Fraud in the Inducement — and President Obama

ObamaCareBulletin!  This just in!!! Even the so-called mainstream media have caught on.  Even they, his most loyal acolytes, have begun pounding Jay Carney, the president’s flack, over the rollout of ObamaCare.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the whole procedure is one great big mess.  Even the libs on Saturday Night Live are making fun of it.  But hey, Team Obama only had about three years to figure it all out.

The real mystery isn’t why Kathleen Sebelius, whose department is in charge of signing us up for ObamaCare, still has a job.  What has me baffled is how she still has her citizenship.  If she worked in the real world – the private sector where people are held accountable – she’d be long gone by now.  And if she were lucky she might find work in Bangladesh.

But what’s troubling about the media coverage is that it’s been focusing mainly on those “glitches” – the hours and days and weeks it takes to log on to the official ObamaCare Web site.   While that’s legitimate news, there’s a bigger story that is getting short shrift in the MSM.  And it’s a story about fraud.

Let’s say you make a business deal with someone.  But you lie about pertinent facts in the process.  This is called “Fraud in the Inducement.”  Here’s the definition from a legal dictionary: “the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act. Example: ‘there will be tax advantages to you if you let me take title to your property,’ or ‘you don’t have to read the rest of the contract–it is just routine legal language.’ but actually includes a balloon payment”

Isn’t this pretty much what President Obama did when he pushed through the so-called Affordable Care Act?  He looked us in the eye and with a straight face said (to use just one easy example) that under his new plan we could keep our doctors if we wanted to.  But millions of Americans can’t.  They’re losing their old coverage and being pushed into the ObamaCare “exchanges” — and a lot of them will have to find new doctors.  Surely Mr. Obama knew he wasn’t telling the truth.  That’s one of the requirements to prove fraud – that he knew he was misleading us. The alternative is that he wasn’t lying at all, but that he is simply incompetent; that he had no idea what he was actually shoving down our throats.  This is a possibility too.  But let’s assume he knew what he was saying.  Let’s assume he intentionally put a smiley face on his signature program.  Why isn’t this “fraud in the inducement”?

He also told us our premiums would go down.  For millions of us they’re going up.  How is this any different from the example above when one party tells the other:  “There will be tax advantages to you if you let me take title to your property.”  If that’s a lie then so is the president telling us, “Your premiums won’t go up.”  Instead of “tax advantages” he misled us about “premium advantages.”

I wasn’t on the “Repeal ObamaCare” bandwagon.  I think the leaders of that movement did Republicans more harm than good.  The way you get rid of ObamaCare is by winning elections.  I think Ted Cruz and the others made that more difficult for the GOP– but time will tell, as the old saying goes.

But I do know this:  If Barack Obama sold any of us a bill of goods based on a pack of lies in the private world of business, he just might find himself trying to explain what happened to a judge.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • D Parri

    The campaign for passing the bill was carried out with much planning and ‘back room’ meetings between Demo-head leaders, the president, and insurance exec’s. To think for one moment that it was not a pre-planned, compromised deal to transition all policyholders out of their existing plans and into the OCare system is simply foolish. Collapse of the existing system was required in order to force the enrollment numbers according to their plan. What was also foolish was to believe that the plan was ever viable.

    Now, consider this, Obama knew what would happen and he still went in front of the public and repeatedly lied about what he knew would not happen. How important is it that our president be honest with us? For more than a few individuals this will be the beginning of financial ruin. The true horror stories will be overwhelming in 2014 and it appears that there will be no chance of returning to the previous system which was flawed but still worked for the majority of the people.

  • Mari Jo O’Neill

    I believe that the President knew he was lying and didn’t care it is not misleading it is lying. If people think any different they are kidding themselves. I thought the President lied from the get go, and I thought he always sounded like a used car salesman.He could give a good speech but he was an empty suit.

  • potemkin_village_usa

    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, OBAMA’S NUMBER ONE LYING CAT’S PAW’S PANTS ARE ABLAZE: Wasserman-Schultz Mischaracterizes Cancellation Letters as ‘Transition Letters.’

    __The health care contracts which end on December 31, 2014, are the dissolution of commercial instruments and the relationships with terms and conditions between the insurance companies and their clients. After December 31, 2014, the insurance companies no longer perform to supply any benefits to the severed clients.
    __If the clients of these health insurance carriers were given letters of
    transition from one plan to another, then the letters would not declare a
    cancellation which is a severance of the relationship between the client and
    the health care provider.
    __If Debbie Wasserman-Schultz cannot provide evidence that these letters of
    cancellation are something legally other than what we know them to be, then she needs to make a public apology to all of those whose health care plans were cancelled without the qualifier that they are being transitioned to another
    plan within the carrier as a matter of legal notice within these letters.
    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz knew, or should have known that the millions of policy holders had received letters of cancellation of their health care contracts, none of whom received a letter transitioning them from their current plan to another one; and, that all of whom were informed that these cancellations were due to the mandates of Obama-Care.
    ****Wasserman-Schultz shamelessly lies to hold onto the functionally illiterate
    who will not vet the manifest lies she tells. Please educate your ignorant
    neighbors!!
    ****Call your Congressional Delegation and keep them educated at:
    (202)-224-3121
    ****Call the White House and educate whomever answers the phone at:
    (202)-456-1414 and, at: (202)-456-1111.

    • Mari Jo O’Neill

      Wasserman Schulz is just another lying liberal, and she has been caught in other lies. Why would anyone believe her and especially now when policies are cancelled not transitioned. So wake up Deb and tell people the truth, because I don’t think you can. These people have no qualms about telling a lie, and I wonder how do they sleep at night??????

      • potemkin_village_usa

        Thanks for your comment Mari Jo! Perhaps you’d like to give your Congressional Delegation a call and tell them what you think. If you really feel frisky, give Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office a call and give them a piece of your mind!!
        The Congressional Switchboard number is: (202)-224-3121 and ask to be connected to any member of Congress and the Senate.

      • Mikal Gastpipe

        They sleep JUST FINE, I’m betting! After all, the GOAL of SOCIALISTS is to PANDER to their MUSHROOMS, feed them PLENTY of COMPOST and keep them in the dark, like the good little MUSHROOMS they are! Oh and NEVER being held to account. SOCIALISM DEPENDS on IGNORANCE and RACISM to succeed, to FLOURISH! PLUS, their EXTRA PAYCHECK from Nazi-boy Soros EASES the sting of their PUNY government paychecks…as LONG as they TOE the line!

  • D Parri

    “SPECIAL NEWS ALERT!” “SPECIAL NEWS ALERT!” “SPECIAL NEWS…!”

    Today Obama announced his plans to implement a follow-up to the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, and stated that the ACA-II is coming on the heels of the ACA-I (Obamacare) as a result of the tremendous success of the healthcare reform bill that was passed three years ago.

    The ACA-II, or Affordable Car Act, will be modeled upon ACA-I, and it will also contain government mandates similar to the now-popular requirement for all persons to be covered by insurance. Likewise, the ACA-II will require all cars to contain specific options in order to meet the requirements of the law. Those automobiles which are currently permitted but do not comply with the strict criteria set forth in the law and its accompanying regulations will no longer be licensed and must be scrapped. Federal subsidies will be available to help with the purchase of new, compliant vehicles, and these will be made available to those who currently do not own their own automobile. It is anticipated that participation in the “ObamaCar” program will be near 100% and, owing to this high rate of response, costs for individual consumers will be cut by 75%, meaning that most people will be able to purchase a Cadillac with all the options for about $2,500.
    As President Obama stated, “I wish they had this program when I was growing up. I certainly don’t mind paying more and getting more…even if I have to pay for things that I don’t want or need.”

  • Big Truck Joe

    For whomever is negatively affected by the Obamacare roll out and the Healthcare.gov website debacle, you should file a Qui Tam whistleblower suit claiming fraud and overcharging by the CGI software company. How is this any different from charging $100 for a hammer? I’m sure is subpoenaed you could find some intention to deceive the government on the part of the software company(s) in order to receive financial benefit. Come on slimy lawyers out their, get on this!

  • Big Truck Joe

    The only thing assured in Washington is that the Republicans will get the blame and if the Democrats are at fault, then nobody’s really to blame at that point. President Obama could say the sun rises in the West and the Media would blame the Republicans for making a big deal out of nothing, highlight their infighting, and Obama would just give another interview to a sycophantic press stenographer and say what he meant to say is that if you were looking in a mirror at sunrise you would think the sun were rising in the west. See its all just a misunderstanding by you fly-over dopes. This country is over when a president can outright lie to the people causing pain and suffering and financial disruption to millions and nothing is done about it in the press.

  • Big Truck Joe

    But Ted Cruz was right, wasnt he?

  • D Parri

    I think Nazi Pelosi said it best as to their determination and willingness of the Demo-heads to do whatever it takes to get the bill passed.

    “Let’s remove all doubt, we will have health care — one way or another,”…. Nancy Pelosi

    Now, does that mean lie? You bet! The only thing I want to know is whether there is supposed to be “Period” following her statement?

  • TOMMY FREEDOM

    I WAS AN INSURANCE AGENT, IF I LIED TO SELL A POLICY, MY LICENSE
    WOULD BE REVOKED AND I COULD FACE TIME IN JAIL. FOR FRAUD.
    DOES MR OBAMA HAVE AN INSURANCE LICENSE TO SELL A POLICY?

  • potemkin_village_usa

    OBAMA VIOLATES CONSTITUTION:
    TAKES $5.6 BILLION FROM INDIANA PENSIONERS

    __The Pension fund of the Indiana State Police along with the Indiana State Teacher’s retirement fund was unlawfully taken by the Obama administration in the reorganization of Chrysler. They chose, along with the Indiana state Attorney General, to sue the United States Government for the unlawful taking and the unconstitutional interference with an established contract.
    __Chrysler had accumulated such a large debt that it became
    apparent that they couldn’t repay that debt. Bankruptcy law requires that the
    company, in bankruptcy, is required to sell of all of the assets to the highest
    bid made for those assets. Chrysler’s bonds are debt instruments sold to the
    holders from the makers at Chrysler. There is a hierarchy under the law of whom will be paid back first, and, who will be paid back last and all subsequent
    places in this line there in between. The Retirement funds for the Teachers and the Police are what is called “secured” bonds and are, by law, first to be
    compensated in a bankruptcy, where common stock is paid next and all other
    unsecured holders are paid back last with preferred shareholders in the middle.
    __The Obama Whitehouse has already set up its extra legal czars and counsel to suspend constitutional law with executive orders and lots of gangster-esque balls. They tell these bondholders that the law has been superseded by the president and they will do what the president says they will do. The law has been superseded and that’s final. Legally binding contracts, which are a right, under Article 1 section 10 of the US Constitution were violated by the Obama administration effectively taking $5.6 billion in retirement from the Indiana State Police , and, The Indiana State Teachers.
    __IRS audits were made and threats from the DOJ were forwarded to those who protested this usurpation of constitutional authority through the violation of the contract clause and bankruptcy laws.
    ****Justice Ginsburg wrote the refusal to hear the case by SCOTUS. Go figure!!

  • MarioG

    The most hilarious segments in the O’Reilly Factor are when Bernie’s good friend, Bill “To be fair” O’Reilly, a.k.a Ted O’Baxter, turns into a pretzel to claim, with a straight face, that Obama was deceptive and misleading – 29 times – but that he didn’t lie :-))

    LOL! I think Bill may get another interview with Obama now.

  • Royalsfan67

    But now that everyone can see what a disaster the entire program is, wont Ted Cruz and the other tea party leaders get some credit for being out front on this issue?

    • Mari Jo O’Neill

      They will not get any credit, they will get blamed for this “debacle” and Obama will just go along and nothing will happen. The MSM will still ass-kiss and it will go on & on. In the end Obama will probably blame George Bush.

  • Gloria

    Yes T Ko, period means ‘the end’ & ‘there ain’t’ no more’. It means no ifs, ands, or buts – if you like your plan you can keep it UNLESS – as in my case (and I am not alone) the insurer no longer OFFERS that plan. So how can I keep it if I get a letter saying UNEQUIVOCALLY that as of 12/31/13 your plan is over and cannot be renewed so you better find another. OR you can have a ‘similar’ plan, but it’s going to cost you $154 per month more than it did for the last two years you enjoyed it. But our esteemed commando in thief didn’t say that did he? Thanks Democruds for this new health care disaster.

    • legal eagle

      Stop whining…now you will have the ability to get medication to stop your moaning and groaning….After the subsidy you’ll be paying less…

    • D Parri

      You can pretty much ignore Legal Weasel. He’s a loyal Obama ass-kisser who supports only one agenda–King Obama. Pathetic.

  • T Ko

    Someone asked earlier what they thought it meant when a person say “Period” after making a statement. I have always interpreted that as meaning that there were no ‘qualifiers’ that had to be added to their statement, i.e., it was an unequivocal statement.

    If there is anyone else out there with a different interpretation of the “Period” interjectory, please weigh in here. I’d like to see how others take it to mean.

  • D Parri

    As Bernie has stated it, either Obama lied or he was extremely incompetent. I would argue against incompetence. After all, a law professor, licensed attorney, community organizer, senator, and President of the United States…incompetent?

    He is still able to draw hoards of demo-head supporters that are willing to repeat his mantra of lies in the face of an opposing reality. Is that not a special talent or what? He ain’t no run-of-the-mill lying politician…he’s a special breed.

    • MarioG

      He is either incompetent due to his affirmative action past, or he is causing all this mayhem around the world deliberately. Saul Alinsky must be smiling in his mausoleum.

      • D Parri

        My bet is on deliberate. It appears to be part of a greater plan he is working towards to promote socialism. I would say that would qualify for a ‘fundamental transformation’ of the American government and society.

  • Gloria

    Yes – just like the Pied Piper of Hamelin…..except instead of leading the rats out of town, he stole the innocent children. It is scary.

    • D Parri

      Yes, Ma’am. The ‘innocent children’ have now become voters who listened to Obama play his ‘sweet tune’, promising them everything–that they wanted to hear.

      Higher taxes? No, but he will make up for it with a mandated insurance payment. Greater ‘transparency’? Sure, eventually everyone will be able to see through his lies and deceit.

      You are absolutely right…it is scary. The worst part is that so many Demo-heads are still following along the same path and repeating whatever talking points are put out by the Whitehouse propaganda crews. They either have not woken up yet, or they are willing to run headlong into the death spiral that Obama has created for our nation.

  • D Parri

    Bernie, why do I–every time I think about Obama lying directly to the American people in order to sell them his plan–get this vision of a flautist merrily dancing down Main Street, USA, with millions of people following him as they travel downhill.

    Many are dressed in “I Love Obama” and “Support King Obama” t-shirts. Some of the bits of dialogue overheard as the people pass by include comments like, “Isn’t this great!”, “My policy costs less than a cellphone now!”, and one of the most repeated, “I could have kept my policy–if I wanted to.”

    I have this nagging feeling that this is just a bad dream gone awry, but it is almost surreal and I am worried that it could someday come true. What gives?

  • Gloria

    Just like the lie that the penalty for not enrolling is not a tax, it’s a penalty – unless of course the Supremes say it’s a tax in order to keep the fraud going. So when is a penalty not a penalty? When this administration needs it to be tax, then it’s not a penalty. When can you keep your current health care plan? When this administration needs votes to pass a law that quite obviously does NOT let you keep the plan you have since the insurers have to make those changes mandated by the new law, and can no longer offer what you already have? Confused yet? Just a bunch of words, that’s all folks! But false words carry consequences. I am one who got a letter stating that my plan was ‘no longer available’ to me, so now I have to boogaloo to get a new one! MY PLAN WAS GREAT, NOT A LOUSY PLAN. Can I keep it? No.

    • D Parri

      Perhaps a class-action involving say…millions of disaffected taxpayers might help recompense you and others for your current and future losses. I am not an authority at all regarding such lawsuits, but I would be willing to bet that there are plenty who are ready and waiting for the opportunity. Good luck to you.

    • Gloria

      Thanks……what a pain in the neck to have to do this all over again. For two years it was a very satisfactory plan, and now I have to start shopping – or I can have one very “similar” they say, except of course it will cost $1850.00 more per year!

  • D Parri

    Bernie, in answer to your question about why Kathleen Sebelius still has her job, it appears to be the norm for Obama, he insulates himself with people who are apparently quite loyal to him. If their loyalty were to show any waning, then I don’t believe that they would be long for the world of Obama. However, in order to keep their jobs they are willing to take a few bullets for the ‘big guy’. Integrity has nothing to do with it…only holding onto a job.

  • D Parri

    This is a poll of the folks here on this forum.

    What complications do you envision ensuing as a result of the loss of coverage for millions of Americans?

    Do you anticipate the initiation of any lawsuit or legal action taken up either by individual or class representation against the U.S. government as a result of the ACA?

    • D Parri

      There will be administrative nightmares for people who sign up. Premium payment records will be so widely dispersed–without a centralized accounting system–that it could take months before a policy is deemed to be “paid up”. Reimbursements to doctors will be an even worse picture to imagine.

    • Jeff Webb

      One answer I have to offer: there are already lawsuits by parties fighting the infringement of their 1st Amendment rights (Hobby Lobby being one of them).
      I wouldn’t be surprised if there are plenty of others to come for other reasons.

      • D Parri

        Yes, I agree. It will probably pick up as Obama’s base of support slowly erodes.

    • Paul Courtney

      OK, I’ll bite. No complications, soon as website fixed all those who were swindled by evil ins. companies will get way better coverage for less, just a few glitches along the way (such as, site won’t get fixed, and those who apply on clay tablets will pay more) until Hillary ’16 saves us all, blaming failure (well, not “failure” failure) on evil ins. companies, turns all hospitals (they’ll be evil then, too) into people’s republic free clinics. She’ll win, promising we can keep our doctors under her plan, 51% of dolts will agree only to discover in ’17 that she was putting that in context. Namely, you can keep your doc if you can make appt in Mexico! Wish I was kidding.

      • D Parri

        Yeah, I wish you were kidding also, but it appears too much a possibility to be able to laugh very loud.

        On the flip side, maybe the opportunity for a shuttle flight business in and out of Mexico could be opening up. Why not mix a little R&R with the six-month health checkup and get a tax write-off for the whole deal as a “medical expense”?

  • D Parri

    The problems have just begun. Do you think it has been a tumultuous, rocky road so far? As the BTO rock ballad said, “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet”.

    Where are the legions of lawyers who are lining up for the lawsuit festival just about to begin? It won’t take long for the people who have lost their health insurance coverage to start having their medical bills start piling up. No coverage, reduced or non-existing savings to draw upon, and faced with the prospect of buying a policy with unneeded areas of coverage at a price too high for them to be able to work into their budgets. These will not be happy people.

    Not to mention the increase in policies taken out and then canceled within the first few months by the insurer for non-payment. Will the collection processes prove fruitful enough to pursue that avenue for securing company revenues? It would certainly take a large bite out of company profits. Whenever the profit margin either dries up or goes south it can mean only one thing. That’s right, prices will need to increase. And so it goes. The cost of coverage goes up for consumers, defaults on contract trends upward, and then the price of the products follow suit in order to bring the company profits back in sight. And the cycle is completed and begins once again.

  • D Parri

    “I wasn’t on the “Repeal ObamaCare” bandwagon.”

    Ok, Bernie, how about joining the “Impeach Obama” bandwagon?

    • MarioG

      Hey, hey, hey! Bernie and his good buddy, Bill “To be fair” O’Reilly, a.k.a. Ted O’Baxter, are COMMITTED to be fair to Obama, no matter what he says or does :-)) O’Reilly has vowed to “look out for the folks” by giving the one guy who is screwing millions of “folks” the benefit of every doubt.

  • D Parri

    It seems there are a great number of talking heads who are still trying to put a spin on the truth and make it come out looking like either Hussein Obama did not know the reality of his namesake legacy legislation or he did know and chose to speak those “untruths” until the sh*t hit the fan. I believe that he absolutely knew everything there was to know about its real impact as well as everything that was headed ‘down the pike’. Here are a few reasons why.

    First, Obama is a skillful speaker and he is very much in command of his words, especially those talking points that are repeatedly driven into the minds and conscientious of the public. So, there is no possibility that he ever made an error, inadvertent or otherwise, when addressing the American people. Draw your own conclusions regarding the proper terminology to use, but what he said was not a simple ‘mistake’.

    Second, Obama is artful in making his ‘sell’ to the American people and his craft renders him the knowledge necessary to recognize the most effective ‘hook’ and how to set it with his target audiences. It is most odd to me the number of people that will always fall for a pitch that consists entirely of just the right words that promise them whatever they want. In this case, a mere promise to “keep your plan”, “keep your doctor”, etc., was all that was needed to sell his product en masse–so much so that he was also able to win a second term just on the basis of this false promise. “Obamacare will improve healthcare for everybody.” Period. Who wouldn’t want that? Who could believe it?
    Third, the dialogue has now changed and will continue to change as reality begins to set in for millions of Americans. The “keep your old plan” pitch has now necessarily turned to the more up to date “your healthcare will be better” pitch. What seems most disingenuous is the justification that some are using that claims the policies which millions of consumers have already seen canceled ‘were not true healthcare plans’, or ‘they didn’t meet the minimum standards of the ACA.’ Really? So, now as a male I will have maternity coverage and that will help make it a ‘true healthcare plan’?

    Obama is an insurance salesman, to be sure. The goal of all insurance salespeople is to sell coverage. Before Obamacare it was possible to purchase the coverage that was right for the individual, family, or group. That will no longer be possible. Everyone will buy everything, i.e., coverage-wise.
    That is the key to the fourth point I want to make. Obama knew what the model for policies would look like, and in seeing that new standard established he understood that increased coverage would equate to increased costs. There it is–the set. In making the pitch to a nation which is already seeing this increasing belt-tightening of a shrinking economy, he knew that in order to score a home-run it would demand an offer of personal savings for one and all. Well, it worked. “Premiums will go down”, and the average American family should see a decrease of $2,500 annually, on average. That’s how you sell ice to an Eskimo. More coverage, less cost, and no changes from what you currently have. What?

