Florida Gov. Rick Scott speaks to the media during a visit to the Advanced Pharma to kick-off the grand opening of their new facility that hopes to create 60...
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Rick Scott doubles down on ACA falsehood

What’s worse than a politician saying something that’s demonstrably untrue? The politician repeating the falsehood after learning it’s demonstrably untrue.
Gov. Rick Scott is standing by two misleading campaign ads that falsely suggest 300,000 people in the state already lost their health insurance plans due to Obamacare.
“Clearly, the ad’s accurate,” Scott told reporters Wednesday in Miami, declining to elaborate.
Clearly, Scott isn’t being honest with the public.
At issue is Florida Blue, the state’s largest private health insurer, which has already said Florida’s Republican governor, in the middle of a tough re-election fight, is wrong.
In a public statement, Florida Blue spokesman Paul Kluding said, “To date, most of the members in our pre-ACA plans have kept their plans…. Technically, there were a couple of hundred members with unique plans that were not continued. We chose to migrate those plans to new ACA-complaint ones instead of making changes to their existing benefits.”
The statement added, “Other than those unique members, no one else lost coverage due to the ACA.”
Also note, Florida offered an extension to Florida Blue to leave the old plans in place until 2015, making the governor’s claim that much less believable.
Confronted with facts, Scott repeated the falsehood – and then expanded it.
First the governor insisted his bogus claim is true, offering no evidence. Scott added that the Congressional Budget Office found that “2.5 million people are going to lose their jobs” as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
And to add insult to injury, Scott’s re-election campaign then unveiled a new TV ad repeating the claim the governor now knows to be wrong. [Update: here’s the first ad with the bogus argument, and here’s the second ad that repeats it.]
Maybe the Florida Republican could plausibly claim ignorance when he first told the public something that wasn’t true. Perhaps Scott could say he was confused or relied on misleading information. But it’s not an accident when someone repeats a falsehood after being confronted with evidence of reality.