law requires cars to be insured before they can be driven on public streets.
You'd call that a bait-and-switch. The legal term is fraud.
Legally, however, the two scenarios are entirely different. Whereas BHO Insurance Co.'s scam is against the law; ObamaCare is the law. Thus there is no evident legal recourse for those who were injured by Obama's fraudulent promise--for people like reader Kathleen Crowley, who writes:
My health-care policy was cancelled, and the Obama administration's explanation that policies are being cancelled because they were "substandard" and issued by "bad apple" insurers is absolutely not true. I had a very comprehensive policy, with a large and solid national health insurer, and the reasons my policy was not "ACA compliant" is because I now have to pay for maternity coverage, general pediatric coverage and pediatric dental coverage, as prescribed by ObamaCare. I'm 55 years old, have no children and don't plan to have children. Clearly, I am beyond childbearing age, and without children. Why would I have to purchase pediatric dental insurance? pediatric care?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Is this the gal that campaigned for BHO, and is still a loyal supporter?
Saw her on YouTube. Amazingly brainwashed.
If BHO was in the private sector hawking insurance, he would be on his way to prison.
This means punishing any Democrat jerkoff who supported this debacle.
Good analogy. They ripped us off on the GM/Chrysler bail-out, then had the nerve to say we were breaking even as they sold the shares at a loss.
These people lie about the weather (’climate change’) just to stay in practice.
Because that worked so well last election.
Revolts aren't won by votes.
It seemed so obvious, I'm surprised nobody has done it before..(G)
According to Laura Ingraham, they’re guilty of “fraud in the inducement.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.