    So, did Obama know that his promises would not materialize for most people? Absolutely. Then why would he lie about that? Easy, he needed to sell his product. I would say that he probably should be inducted into the Hall of Fame for Great Insurance Salespeople. He has passed them all.

  • barry soetoro

    After NSA, IRS, Benghazi, 30 other blatant crimes which I don’t feel like naming b/c it’s too much typing, and now OBAMACARE, anybody who can’t admit Obamatollah is purposely sabotaging the USA is either #1 A moron; or #2 A paid shill for the Obama Regime.

    • barry soetoro

      Soetoro is supplying WEAPONS TO AL-QAEDA (in Syria) for pete’s sake!

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    The Demagogues passed ObamaCare only because they got 60 seats in the Senate. Unless/until Republicans get 60 seats there, they won’t be able to “repeal” it.
    Maybe they can pass a law stating “No law requiring a payment to the government shall be valid under the power of Congress to levy and collect taxes unless the payment itself is specifically called a “tax.” That undercut’s Justice Roberts’ silly argument.

    • Jeff Webb

      Vivian, you just posted one of the most impressive comments I’ve ever read here! Kudos.

    • Tim

      The law should have been sent back to congress. Re written to state it was a tax and then voted on again as a TAX. It never would have passed. End of story

  • Paul Courtney

    Bernie: Some ask, how was T Cruz wrong to oppose this fiasco. He may have had a point, but progressive press would have none of that. Cruz and TP apparently unaware of press treatment of Gingrich shutdown, utterly failed to calculate the press savagery. Oh, and Ted, when you try to take some credit for something you think was gained from this, better ask Newt how much credit press gives him for the “Clinton” surplus. The pp also explains why Obama is perfectly comfortable with bald faced lies. He knows it will quickly pass if covered at all. WaPo may give him 4 Pinochios today, and 60 Minutes (finally) discovered Benghazi (by the way, the truth there must be terrible based on the depth of the cover up), but will they follow it up? Will they try to turn either story into a daily drip, like Valerie Plame? We have our answer, unfortunately, we can compare post Katrina Bush bashing to post Sandy nothing to see here.

    • D Parri

      Yes, that’s why Pres O granted 1 year delays in the mandates for corporations. He didn’t want to piss off the corporate media types before the 2014 elections.

  • GreyHairandGreyMatter

    Why do you think that I justifiably/constructively refer to president Obama as “The Prevaricator-in Chief?”

  • http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/ MerchantofVenom

    Dem’s created ObamaCare, they voted for it, rammed a bill of this magnitude down our throats without one Republican vote, and the Supremes said it was constitutional. Remember when Barry vehemently asserted it was not a tax and the Supremes said it was? You know, in the same vein as you can keep your doctor and health plan, and of course we all watched it on C-Span just like Barry said we would.

    What really irks me…in the recent government shutdown fiasco the Dem’s and the Supreme Court have decreed ObamaCare is not good enough for them. It’s only good for the “serfs” in their kingdom. How Americans even with the help of the MSM siding with Barry fall for this crap is beyond me.

    Some Americans are starting to realize Obama is nothing but a fraud. That’s all he ever was, that’s all he’ll ever be.

    • D Parri

      Yeah, I think Hussein also fits him well. He seems to be working for someone other than the American people, and “Hussein” doesn’t sound very occidental.

    • ZaMan

      Racist Right Plays Holier than thou for the 18181th Time Against Obama!
      First off, It’s right to point out the President Obama lied about his health care plan.
      He is in his second term, he cannot run for President anymore. So this “costing him his Presidency” is a fairy tale.
      He is no different than his predecessors when it comes to lies. I swear politicians take a course in how to lie. Politicians don’t always tell the truth, they lie and they spin. And that is sad because people let them do it.
      Is the ACA a failure? Kind of premature to call it , but there will be those who will call it that regardless because some refuse to move beyond the partisan divide in this country.
      Pervious Presidents including Reagan, Clinton, George Washington, and all the others make statements they can’t back up.
      GWB was in office on 9/11/01. 2977 American’s died. He never owned any responsibility for the attacks due to all the pre-attack evidence provided to him that he ignored. Instead it is always, “Clinton’s fault because he failed in the 1990s to kill Osama Bin Laden”
      GWB lied about WMDs and led us into a war. Then declaring in ’03 that “mission accomplished” and the “major military operations in Iraq has ended” Following that speech of victory, over 4300 American soldiers have died. Instead its only about 4 Americans in Bengasi.
      I refuse to go on.
      It is just your and the others here, right wing utter hatred for Obama that clouds your judgment and prospective.
      I admitted that Obama lies. He’s a politican…All politicans lies, but what I won’t stand is that he is called a liar by the exact same hypocrites who lie about the President on a daily basis. Lies about his ideology, his birth place, his birth certificate, his religion, his layolity to America, and now, the way he beat Romney in the 2012 election.
      So in closing, you hypocritical racists are in NO position to be calling Barack Obama a liar of any kind, when for the last four years, he has faced constant, unrelenting, mean-spirited, dishonest criticism since before he took office and every day since. His patriotism has been questioned by every member of the right wing echo chamber especially FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, every single day he has served. He has been called a socialist, communist, Nazi, Marxist, traitor, foreign, un-American, liar, magic negro, halfrican and worse. He has suffered innumerable lies about his ideology, religion, family and even his place of birth. No other president in the history of this country has faced such unfounded open hostility and disrespect. No other president has ever been called a liar by a member of congress during a State of the Union, no other president has had to show his birth certificate…repeatedly.

      • D Parri

        Yes, he has been attacked repeatedly and viciously. He can take a look at Bush’s experience as two-times President of the United States–and beyond. Obama is in for many more years of the same thing–and it ain’t gettin’ no better!

      • http://hemingwayreport.blogspot.com/ MerchantofVenom

        First off, it’s right to point out that Obama lied about his health care plan, which was the only point in your whole dissertation that made any sense.

      • potemkin_village_usa

        How about some proof with your accusations!! My health care plan was cancelled and the one that I can get now costs me nearly twice as much with an increased deductible of over three times. My letter from my carrier says that the plan’s cancellation is due to the new mandates in the, so called, affordable care act. It sure as hell isn’t affordable for me!! It might be working for lazy asses physically fit, half my age, who are gaming the system with a Medicaid plan, sitting in their basement in their drawers writing drivel like this on the internet!!

        • legal eagle

          Keep whining…..

  • Uplinktruck

    Right on Bernie.

  • Rockingham

    In law, a finding of fraud can also be based on deliberate indifference to the truth — an attitude that is ingrained in Obama, in his administration, and in the Democratic party. They need only say what sounds good for their immediate political purposes for it to be repeated as if true by a complaisant news media. The end result is a pathological level of dishonesty from Obama and his allies that begins with indifference to the truth and seamlessly transitions into flagrant lies.

  • potemkin_village_usa

    Ah Yes ‘The Uniform Commercial Code’ Fraud in the Inducement!! which voids out the contract!!

    __Fraud in the Inducement: “…The Intent to, and,
    which causes someone to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression
    it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment”.
    ***Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s
    Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
    __ Fraud in Fact by Deceit (Obfuscation and Denial) and Theft:
    FRAUD. Deceit. Concealing something or making a false representation with an evil intent [scanter] when it causes injury to another”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
    “THE TORT OF FRAUDULENT DECEIT… Elements of actionable deceit are: 1.) False representation of a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity,or
    2.) recklessly, or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth, and with
    intent to induce reliance thereon, on which plaintiff justifiably relies on his
    injury…”:
    *** (Please see: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge:
    Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Deceit’.)
    __FRAUD IN THE FACTUM:
    Fraud in the Factum which is a type of fraud where misrepresentation causes one to enter a transaction without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred. (Please see Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Pocket ed. 2001 pg. 293). This can be when the maker or drawer of a negotiable instrument, such as ‘The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,’ is induced to sign and perform under an instrument without a reasonable opportunity to learn of its fraudulent character or essential terms( we must pass the bill so we can find out what is in it). The determination of whether an act constitutes Fraud in the Factum depends upon the consideration of “all relevant factors.”

    NOTE: Fraud in the Factum usually voids the instrument under state law and is a real defense against even a holder in due course.

    • legal eagle

      And what contract do you have with Obama?

      • Paul Courtney

        Are you kidding? A lawyer, unaware of the Compact that is our Constitution? You really should wipe your feet, you stepped in a pile this time.

        • legal eagle

          Good luck with that argument….

          • Paul Courtney

            No luck needed, it’s not even an argument. “We the people” established a Constitution, Obama took an oath to uphold it, “offer and acceptance” sound familiar? You like to demonstrate your ignorance of grade school civics, counselor? You evidently like the smell coming from your shoe-better taste it to make sure.

          • Bob Hadley

            To call the COTUS a compact is a stretch. It’s more accurate to call it a legal framework setting parameters for the governance of the nation. You can arguably call the COTUS and the laws arising therefrom as providing the basis of the “social contract.” But that is a different matter.
            Whatever you wish to call the COTUS and assuming that Pres. Obama flat-out lied to the American people in order to gin up support for Obamacare, that does not constitute Fraud in the Inducement (or any of the other causes of action he cites) as set forth by Potemkin. And, of course, Legal Eagle was replying to Potemkin’s attempt at analysis.
            Potemkin was quoting the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs commercial transactions between buyers and a sellers. Arguably, an analogy of sorts between Congress and a buyer possibly could be made in passing the ACA. But, in this analogy, the American people are not the buyer. If a corporation enters into a contract to buy a product and if the corporation launches a propaganda campaign to its stockholders to win over support for the purchase, however deceitful it may be, the deceit does not void the purchase. Of course, this is not a complete analogy, but it’ll do. :)
            I think Bernie’s article was intended metaphorically, and to apply it literally is simply folly.

          • legal eagle

            Thank you for your explanation of the law…think it will make a difference to the geniuses who read Goldberg?

          • Paul Courtney

            Bob reads here, so do you. That’s at least one non-genius.

          • Bob Hadley

            Duh! Which way did he go George?

          • Paul Courtney

            “Folly” is to give a direct answer to a direct question from a lefty lawyer, and expect an intelligent reply, so I’m guilty of folly. You are not a lefty lawyer, so worth engaging. I’m not looking to sue gov’t or Obama, there’s this sovereign immunity thing. And suing a sitting U.S. Pres. doesn’t happen, as we were told during Clinton yrs, maybe Mr. eagle learned that when he got his law degree from that Nigerian fellow who needed help getting the $19,000,000 from the frozen account. Any how, back to the point-the Constitution can be described more than one way, you acknowledge it as a social contract, we agree. The fraud in inducement argument is a metaphor for Bernie, and maybe potemkin (I didn’t read beyond “see more”, ’cause voiding ACA under UCC not available remedy). Only remedy for ACA is repeal, also not presently available; only remedy for Obama is impeachment, also not presently available. See, I dabble in folly, but am a realist. Reality is, you and I will see ACA lay waste to an already sick health care system, and we’ll hope to live long enough to find a doctor in the rubble left by gov’t, ins. cos. and pharmacy cos..

          • Bob Hadley

            Time will tell. We’re in a state of transition, as far as Obamacare is concerned. During a transition period there’s bound to be drawbacks. Look at what happened during the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial one.
            Three years or so from now Obamacare may prove much better than the system or non-system we’re currently moving away from. Of course, I doubt there’s any flawless health care system.
            We’ll see.

          • D Parri

            Time will bear this truth to be self-evident, but OCare is simply a stepping-stone for Pres O and the Demo-heads. The ultimate goal is destruction of the private healthcare insurance industry, failure of the OCare system, and finally the establishment of a single-payer social medicine system.

          • legal eagle

            You are hoping for failure because you disagree with the policy…just like you probably were hoping the economy would fail so you could blame Obama…BTW the POTUS does not pass legislation, Congress does….

          • legal eagle

            Go sue the government so you can be laughed out of court

          • potemkin_village_usa

            If he has standing in court, he can sue the government, through the same laws as thousands have done, and, will continue to do!!

          • legal eagle

            Offer and acceptance…What was the offer?

          • potemkin_village_usa

            You are a shill who preys on the ignorance of others!!

        • legal eagle

          The SCOTUS may rule on POTUS actions…after the POTUS acts and after lower courts rule….
          That’s the system….

        • potemkin_village_usa

          I do not believe that he’s a lawyer!!

          • legal eagle

            What would convince you?

      • potemkin_village_usa

        The real question is: what contract does Obama have with our Constitution? His oath of office!!

        • legal eagle

          His interpretation of the Constitution…just like every other President..

          • potemkin_village_usa

            The Judicial branch interprets the Constitution, not the Executive! Every other president is subject to the judiciary’s interpretation of the US Constitution!!

          • potemkin_village_usa

            The Judicial branch interprets the Constitution, not the Executive! Every other president is subject to the judiciary’s interpretation of the US Constitution!!

      • potemkin_village_usa

        SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM BEING IMPEACHED, REMOVED, AND PERHAPS INCARCERATED!!
        __Perhaps, as you seemingly allude to, that the President is protected by sovereign immunity; the average citizen, as a general rule, cannot sue him in court for what he does in his official capacity. However, that does not absolve him of committing fraud in factum now does it? Fraud in Factum, Fraud in the inducement and fraud in the intent, however, can be used to impeach a president and remove him from office. This is what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors” which is not only actionable by the congress but if sufficient evidence exists that a crime has been committed by any gov’t official, including the President of the United States, he, like any citizen found guilty of a crime, can be prosecuted.
        __To answer your comment in regard to what contract we have with the President! The founders referred to the constitution on several occasions as a social contract between the government and the governed. The people cede a small degree of rights to the government in order for there to be social order while the government agrees that it will follow the law in regard to the “social contract” with the people in carrying out the law; nothing more, nothing less.
        *****Question: How many federal officials in the tenure of this republic have been impeached, removed from office and imprisoned? The answer will surprise you!!

        • legal eagle

          As an attorney all I can say is that your argument is theoretical nonsense…
          If you want to make nonsensical arguments find a fellow tea bagger to waste your time on…

          • potemkin_village_usa

            You are not an attorney!! Where’s your proof on what you just said? Also, personal insults are not arguments, they are called fallacies. Ad-hominem comments are personal and non-substantive. What part is theoretical and what part is nonsense?

          • legal eagle

            It would appear you welcome insult with your nonsensical and childish legal theories….

        • legal eagle

          How many in the past 50 years?

          • potemkin_village_usa

            Don’t beg the question, and, don’t change the subject. Look it up, you’ll be astounded!! You are not an attorney!!

        • legal eagle

          You want to sue based on a “social contract”? You have no contract with the President…Congress passes laws not the President…

          • potemkin_village_usa

            Read comment before responding. Your strawman characterizations are apparent. You are good example of how the left employees fallacies in confounding the national discussion on health care.
            __You use the ad-hominem (personal attack) fallacy; the strawman fallacy; respond out of narrative and out of context fallacy; answer questions not asked fallacy. You’re a shrimp compared to the heavy hitters like Jay Carney who constructs complex fallacies. I’d like to thank you for allowing me to make an example of you so people who read this blog can understand the subterfuge employed by the progressive left.
            ****I challenge you to grow up and stop being a tool, a useful idiot for the disengenuine progressive left. Start thinking for yourself!! And stop wasting everyone’s time!!

      • potemkin_village_usa

        “Let them eat cake” you say?

  • 633

    The President accidentally misspoke 13 times. What he meant to say was you can keep your healthcare if I like it. Otherwise you’re SOL.

  • LHS

    This administration is a pack of criminals that should already be doing prison time.
    There is no accountability, no penalties, no justice here. This is treasonous.

  • Tim Ned

    My agent warned me a few months ago that our rates would increase about 40%. He’s now warning probably higher or even worse, cancellation as we are a small company of 20 employees. Bernie, I wasn’t on the “Repeal ObamaCare” wagon either. But I’m rethinking that position. Maybe Cruz is the only smart one in DC!

  • bobjr4freedom

    Good newsletter Bernie but even though GOP made it hard thru repeal.I think there still going to win out in the end and they won’t have to do a thing.

    • Wheels55

      I think at the time of the government shut down, most people blamed Republicans and Cruz was the face of that effort to defund Obamacare. Since then, I bet most Americans can see why he wanted to do that. Republicans need to be careful from here on out. Totally doing away with Obamacare may not sit too well with most folks since many like the pre-existing conditions provision. Reworking the whole thing might fly – like just keeping the two or three things that seem good and throwing out the rest.

      • legal eagle

        Why did Cruz want to defund Obamacare…because he gives a crap about you? You’re living in a dream world…

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Why did Obama sign Obamacare into law? Because he gives a crap about you? You’re living in a dream world.

          • legal eagle

            Yes he does….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. You’ve overdosed on the kool-aid, man.

          • legal eagle

            So Obama’s motivation is different than that of FDR, JFK and LBJ when they advocated for and passed Social Security and Medicare?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I believe that Obama’s motivation is to go down in the history books as an FDR-like president who created a big government social program. That’s it.

            I don’t think he gives a crap who is actually helped by it, who is hurt badly by it, how much taxpayer money is spent on it, how badly it hurts our economy, how much it burdens future generations of Americans, how bad the quality of healthcare gets, whether or not the program is sustainable, etc.

            President Obama has proven to be a very naive, totally irresponsible president who can’t ever be bothered to ever consider the ramification of his decisions.

            And yes, that’s an opinion.

          • legal eagle

            Well I think that’s a great goal….I’m sure you would say the same negative crap about Social Security and Medicare…Anything that helps a vast number of Americans to live a better life is, in your opinion, a negative….
            I hope your medical insurance program covers empathy deficiency because your empathy level is below that of most reasonable and thoughtful people…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Spare me the violins.

            I’m not against safety-net programs, legal eagle. What I’m against is catastrophic dependency on insolvent programs that are stealing our children’s future right out from under them.

            I want programs like Social Security FIXED… not ended. Hell, I don’t know if of ANYONE who wants it ENDED, despite all of the shameless demagogues on the left who insist that’s the ultimate plan of conservatives.

            If that program could be started all over again, I would have supported a different route – something that puts more power in the hands of the people and more reliance on the private sector, but it is what it is.

            Legal, if you honestly wanted to help a “vast number of Americans” you would be a conservative. You wouldn’t be some un-self-aware, bleeding-heart liberal who supports massive dependency on a government that can’t sustain it.

            People like me believe that the creation of wealth and opportunity is the best way to help the disadvantaged. Look at India for a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Tens of millions of people there lifted themselves out of poverty, and not by receiving government entitlements. They did it through free markets and free trade, aka an atmosphere that embraced capitalism.

            And when a society enjoys wealth (not stripped of it) more and more people are helped through charity.

            You, on the other hand, want an environment where the takers outnumber the makers, no one strives to better their own lives, and those who work hard and create things are burdened with the crushing responsibility of supporting those who don’t.

            I don’t question your intentions. I really don’t (which is something that often separates conservatives from liberals). I just deeply question your logic, because economic liberalism has very little of that.

            As Dennis Miller once said, “I want to help the helpless… not the clueless.”

            I don’t want to confiscate enormous amounts of wealth from people who earned it, funnel it through a massive, wasteful government bureaucracy, and feel content that a fraction of those who receive what’s left over genuinely NEED it in order to get by.

            I don’t consider that type of thing to be empathy.

          • Integrity

            You forgot QED! He is enslaved by his ideology and always will be. He is incapable of independent thinking. In his world, Obama can do no wrong. QED

          • legal eagle

            The great political thinker Dennis Miller is your source of wisdom?
            The takers outnumber the makers because the makers don’t want to pay a living wage…in fact they don’t even want to pay them a minimum wage…
            Tell me this…are the hundreds of thousands Wal-Mart and McDonald’s workers on food stamps and Medicaid takers? Your so naïve you don’t know that the government is subsidizing the richest family in America…

          • Tim Ned

            Here is the difference. You want flipping burgers a living wage. And what is a living wage? There was a time working at the hardware store, flipping burgers, or pumping gas was a means to help young people make money. Today they don’t have to. I paid my own way through college in these jobs. But now they can barrow every dime without working! Can you see this debt disaster on the horizon?

            But you want to make flipping burgers a living wage. You want families condemned to work at these mediocre jobs for life because you place value in these jobs, not the people.This is what they do in Europe. I see it in many of the factories I visit. They live in the crappy govt housing, free city buses, free health care, free education if you accept the education they appoint for you.So you end up in the factory with the socialists “Living wage”, a 50-60 percent income tax and a 27 percent VAT.

            No matter what you socialists think, you only make these peoples lives better when you stay out of their lives and let them complete and make the employers compete.

            What’s interesting, you socialist would never accept the living wage that you promote!

            You continue to question the intellect of those posting on this website. But it says much more of yours when you question those that disagrees with you. And when pushed you make quotes “subsidizing the richest….” with no facts to back up what you quote. You form opinions base upon your narrow political views. And poo poo any comment that does not agree with yours as it is obvious to you, you are smarter.

            I read your posts and I see comments written by a child. I have many liberal friends. They have positions based upon knowledge of the facts. But you seem to either have no experience in the real world to which you can provide a reasonable discussion to the points you make.

            Have you ever worked at a McDonalds or Wal-Mart? I did!

          • legal eagle

            What you or I did many years ago to pay for college is the current condition..

            You might consider reading this BusinessWeek article regarding how taxpayers subsidize the richest family in America,the Waltons

            http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-03/are-american-taxpayers-subsidizing-walmarts-low-wages

          • tim ned

            I Read the article but you didn’t. Now you can add more medicare to the subsidies because you want Obamacare. This new health care act is going to subsidize more of these workers. This is Europe 101. Frankly I don’t care about McDonalds and Wal-Mart and I believe we need to end the subsidies. But unfortunately you people with no experience will pass more legislation so that employees get more benefits like Obamacare.

            But my question to you. Once again I ask, do you believe flipping burgers and walmart is a livable wage? And if so what is the livable wage amount?

