>>ohn, who defines what is a "lousy policy?"

The ACA defines what is a lousy policy. I'd have thought you'd understand the concept of pre-existing or general exclusions as well as anybody.

>>All of a sudden, there are 2 highly questionable contexts....the convenient and expedient notion of "lousy policies", and the notion of blaming all the cancellations on insurance companies.

The notion of "lousy policies" is neither sudden nor difficult. IME those with lousy policies usually know they are lousy. But they are better than nothing. Under the ACA the goal is to give everybody access to affordable decent care, something that ought to be possible in a First World country.

The notion of blaming on insurance companies is more reasonable than insisting that Obama told an obvious whopper. There's ample evidence that insurers systematically resiled to avoid expensive liability and generally constructed policies to look after themselves. Shareholders expect them to do that. Preferring to attack Obama is doubly illogical.

>> I don't have many kind words to say on insurance companies, but this is what I mean about Obama using more of a fascist concept towards economic controls instead of outright socialism. He and Kathleen S. give private companies just enough room to be able to turn around and point the finger at them afterwards. I can't help if you're not able to either see or acknowledge this.

It's a thoroughly unreasonable partisan attitude. Words pile on words, wishes pile on wishes. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.