          • legal eagle

            If Wal-Mart and McDonalds paid the same wages and benefits as Costco far less of their workers would be on public assistance. That I believe is $12 an hour to start…

          • Tim Ned

            Once again I have to ask, what is the livable wage? Honestly, I wish the market condemned the McDonalds and Walmarts to compete for employees. My son worked in a McDonalds 15 years ago at over $10.00 per hour. That same McDonalds pays today about the same. Why, they don’t have to compete for employees. But you liberals will never understand this. You need laws because you are totally ignorant of the free market philosophies. I believe we should have laws that attorneys cannot exceed an hourly rate of $50.00 in place of the rates by Washington attorneys soaking our national treasury. I think lobbyists should be outlawed. I think subsidies should be outlawed so Walmart and McDonalds must compete for employees with Costco.

            But no, you just voted for the very thing you preach against.

          • legal eagle

            The “free” market doesn’t always work except to right wing ideologues…Wall Street is a great example of the “free market” gone awry….

          • legal eagle

            What’s a Medicare subsidy?

          • Tim Ned

            Correction, I should have said health care subsidies which they will now receive because you support Obamacare! I can’t believe liberal policies. You vote in the subsidies and then cry fowl because people use them

          • legal eagle

            You are living in fantasyland….I didn’t work at McDonalds and there are no Wal-Mart’s in New York because they wont pay decent wages..,Again, the richest family in America pays lousy wages with little if any benefits…That’s a fact…

          • legal eagle

            As I said Obama’s goals are the same as those of FDR , JFK and LBJ….in contrast to Reagan and George W whose goals were to make sure their country club buddies and corporate sponsors paid less taxes…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Don’t forget that Reagan and George W. also wanted puppies to be murdered, and old people to be forced to eat their left-over dog food.

            God, you have no idea how much you’ve become a parody of yourself. lol.

          • Wheels55

            I think if Obama actually gave Legal Eagle his personal pile of crap, Eagle would proudly display it in his living room.
            The only care Obama has for you is your vote. Otherwise, the elitist President does not care about your existence.

          • legal eagle

            He doesn’t need my vote anymore and at least he gives a crap about people without healthcare…You, on the other hand, don’t care about anything but being a critic and whining about those who contribute to society..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Thanks for admitting that he doesn’t give a crap about people who ALREADY HAD healthcare.

          • legal eagle

            So tell me how you are affected?

          • Paul Courtney

            John: Zzzzzing!

    • legal eagle

      What exactly will the GOP win? The Presidency in 2024?

  • danthree

    Bernie How did Ted Cruz make it harder for republicans to win elections when he wanted to defund the very thing that you are talking about??

  • Paul Union Ky.

    Mr. Obama is either the biggest liar to be POTUS or the most incompetent president ever to hold office. We can be rest assured that the lamestream media will try not to give fair and balance reporting of ACA or the rest of his term of his presidency.

    • Just Sayin

      Actually, there is a third choice………..most incompetent and the biggest liar. It’s not even close.

      • legal eagle

        Liar Liar Liar….now rinse and repeat….like a three year old…

    • legal eagle

      I read Kentucky residents love the ACA…..

    • D Parri

      I have already pointed it out in earlier comments that the reason for giving employers the 1 year delay in the mandate is because he could not stand the added pressure of the affected people prior to the 2014 election.

      Just imagine the media spin if all the corporate media types were being kicked off their policies now. How much consolation do you think it would be to them to hear the POTUS say, “Well hey, you can now go out into the Marketplace and get a better policy”?

      Do you think he new about the impending website meltdown? Of course he did. He just wanted to reduce his losses as much as possible.

  • SFM916

    Bernie,
    Great article and I have yet to see anyone else approach it from the legal angle of “fraud in the inducement “. Too bad you didn’t mention it on O’Reilly’s Factor. If people begin to see the outright fraud that this president has perpetrated on the American people with Obamacare, they might begin to realize the fraud of his entire presidency, the fraud of his candidacy, and perhaps, the fraud of his entire life. It’s getting harder and harder not to start connecting the dots.

  • SkyCitizen

    Interesting observation Bernie. I’m sure “Fraud in the Inducement” can be found as the “root” cause of many pregnancies, nonetheless the woman is still pregnant. And so it is with Obamacare; it’s the only gestation the democrats ever vehemently encouraged. I’m sad to say that this baby, fathered by the Tortfeasor in Chief, will go to term without regard for the mother’s life.

    • legal eagle

      Tortfeaser? Where did you learn a big word like that?

  • Kathie Ampela

    I caught the tail end of The Five today, Bob Beckel thought that we should have a single payer system and eliminate the middle man(!) Don’t be surprised if you see more liberals come out and say the same thing in the coming weeks and months. You just never know if this was an intentional collapse or the party of experts were too arrogant to see their own epic fail, but the the stink of Obamacare will haunt the dems next November and Hillary in 2016.

    • Kathie Ampela

      I think Obama lied for our own good, only THEY know what works best, THEY are experts! Now they can bring us to single payer, because THEY know how to run the healthcare system ;-)
      Good luck selling THAT one!

      • D Parri

        You are spot-on!

    • Drew Page

      This has been the plan from day one.

      • Kathie Ampela

        Pride goeth before a fall:
        I look forward with great eagerness to the day the democratic party and Obama tells the American people that the solution to Obamacare is a single payer system or an American NHS. No one in the Democratic party could be elected county dog catcher for 50 years, it’s the best thing that could’ve ever happened (besides an engaged electorate that is ;-)

        • legal eagle

          That’s what you want…the country to fail so your right wing cult leaders can lead America off the cliff…

          • Integrity

            Nothing original from LE again. Boring! QED

          • Kathie Ampela

            You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

            If all the Democratic party wanted was to help those with pre-existing conditions, why not just fix that only? And why wait 3 and 1/2 years to implement your signature achievement if 30 million people were dying in the streets? There wasn’t a massive clamoring for a government takeover of healthcare to begin with. I don’t mean from the professional left, I mean from the sleeping middle. It wasn’t like, gee the minute President Obama takes office, we want him to take over the healthcare system. I don’t know one person who wants a government takeover of healthcare, let alone single payer. Polls say most Americans had coverage and were happy with it. They want freedom of choice and an affordable price. They are not getting that with Obamacare. You think 93 million losing their coverage is going to HELP the democrats and Hillary?
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/
            She tried to do this 20 years ago and brought on the republican revolution of 94. The reason she couldn’t get it passed was people wanted to stick with what they had, freedom of choice.

          • legal eagle

            “Republican Revolution”? Like Gingrich’s promise of term limits?

        • legal eagle

          By the way….do you have health insurance or are you just whining to placate your fellow cult members?

          • Kathie Ampela

            I’m glad you asked me that question, LE, because no I don’t. In New York, where I live, the cheapest plan I can get under Obamacare is 2,000-4,000 a month. My other option is concierge medicine where I pay $100 a month directly to the doctor. Funny how expensive the free stuff is.

    • legal eagle

      So it’s time for you to repeat Obamacare and Benghazi over and over until Hillary is elected….Let’s see who stinks after Hillary is POTUS…

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @HAMMOCKBEAR. I’m with you..Jay Carney is a joke.. I have no pain when listending to this pathetic man respond to the press. Only find it appauling and unbelievable that this SOB wouldn’t know how to answer a question honestyl or directly if he got hit across the head with a two by four. He has been a loser from day one..Whoops! Maybe not as he does just what the inept President tells him to do. ANSWER EVERY QUESTION WITH A LIE..

  • joepotato

    Bernie, I just watched you on Bill O’s show… I’m not really a fan of Bill… It’s said that he was once a journalist/commentator, but now seems to be an establishment hack… You seem a little more prone to calling a misleading statement by El Residente a lie than Bill does, but you seem reluctant in that endeavor… The reluctance to call out our (very possible usurper) resident for the liar and deceiver he is is very disturbing… Is there a “fear factor” in the DC bubble? That too would be disturbing… as the misc bodies that have turned up surrounding that back-round of Sideshow Barry… but that’s nothing new… The Clinton regime left some bodies under questionable circumstances…. Murder is nothing new to the world of politics… The ends justify the means… as the story goes… Corruption reigns king in DC….

    • Drew Page

      I have to agree. O’Reilly only suspects that Obama may have lied, but wants to give the president the benefit of the doubt. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary seems to have little effect on O’Reilly.
      * “Mine will be the most transparent administration ever.”
      * “I will post all proposed legislation on the internet for several days before signing it into law.”
      * “The Stimulus will be used to repair the infrastructure and put people back to work on thousands of ‘shovel ready’ jobs.”
      * “`We will call together doctors, hospital administrators, representatives of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, with bipartisan members of Congress to discuss health care reform and will televise it on C-Span.”
      * I will cut the national debt in half by the end of my first term.”
      * I will close GITMO by the end of my first year in office.”
      * After signing ‘Pay-Go’ legislation into law, the very next bill he signed into law was an extension of unemployment compensation benefits, without it being in the budget and without making an equivalent cut in other spending, as called for in the ‘Pay-Go’ law.
      * “The attack on the Benghazi consulate was due to an anti-Muslim video.” Repeated to the U.N. General Assembly weeks after the attack.
      * “We did everything we could to save the four Americans killed in Benghazi.”
      * “If you like your current health plan, you can keep it.”
      With a track record like this, who wouldn’t give Obama the benefit of the doubt?

  • Hammockbear

    Cannot watch Jay Carney. It is just too painful to watch him squirm.

    • Tim

      Bagdad Bob Carney, the lost American nephew of the infamous Bagdad Bob.

    • Tim

      You could play the college drinking game to one of his press conferences. Take a shot every time Jay tells the truth. You’ll never taste the alcohol.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    OBAMA HEALTH CARE? He made promises that were knowingly and deliberate lies..It’s like someone who has a signed contract and then tries to change it when going to court. i.e. I thought it was good at the time, etc. Why this President has not been impeached just blow my mind and I am a registred INDEPENDENT.

    • tinkrbel

      ITA w/you.I’m shaking my head on the impeachment myself. Several members of congress have publicly stated unequivocally obama has committed impeachable acts, exclusive of this colossal mess. When the hell will Congress do its job and IMPEACH??

      • Hammockbear

        It will not happen. Soros is pumping too much money into where plugs are needed to close the holes in the system.

  • Chuck

    Superb article that cogently makes a most telling point.

  • Lc Goodfellow

    “Beware the globalist enemies within. “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

    by:Marcus Tullius Cicero(106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and OratorSource:Attributed. 58 BC, Speech in the Roman Senate

    “Ignorance is a powerful force.” Me

    • Just Sayin

      That, my friend, is perfect. Thanks.

  • Nicholas344

    Bernie, anyone with half a brain knew this was coming a long time ago. Men like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee stood up in defense of America. Politicians imitating men cringed in horror at the thought of defense. They favored apeasement. If there had been more men it may have been different. Unfortunately we have too many politicians so we’ve achieved the lawful results of the absence of Men.
    You have chosen your path.. I’ll stick with Men like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz

    • legal eagle

      Looks like your new cult leaders are Mike Lee and Ted Cruz….stick to them like velcro…

    • D Parri

      Until they show us otherwise–which Obama already has–I will support and stick with them because they appear to have integrity and character.

      One thing you have to give Obama credit for though, he is probably a record-holder for selling the largest number of insurance policies–EVER!

      • legal eagle

        Good to see Archie Bunker is alive and well….

        • D Parri

          Hello, Weasel…SOS, I see.

  • sean1

    Terrific piece.

  • Shane

    Bernie, I am surprised at you. Don’t you know that it is considered racist for any white man to criicize Obama? I know as libs tell me this every week! Also, it is Bush’s fault; libs tell me this every day.

  • tb thomas

    Bernie, he “lied in the inducement” to get elected. The real story here is how many of “our fellow Americans” simply don’t care whether he’s lying or not. All they care about is the near-term prospect that whatever income they’re getting which depends (directly or indirectly) upon entitlements established by government, will continue, or increase.

    What we are witnessing is the proof that our constitution has failed (over a period of two centuries) to prevent the predictions of Alexis de Tocqueville from coming true.

    Tocqueville warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing
    new forms of tyranny, because radical equality could lead to the
    materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of
    individualism. In such conditions we lose interest in the future of our
    descendents…and meekly allow ourselves to be led in ignorance by a
    despotic force all the more powerful because it does not resemble one.[15] Tocqueville worried that if despotism
    were to take root in a modern democracy, it would be a much more
    dangerous version than the oppression under the Roman emperors or
    tyrants of the past who could only exert a pernicious influence on a
    small group of people at a time.[3]

    In contrast, a despotism under a democracy could see “a multitude of
    men”, uniformly alike, equal, “constantly circling for petty pleasures”,
    unaware of fellow citizens, and subject to the will of a powerful state
    which exerted an “immense protective power”.[3]
    Tocqueville compared a potentially despotic democratic government to a
    protective parent who wants to keep its citizens (children) as
    “perpetual children”, and which doesn’t break men’s wills but rather
    guides it, and presides over people in the same way as a shepherd
    looking after a “flock of timid animals”.[3]

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville#On_democracy_and_new_forms_of_tyranny)

  • Bruce A.

    Ok he lied. This will most likely amount to nothing, but imagine if this was Bush or Nixon Care?

    • LAPhil

      I don’t think it will amount to nothing. The American people are starting to get wise to the charlatan in the White House and they don’t like what they’re seeing.

    • sean1

      Oh yeah…I could easily imagine.

    • TheOriginalDonald

      Problem was the GOP nominated the guy who supported ObamaCare beta

  • joepotato

    Soetorbama has lied so much and so often, it seems like a cold day in #3LL when he spews out a little truthiness… Plausible deniability is his best friend… The Indonesian in charge does not deserve the benefit of any doubt… There is no verifiable proof to even show what his true “legal” name might be… Try bringing a PDF file to court as a LFBC and see how that works… (especially an alleged forgery)…

  • Bill

    Sergeant Shultz is President–I know nothing (about every scandal and lie). I first said this 5 years ago and everything since has verified this.

  • k962

    I am afraid that Americans are so dumbed down that they are just plain clueless and don’t really care! I bet only one in ten young Americans can get their noses out their I phones to know anything about Obamacare!

    • nickshaw

      Wait ’til they finally clue in and have the fine deducted from their tax refund checks!
      THAT they’ll notice.

    • Drew Page

      The Americans you refer to are about to get a real education over the next 12 months. Even the MSM seems to have awoken from their slumbers and are beginning to realize, “Hey, this isn’t what you promised”.

  • Brhurdle

    I am willing to concede that President Obama did not understand that his statements were misleading since his actions have shown that he is not very bright and could have easily been mislead by the Democrat machine. However, shouldn’t all his staff, Congress and all their staff and all of the “democrat strageists” have realized that the concept was flawed – you cannot provide coverage for more people who cannot afford it without others paying for it. You don’t have to be a financial genius to realize that adding non paying people plus expanding coverage will cost more. We need to realize that Obama as the teflon don will remain blameless since racial considerations will prevent harsh criticism. The question becomes will Pelosi, Reed and all the Congressional Democrats be able to evade responsibility.

    • Drew Page

      And of course physicians will be more than happy to increase their patient loads and get paid half of what they charge. Take a look at what the physicians are saying about participating in Obama Care; over 44% are saying they won’t take Obama Care patients. Another 33% are saying they may not take these patients. If only half of this 33% refuse to take Obama Care patients, that would amount to 60% of all physicians in N.Y. State refusing to take such patients. And this is liberal New York.

  • Stephanie S

    People. He didn’t know. I will swear he didn’t know. After all, he didn’t know where his birth certificate was, he doesn’t know where his college transcripts are, he didn’t know squat during Benghazi, he certainly didn’t know about Fast and Furious, he had no knowledge of Rev. Wright’s rantings, he thought Bill Ayers was a nice college prof living in the neighborhood, and he’s not even sure where he met Mooch (she says it was at the law firm where they worked but he once told some students that he “met her in class”). So just chill. He didn’t know.

  • brickman

    You seem to be saying that Sibelius could not survive her job performance in the private sector. She could if she worked in your business, Bernie. After starting work on the 2012 election the day after the 2008 election, a number of pundits ( not you, Bernie) predicted that Mitt Romney was going to win in a landslide. Those include in this prognostication are: Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Lawrence Kudlow, Sean Hannity, Peggy Noonan and George Will. The list goes on. Every single one of them still has a major media job after blowing the biggest story of the last 4 years. AFTER you clean ALL of these people out of YOUR profession, I’ll consider the fate of Ms. Sibelius.

    • Glen

      True, but all those pundits gave more credit to the American voter than was actually warranted.

      • brickman

        Their job was to look at the facts( numbers) , not at what they hoped the American voter would do. I assume they always want the American voter to pick the Republican. That’s not the same as predicting what will happen based on their experience as journalists. I’m following Bernie Goldberg’s logic that Sibelius should be fired for incompetence by either not knowing or lying about the rollout if Obamacare. I just wish he had written a column advocating the firing of all of the above for either not knowing or lying about the outcome of the election.

        • Jeff Webb

          The pundits are not chief execs of a massive operation affecting millions of people, never had a role in a massive operation’s 9-figure cost overrun, and never invested minimal testing in the product they spent 3 expensive years creating. Obamacare and its website has been KS’s chief job over this period.
          By comparison, citing one of your examples, Hannity’s chief job over the same period has been to generate ratings and ad revenue for a TV network and a radio syndicator. Despite guessing incorrectly the outcome of an election, he remains one of the most highly rated talk show hosts in America.
          Now, do you seriously think an industry veteran like Bernie would support getting rid of a worker who meets and exceeds the requirements of his job?

          • brickman

            Hannity is compensated by the marketplace at a factor of maybe one hundred times the amount that Sibelius is. Shouldn’t we expect more of him? He IS the chief exec of an operation affecting millions of people. He claims a weekly audience of 15-20 million (TV and radio) and it seems every other caller thanks him for being the only ( or sometimes with Rush & Levin) people sticking up for conservative values.

            With the exception of Rove, all of the above claim to be journalists. They had 4 years to gather facts and correctly report what was going to happen. I’m a retail salesman and an engraver, I looked at the data and predicted 303 electoral votes for Obama. I got Florida wrong. How people considered “professionals” could blunder like this and still remain employed baffles me. If a person making a corporate projection saying we are going to make a 50 percent profit was wrong and we took a 50 percent loss. Bye-ee.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Hannity is compensated by the marketplace at a factor of maybe one hundred times the amount that Sibelius is. Shouldn’t we expect more of him?<> He IS the chief exec of an operation affecting millions of people.<<

            No, he is not. In this context, Ailes is the chief exec (in the case of FNC), and his product, delivered to his customers by employees like SH, REACHES millions of people. KS should be held to a higher standard because she has a great deal of power that, again, directly AFFECTS millions of people. Anyone can stop watching and/or listening to SH whenever they want; KS has the power to affect hundreds of millions of people many different ways whether they want it or not.

            In case you weren't aware, SH guessed correctly that McCain would lose to BO in 2008, and like the other aforementioned pundits, said that Obamacare would be unpopular and fraught with problems from the outset. Those could very well qualify as a bigger (or similar-size) story compared to the re-election, but as convenient as it might be, your opinion doesn't give weight to your argument.

            If failing to correctly predict one key result is a terminable offense, what does your unusual, very specific standard say about more than one successful prediction?

            It's fair to say your original point was a reach. It's fairer to say your follow-up was a bigger reach. And it's pretty obvious you're getting your clock cleaned.

          • legal eagle

            Hannity is an actor……Just like most actors he is paid to read his lines, no more and no less…Like an actor on Broadway Hannity repeats his lines 8-10 times per week….Doesn’t take that much brain power…

          • Tim Ned

            Just like Chris Mathews.

          • legal eagle

            Agreed…except Chris is smart and worked in the government….but an actor nonetheless…

          • Integrity

            How does Obama manage to walk with both of you wrapped around his legs? QED

    • Drew Page

      A majority of people most likely thought the Titanic was unsinkable, before it made its maiden voyage. Had the captain lived, you most likely would not have wanted him fired.

    • legal eagle

      Bernie would know because he is a savvy businessman….LOL

  • Drew Page

    Liar, or just grossly incompetent. Those are the only choices left in judging Mr. Obama’s performance in office. Either way, he doesn’t deserve to hold the office of President of the United States.
    His broken promises are too numerous to mention here. His claims of not knowing what was going on with Fast & Furious; Benghazi; IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals; the DOJ’s seizure of phone records of the Associated Press and its reporters; the NSA’s un-Constitutional capture and storage of phone records, e-mails and other electronic communications of hundreds of millions of Americans (and the heads of state of our allies). Most recently, we learned that Mr. Obama had no idea that his Obama Care enrollment website didn’t work until October 1, 2013. Over three years in the making and costing $630 million (or more) and he had no idea that the website didn’t work until open enrollment day. Apparently, he was more surprised than anyone to learn that millions of people can’t keep there health plans or the doctors they like. Who was it that said they could? I am sure he will look into it and get back to us.

  • Vivian

    The Biggest Fraud And Deception is that from the Main Stream Media who perpetuated the deception without any fact checking, I believe they checked their so called brains at the Kool-Aid well. What a Snow Job Obama gave them…enjoy the shoveling…NBC…CBS…ABC…NPR…PBS…and The BS…

    • nickshaw

      Apparently, when a member of the LSM does try to write about something after fact checking, this happens…

      http://minx.cc/?post=344565

      • Vivian

        Good Point…

  • wyatt81

    Obama doesn’t have supporters-he has worshippers. They love what he is doing and they love his ideology and they love who he has made enemies. He could start WW 3 and they would still protect him. Disgusting.

  • rbblum

    Our constitutional republic is and has always been a very fragile thing. Without American journalism, truth, justice and the American way can whither away.

    • joepotato

      It’s so fragile… I think it’s totally broken…

  • Lee

    I follow you here and on O’Reilly and let me tell you Obama OUTRIGHT lied to us to get elected. That’s pure and simple. I just received a letter from my employer telling me (wife + 4 kids) that because the current policy does meet ACA guidelines they are cancelling the policy. RESULT: at least a 25% policy increase and a doubling of our deductible.

    Now about being a liar: liberals keep saying Obama really didn’t know about what is now happening to Americans. Horse fudge! The buck stops with him and as CEO of our country he is responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on in our country. Whether it’s the ACA or Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP story or NSA, he is the person that his appointee directors report to every day. They cannot tell us he is insulated (as O’Reilly sometimes tells us) because as President (CEO) he cannot be because he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens. He knows what’s going on and, quite frankly, playing the “dah” game classifies him as a total dummy.

    That being said, it is becoming more and more obvious to even the casual (voting public) observer he has no clue how to handle a company (the USA).

    • Vivian

      Harry Truman, Barry is NOT…instead of “the buck stops here”…I will buck anyone that does not have my ideology…

    • legal eagle

      Well go find a cheaper policy and apply for a subsidy…Doesn’t take that much brain power….. stop whining..

    • legal eagle

      So you have health insurance through your employer but your employer doesn’t pay for it you do? How do you know there is a 25% increase?
      Do you know what you’re talking about or just making it up as you go along?

  • legal eagle

    Looks like Bernie has decided to bring the right wing ideologues back into his good graces by focusing them back on their Obama Derangement Syndrome….good work Bernie..

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Ah yes… those “right wing ideologues” also known as ‘most of the country” that oppose Obamacare. Good call Legal. lol.

      • legal eagle

        Good to see the right wingers have something new to rally around now that Benghazi has become old hat….Keeps the cult members from straying from the cult….and keeps the money flowing to the right wing cult leaders like Cruz, O’Reilly. Coulter and Dick Cheney…

        • Archangel1313

          the only hate I see is coming out of you
          lets stick with the facts shall we.

          • legal eagle

            What fact(s) are you referring to?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Out of curiosity legal, do you even give a damn about the Benghazi victims and their families at all? Do you find it acceptable for the administration to outright lie about who the attackers were, and falsely pin the attack’s cause on some guy who posted a video on YouTube? Do you care at all that Obama outright lied to the American public about people losing their health plans and doctors? It seems to me that anyone who would overlook such things, and would continue to worship at the altar of those who put forth such blatant lies shouldn’t be accusing anyone else of being a cult member.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Of course the likes of legal eagle and Meffy don’t care about Benghazi. Their take is this-WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??????????????

          • legal eagle

            Now repeat after your cult leaders…Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi….Iraq? Bush was a little confused…

          • TheOriginalDonald

            Repeat after YOUR leaders, LE. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

          • Ron Bon Jovi

            Mr. Daly, I appreciate your comments. They are honest, without being rude.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Thanks Ron.

          • legal eagle

            I care about those who dies in Benghazi the same as I do about those who dies in Iraq and those who dies in Afghanistan…They all deserve the same respect…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Then why are you insinuating that what happened in Benghazi is meaningless, not worthy of accountability being sought?

          • legal eagle

            You are not seeking accountability, you are seeking a political talking point to use against Hillary….be honest for a change…
            Did you seek accountability for embassy attacks during the Bush Administration?

          • Tim

            Ya, that’s what it’s all about. If Hilary was directly involved, if she made the call, well, we wouldn’t want that to come out before the election. Because we wouldn’t want to give her a second chance to make the wrong call.

          • legal eagle

            You wouldn’t vote for Hillary unless she gave you a large check…Who are you kidding?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Did the Bush administration fabricate a scapegoat to blame those embassy attacks on? Did the Bush administration ignore repeated reports of inadequate security, and issue a stand-down order for those requesting to help our ambassador who was under attack?

            If they had, I would have absolutely wanted accountability from those responsible.

            You’ve GOT to stop drinking the MSNBC kool-aid, take off the partisan glasses, and think for yourself once in a while, legal eagle.

          • Tim

            Those who dies? Secretary out to lunch there legal?

          • legal eagle

            My spell check seemed to be out to lunch……LOL

          • Drew Page

            John — Your comments are wasted on this guy. Remember the old adage, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. all you are doing is wasting your time and annoying the pig.”

      • legal eagle

        You only oppose Obamacare because it was proposed and passed by Obama….If Obama proposed a cure for cancer you would find a reason to oppose it….

        • Tim

          Ya, that’s the reason. Your powers of observation are astounding. It’s all because it’s Obama. Please. And your a legal eagle huh? Do you slip, trip, and win cases in real life or what.

          • legal eagle

            You’d be lucky to have me represent you….

          • Integrity

            Then he could sue you for malpractice! QED

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Do you have any idea how incredibly idiotic that statement is? Seriously, do you?

          I already told you that I supported the president on repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, and that I support droning and most of his surveillance programs. Yet, if he came up with a cure for cancer – a disease my own family has had to battle through – I’d oppose it?

          Get a clue, troll.

          All one has to do is actually read my columns to understand why it is that I feel the way I do about policies and leadership. I don’t merely throw out racial explanations like you so often do.

          I don’t support or oppose policies based on who puts them forth. I make my decision based on their merit. I opposed a number of Bush’s proposals as well, including Harriet Meyers as a Supreme Court justice, ammending the Constitution to legally define of marriage between a man and a woman, sending bail-out money to Detroit, etc.

          You can try and tell yourself that people who oppose the things our president does are just racist or hyper-partisan, but don’t try and tell ME that. I’m not a knee-jerk no-nothing who drinks the partisan kool-aid.

          The Affordable Care Act is the worst piece of legislation signed into law in my lifetime, and I would think so regardless of who signed it into law. Deal with it.

    • forrest

      (ODS) Obama Derangement Syndrome. That is good. I like that but really it is the fact that the tolerance for this man from the get-go was what really got this done. Political Correctedness was the driver and tolerance of him was the nail that sealed this coffin of a Law into place. Nobody else could have ever sold this sham to the public, not even a white woman, Hillary Clinton! She tried and failed. PC is a mental illness that if you tolerate it will screw everything up. This is just the beginning!

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        I always get a kick out of this idea that if you don’t like the government taking over 1/5 of the U.S. economy in a country where 80% of its citizens were previously happy with the healthcare system, and ruining it with an unaffordable government bureaucracy, it’s because you just don’t like Obama. lol.

        • legal eagle

          Another nonsensical statement and unfactual statement…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            For the last time legal, just because you don’t like what someone writes doesn’t mean it’s un-factual and nonsensical. lol You really do have a hard time with that.

            Let me break this down in easier to understand terms, just because I’m feeling charitable today:

            More people oppose than support Obamacare because it’s a crappy law… Believing they don’t like it simply because they don’t like our president is a child’s argument.

          • legal eagle

            Your statements that 80% of people were happy with the healthcare system and the government has taken over 1/5th of the economy are political statement not factual statements. But you know that already,,…or maybe you are such an ideologue that you cannot separate the two?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly
          • legal eagle

            The health care system is not the same thing as health insurance……Health care and health insurance are not the same.
            Healthcare spending is approximately 20% of the economy…way too high but…when did the government take that over and how much of it was government run before 2009….Medicare, Medicaid, VA are all government run…ACA is not government run, it’s insurance run…Did the government take over the insurance companies….
            Your motion for an apology is denied….LOL

          • Tim Ned

            Legal you live in the myth that by attacking the insurance companies you will bring down health care costs. I consult in the medical device industry. The new laws, (your philosophy that the evil insurance companies are the reason for high costs) will drive medical costs through the roof. You want more regulation and higher taxes on those companies that build incredible life saving devices and you enact laws on insurance companies that will drive the cost of insurance up. Forget the polls, look what is happening. Many of my customers are looking to friendlier shores. Those that are manufacturing here and export from here, are opening plants overseas. They might manufacture here for the local market but will send, in some cases, 50-70 percent of their production across the water. One of my CA customers is closing their local manufacturing facility which will result in 90 percent of their production overseas. Worse, their research is going to Europe where it is much easier getting through regulation.

            You are right; health care and insurance are two different issues. But the truth is, you don’t know the difference and you are killing affordable insurance and raising the cost of health care!

          • legal eagle

            Time will tell….Change is difficult and uncomfortable…bitching and moaning is easy..

          • Tim Ned

            Time is already telling. Bitching and moaning is not easy when it deals with your employees. I bet you don’t understand. When George McGovern retired from Politics he started investing in hotels. I wished he would have experienced this before his political career. He stated he would have changed his liberal views based upon the ridiculous regulations and unfair taxes he debt with. Try building something. You will learn real quick.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I never said they were the same thing, now did I?

            As a “fact based” guy like yourself should have known, though, that Obamacare goes WAY beyond just health insurance. If it was just about insurance, the bill wouldn’t have been 2000 pages.

            It’s packed full of new regulations and restrictions that medical providers have to comply with, and the mere fact that it MANDATES something for every American is why I consider it a “take over”. The fact that is pushes millions off of their current plans, changes which doctors patients can see, skyrockets premiums, and skyrockets deductibles is why I consider it a “take over.”

          • legal eagle

            The fact that “you consider it a takeover” doesn’t mean it is so…It mandates health insurance not the way doctors treat patients…my experience so far has been that I had to fill out a few papers and my plan continues..
            Taking the political talking points and hyperbole we’ll see in a year how well it’s working…

          • Jeff Webb

            >>It mandates health insurance not the way doctors treat patients..<<

            The IPAB says that's not correct.

          • legal eagle

            Here is a portion from the same Gallup Poll:
            Another important indication of just how central the cost factor is to Americans’ healthcare concerns comes from an open-ended measure of the major problems facing the healthcare system today. Close to 4 in 10 Americans (38%) — by far the largest percentage for any issue — explicitly cite the cost or affordability of healthcare as the nation’s biggest healthcare problem. However, a large number of the less frequently cited issues have a cost component to them, including references to medical malpractice; overcharging; greed by insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals; and waste and fraud

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            How does this contradict ANYTHING I just wrote?

            Let’s recap. I gave you solid information. You told me it wasn’t true, so I cited my numbers from multiple sources to show you that it absolutely was.

            Instead of just manning up and conceding that you were wrong, you decide to tell me that people thought healthcare was expensive in 2009?

            No duh! It WAS expensive, and is even worse now, thanks to Obamacare.

            Now, are you going to man up and admit you were wrong, or are you going to cite more irrelevant information, maybe something along the lines of smoking being bad for people?

          • legal eagle

            You gave me half truths….You cite one irrelevant part of a Gallup poll….You are making political argument and don’t expect to be questioned on it…..So stop whining and deal with the facts….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            B.S. I gave you the facts and you quickly disregarded them because you were too lazy to actually look them up in the first place to see if they were true.

            I keep forgetting, legal eagle, that you aren’t actually aware of pretty common stats that are cited regularly in the news (you’ve demonstrated this on a number of occasions), thus you’ve kind of handicapped yourself when it comes to recognizing information that most people who come to websites like this are already well aware of.

            I understand that you’re embarrassed right now, but try sucking it up and taking it like a man. Whining about it isn’t making you look any better.

          • legal eagle

            Based upon my life experience it will take a lot more than you state to embarrass me…LOL

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Based upon my life experience it will take a lot more than you state to embarrass me…<<

            Based on reading this exchange between you and John, it's pretty apparent you embarrassed yourself. Next time someone posts a statement you believe to be false, maybe your initial response should include a link debunking it.

            Of course, next time you ought to challenge someone other than John–every time you do, it seems to end with him enjoying a nice plate of roasted eagle.

          • legal eagle

            So according to your pretzel logic John does not have to prove that his assertions are right, or usually highly exaggerated. I have to prove he’s wrong….Doesn’t work that way in the legal system…
            As stated previously your motion is denied…LOL

          • Jeff Webb

            No, I suggested something to bolster your argument and not embarrass yourself.

            John consistently does provide proof his assertions are right–t’would be a real treat if more liberals offered the same courtesy.

            >>Doesn’t work that way in the legal system…<<

            So happy you feel that way! Remember the legal system the next time you want to accuse someone of something without having to prove it.

          • legal eagle

            What are you his lawyer or are you two the same person…I know you’re members of the same cult…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It’s a cult of common sense, Legal. You should try joining one some time.

          • legal eagle

            It’s a cult of victimization and negativity…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Legal, I’m only guilty of assuming that you’re familiar with facts that are already common knowledge to practically every politically-informed person.

            When I reference a fact that has been discussed exhaustively in the media over a long period of time, my assumption is that a citation is a waste of time… especially when I’m just responding to a comment and not writing a column.

            For example, if I mention that Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States, I don’t feel compelled to provide proof of such. Again, it’s common knowledge.

            Yet, you would likely call me a liar for stating such a fact, simply because your instinct is to accuse your political opponents of non-factual.

            You know, It’s weird to me that someone as interested in discussing politics as you are is so astonishingly uninformed when it comes to so many political topics. Worse yet, you can’t even admit to yourself when you’re not familiar enough with a topic to weigh in on it. You just call people liars and tell them they’re bitter, when you haven’t a clue whether or not they’re right or wrong.

            It’s quite bizarre.

          • legal eagle

            I didn’t call anyone a liar. That’s a word I don’t use.
            When you state that a poll says 80% of people are satisfied with their insurance that is not a statement of fact…You are smart enough to be able to go past the headline and read the entire article….
            If you made statement in a deposition in order to prove a point you would be asked some of the questions I’m asking….What you did is called cherry picking…nothing wrong with it but questioning your statements is OK…isn’t it?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Stop twisting my words, legal. I never said 80% was happy with their INSURANCE. I said 80% was happy with the healthcare system – i.e. the quality of medical care available to them.

            This is a big problem with you. You always change the argument the person you’re debating with is making, then you quibble with THAT argument instead of the actual one.

            What I stated was a fact. What you stated was not. And no amount of pettifogging the issue on your part is going to change that. You were wrong. Accept it.

          • legal eagle

            Polls are not facts….you cant me that naïve to believe that a Gallup Poll represents a fact….You want to cite polls as facts do it with your fellow cult members…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. I gave you THREE polls (Gallup, CNN, Rasmussen) that all presented the same data, and they were far from the only ones.

            Own your errors, and stop embarrassing yourself. Screaming that every national poll is wrong, simply because you don’t like what they tell you, is absurd. I know you’re quite comfortable living in your little fantasy world, but try vacationing in the realm of reality every once in a while. It would be good for you.

          • Integrity

            Your opinions aren’t facts either, but that doesn’t seem to stop you. QED

          • legal eagle

            Skepticism about President Barack Obama’s healthcare law appears to be thawing despite colossal glitches that marred its rollout, a Gallup poll found on Wednesday.

            The survey shows that 45 percent now approve of Obamacare, compared with 41 percent in August, while 50 percent disapprove, up 1 percentage point from August.

            “Americans’ attitudes about the Affordable Care Act remain more negative than positive, although slightly less so than in August, prior to the government shutdown,” the Gallup analysis said, adding that “the poor performance of the health exchange sites may not at this point be negatively affecting Americans’ views . . . overall.”

            Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Gallup-Obamacare-less-skepticism/2013/10/23/id/532727#ixzz2jHRLRjHI
            Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Fascinating. You just get done telling me that only cult members cite polls as proof of their arguments, then you do precisely that yourself. lol.

            And to top it off, you cite a poll question that has nothing to do with anything I’ve been saying. Great work, legal. I’m glad to see that that money spent on law school really paid off.

          • Bam Bam Boogaloo

            Suck it up and take it like a … WHAT??? Where have I heard that before???? Sounds very familiar!!!!!

          • Mrs. IHF

            WTF John? You deleted my husbands posts? Can’t handle the truth? Suck it up and take it like a man. There is no glory in plagiarizing

          • D Parri

            I’ve said it before, John, his goal is not to argue the point but rather to argue with You. You’ll never get past his brick head. The bad part is that he is keenly successful at sucking you in to that tit-for-tat repartee. It goes nowhere and is a complete waste of time.

            Suggestion, limit your replies to 1 line or less. An extended discourse with him is a wasted effort. Do whatever you like, though.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh I realize he’s primarily looking for attention. But I don’t mind beating his third-grade view of the world into total submission from time to time. Is it a waste of time? Yeah, probably.

          • D Parri

            Good enough. I didn’t mean to sound critical of you, but I’ve been down the road of trying to reason with him and finally discovered I had to ask myself ‘what was I doing’?

            I sure as heck don’t mind watchin’ you leave him in the dust…regularly.

          • Integrity

            Weak and boring! QED

    • Lc Goodfellow

      GO TALK TO the Preacher you crow !

    • Ron Bon Jovi

      Legal Eagle, what took you so long to respond. I love you man!

      • legal eagle

        Right back at you….how’s your brother Jon doing?

        • Drew Page

          Ron and Eagle — Have you two thought of getting married. It becoming legal now in more states.

          • D Parri

            Yeah, Weasel has already announced that guys give him a “four-hour hard-on”. Sorry ’bout the language, but it’s straight from the Legal Weasel.

  • Michael Medefesser

    It’s those homophobic, racists republicans that are the cause of this. How do I know ? I don’t, but I’m sure there’s a host of libs in the press trying to find out how they can spin it that way.

    In all honesty, it doesn’t matter. People will not blame Obama. Most of the press right now are not blaming Obama. They’re just finding ways to redirect the blame to people in the cabinet.

    Mark my words, Obama will just get off with a verbal warning that he should have hired better people, or that he should have been more aware. He’ll pretend to fall on the sword, but the press won’t let him do that. They’ll shove him away at the last minute and throw somebody else on there.

  • nnw59

    “If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period” “What difference does it make?” They go together.

  • Tim

    It’s the progressive way. Their policies by any means necessary. Lying is just one tool in the tool box. To be used whenever needed to accomplish whatever deceitful act they are attempting.

    • Ted Crawford

      “Their mutual goal is so good and so bright that it is not important if one must go through a few devious valleys and shadows” Reveille For Radicals
      “All effective actions require the passport of morality” Rules For Radicals
      Saul Alinsky, the Progressive who actually dedicated his work to Lucifer himself!

    • legal eagle

      Conservatives don’t lie and big girls don’t cry?

      • Tim

        Conservatives don’t lie to promote a policy that they deem more important than the individuals freedom or take the individuals right to do for themselves out of the equation.

        • legal eagle

          That’s your first lie of the day….

          • Tim

            I know, I know. All those darned deceptive Tea Partiers out there hiding behind their constitution and their Bill of Rights. They can’t wait to tell you in great detail all the lies these documents contain. The rights that through deception you and your progressive ideology try to take away because you know better. Lying is like breathing to a liberal. While Tea party conservatives tend to have a moral base to fall on when making the decision to be deceitful. Liberals have no such thing. All humans have the ability to lie. Human nature allows it. A strong moral base prevents it. Liberals believe in nothing but their Ideology. Unfortunately, it is an extremely flawed base to build on.

    • Drew Page

      Clarence Page described Obama’s promises of keeping your same health plan and doctor as merely “political” lies. Bob Beckel also smilingly excused these lies as merely “campaign” lies. So what these two Obama supporters are saying is that whenever Obama lies to the public (99.9% of the time) these things should be excused, or should have never have been taken seriously from the outset.
      What I hear them saying is that if you were stupid enough to believe what Obama said, the joke is on you.

      • Tim

        Exactly, well said.

  • worker1950

    Another bald-faced-lie is the Administration’s spin that the millions of policies being cancelled are crappy or have very low standards. Totally untrue!

    These ObamaCare policy mandates (gender reassignment coverage, yearly maternity coverage and neo-natal care (men and women) until you reach Medicare age, ALL children until age 19 – yearly dental coverage including orthodontics (even if your kids won’t need or have already had braces), drug abuse rehab programs) are causing the gigantic increases in premiums but are not a higher standard policy – unless you want to change from being a man to a woman or vice-versa or are a drug addict in need of rehab or a 50y/o man defying nature and having a baby.

    Warning this Administration lies – it behooves you to thoroughly investigate before believing their ‘spin’.

    • nickshaw

      Of course, all of those things will drive up your premium but, forcing “insurance” companies to cover pre-existing conditions is the real kicker.
      That’s not insurance, it’s welfare really.
      When you consider the explosion of people on disability these days and the less than exacting standards to do so, what do you think will be the standards for pre-existing conditions?

      • Lee

        the ONLY 2 areas that are viable in the ACA are coverage for preexisting conditions and keeping kids on parents coverage till 26. BUT, all the negatives listed in above blogs far outweight the 2 positives. So, the ACA in total is by far a terrible program.

        • nickshaw

          I don’t know that covering a pre-existing condition could ever be considered “insurance” and allowing kids up to 26 to stay on their parents coverage seems to be self defeating to the point of the program.
          Weren’t all those warm, healthy bodies going to be the lifeblood of the law?
          Do you not think a goodly proportion of young un’s will lie (in cahoots with their parents) about their living arrangements to save the money?
          Positives? I think not.

          • legal eagle

            Are you aware that high blood pressure is a PEC?

      • Drew Page

        NIck — You are 100% correct. The real factor in driving up the cost of individual health policies is the ACA requirement that such policies must be written on anyone who applies, regardless of the current state of their health. People in hospitals, suffering from critical illnesses must be accepted by health insurance companies offering individual health plans. If and when these people recover, they are free to drop their health insurance and pay the annual fine (the greater of 1% of annual income, or $95.00). The fine for someone making $50,000 a year would be $500. If and when that same person again needed medical care, they would be free to once again enroll in Obama Care and pay their monthly premiums in exchange for having their claims paid. There is nothing in the ACA that prevents people from doing this. “Here’s my $500, now pick up my $200,000 hospital bill. After it’s paid, I’m dropping coverage until I need it again.”
        Prior to the ACA, a person applying for individual health insurance would have to answer health questions certifying that they were in good health at the time of application. If the insurance carrier had doubts, they could demand an Attending Physician Statement where a doctor would have to answer questions about the applicant. If the answers didn’t meet the underwriting qualifications, coverage was denied. That is why it was cheaper. Now, insurers must issue you coverage regardless of your health conditions. If only those who are sick enroll and the healthy stay out until they become sick, the whole thing is destined to fail. That is health insurance underwriting 101.

  • gold7406

    professor harold hill meets solyndra and dr. kervorkian.

  • ksp48

    What is just precious is all the Dem talking heads on the tube now telling us that Obama didn’t say that, that he always said that “insufficient” plans would have to be terminated and that they are doing us all a favor by insisting that the Insurers terminate you so you can migrate to “better”, more costly plans. They look right into the camera and lie.

    • gold7406

      they can tell everyone what they wish. the website roll out will be indicative of the shock that people experience when they acquire their new insurance plan in 2014. they have been hustled. you don’t pass a bill in the fog.

    • nickshaw

      I saw a Fox regular lib look right into the camera and essentially call anyone who had insurance they were happy with a “rube” who didn’t know they had garbage insurance policies.
      Wait until they had to use those policies, she said.
      They’d be useless, she said.
      I seem to recall there were stats that said Medicaid was much worse than insurance companies when it came to actual coverage.
      Can we expect any different from O’Kare?

    • Drew Page

      The more they do it, the easier it gets.

  • JohnHD

    If you listen to the main steam media, and yes even you, Ted Cruse damaged the GOP with his taticts of defunding Obamacare. I have been questenin g my family and others and I think it counfd be that you are making a mistake. Especially now that people are becoming aware of the fact that the Democrats have possibly overstaped themselves. I know ot severaL DEMOCRATS THAT WILL MOST ASSUREDLY NOT BE VOTING FOR THEIR GREEDY PARTY. And even I have changed my affiliation to a definatey conservate outlook and party. There are also several Republicans (That traitor McCain and several others) that I and others will be voting against. The Democrats themselves have proved by their actions and their policies that they aren’t trustwortht.

    • legal eagle

      Paying homage to your new cult leader Ted Cruz?

      • Drew Page

        Cult leader? Why a cult leader? Is it because he fought for what the majority of people in America want, for Obama Care to go away? Is it because he and those who agree with him believe this program is not sustainable? According to the polls, more than 60% of those surveyed said they didn’t want Obama Care. that’s one hell of a big “cult “.
        The “cult” is growing daily, as employers are cutting full-time jobs to part-time thereby covering fewer employees for health insurance, or else dropping their health insurance plans entirely, choosing to pay the fine instead. The “cult” grows even larger as those who had individual health policies receive termination letters from their insurance companies, who are discontinuing their former individual policies and offering only health plans that comply with the ACA. Even the MSM seems to be agreeing with the “cult”.

        • legal eagle

          Keep repeating the same talking points over and over….The listen to Limbaugh and Hannity repeat them over and over…soon you’ll believe them..

  • trailbee

    I understand. This is the law of the land.
    However, if you laid out your premise correctly, then Obama would not be liable. However, now that he knows, if he does not cease and desist, would he be liable?
    Also, if no Republicans voted for this bill, and it was passed, would the bill still be considered viable because the entire Congress was the representation of all the people in the United States of America (no matter what John Roberts decided)?
    Liberals with Buyer’s Remorse? We can only hope.

    • Drew Page

      It’s the “law of the land” when Republicans wanted to change it. But when Obama wants to change it, like he did at least 14 times after it was signed into law, it’s OK? He also has a strange penchant for deciding which of the laws he wants to enforce, ignoring the ones he doesn’t care for.

  • JohnKohos

    It’s a small point. But I believe a press agent is a flack, not a flak.

    • Just sayin’

      Or a flake.

  • Russ

    I think that Matt Taibbi’s book “Griftopia” best summarizes everything that’s happening in DC. In a nutshell; Obama forced Obamacare down our throats because the insurance companies who will benefit from the ACA will finance the next two election cycles for the Dems. This was strictly quid pro quo for insurance companies and those other businesses who will benefit and who finance elections. It’s really not too much different than the bailout was to Wall Street. The corruption of the government now runs so deep that there is a DC conspiracy to assist those with large campaign contributions to fleece the middle class (the lower class gets their financial needs from the government and the upper class is somewhat shielded from inflation and government scamming). Crony Capitalism at it’s worst and best. The arguing about whether the website works or who knew what when, is all just a diversion to keep the masses from figuring out that they are getting fleeced.

    • Drew Page

      You are gravely mistaken about the insurance companies benefiting from Obama Care. Obama has done nothing but criticize health insurance companies over the past five years, accusing them of unbridled greed and total disregard for policyholders. And who is he still blaming for the increased cost of individual health plans? Those same insurance companies, that’s who. The ACA requires health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies regardless of their current health problems. People can now refuse to buy health insurance and pay a fine less costly than premium, but must be given coverage whenever they decide they again need it. The ACA requires that health insurers’ premium rates must be set so that if claims are less than 855 of premiums, refunds must be sent to policyholders, but what happens when claims exceed 1005 of the premiums charged? Do the insurance companies get to send out surcharge bills to policyholders in addition to the premiums they charged? No, they do not.
      The ACA will force insurance companies out of the health market place and will pave the way for the government to force single payer, national health care (socialized medicine) on the entire country, funded by those who pay federal income taxes. I sincerely believe that this was the goal all along. This Affordable Care Act wasn’t about health at all, it was and is about more government control and taxes.

  • moafu

    Besides the “fraud in the inducement”, who gave the stand down order on Benghazi? Who decided to push the video? Who was final decision maker inside the W.H. to give the IRS the go ahead to incriminate itself by attacking Conservatives? One must suppose that it is partially incompetence and. of a certainity, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

  • gbandy

    I disagree that Ted Cruz created a problem The reality is Ted Cruz did something extremely rare in todays Politics he pushed the agenda exactly what his constituents wanted and certainly not his own nor his parties. Just look at the inception of Obamacare 69% of the American People did not want its passage yet 100% of the Democrats voted for it. This is not a representative Democracy rather it was a partisan vote for what Obama wanted. Now we all must see no matter what side you are on that Obamacare is not only rife with problems but we the People were promised so many things that just are not true. Now if Obamacare is such a disaster now what do you think it will look like when it controlS 20% of our economy? Disaster!

    • savage24

      I totally agree with you. If ObamaCare is so good for you, why did they have to make a law to force you (unconstitutionally) into to it. Ted Cruz did what he was sent to Washington DC to do, to bad the rest up there are too politically connected to do the job their constituents sent them to do.

      • Drew Page

        Why did they exempt themselves from it?

  • moafu

    “Fraud in the inducement” would definitely qualify to be under the category of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, the requirement to move to impeach the President.

    • Shane Gilmore

      When I hear talk of impeachment – that sends shivers down my spine. You do know that would put Joe Biden in the Whitehouse. I think I can suffer a couple more years of President Obama before we put Joe in there. Joe Biden as president is scarier than our current situation.

      However – on the other side of that. I don’t think we would be any better off if Mitt Romney would have been elected either. I think is time to follow the words from our Declaration of Independence:

      “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
      seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      • moafu

        Agreed Shane on the governments quote.
        Biden is ditzy, but not evil.

  • Joh

    I think Ted Cruz did exactly what he told his constituents he would do if they elected him. The difference between Cuz and Obama is that Obama hid his true intentions behind rhetoric. The Democrats are famous for redefining words like “is”

  • Jim Pell

    She won’t get fired, because she has done — and is doing — her job, which is primarily to run interference for, and devote absolute loyalty to, this incompetent administration.

  • w

    I just found out my company sponsored medical is going up from $22.00 a month to $162.00 a month. That’s 700%, thanks Obama!

    • Stimpy

      Barry says “you’re welcome … and while you are on the ACA website won’t you please make a political contribution to the Democratic party?”

  • Smith

    The only reason the MSM is even growing a mm of spine is because it is now safe to do so. BO has been reelected, their important job is finished. Now the MSM can turn to more mundane things like showing (for show only) the care about the country.

    • Ted Crawford

      You may actually be on to something here. They seem to be attempting to regain a degree of credibility before they once again become Judas Goats for Hillary!

      • nickshaw

        Maybe trying to regain a little credibility until they lower the hammer for Pantsuit?
        Uhhh, yeah!

  • chevron1144

    “The alternative is that he wasn’t lying at all, but that he is simply incompetent; that he had no idea what he was actually shoving down our throats. This is a possibility too.”
    Bernard, The President is a Harvard Law School graduate. Don’t they teach you to never sign anything you haven’t read at Harvard Law School?

    • nickshaw

      Skeeter didn’t take that particular course, apparently.

      • Drew Page

        He was absent the day they taught law at law school.

  • kelly

    With a registration snafu like this, I’ll bet the claims process will be a blast.

  • IUBBallfan

    I disagree with your premise that somehow Ted Cruz screwed up. You said “the way you get rid of Obamacare is by winning elections.” Well ,that’s what Cruz did. He won an election saying he would fight to get rid of it. He did just that. First politician I’ve seen on the conservative side to run for something and mean it when he got to Washington.

  • Wheels55

    Either Obama knew and flat out lied or he did not know and is a wimp of a President. For so many issues, he said he did not know – which is sounding like my dog ate my homework. You didn’t do your homework, did you Barack? He appoints all these people to help him run the show and they don’t keep him in the loop? Fire them all, immediately!!

    • D Parri

      Obama flat-out lied…period.

  • Kathie Ampela

    Just one question for the President: Did you read the 2,500 page bill before it was passed? I see. We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.
    I know, I know, it’s Bush’s fault. ;-)

    • D Parri

      That’s an easy enough line for him to recite whenever he needs to make excuses. I would bet that Bush didn’t read it…he’s smarter than that!

  • Seattle Sam

    At least when Bush “lied” he had intelligence agencies around the world telling him about Iraq’s WMDs. When Obama lied he surely already knew that the bill would not allow many people to keep their current plans because they didn’t conform to the requirement written into the ACA. Although I must admit that, given all the other things that the President claims not to have known about, maybe he didn’t read the ACA bill either.

    • JMax

      The other intelligence agencies around the world were telling Bush that people like “curveball” were telling them that Sadam had WMDs but they also said they didn’t really believe him.

      The majority of Americans get their health care plans through their employers. Those employers often change what they offer what what insurance companies they use based on pricing and market conditions. This will be no different under ACA except that their plans will be more comprehensive.

      • Seattle Sam

        More comprehensive. You mean more coverage than they would choose to purchase voluntarily.

        • JMax

          No. More coverage than they could afford previously.

          • Tova Feinman

            Please explain to me why I need maternity coverage at 55 or drug and alcohol rehab coverage? I DON”T. I don’t want to pay for it and I don’t want other people forced to pay for things they don’t want. That’s the issue. YOU don’t get to decide what is “comprehensive coverage” for me. How arrogant and condescending can you be? You and Obama.

          • JMax

            Do you need hip replacement coverage? Do you need ebola coverage? Do you need HIV coverage?

            Do the fertile women who have the same policy as you need hip replacement coverage? Does a single male need maternity coverage or mammogram coverage?

            The nature of insurance is to pool resources to be able to provide benefits for people who need those benefits when they need it. My wife and I will never ever need maternity benefits, but we’re on the same plan as younger families who do and will have more children. Those same people don’t need a knee replacement that I might. Insurance is not a cafeteria product.

            Is it condescending for the government to tell you that your tires shouldn’t explode after 30 minutes of freeway-speed driving? Or that your medications be safe and effective? Is it condescending for the government to make sure that the wing of your Boeing 737 doesn’t fall off in flight-even though you never fly?

            Is it condescending of me to not want you to be spreading a communicable disease because you haven’t had the preventative care to prevent that? Is it condescending of me to not want $1,000 a year of my premiums going to cover the cost of uninsured or under-insured people who must be taken care of at emergency rooms?

            You may not realize it, but individuals don’t live in a vacuum. America is a society, not just individuals.

          • Tova Feinman

            The government can’t tell me I can only buy tires from their official dealerships and the tires must have specifications dictated by them. The government CANNOT tell me what color my tires should be or who the manufacturer should be.That is precisely what Obamacare is. Also, we are not talking “shared risk”. We are talking DUMPING unrealistic burdens on a large fraction of the population to benefit a small fraction of the population that SHARE NO PART OF THE RISK AT ALL.

          • JMax

            No, the government doesn’t tell you what dealerships you must buy tires from nor what insurance companies you must buy from. But they can and do tell the tire manufacturers and dealers certain specifications that those tires must meet in order to sell them to you. Same as health insurance.

            ACA does NOT tell you “what color tires…or who the manufacturer should be”. You can use any insurance company that is willing to sell you insurance coverage that meets requirements. Same as tires.

            And like choosing tires that fit 15″, 16″, or 17″ rims or 195 or 215 tread width, etc. you can choose plans with higher or lower deductibles, higher or lower copays, higher or lower total out-of-pocket costs, and higher or lower premiums.

            Like tires that have to meet requirements of not blowing up after 30 minutes of highway-speed driving, insurance plans have to meet basic requirements of non-denial for pre-existing conditions, no recisions, no caps on benefits, and no copays for preventative care.

            A “large fraction” of the population is ALREADY bearing the risk of a “small fraction” by paying an estimated $1,000 per year EXTRA on their family policies to make insurance companies whole for covering emergency room visits for those not currently covered.

          • Ted Crawford

            Yes We Know, because you wonderfully Omniscient Progressives actually know far, far better what we want and need, than we, totally ignorant fools do!

          • nickshaw

            Isn’t that the same as taking Jarrett’s word for it?
            Thanks.

          • JMax

            You lost me.

      • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

        More expensive too! You may see it in an increase in your share, or a rise in product price, reducing sales and getting some employees laid off, or an end to raises. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!

        • JMax

          And this has NEVER happened before?

          • nickshaw

            Because it certainly has, that’s a good reason to hurry it along?
            You know, in the midst of this recovery with so many still without work and the middle class being less well off than they were 5 years ago, as Skeeter is so fond of saying whenever he “pivots” to the economy.
            Yep, just the right moment.
            Maybe he could do something about the price of gas too, as you people always assumed Bush could do?

          • JMax

            Skeeter?

            How many jobs bills has the House passed since 2009?

            No informed person would ever blame the price of gasoline on the president. That’s a straw man argument.

          • nickshaw

            Please. Skeet shooter extraordinaire!
            Though perhaps not labeled as “jobs bills”, you don’t think the House has passed many bills that could afford relief that the Senate refuses to hear?

            Why wasn’t the price of gas a straw man argument when Bush was president and lib’ruls insisted he COULD do something about it?
            I always knew he couldn’t, nor can Skeeter (other than lowering the federal tax, I guess) but, lib’ruls have shifting playing fields depending on who’s in goal.

          • JMax

            Who argued that Bush could do anything about the price of gasoline? I’d love to see some citations of “libruls” making such a claim. A straw man argument is arguing against a claim that your opponent didn’t make, by the way.

            All I’ve heard is Fox saying that gas was $1.86/gal when Obama came into office and look at it now.

      • savage24

        As I recall, Bill and Hillary along with Reid and Pelosi touted that Iraq had WMD and nobody called them liars. Obama lied and he will not be called a liar, because it don’t work that way with the Kool Aid drinkers.

        • JMax

          Really? When was that?

          • savage24

            Go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1051684/posts, it gives quotes and dates. I imagine the Kool Aid drinkers will stay away from this one.

          • JMax

            Hussein DID have WMD in the 90s. He didn’t by 2003. Most of your quotes are not from intelligence officers. They are from people who get their information from what the administration told them.

          • savage24

            My point is the MSM called G.W. Bush a liar and gave these liars a pass. Who said that Iraq didn’t have WMD, the UN inspectors?

          • JMax

            Yes.

            Did anybody find any WMDs?

          • Tova Feinman

            Well I know I always trust the anti-Semitic, pro-Islamic terrorist UN. You need way better sources. If Obama told you to leap off a cliff because there was a pot of gold at the bottom, you’d gladly leap and after you were smashed, you’d blame a greedy rich Republican for cheating out of your gold. You have nothing that isn’t lemming propaganda to spew.

          • JMax

            My source would be the US military. Did they find any WMD?

            The rest of your post is horse manure.

          • Tova Feinman

            Charming. You clearly do not know anything about how the UN functions, do you? I do. As an aid worker with an NGO I know the UN upclose and personal. By the way, I’m so curious how you are privy to classified documents from the CIA, NSA, and US Military. You are a treasure trove for restricted information. A genius in your own mind.

          • JMax

            Let me say this as clearly as possible: Did.The.US.Military.Find.Any.WMD.In.Iraq? Not the UN. The US military. I don’t care how the UN functions. It’s not relevant.

            There are these things out there called books. And newspapers. They are written by well-respected journalists who have sources, often named, who are privy to classified documents. I’ve read many of these books and newspaper articles.

            Do you believe the US military found WMDs but are keeping that fact classified in order to impugn Bush’s and Cheney’s veracity?

            A conspiracy theorist in your own mind?

        • nickshaw

          A certain congressman called Skeeter a liar and look what happened to him.
          Mind you, today I doubt you could get the grin off his face. ;-)

      • lark2

        “curveball” threw you a curveball and you swung and missed in your zeal to play the “blame Bush” game. Every “Intelligence Service” in the Western world was convinced Saddam had WMD. Bill, Hillary and all your people in the Senate & House saw the “Intelligence” and were on board. They had the political luxury of getting ON BOARD when things looked good and then getting off when things went south. A PRESIDENT … ANY PRESIDENT does not enjoy that luxury. He must live with his decisions. Our CIA … under Clinton man, George Tenent said it was a “slam dunk”. Any President would have believed his own CIA’s analysis supported by every service in the world … so, get off your horse. Be a Liberal but, BE FAIR!

        • JMax

          Every intelligence service in the Western world was NOT convinced. And US intelligence was not convinced either. Why do you think Cheney’s minions were over at Langley day in and day out cajoling the analysts to come up with the answers they wanted? Why was Powell’s UN “revelation” so wrong? The Senate and House don’t have their own intelligence agencies. They had what was given to them.

          I’m pretty well-read. And I don’t ride horses. But I am fair.

          • lark2

            You say you are well read and I’ll accept what you say but, the question is … What do you read? You say .. “Cheney’s minions were over at Langley day in and day out cajoling the analysts to come up with the answers they wanted … ” How do you know that? The people you “read” must be VERY highly placed. They must know Cheney’s minions or perhaps they have lunch with the CIA analysts that were being cajoled. Neither is very likely. If you are going to talk like you know something, you have to have highly authoritative sources – not just someone who just rings your bell. All of us can quote people who ring our bell but if we really want to be “fair”, we all need to realize how hard it is to find honest people who report the truth. The blogs of today are forums for spin meisters to push their agenda … they don’t preach the Gospel and you can’t give them real credibility just because they ring YOUR bell.

          • JMax

            Of COURSE it was reported by the American press AT THE TIME! That’s what they were being told.

            I’ve read many books and articles by well-respected authors who provide sources and citations. Bob Woodward, Seymour Hersch, Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor, Lawrence Wilkerson, weapons inspector David Kay, and many, many more. Notice that none of these people are “bloggers”. I don’t know any highly placed people myself, but they do.

            The US had no agents inside Iraq. The US never had direct contact with “Curveball”. Tenet knew all that, regardless of who appointed him.

          • lark2

            Sir, NONE of those people know anything about what Cheney’s minions did or didn’t do and NONE of those people had lunch with the C.I.A. Analysts who you say were cajoled. However, you win. I regret engaging on this matter. Everyone has “views” that are shaped by their political agendas. We don’t have any real Patriots anymore whose views are shaped by the welfare of the nation. Apparently, that is a vestige of the past. When people’s views are set in concrete … it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie.

          • JMax

            So apparently only autobiographies are non-fiction? One must rely on first hand knowledge or personally witnessing something to write about it? Can’t use or cite the words of someone who DOES have first hand knowledge? Otherwise it’s simply fiction? BTW Wilkerson WAS there and does have first hand knowledge.

            I refute your contention that there are no real Patriots today. There are plenty including the current president.

      • nickshaw

        Except, people voted for Skeeter ’cause their plans, if they had one, would be more “comprehensive”, cost less and wouldn’t require they change their doctor.
        It wasn’t just “you can keep your plan”, it was “you can keep your doctor” and “it will cost you $2500 (or 2500% !) less”. Not $2500 less than you might pay 5 years from now!
        This, to anyone with a functioning cortex, is impossible.

        • JMax

          Skeeter?

      • Drew Page

        How do you know what the intelligence agencies around the world were telling Bush? Were you at those meetings?

        • JMax

          There are these things called books. Many of them are written by respected authors who have sources who WERE in those meetings. I learned how to read many years ago.

    • D Parri

      Hey think about the ‘intelligence sources’ that Obama says he relies upon to get his information: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Mythbusters, etc. Oh, and he’ll use Fox to get the ‘other side’ perspectives.

  • RussFelix

    Bernie, Don’t get your hopes up too quick. The reports I have seen are all “soft” like you say. No accountability. MSM knows it has been on the wrong side of this issue and they are trying to backstep without making their obvious lack of credibility obvious. Kabuki theater? I think

  • kayakbob

    I’m not sure Obama did know what a whopper he was telling people when he said those with insurance could keep it. The understanding that wasn’t going to be the case comes from the real world law of supply and demand. What real world experience did he have then, and now, to call on in order to know that?

    The more I see those clips re-run, the more I think he did, and perhaps still does(?), believe that those with existing insurance would not be affected by this attempt to cover those without insurance.

    I’m not sure which is worse – him lying or him believing it.

    I was not in favor of defund or repeal efforts. But that said, liberals have been trying to repeal the law of supply and demand for a long time. This is just the latest effort.

    • Wheels55

      I’m sure he did not know he was telling a whopper of a lie. But I bet those around him did know.
      Without any real world experience in the free market system, Obama probably thought things would be as he says just because he said it. He couldn’t be expected to know that insurance companies have dozens if not hundreds of health insurance products out in the market place and that this law would make many of those obsolete. But someone should have advised Obama, Pelosi and Reid since reality makes what they are saying false. The buck stops at the top. Can’t pin this one on Bush.

      • kayakbob

        Yes. The events of the past 3 weeks has led to this bizarre situation where people in the WH have to parse ‘what they didn’t know’ and ‘when they didn’t know it’. If this law/program/cluster… wasn’t going to affect every single citizen, it would be a bit comical.

        I am no fan of the HC insurance industry, but I said 3 years ago the ACA was kind of an ingenious (for lack of better term) way to destroy the private insurance market from within. The WH – AND a veto proof Democrat Congress at the time – loaded up mandates to the insurance companies that made it virtually impossible to both comply AND remain in business for very long. The mandates would force the insurance industry to do one of 3 things: A.) raise premiums for everyone, B.) hold the line on premiums and go out of business, C.) cancel the policies that are the most prolific economic losers.

        The insurance industry seem to have chosen A and C. (duh).

        And here is the “beauty” of it for liberals: they (would) get to point the finger at the insurance industry saying – see? see? We did it “your” way. We tried the “free market approach” but it failed. We must go to full-on, hardcore, 100% controlled government HC in order to save the country.

        Conveniently ignoring one big reality: the govt. imposed mandates drove the higher premiums and cancellations in the first place.

        But what they didn’t count on was the immediate technical failure of the website, and that policy holders wound not necessarily blame the insurance industry They are blaming the creators of this law. That wasn’t part of the plan.

        oops.

      • nickshaw

        I tend to agree with you, Wheels.
        Skeeter decreed it and he had no reason to think his orders would not be carried out. Even if they were impossible.
        His lackeys were too busy stroking him that they couldn’t bring themselves to tell him simple truths.
        How do you tell the “smartest man in the room” that he may be wrong or over-reaching when you could lose your job for doing so?

  • Stimpy

    I haven’t heard much about the economic implications other than employers are forcing people into 29 hour a week part time jobs. What about all the self insured people who were paying say $300 a month who will now be forced to pay $450 or $600 a month or more? Guess this ACA program really is a stout tax. What about all that income being diverted — what effect will that have on GDP and economic growth? I guess we’ll have to wait for Pelosi’s soothing voice to assure us that all will be well.

    • JMax

      Part-time employment was on an up trend way before ACA. They were paying $300 for crap and now they are paying $450 for solid coverage.

      • Stimpy

        Or no coverage … as in all those whose policies were unceremoniously cancelled because they didn’t meet the high ACA standards. So I guess you are right in that regard — just explain that to the people with dropped policies who have medical emergencies before they can access that wonderful ACA.

        • JMax

          “Or no coverage…”

          No, those “cancelled” policies are being replaced by ACA compliant policies. Why would you think an insurance company would tell a paying customer to simply “f**k off”?

          And if they somehow weren’t offered a replacement policy (why wouldn’t they?), they can get a policy from the exchange this afternoon. By phone or other means.

          • Jeff Webb

            So, how does anything you just posted prove that Obama’s claim, that people would keep their plans if they wanted, was the truth?

          • JMax

            Well, let me spin it this way: If your old plan does not comply with ACA minimum coverage rules, it will be an illegal policy. If the insurance company cancels your old policy because it is illegal and replaces it with the SAME policy PLUS ACA protections, you really are keeping your plan. Same networks, same doctors. etc.

          • Jeff Webb

            That is some impressive spin.

            Now, since insurance companies have cancelled policies, and people actually have ended up with something different they didn’t want, is there any straight-forward, truly and fully reasonable explanation you can offer that shows Obama’s claim was the truth?

          • JMax

            Sure. For the majority of people who have employer provided insurance, there will be little if any change.

            Think of it this way. A lot of people didn’t like seat belts when they were first mandated on American automobiles. Or air bags. They cost a little extra so people were paying for something they didn’t want. But they were better off, their passengers were better off, and their families were better off. Eventually insurance costs were lower because of fewer catastrophic injuries.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>For the majority of people who have employer provided insurance, there will be little if any change.<<

            Since Obama's claim was put forth to EVERYONE, not just the majority, your comments actually reinforce that Obama's promises weren't truthful.

            Are you even aware just how emphatic he was in his promises, that he made NO exceptions? Look, Obama might not be the smartest guy around, but he has the ability to tell the difference between promising all people something and promising many people something. I'm certainly hoping you know the difference.

            Fascinating as the car safety angle is, it doesn't include the key point you're apparently trying to avoid: someone making a false claim in order to sell the legislation.

          • JMax

            Obama IS the smartest guy around.

          • Jeff Webb

            Priceless! Oh, if only time & space permitted me to post all the many examples of BO showing what a total, abject fool he is.

            If you’re going to argue his having superior intellect, it only makes the argument that he’s a big fat liar more reasonable.

            So, which is the more likely choice?

            A) he made a glaringly wrong statement that nobody would repeat numerous times if he were the smartest guy around, or,

            B) he lied.

            Hope the spinning doesn’t make you too dizzy. : )>

          • JMax

            Just give me five or six.

          • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

            The stimulus was to turn the economy, within 3 years or his would be a 1 term presidency; instead of spending a Trillion one time, he’s borrowed an spent nearly a trillion every year since (and note, the recession formally ended in the Spring of ’09 BEFORE a dime of the stimulus made it out the door! Note: the Fed is “buying” $85B/month (a Trillion per year) of our debt to hide it off of Obama’s books.
            Shorthand for lots more lies: Benghazi (see last Sunday’s 60 Minutes!), Fast and Furious, IRS attacking political opponents, Justice lies to judge re journalist Rosen, NSA spying (many incidents, many dimensions)…. I could go on and on! Multiple lies in each of these cases as th WH tried to spin them away!

          • JMax

            If I’m not mistaken, the Treasury borrows the money that Congress says the country needs, not Obama. And it’s much less than a trillion last year and this.

            What channel is Fox News on in your neck of the woods?

          • sjangers

            Come on, Jim. That’s sophistry. While technically correct, federal spending has primarily been driven by the President since Mr. Obama took office. Also, I’m not sure about your definition of “much less”, but the latest figures I’ve seen for FY2013 indicate that deficit is approximately $973 billion. Estimates for FY2014 are at around three quarters of a trillion dollars. The average annual deficit under President Obama has exceeded one trillion dollars each year and will barely average below one trillion per year if the FY2015 deficit manages to come in below $600 billion, as is currently being estimated.

            Taking a pot shot at FOX News as a legitimate information source is about as intellectually honest as it would be for me to refuse to consider information just because NPR was the source. We know that both sources have their own bias. We understand that we should be somewhat skeptical of the source. But suggesting that information should be dismissed out-of-hand because it originated from either source just isn’t honest.

          • JMax

            The president can’t spend what Congress does not appropriate.

          • sjangers

            True. But you know that’s not how it really works. And you also know that this president hasn’t had any problems with the amount of money being spent. His protests have been that we aren’t spending enough and he’s tried to bring political pressure to bear on those who won’t support his spending agenda. These deficits are President Obama’s as much as they are anyone’s deficits.

          • JMax

            The president has agreed to trillions of dollars of budget cuts. He just signed a CR that was more that $200 billion lower than what he requested. His protests are that we are not spending enough on the things that he believes will benefit the economy and the country and the people.

          • sjangers

            And most of those spending cuts he signed under duress. I can’t think of any examples of the President pressing Congress to cut significant spending and many examples of his complaints about the amount of spending cuts that he was forced to accept by the Republican House.

          • JMax

            I want him to spend more, too. I also want Congress to raise the revenues to do it. Is compromise duress?

          • sjangers

            Compromise is something the President sure didn’t want to do until he had no other choice.

          • JMax

            This is unusual? Would you compromise if you could get what you want without it?

          • sjangers

            So you’re acknowledging that while the President agreed to “trillions of dollars of budget cuts” he didn’t do so because he wanted to cut spending. And that gets back to the point that Karl and I were making about out-of-control spending under this President.

          • JMax

            I don’t think he necessarily wants to cut spending. I don’t want to cut spending. I want spending to be more efficient with less waste. In my opinion, cutting spending should not be an end unto itself. We should spend what it takes to do the things that we as a society need or want the government to do.

            Republicans don’t care about the debt or the deficit. This is proved by the budgets and spending during the Reagan and both Bush presidencies. The GOP only use the faux concern about the debt because they want to reduce or end the “socialist” programs like Social Security and Medicare. If they cared about a balanced budget with no deficits they wouldn’t insist on never ever raising revenue. They wouldn’t insist on raising defense spending. They would also welcome Obamacare because it reduces deficits by $100B in the first 10 years and $1T in the next 10 years.

            Nobody wants to cut spending if it effects their constituency. There is no “out of control spending” under Obama. The spending is what Congress passed. And they proved that with their closure of the government. Nothing is passed without the Republican House. But what spending exactly is “out of control”?

          • sjangers

            Implicit in the cut spending mantra, for most on my side of the aisle, is that government spending is enormously wasteful. When we say “cut spending”, more than that what we really mean is “cut waste”. But we also do see federal government spending about 22% of GDP and believe that is far too large a proportion of annual outlays in our economy.

            I’m going to avoid any blanket statements about what Democrats do and don’t want and suggest that you do the same. While what you say may be true for some Republicans (as what I might say would be true for some Democrats), it isn’t true for this Republican or any that I know personally.

            Spending under Reagan and Bush was driven in part by the opposition in Congress, in the same manner that President Obama hasn’t been able to spend all he would like to because of opposition in Congress, and by some realities of the political landscape. Those Presidents saw areas where they believed there was a need for additional expenditures and tax cuts, made as many spending cuts as they believed politically palatable, and believed that economic health and the relatively low level of debt would help sustain some expenditures they considered unnecessary. President Obama didn’t have the luxury of a sufficiently strong economic climate and fairly low debt-to-income or -asset ratios to absorb deficit spending, but he stubbornly insisted on expenditures he favored (can anyone say “Solyndra”, for example?) and kept the credit card to the metal.

            I think you probably do understand the Republican opposition to raising revenues. I really don’t want to revisit that tired old argument, if you don’t mind.

            Your numbers on ACA impact on deficits are, shall we say, “overly optimistic”. Yeah, that seems to cover it.

            You’re right about politicians wanting to maintain spending that benefits their constituents. It happens on both sides and none of it benefits our society.

            I do believe that “out of control” is a reasonable description of spending under the current Administration, if only because there is still so much waste at the same time the national debt is becoming dangerously high.

            You’re correct in your assertion that Congress did pass the current spending levels, but I (and perhaps you) recall the enormous amount of political pressure that this President and his party brought to bear on the House in order to maintain most spending. If Republicans had a free hand, I think it’s safe to say that annual spending would be at least a few percent lower than current levels; perhaps quite a bit more.

          • JMax

            Yes, but it seems that most of the spending cuts directed at “waste” are actually directed and Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, WICs, Medicaid and not at defense, farm subsidies, and oil company subsidies.

            The Ryan plan wants to balance spending and revenue at 19% of GDP last I heard. That’s not too far from 22%. But still, he wants to increase defense spending and decrease people spending.

            Reagan had deficits every year. So did Bush I and II. Cheney famously said that Reagan proved that “deficits don’t matter”.

            Before you say anything about Solyndra, talk to me about the F-22.

            My numbers on ACA come directly from the Congressional Budget Office. They are not paid to be optimistic.

            I still would like to see examples of the “out of control spending”.

            The national debt as a percent of GDP is no more than it was after World War II. Was that dangerously high? How did we get out of it? We had mass outlays for education called the GI bill. We built state university systems with little or no tuition. We built the interstate highway system. We participated in the race to the moon. All of these expenditures stimulated the economy to where the country recovered from it high post war debt.

            And that’s what we should be doing today. You can’t pay down $17T in debt simply by cutting spending. You have to grow as an economy.

            The amount of pressure that the president and his party brought to bear?

            No. The president’s budget was $1.2T. The Democratic Senates’ budget was $1.0T. The Ryan budget passed by the House was $967B. The CR that the president and his party signed off on prior to the shut down (and after) was $986B. If my math is correct, the passed and signed CR was $214B less than the president’s ask, $14B less than the Senate’s ask, and only $19B more than the Ryan/House budget. So what pressure was brought to bear to force the Republicans to pass a CR at $19B more than their original budget and $214B less than the president’s?

          • sjangers

            The outcome of the World Series almost left me in a good enough mood to ignore this post. But in the end, your arguments were just a little too facile and misleading to let it stand. I’ll take it a paragraph at a time and try not to take up too much space.

            I argued that Republicans want to cut government waste. You appear to imply that their intent isn’t sincere because they see waste where you don’t and don’t see waste where you do. I believe most Republicans want to cut all government waste; including military. Trying to explain why we focus on some areas and not others could fill a book. It’s simplest to observe that Republicans tend to focus on waste in areas where liberal Democrats are arguing for even more spending. Get those programs focused and their costs under control. Then we can talk about additional spending if there’s still a need, as well as waste in other federal programs.

            You can downplay a reduction of government spending by 3% of GDP if you wish, but that still amounts to more than $500 billion. Most Republicans think of that as real money. Government spending at 19% of GDP would probably bring the projected budget for FY 2015 into balance, instead of continuing to grow the federal debt by a half trillion dollars every year. I think Ryan is on to something.

            Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 all ran deficits every year they were in office. So what? Here’s an interesting little factoid to help you put it all in perspective. The combined twenty years of Republican deficits totaled $8.093 trillion (that’s in nominal dollars, just to keep the comparison fair). Four years under Obama have added $5.415 trillion to the deficit (sorry, but he gets credit for the $800 billion supplemental appropriation he requested in FY2009. Again, to keep things fair.). Those four years of Obama deficits amount to 67% of the deficit spending during twenty years of Republican administrations! That’s a remarkable figure! You’re trying to compare pineapples to kumquats. Had Vice President Cheney foreseen the kind of deficits this administration intended to rack up, I think he might have held his tongue.

            I mentioned the Solyndra scandal to remind you that President Obama was spending money recklessly from day one to reward his political friends, and he did so in a dangerously weak economic climate. You respond with a tu quoque argument. Stop being absurd. One instance was bad policy to appease local workers in robust economic times. The other was to reward a political ally and fundraiser with deficit spending in an economic crisis. Tu quoque, indeed!

            CBO estimates notwithstanding, it sure doesn’t look like the ACA is going to save us any money. It looks like it’s going to add to the deficit, perhaps substantially. Estimates about taxpayer behavior in an untested set of circumstances are, by their very nature, an inexact science. (Okay. Let’s be fair. They’re pure supposition.) It appears that the Obama administration has made a lot of faulty assumptions about how we will behave when faced with tens of millions of discontinued insurance policies and ensuing healthy consumer decisions about whether to join health exchanges or pay a tax penalty. I don’t know how many of those inaccurate assumptions migrated into the CBO model. I suspect more than a few, since the Obama Administration has tended to quote the CBO spending figure in many of their statements. What we can see now is that many of those assumptions are out the window and the marketplace is about to turn into the wild west. Those estimates aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

            If you still need to see examples of out-of-control spending after our exchanges, and after living in this country for the past sixty years, I may, perhaps, be talking to a wall.

            While your statement about the ratio of federal debt to GDP is accurate, I shouldn’t have to remind you that circumstances in 1946 were very different from circumstances today. First, we didn’t get into that debt situation as a matter of deliberate policy. An existential conflict kind of forced that spending on us, and we were fortunate that circumstances mitigated the debt risk. Second, WWII ended with the rest of the world in dire economic circumstances and the United States well positioned- as a result of the huge infrastructure investments of previous years, wealth of technological advances that arose from wartime investment, and the relative youth of our population at that time- to rapidly expand our markets and our economy. None of those circumstances exist today. Instead, we have an aging infrastructure and population, and we have many very healthy economic competitors around the world. Third, the public debt to GDP ratio then was a bit higher than ours is today, but the overall debt to GDP ratio in our economy today is about two-and-a-half times worse. If the debt burden in our society becomes too extreme, our government will have little flexibility to alleviate problems. Fourth, the war expenditures of the previous four years had ended by 1946. Spending was coming into balance of its own accord. Can you name even one substantial federal program today that is likely to end in the next decade? That is likely to have any serious reduction in outlays over the next decade? Those are just a few examples of circumstances that are dramatically different today, and why a comparison of the federal debt to GDP then has very little relevance to our situation today.

            The way to grow an economy is to invest in areas that promote high return to investment. Massive increases in entitlement spending will offer little or no benefit. I would argue that they will do more harm to economic growth than good.

            Please see Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics”. That should help answer your question about pressures from the President and his supporters that Congressional Republicans had to withstand in the 2011-12 spending showdowns. Please note that the Ryan proposal was not the original Republican negotiating position. Please also note that the final expenditures that resulted from all this political wrangling still let us with a FY2012 deficit of $1.1 trillion and a FY2013 deficit of $759 billion. There’s still a lot of work to do.

            And finally one snarky comment that I just can’t help. I have a little trouble accepting your final paragraph references to the President’s “budget” of $1.2 trillion and the Democratic Senators’ “budget” of $1.0 trillion. Budget is a word that implies at least some degree of discipline and responsibility in planning expenditures. Could we just talk about the President’s and the Senators’ “spending proposals”. That just feels more ‘right’ to me.

          • JMax

            Hurray for the Red Sox!

            Everyone want’s to cut waste. At least as long as doing so doesn’t harm their constituencies.

            The Defense budget is $400 billion a year and Ryan’s budget adds to it. I say get the waste under control and then we can talk about money for them.

            I don’t downplay a 3% of GDP reduction in spending. It’s just that now is not the time. We need more spending, not less spending. I’m a Keynesian. Ryan’s budget does not get to a balanced budget in 2015 or anytime in the next few years. Last I saw his plan for America balanced the budget in about 2064 although I think that’s changed. Regardless, the deficit has been steadily decreasing since the Great Recession.

            Reagan doubled the deficit. Bush 41 increased it by 64%. Clinton reduced the deficit every year and eventually eliminated it. Bush 43 destroyed the surplus and raised it 188% from 2002 to 2008. Obama has held or reduced the deficit every year so far and has halved it since his first year.

          • sjangers

            Hurray for the Red Sox, indeed! It was a lot of fun watching the duck boats parade up and down the Charles River Saturday morning. I know it probably sounds greedy, but this never gets old.

            I have no problem with maintaining DoD spending at current levels and putting the burden on the department to make more efficient use of their budget. Even with some modest decreases in spending, $830 billion seems more than sufficient to do the job. I don’t know why Ryan is looking to increase the budget, although I would listen respectfully to his explanation.

            I understand that Ryan isn’t looking to cut federal spending to 19% of GDP in one year. I would expect you to applaud him for being responsible. But I do think it’s a very reasonable goal. And I would hope the annual deficit is decreasing as we drag ourselves out of the deepest economic hole I’ve lived through. If it isn’t, we’ll soon have problems we may never resolve.

            More spending doesn’t make a lot of sense now. Starting in 2009, annual outlays in constant dollars have been running twelve to seventeen percent higher than the 2008 federal budget, the last pre-recession budget. Military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the associated cost, is winding down and we’re still spending substantially more than we were before the recession and President Obama’s first term in office. Exactly how much more would you like to spend?

            Interesting factoids about budget deficit growth under the various Presidents, but exactly how does any of that information address the points I’ve been making? But as long as we’re here, how about a few quibbles? Reagan’s FY1989 deficit is actually less than his FY1982 deficit, not double that deficit. Bush 41s FY1993 deficit was only 43% higher than the FY1989 deficit he inherited when he came into office, something that should please a good Keynesian as he was dealing with a recession. Clinton either reduced the deficit or increased his surplus in seven of the eight years he held office, not all eight. And while I would normally applaud President Obama for decreasing the size of the deficit each year he was in office, the fact that his average annual deficit has exceeded $1 trillion helps to temper my enthusiasm. His average annual deficit, in constant dollars, has been more than three times the average annual deficit under President Bush 43. Managing to reduce the size of such a massive deficit each year he’s been in office is a bit of a hollow accomplishment. And because I just can’t resist getting a partisan dig in here, the rate of reduction was barely noticeable until after Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. By your own admission, spending would have been much higher if the Congressional Republicans hadn’t insisted on at least a modicum of fiscal sense.

            I think Republicans would respond to your next point by noting that it wouldn’t be necessary to cut spending by 1/3 to match a 1/3 decrease in revenues if Democrats didn’t insist on spending every dime that comes in during years when revenues increase by 1/3. Put a little money away in the good times and there’s something available to defray the damage in bad times, without having to mortgage the future of generations to come.

            Since you seem to think that the Solyndra pay-off- excuse me, “loan”- was a stimulus, could you perhaps tell us what was stimulated by that half billion dollars, aside from the bank accounts of some Democrat Party donors? Can you offer any detailed analysis- or point to a source that can- that demonstrates that any of the “green” investment produced laudable results for the overall economy? From the limited reading I’ve done on the subject, the only venture capitalists who loved the rate of return the country saw on those expenditures are those with room-temperature IQs.

            CBO assessments are still subject to the limitations of the information at their disposal and the parameters of the questions they are asked to answer. I don’t know specifically what was asked of them in the analysis of the ACA. I do know that what the law is supposed to do cannot be done without either significant reforms in the costs associated with the practice of medicine, something the law doesn’t address, or significant increase in associated costs. We’re going to insure and provide medical services for about forty million Americans who currently don’t have insurance coverage. Insurance companies are going to be required to expand coverages (i.e., no limits on who they can insure, reproductive services covered for everyone) and will be looking to achieve a rate of return similar to that they currently enjoy. While it’s not part of the current law and regulations, now that this sector of our economy is more deeply under the control of the government, an endless stream of requirements on insurers and health care providers will inevitable ensue, only adding to the cost of our health care. All of this comes at a cost. As I’ve witnessed in other areas in our society, government will try to pass some of these costs off onto state and local governments, businesses and medical providers, and private individuals, but there will be an inevitable increase in expense for the federal government. Wherever this burden comes to rest, there will be substantial cost increases. At least some of them will impact the federal budget.

            One area that already leads me to suspect the CBO analysis is the problems were are seeing with growth of Medicaid, and anecdotal evidence that suggests there will be far fewer young and healthy enrollees in private insurance programs than the Obama Administration is believed to have anticipated. Medicaid enrollees add expenses to the federal budget. Non-participants will provide a small stream of revenues due to the tax penalty for not owning insurance, but too many people in this category will place an enormous burden on insurance plans and drive up those costs substantially (due to required coverage of people with serious health issues, if there isn’t a dramatic increase in healthy premium-payers to offset that expense), placing more burdens on the budget to provide assistance to those of limited means who do pay for their own insurance. I don’t know what other people will do, but if I were single, young and healthy, a small tax penalty and no insurance would probably look a lot more attractive to me than paying $10,000 to $12,000 for health insurance. Even if I get sick, I can still go to an emergency room for care. There’s little incentive for me to spend the money for insurance premiums that will most likely be used to subsidize someone else’s health problems.

            For the reasons stated in the paragraph above, look forward to a wild west redux.

            Your next two paragraphs are fairly reasonable, but I would like to see much greater emphasis on identify and eliminating waste and fraud before we take out another credit card. The spending of the past five or ten years, while sometimes the result of circumstances, wasn’t in response to the kind of threat posed by Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan. There was a bit more urgency and less flexibility in making the spending decisions of the 1940s.

            The federal deficit as percent of GDP was about 140% greater in 1946 than it is today. The total debt in this country, public and private, as a percentage of GDP is about two-and-a-half time worse, as I noted in my last post. In addition, our resources and the world economic climate are dramatically different. It’s very difficult to see a correlation between the circumstances in 1946 and current circumstances. I certainly wouldn’t risk the economic future of our country on the assumption that “we did it before and can do it again”.

            The spending in Afghanistan should, hopefully, be largely over within the next two years. Our force commitment is about to end. Budgetary projections I’ve seen indicate that spending in that region of the world shouldn’t be very great at all after FY2015. And hopefully we will see much lower expenditures on Unemployment, although the majority of that comes out of state budgets and unemployment insurance payments from employers. But don’t count of seeing dramatic decreases in SNAP spending and that for associated programs. I think we’re going to see a lot of people needing help for years to come.

            Interesting statistic on the velocity of SNAP money. Do you know how much economic activity is generated by one dollar left in the private sector? Or one dollar spent on tech R & D. If a SNAP dollar generates one dollar and seventy cents of economic activity, and that $1.70 is taxed at an average rate of 15% (for the sake of argument), do you know how much of that makes its way back to federal coffers? That’s about twenty-five cents in tax revenues that it costs us one dollar to generate. One dollar of economic activity in the private sector returns fifteen cents in tax revenues and doesn’t cost the government a cent to generate. I support helping people when there’s need. I don’t support borrowing another trillion for SNAP payments on the theory that it will eventually pay us back a quarter trillion dollars. That a three-quarter trillion dollar loss, with interest still owing on the borrowed money. Even your cognitively-challenged venture capitalists, from the Solyndra example, would probably realize that’s not a very good return on investment.

            Your thoughts on Social Security, financial estimates aside, might need a little revision when you try to explain to people who have put fifteen percent of their income into FICA every year since they started working that 22-25% of them won’t be getting any of their money back. But trust me, if I’m still alive I’ll be encouraging you Democrats to do just that. I might even be willing to give up every cent I ever paid in FICA withholding just to see it happen.

            ROI on jobs and education can be quite high. The limiting factor is that it still has to be good job and effective education. Burger flipping does little to prepare a workforce or generate economic activity. The jobs have to teach workers skills that add real value to the products they create. Education has to include a substantial dose of skills that are transferrable to the workplace. Both areas have been problematic in our society in recent years. Before we start throwing money around, we need to ask how we should be allocating those resources in order for them to be most productive.

            If you’re not willing to put any effort into reading Woodward, why should I put any effort into summarizing him for you? Jeez.

            I never claimed the Republican spending proposals were fiscally sound. Let’s just call them a little less fiscally irresponsible than what the Democrats in the Senate proposed and a lot less irresponsible than what the President wanted to spend. Your argument is kind of like saying it makes no difference if we go out and spend twenty thousand dollars we don’t have on a new car and then decide to celebrate the purchase with a brand new wide screen TV. Neither is a very good idea, but maybe we really do need to have the car. I think we’ll find a way to get by without the television.

            And as we come to the close of yet another lengthy missive, we’re both so deep in the weeds that there’s little hope of drawing any clear conclusions from all the information, one way or the other. But it is fun, isn’t it?

          • JMax

            “I would expect you to applaud him for being responsible.”

            I wouldn’t applaud him just because he wants to cut spending. Would I applaud my wife because she wants to reduce our spending by cutting our food budget in half or bringing our son home from college, instead of not buying a new luxury car or a new set of dinnerware?

            I think more spending IS needed right now. $1 of spending on WICs or SNAP generates $1.74 in economic activity. What this country needs most is jobs and education. Jobs don’t just trickle down because rich people have money. Jobs come from demand for services and products. Demand comes from people with money in their pockets, especially those who HAVE to spend that money to feed themselves and their families. I’m not interested in spending just to spend so it’s not a case of just how much I want to spend. I want people to eat. I want people to buy clothes. I want people to get the education needed to be able to fill the many, many jobs currently unfilled for lack of qualified people. I want smarter spending not less spending. We have a growing population. Why must our federal budget shrink while the population is growing?

            We need to close tax loopholes for people who don’t need them. We need to tax carried interest as ordinary income. We need to value labor as much as we value investment and tax them at comparable rates.

            Obama’s “average” deficit is a meaningless figure if his year to year deficit is rapidly trending downward. Obama’s deficit trends downward while Bush’s trended upward.

            When Republicans had four years in a row of surpluses they just couldn’t help themselves by giving tax cuts instead of paying down the debt proving that they don’t care about deficit and debts. They care about taxes.

            Solyndra, again, was one part of a program that has been successful in creating jobs now and in the future. Venture capitalists consider a 30% success rate outstanding. The program under which Solyndra was loaned money has a much higher success rate than 30%. Do you know of any venture capitalists with “room temperature IQs”?

            The CBO has as much information as anybody. Their job is to estimate the results of legislation. They are non-partisan and they are very good at what they do.

            The law DOES, in fact, address costs associated with the practice of medicine. It is a key part of the legislation.

            Insurance companies are required to spend at least 80% of each premium dollar on health care. They have 20% to work with on administration and profit. Their rate of return is on them and how well they administer. I don’t believe that regulations automatically mean higher cost. In many cases it’s the opposite.

            Let me ask you. Should 40 million people go without health care insurance?

            The CBO knows how many people are in Medicaid and how many will probably be on Medicaid in the future. I’m sure they took that into account when they said ACA would reduce the deficit by $1.1 Trillion over the first 20 years. I don’t believe there IS any anecdotal evidence yet about young and healthy people buying insurance. It’s very possible that the availability of reasonably-priced insurance will be attractive to them. In California a 26 year-old making $25,000 a year can get a Bronze policy for $62 a month. A 28 year-old making $50,000 can get a Bronze plan for $190 a month with estimated annual out of pocket expenses of $2,675 and that’s without a subsidy. I don’t know what state you live in, but I seriously doubt you couldn’t do a heck of a lot better than $10-12,000 a year. I don’t believe you can get health care at an ER for just being “sick”. And if you did and were going to be personally responsibility, it would certainly cost you a lot more than your annual premium.

            Why is “private” debt important here? What do YOU call private debt?

            I think you are misunderstanding what I meant on Social Security. There is no way that 22-25% of people wouldn’t receive benefits. It’s that people would receive 75-78% of their expected benefits. Again, that’s if NOTHING is done.

            You are asking me to buy and read a book that you believe proves your point. I’ve read three or four Woodward books and I respect his work for the most part. AND they are not short reads. I don’t know why you would be upset because I don’t care to buy and read a specific book. Would you buy and read “Blinded By The Right” if I recommended it? Or “The Benghazi Hoax”? How about “Dreams from My Father”?

            I did read David Corn’s “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party”. So I’d be happy to hear your summary from Woodward.

            I don’t think the Democrats are spending on cars and flat screen TVs. I think they are spending on Mac ‘n Cheese and baloga. And shoes.

            It is fun. And at least you are civil. There are a couple other Bernie readers I’m debating here who are really dicks. :-)

          • sjangers

            I’m not sure, but I think we’ve managed to wander some distance away from our original discussion. I’ve been reluctant to go back and read our early posts out of concern for what I might find. And I hope you won’t mind if I don’t try to address all the points in your most recent post. I think we’re well past the point of pretending this is some sort of rational and comprehensive exchange. Onward and upward!

            I might agree with you about more spending now if presented with a proposal that demonstrated some clear direction. A certain amount of money for specific kinds of education that has a demonstrated capacity for improving workforce quality would make sense. So would job training and jobs where there’s a direct correlation between the investment and economic growth. But the current Administration hasn’t shown much capacity for that kind of clear-headed approach to investment. I’m not a fan of just throwing more money into jobs and education because everybody knows jobs and education are good; particularly not at a time when there’s very little money available for investment.

            Your argument about jobs coming from consumer demand, while broadly true, is a little facile. If people spending money was all we needed to create jobs, why has consumer misuse of credit often produced so much economic difficulty? You’d think the more maxed out credit cards and over drawn bank accounts, the better. Somehow it doesn’t work that way.

            You need to look at growth or contraction of the federal budget in a somewhat broader context than you have in your last post. If you look at the ratio of inflation adjusted federal spending per capita you’ll discover that we spent approximately $10,500 per person in 2012. In 2000 we spent approximately $7,000 per person. In 1980 we spent approximately $6,100 per person. In 1960 we spent approximately $3,800 per person. In 1940 the federal government spent approximately $1,050 per person. Historically, we’ve seen dramatic increases in federal spending per capita. In just the last twelve years that rate of spending has increased 50%. Complaining that the federal budget has been shrinking in the last year or two completely ignores the big picture.

            Closing tax loopholes is completely off topic. Significantly revising the basis of our system of taxation is also way out there. We might find a lot of room for agreement here- I’m still willing to share details of my 1776 tax proposal, if you’re interested- but will end up chasing our tails somewhere far afield from where this discussion started.

            President Obama’s average deficit is a significant figure in that his original annual deficit was about five times the annual average under Bush 43. So what if it’s trending downward now? It ought to be.

            I didn’t necessarily support the Bush tax cuts, but I can’t say the concept was bad. He inherited a mild recession, he cut taxes, and it appears that it might have stimulated the economy. By FY2006 and FY2007 total inflation-adjusted tax revenues were greater than those revenues were in FY2002, despite the lower tax rates. But the combination of wars and the business cycle, which might have predicted more recession within five or six years of the end of the Clinton recession, trumped the economic growth associated with the tax cuts and fueled huge new federal deficits.

            Venture capitalists consider a 30% annual ROI outstanding. I’m not sure how they feel if seventy percent of the ventures they invest in go belly up. Queasy, perhaps. Somewhere around here I have a list of thirty-three “green” investments made by the Obama Administration as stimulus spending that failed. Nineteen of those companies are now in bankruptcy. The most recent, EcoTality, went under this summer. Those thirty-three companies received somewhat in excess of $7.4 billion dollars. While I’m not certain that all of those investment dollars were completely lost, you have to have a pretty high rate of return elsewhere in your investment portfolio to make up for that impressive volume of failure. You wouldn’t happen to have any details to share about the success stories, would you?

            I’ll stop hammering on the CBO for now. I still fully expect to find their estimates for cost-saving by the ACA to be way off base. You don’t. We won’t know for twenty years, but we’ll have a pretty good idea how accurate they were within the next four to six years.

            I haven’t shopped exchange health insurance plans in my area, so I can’t say what the costs are for certain. I do know that premiums for coverage similar to what you describe for the Bronze Plan tend to be quite a bit higher on our open market, but then I’m not twenty-six any more. I’ve heard so much about confusing premium estimates for exchange plans that I’m not sure if anyone really knows what they’ll have to pay until they’ve been through the whole process and have the monthly bill in their hand.

            The debt figures I’m talking about are the totality of debt in the country. The federal debt in 1946, as a proportion of GCP, was (temporarily) quite a bit higher (about 140%, iirc) than that figure is today. But there was also much less debt throughout the country at that time. All government debt, corporate debt, and money owed by private citizens in 1946, as a proportion of GDP, was only about 40% of what that figure is today.

            The Social Security system is headed for some very difficult times. Whether we increase the rate of contribution for workers and employers today, cut everyone’s payments by 20-25%, or completely eliminate Social Security for the wealthiest 20-25%, there are going to be some very unhappy people in this country. These people are going to feel that government has failed to keep a promise that was made to them, and they’ll be right. The only question will be: How many were foolish enough to believe it in the first place? I suspect we’ll see similar problems in the future with the ACA.

            I might actually be interested in reading “The Benghazi Hoax”. David Brock’s a psychotic twerp with a history of, uh, creative reporting. I might be entertained. I’m going to pass on David Corn. Aside from never finding much value in his perspective, he isn’t even very entertaining. “Dreams From My Father” sounds like a bit of a drug-fueled reminiscence. Who was the author? Carlos Castaneda?

            Sorry to be snarky, but I can’t help but wonder about the typo in your penultimate paragraph. Are Democrats spending their money on Mac ‘n’ Cheese and “bologna”, or was that supposed to be “beluga”? And shoes? That sounds like an Imelda Marcos kind of thing. Or maybe Nancy Pelosi.

            Do let me know if these exchanges ever stop being fun. I could be a lot less civil if that would help to spice things up.

          • JMax

            “But the current Administration hasn’t shown much capacity for that kind of clear-headed approach to investment.”

            I would imagine that little effort would be put into details before the President had any clear indication that the Republicans in Congress would be willing to legislate on it.

            People racked up huge debt against their homes during the housing bubble. The economy was going great…until the bubble burst.

            Closing tax loopholes is my way of saying that revenue is part of the equation of reducing the deficit. I would be interested in learning about your tax proposal.

            Obama’s original deficit was necessarily large due to the recession and the need to stimulate the economy while revenue fell off a cliff. And remember that about 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts. Averaging his deficits is like average yours, mine, and Bill Gates’ annual income.

            That Bush’s tax cuts raised revenue is debatable.

            I didn’t mean VCs think a 30% ROI is outstanding. I meant a 30% success rate.

            There is one relatively painless solution to Social Security and that is to raise the salary cap and/or include other types of income. If that is done, no cuts will be needed and nobody will feel that their government has failed to keep a promise.

            There is no reason for anybody not to believe in the promise of Social Security. It has been one of the most successful government programs of all time and will continue as long as those who don’t believe it should exist don’t win.

            Well we certainly disagree on David Brock. I don’t know why anyone would call him a “twerp” or “psychotic”. What is your evidence that he is psychotic?

            David Corn has written some pretty good books and of course he broke the 47% story.

            “Dreams From My Father” was written by Barack Obama, of course, and is in no way a drug-fueled reminiscence.

            Balogna. I thought is was classier than baloney.

            Fun so far, but incivility would pretty much end it. I can get that elsewhere if I wanted it.

          • sjangers

            Actually, I was referring to the haphazard and largely ineffective way the Obama Administration managed stimulus when they first took office. As for today, I can’t imagine they’d have to wait for Congressional Republicans to initiate a discussion on new stimulus. This Administration and the Democratic Senate has been more than willing to take the lead on any number of initiatives they claim are in the best interest of the country. Why not more stimulus?

            Consumer debt is only a modest part of the overall American debt picture today. And consumer debt didn’t climb all that dramatically during the housing bubble of the last decade. It’s a problem that’s been growing for decades.

            I don’t have a problem with closing tax loopholes, although I’m not interested in trying to turn it into a huge revenue enhancer. But I’d like to see a tax system that is fair, reasonably progressive, and easy to understand.

            My patriotic 1776 tax plan started out as a snarky response to the 9-9-9 Plan that Herbert Cain rolled out early in the 2012 presidential election campaign. It was intended as a bit of a mockery of campaign gimmicks, but there are some features of 9-9-9 and 1776 that I think are kind of interesting from a policy perspective. I’d have to dig up some old documents and research if you want a lot of detail, but the essence was a 7% VAT, a 7% personal income tax, and a 6% corporate income tax rate, topped off by an annual 1% “wealth” tax (think of that as an annual estate tax before you die). I remember some rough features like a threshold before the personal income tax kicks in (there’s no intelligent reason to tax people who literally can’t afford to pay taxes, so the first $15,000- or whatever figure I had identified- of income would be tax-exempt) and a threshold on the value of personal property before the wealth tax was applied (probably somewhere in the area of $500,000, iirc). The feature I liked was that it was revenue-neutral with our current tax system, so I could adopt the “patriotic” 1776 gimmick. But I suppose one could always play with the rates. A substantial VAT made sure that everyone had at least some skin in the game. The wealth tax was the crude “progressive” element and also mitigated against the wealthy just sitting on their money when the economy needed investment. And the whole thing was pretty darned simple. If any of this strikes you as worth more than just a good laugh, I could probably dig up my research materials without too much trouble.

            President Obama’s current deficit still exceeds Bush 43’s deficits, even after the tax cuts and stimulus have largely been eliminated.

            I understand that there is disagreement about the impact of Bush 43’s tax cuts. All I know is what the numbers show. I’m sure there may have been other factors that contributed to such dramatic revenue growth at the lower tax rate, but I’ve yet to hear anyone give a compelling explanation for them. Since I tend to believe that money in private hands will usually stimulate the economy, I’ll credit the tax cuts.

            Here’s the interesting question about venture capitalists and the Obama green stimulus: Understanding that most big investors are still looking to make at least 12 15% annual return on investment, and accepting your stipulation that about 70% of the Obama green investments failed completely, can you offer even a few examples of the 30% of those successful investments that must be providing an average 300% annual ROI or greater to make our investors so happy? I don’t know of one.

            Raising the salary cap on Social Security tax isn’t going to please the people who will be contributing an extra 15.3% of their income to keep the program solvent while getting nothing back in return. No matter how we butcher that pig, some people are going to be very unhappy. However successful Social Security may or may not have been over the past eighty years, demographics suggest that it is not very likely to remain so for another eighty.

            I don’t know if you’re familiar with David Brock’s history. He started out as a conservative Republican writing for the American Spectator, among other right-wing publications. He was responsible for some very damaging investigative pieces on Anita Hill and Bill Clinton. Some of his writing about Clinton was so disturbing that it had a rather young and naïve yours truly wondering why the guy wasn’t under criminal investigation. Brock later recanted his ideology and back-pedaled away from some of his more extreme journalistic “achievements”. Some sort of rift developed between him and the conservative movement, and in a fairly short period of time he migrated through Democratic-leaning journalist to become a bitter left wing partisan. His work at Media Matters has come under sharp criticism for ethical practices by conservative media outlets. His personal behavior has also been widely reported, leaving the strong impression that he may be at least a few hundred milligrams of thorazine shy of mentally stable. Most of this reporting has come from ideological opponents, but much of what I’ve read seems to be fairly reported, reasonably accurate, and- even filtering out perspective and moderate bias of the sources- suggests an individual in whom I wouldn’t care to put much faith. If you want specific examples of Brock’s ethical and mental health struggles, I’m sure I could direct you to a number of pieces from the Daily Caller and similar outlets.

            “Balogna” is the more appropriate form of the word, although that’s coming from someone who still insists in ordering “provolonee” at the deli counter. I figure there’s nothing wrong with keeping the proper form and pronunciation of words we borrow from other languages. And it’s probably just as well you didn’t use “baloney”. I’m sure I’d have found an equally snarky response for that.

            I’ll pass on the incivility, since you insist. I guess I’ll have to keep taking the more obnoxious aspects of my personality out on posters who offend me first- probably some Yahoo users.

          • JMax

            Obama and the Democrats have been trying since at least 2011 to pass any number of job-creating stimulus bills. The Republicans have no interest in anything that would help the American people and economy if it means any kind of success for the president.

            Actually, the 1776 tax plan has some good points. I like the idea of a wealth tax. I don’t think it would ever pass and if it did, the wealthy would move their wealth offshore or hide it somehow. Today pretty much nobody with an income of $15,000 pays federal tax. Either they are below the threshold or they get a tax credit that offsets any liability. But I’m pleasantly surprised to see a conservative embrace progressivity in taxation!

            The tax cuts have only been partially eliminated. Today’s deficits are as much a matter of reduced revenues as they are of increased spending.

            OK, let me repeat as clearly as I can. :-) I didn’t say 70% of Obama’s green initiatives failed. In fact it’s under 10% I believe. I said that from what I’ve read, VCs consider themselves successful if 30% of their investments (not dollars but count) are successful.

            I was on the higher side of earners during much of my career, most of the time exceeding the cap and paying zero FICA for part of the year. Personally, I would have had no problem paying FICA on all my salary in order to assure that people who needed full benefits gets them. Even if it didn’t add significantly to my benefit. I guess I’m kind of liberal that way. Regardless, raising the cap will provide full benefits for the next 80 years and beyond.

            I’m pretty familiar with Brock and his history. I read “Blinded By The Right.” The main reason that he changed his political stripes and left the “vast right wing conspiracy” is that his supposed conservative friends discovered that he was gay and that his hit pieces on the Clintons weren’t vile enough (due to lack of evidence). At that point, he was unwelcome in those circles. I searched for David Brock and the word “psychotic” but the only reference to psychotic in a Brock-related article was referring to Breitbart.

            I read Media Matters every day. What the right objects to primarily is that the site posts lengthy video clips of conservatives (and sometimes liberals) and the so-called-liberal-media IN CONTEXT. In other words, people are pissed that their words are on the record on a website. It’s really hard to understand that people can feel they are being smeared by their own words in context.

            Keep it coming.

          • sjangers

            I think the political obstinacy cuts both ways. The President and his supporters haven’t embraced any Republican initiatives and have been pretty reluctant to make necessary changes in the ACA if it means they think it will give the Republicans any political leverage. Don’t play holier than thou. It won’t sell in this instance.

            With the current size of government, it’s absurd not to embrace progressivity in taxation. If we tried to fund our entire government today with a flat tax it would cause far too much real pain. The problem with progressivity is that the left keeps trying to push the envelope and shift more wealth into the hands of their supporters. Republicans need to hold the line on expenditures. Democrats have almost no incentive to do so in the current environment.

            I’ve no idea if a wealth tax could ever become law. There’s going to be a lot of resistance to any new ideas for taxation. Fairly ironclad assurances would have to be offered that it wouldn’t be opening the door to a new form of government intrusion into private affairs. If there wasn’t already a lengthy history of expansion of government reach and power, people might be a little more open to experimentation with new kinds of taxes.

            You probably ought to stop calling me a conservative before you seriously annoy some of the real conservatives on this site. If you think you’ve already been dealing with some dicks, wait until they find out you’re calling a “RINO” conservative.

            I’m messing with you a bit with the comparison of the “success” of the President’s green stimulus to the kind of success venture capitalists demand. But be real. I think you and I both know that the economic returns on the stimulus investments in green technology have been dismal. Venture capitalists don’t expect to lose money on their investment portfolio, even if they do understand that not all investments will pay off. Mitt Romney’s experiences with Bain Capital might offer some benchmarks for understanding their world.

            All teasing aside, I do appreciate your willingness to sacrifice your good fortune for the benefit of SSA solvency. I may be wrong, but I suspect you’re in a very small minority. I try to help other people, but I wouldn’t feel too good about the government swooping in and grabbing another 15.3% of my income every year so they can make good on their dubious past promises.

            Where to begin on David Brock? When I was young, I was more conservative than I am today. Even as a moderate Republican in the late 80s and early 90s, I knew that there was something just a bit sketchy about Brock and his reporting. Twenty years later he’s playing the same game from the opposite side of the ideological divide. And I really don’t think he’s playing with a full deck. I’ve never met him in person, and I’m also not suggesting that he’s not intelligent, but simply observing video of him speaking and interacting with others leaves a strong impression that he’s living in a different version of reality from most of the rest of us. It’s certainly not a diagnosis, but it is a very strong personal impression.

            For what it’s worth, you really ought to read some of the Daily Caller and Breitbart reporting on Brock and his organization. They obviously come at the subject with some bias, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t substantial nuggets of truth to be discovered beneath the overburden. I find enough hard information present in this reporting pointing to ongoing ethical struggles, as well as questionable mental health, that should raise serious doubts about Brock and the information he provides. I’m not suggesting that everything offered by Brock and Media Matters has no value, just as I’m sure you wouldn’t be reckless enough to make the same suggestion about information provided by Breitbart and the DC, but I would sift Brock pretty carefully if I were searching for the truth.

            I suppose, to be fair, that I should also try out Brock and Media Matters again. I’m pretty skeptical of sources with obvious bias- I learned that lesson the hard way with the DC- but that shouldn’t prevent me from listening to what they have to say. The worst thing that could happen is a waste of a little time, but at the very least I’d still have the opportunity to recalibrate my BS meter.

          • JMax

            The whole ACA is a Republican initiative. Heritage Foundation? RomneyCare? Democrats wanted a public option. Nope. Democrats were against Medicare Part D for one thing because it wasn’t funded and for another because it forbade the government from negotiating drug prices with Pharma. Speaker Tom Delay even against House rules kept the vote open for 3 hours while he twisted arms to get it passed. But when it did, Democrats cooperated to implement and make changes where needed.

            Republicans aren’t interested in any “necessary” changes unless those changes will cripple ACA.

            “Democrats have almost no incentive to do so in the current environment.”

            And yet they are willing to entertain Chained CPI, cuts to defense, etc.

            i assumed you were a conservative. To me a RINO IS a conservative, at least in today’s politics. People to the right of RINOs are uncompromising ideologues or right wing nut jobs. I don’t consider say Ted Cruz a “conservative”.

            I don’t know how the government would “grab another 15.3%” of your income. It would only be grabbing that amount on your income above the current cap (including employer contribution).

            I’ve seen Brock several times on TV. I don’t find him any stranger that any other liberal journalist. His “reporting” is basically clips of people lying or being called out for their lies.

            I’m familiar with Breitbart, Daily Caller, James O’Keefe and their ilk. They almost make Beck look sane, and O’Keefe is a lying sack of munure. Breitbart was a drunk psychotic. Talk about “questionable mental health”! I’ve read stuff on their websites. I wouldn’t believe a word they said about Brock. If you have some other source I’d be happy to read it though.

            If you are skeptical about sources with obvious bias, why wouldn’t you be skeptical about Breitbart and DC?

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/?welcome=1

            Later. :-)

          • sjangers

            Taking a piece or two of previous ideas from individual Republicans, parts of a twenty-five-year-old proposal from a right-leaning think tank, and bits and pieces from a program that was implemented under a Republican governor in a very liberal state doesn’t make the ACA a Republican initiative. By the time the President and the Dems got through adding a thousand pages to the legislation, and tens of thousands of pages of regulation, the final product had as much in common with Republican values as a golf cart has in common with a Ferrari. I know it has become a favorite meme of Democrats that the ACA was really Republican legislation, that ‘we gave in to them on everything and not even one of them was willing to support the law and help the President do the right thing for the country, probably because they’re- omigosh!- racist’, but that’s utter nonsense. Claims like that strain credulity and really damage the credibility of those who make them.

            I’ll let you have the point on Medicare Part D because I didn’t follow that legislation very closely. But please let’s not get too excited about Tom Delay breaking House rules for three hours when for the past couple of years Harry Reid has been regularly threatening to do the same with long-standing Senate tradition (and rules) by implementing the ‘nuclear option’ and restricting debate on bills without the consent of 60% of the Senators.

            In the interest of keeping this conversation polite, how about we agree that I won’t try to read Democrat minds if you stop pretending to do the same with Republican intentions.

            I probably should have qualified my comment on Democrats’ disincentives to cut spending. You’re right! Democrats have almost always been willing to consider cuts in Defense spending. And chained CPI is a somewhat different matter. When I discovered that my standard of living hadn’t declined, despite paying as great a percentage of my weekly income to eat a 5.5-ounce can of cat food today in place of the 7-ounce can of tuna I used to eat twenty years ago, I almost lost my mind. Only a Democrat could come up with such a bizarre concept. It took me a while to figure that one out, but I suspect that it’s a way of dealing with political reality (i.e., there’s only so much blood you can squeeze out of the American taxpayer) while evading accountability for the disappointment of the voting citizen. After all, it must be someone else’s responsibility, maybe evil corporations or greedy employers, if we don’t seem to be doing as well today as we were thirty years ago, since the Democrats can demonstrate that wages and entitlement payments have kept up with the (modified) cost-of-living, whether measure by CPI or core inflation rate. And don’t you just love the way food and energy prices are discarded from calculation of the core inflation rate? Their prices are too volatile, they say (and who cares that they represent a major portion of the real expenditures of the average family?). I’m pretty sure that was another Democratic idea.

            In the real world I tend to be viewed as a moderate. Most real conservatives think I’m a Democrat, or a RINO at best. On a scale of 0 to 10, my overall political philosophy is probably about a 6 or 6.5. But even in my more conservative youth, I still voted for George H. W, Bush over Reagan in my first presidential primary. It’s no wonder you find the real conservatives here so difficult to deal with. If you think I’m conservative, you must consider them criminally insane. I’m sure your perspective isn’t that unusual in Berkeley, but it’s a little out of touch with many parts of the country.

            I was hoping my comment about “another 15.3%” of my income wouldn’t be that unclear. These exchanges tend to be long enough without stopping to clarify that I’m referring only to my income above $113,700. Is it really necessary? And I didn’t really think any clarification of the FICA employee withholding and the employer match was needed. When you’ve made your own payroll, you understand that the 7.65% of gross wages you send to the IRS each month for FICA match is a part of the employees’ wages and benefits package and is ultimately coming out their pocket. The silly little shell game that the government plays to hide from workers exactly how much Social Security and Medicare is costing them each paycheck shouldn’t have to be explained to someone who worked in finance, should it?

            Different strokes on Brock. I find him decidedly unusual. It isn’t quite the same thing, but a former co-worker in mental health once noted that he could often tell whether or not another person has mental health problems by the way they made him feel when he interacted with them. If interaction caused his own behavior to move into an unusual mode, he would often find that there was a diagnosis that was related to how his behaviors and feelings varied in the presence of the other person. Watching someone on television isn’t quite the same thing, but I definitely do find myself reacting uncharacteristically to Brock and his behaviors.

            Beck may be sane. At least he’s never written that President Obama is “the smartest guy around”. : ) Sorry. I hope that wasn’t too uncivil.

            I don’t take the information provided by Breitbart or the DC at face value. I determine the nature of the information (e.g., specific facts, general facts, analysis, inferences, rumor, slander) and then filter that. Statements of fact, even without specific attribution, may be believable if they are consistent with what I already know about the topic, in the absence of specific contradiction from other sources. For example, if someone reports that the President was off golfing at such-and-such a golf course while critical negotiations were going on (at a specific time) around the government shutdown, and if that report receives a reasonable amount of attention, I tend to find that allegation credible in the absence of specific denial from the President or his representatives. I don’t necessarily need video with a time-date stamp. You can make reasonable assessments of the information provided and reach reliable conclusions from the evidence. I tend to apply those sorts of filters to all information, but more carefully to information from sources with known bias. As I said in my last post, I do consider the DC a source with bias. I’d also say the same about Breitbart, O’Keefe, Beck, many writers at POLITICO, the Huff Po… well, I’m sure you get the idea.

            In Brock’s case, his credibility is suspect with me, among other reasons, because of the prejudiced nature of his reporting from the right in his early years. Human nature can change, but in my experience it doesn’t happen readily, frequently, or dramatically. I don’t assume biased and borderline-unethical reporters become impartial and highly principled once they are cleansed of their human frailties by conversion to liberalism. Maybe you know something about the process that could help me with any misconceptions on my part. I’m not asking for any proprietary information, certainly no code words or secret handshakes, but perhaps something that could help me understand how becoming liberal might burn out the imperfections of human nature and purify the convert.

            Thanks for sharing the link, Jim. I will check it out. But probably only after I’ve had a chance to fortify myself for the experience.

          • JMax

            The centerpiece of the Heritage Foundation’s health care proposal was personal responsibility. That personal responsibility came in the form of a mandate. The rationale of the mandate was the same as states’ requirements for car insurance mandates: make sure that the costs of people’s accidents and illnesses are not left to society and neighbors to pay for. The method of enforcement was to be tax incentives for having health insurance. The vehicle for the the insurance coverage was to be the private health care insurance market. (Interestingly, having people being better off by having access to healthcare was specifically stated as only a secondary goal behind making sure they didn’t burden their neighbors.) How does all this not apply 25 years later?

            The liberal proposal would be a single payer system much like Medicare.

            So what do we have with ACA? Single payer? No. A public option? No. Health care providers employed by the government? No.

            We have multiple payers, the private insurance companies, operating and competing on market exchanges. We have doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and drug companies all private. Enforcement by extremely toothless tax incentives. AND it reduces the deficit.

            You tell me: Does ACA look more like conservative values or liberal values?

            Those “claims” are absolutely true with the exception of the racist part. It is clear that Republicans were determined not to let Obama succeed at anything, as has been documented in their January 2009 meeting. It’s hard not to mention the Republicans’ intentions when they are so well documented. Today’s Republicans clearly only believe in democracy if they win.

            Are you talking about the same “nuclear option” that the Republicans threatened when a few of Bush’s nominees were blocked? Because there has been no talk about ending the 60 vote threshhold for legislation; only for approval of presidential nominees.

            I understand all about employer matching for FICA etc. I think most people are aware of it. What i was talking about is “another 15.3%” which implies that is on top of the 15.3% current contribution.

            I’m curious to know what your personal experience has been with Brock. Where are you observing his behaviors? As far as Brock’s change, it is good to understand that he was paid by the anti-Clinton cabal to write hit pieces on the Clintons. When he found that there was very little if any truth to the conspiracies, he was criticized for not coming up with the goods. In other words, his accurate reporting got him in trouble with his employers. So they parted ways. Sounds like he was more interested in the truth than muck-raking. Now he works for himself. He criticizes CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post as well as many other so-called-liberal media. It’s just that Fox is so target-rich.

            Beck? FEMA death camps?

            The golf “allegation” is credible but absurd. This fixation on the president’s leisure activities is wholly without merit. The world of politics and diplomacy is constant 24/7. Are we to deny a president or anybody else moments of rest and relaxation whether it’s golf or cutting brush?

            It is hard to nail down who is and isn’t a “conservative” these days. BTW, I went to school in Berkeley; I don’t live there now. Yes, I live in a liberal state but in a quite moderate part of it. But we are far closer to the mainstream than, say South Carolina. It irks me to no end when people like Sarah Palin refer to “real Americans” as if people in Berkeley, or Chicago, or New York somehow aren’t real Americans.

            Anyway, you’re apparently more conservative than I am! :-)

          • sjangers

            The Heritage Foundation proposed an idea at one time. How does this now become the Republican version of health care reform and some form of proof that their opposition to the ACA is only for partisan purposes? Did the Republicans attempt to implement this kind of system under President Bush during the five years they controlled both houses of Congress? You’d think they might have at least tried to do something were they really amenable to this type of proposal.

            If the Democrats prefer single-payer, why didn’t they pass single-payer when they held both the Congress and the Presidency? Too much is being made of ACA as a Republican proposal. Clearly it isn’t. It may contain elements that some Republicans have proposed in the past, but ACA is entirely a Democrat proposal. Republicans have opposed it because of their philosophic disagreements with many of the concepts behind the law and concerns that it won’t work as Democrats think it will.

            With ACA we have no single payer, limited public alternative, and no health care providers employed by the government. We have a law passed entirely by Democrats in Senate, House and White House. And what we also have is a law this is becoming increasingly problematic, so now Democrats want to drag Republicans into the middle of this stinking mess in the hope that popular blame won’t land squarely on the Party of Sure, Whatever You Want.

            Does the ACA look more like conservative values or liberal values? On balance, more like liberal values. More importantly, what it looks most like is another case of liberal overreach and liberal incompetence battering the American people once again.

            Please let’s not get into paranoid fantasies about dastardly Republicans trying to tear down virtuous and innocent Democrats. I don’t like tu quoque arguments, but this just begs one. For all of my adult life Democratic politicians and their operatives have been using whatever underhanded schemes they have at their disposal to damage their political opponents. Do you remember all those pregnant women holding signs proclaiming “Nixon Is The One” outside his hotel in Miami at the Republican National Convention in 1968? I haven’t seen Republican officeholders do anything to undermine the Obama Presidency that their opponents haven’t already done to them many times over during the past thirty or forty years. There’s a vicious cultural problem in Washington that transcends Democrats and Republicans. I’m sure liberal Democrats probably do feel now that maybe it’s time to put the gloves back on and put bitter partisanship aside since one of their own sits in the Oval Office. I doubt Republicans trust that attitude would last more than five seconds after they regain the Presidency.

            If Democrats are such fervent advocates of democracy, why wasn’t passage of the ADA an open and informative process? Why didn’t they let the people know exactly what’s going to happen under this proposal and then let them decide if they thought it was a good idea? Instead we have Nancy Pelosi, sounding just a little bit like a proctologist soliciting a stool sample, telling us that we have to pass this law in order to see what’s in it. We have the President assuring the American people that the law wouldn’t have impacts on them that he knew it was going to have. We have Democratic leaders in the Congress bribing their partisans to vote for the legislation. Democracy is about openness and an informed electorate, something the Democratic Party today fears and despises.

            Yeah, that’s the same nuclear option I was referring to. The same nuclear option that Harry Reid and his cronies were tremulously assuring us would bring down our democracy when the Republican leaders were threatening. The very same. Ain’t we all just a charmin’ bunch o’ hypocrites?

            I wasn’t entirely sure what you were trying to say with your response on raising the threshold for FICA withholding. I’m glad we’re both on the same page.

            All of my observation of Brock has been through his words or on television. I certainly wouldn’t prescribe treatment based on that limited observation. I only say, in the capacity of a layman with a fair amount of associated experience, that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he underwent lengthy hospitalization on at least one occasion in the past twenty years. (In the interest of full disclosure, my money is on more than one hospitalization.)

            However you choose to view Brock today, he has a more-than-sketchy past. If I recall correctly, he was the person who coined the “a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty” description of Anita Hill. He was the reporter behind the spurious Troopergate allegations. He has a taint of dishonesty for personal gain going all the way back to his undergrad days. If he provides clear video and audio of individuals misbehaving, one might trust the hard evidence. But I certainly wouldn’t rely even one bit on Brock for context, interpretation or analysis. He’s demonstrated far too often that he’s willing to sacrifice his integrity for personal gain.

            I’ll leave the “target-rich FOX” alone. I’m sure it isn’t necessary to say that the reverse often looks true from the other side of the ideological spectrum. From the center, we see a fair amount of journalistic prostitution strutting around most media outlets.

            Please. I probably don’t like Glenn Beck all that much more than your do, but should we really be talking about sending him to the FEMA death camps? That’s beyond inhumane!

            The “golf” allegation wasn’t really intended to be partisan. It was what first came to mind to make a point about how I filter information. I’m sorry it triggered a partisan immunoresponse.

            Please tell me you didn’t retire to Issaland! That would be awfully sad for you.

            And Sarah Palin, God bless her ursine little heart, is probably just reacting to perceived condescension from the left toward people who don’t live on either coast. There are all sorts of unfortunate divides that have sprung up in the country during the past fifty years. I regret all of them, but it’s kind of hard for me to condemn anyone for treating others the way they are being treated. We all need to be a little more tolerant and accepting of others. You first!

            I’m sure I am more conservative than you, Jim. But is that really saying much?

            Fun, as always. Until next time.

          • JMax

            It becomes the Republican version of health care reform because it embraces Republican values: private insurers in a competitive market, and personal responsibility and eschews single payer or government
            providers. The republicans didn’t try to implement ANYTHING under President Bush or President Bush 41 or Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford. Nixon tried; I’ll
            give him credit for that. Republicans just don’t seem to be interested. Which concepts of the bill did Republicans have “philosophic disagreements”l? Personal responsibility? Market competition? Tax incentives?

            Democrats held the presidency, the Senate, and the House for exactly 77 days during which they were in session. Democrats never considered single payer during the legislation because they knew it would not pass. They never considered anything more than a “public option”. Democrats were not all
            of the same mind. There were several versions of the bill and many amendments that were considered. At one time the bill was over 2,000 pages, however the
            final version ended up being 947 pages. There was a lot of back and forth between committees and Houses and versions. Nobody would know what was IN the
            final bill until there WAS a final bill. This is what Speaker Pelosi meant by this comment often taken out of context.

            It is impossible to conclude that the law is becoming
            increasingly problematic. It hasn’t gone into full effect yet. The website launch didn’t go well, but it is improving. Exactly how are Democrats trying to
            drag Republicans into the middle? The Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to insert themselves into it. “Repeal it!” “Defund it!” “Delay it!”

            Liberal incompetence? What does that mean? The American people are being helped by the millions because of the ACA.

            “For all of my adult life Democratic politicians and their operatives have been using whatever underhanded schemes they have at their disposal to damage their political opponents.” At the risk of offering a “tu quoque” argument, I suppose you have never heard of the Watergate burglars. Or Lucianne Goldberg. Or Linda Tripp. Or Jerome Corsi. Or Dinesh D’Souza. “I haven’t seen Republican officeholders do anything to
            undermine the Obama Presidency that their opponents haven’t already done to them many times over during the past thirty or forty years.” I’d love to read some examples of Democratic officeholders attempting to undermine a Republican presidency.

            The passage of ACA WAS an open and informative process. It was in the news day after day for nearly a year. The Blount amendment? Single payer? There was nothing insidious about it. The American people were aware of what was going on if they read the news. But they don’t get to decide what the legislation looks like. They vote for their representatives to do it, and throw them out if they don’t like it. Much like
            what happened to a few Democrats in 2010. They very much believe in democracy. They won majorities and pressed their agenda. In the “old days” the other party
            understood that and worked harder to win seats next time. That’s the way politics worked throughout history, at least until 1992. Are you suggesting that it is
            unusual for legislators to put sweeteners in bills to get others to sign on?

            “Democracy is about openness and an informed electorate, something the Democratic Party today fears and despises.” The first part is correct. The second part is completely untrue.

            When Reid was opposing the nuclear option the Democrats were only opposing a hand full of Bush judicial appointees. Today the Republicans oppose
            almost all appointments, cabinet and judicial. The obstructionism is unprecedented, and that’s putting it mildly. See Lindsay Graham. See the obstruction to filling the DC Circuit vacancies. See the attempts to block any appointment to the Department of Consumer Affairs.

            Your descriptions of Brock’s mental health seem rather libelous in nature. If you don’t know him, haven’t met him, and only seen him on TV, I don’t know how you could guess that he has ever had hospitalization over a mental condition. I suppose I could say that I wouldn’t
            be surprised if Dick Morris didn’t have a penis. At least based on what I’ve seen on TV. There’s no doubt Brock did some dirty stuff in the Clinton era. He’s
            confessed.

            There ARE no FEMA death camps. I was referring to Beck’s claims that there are.

            Issa comes from Southern California. I’m in the Central Valley and have been for a number of years. Issa is the worst that politics has to offer, a total opportunist and proven liar. I’ve despised him since the Gray Davis recall that he perpetrated.

            I’ve never heard of Palin being called a terrorist sympathizer. Have you?

          • sjangers

            Do you think maybe we could let Republicans decide what their version of health care reform looks like? I know it might not be quite as much fun as making straw man arguments, but it seems fair. Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do?

            When I hear liberals try to pin their health care bill on Republicans because some of them might have advocated for parts of the plan at one time, I think of the guy who comes home from work to find a shiny new red Corvette parked in his driveway. He goes inside his home and learns that his wife just purchased the car.

            “Why did you buy a new car?” the guy demands. “We’ve already got a car that works reasonably well and I don’t know how we’re going to be able to afford a sports car.”

            “But I thought you’d like it”, his wife replies. “I did it for you.”

            “We never discussed it”, he reminds her. “We have two kids and another on the way. If we were going to get a new car, a van would have made more sense.”

            “You never said you wanted a van”, she says. “When we were first dating, I remember you said that a red Corvette was your favorite car”.

            “But that was years ago. I wasn’t talking about actually buying a car then. We were different people. Our circumstances are different today.”

            I don’t know why, but I have this image in my mind of the President, sitting in the Oval Office with tears streaming down his face, sobbing “I d-don’t feel very sup-p-ported r-right n-now”.

            If Democrats held both House and Senate, and they were only in session for seventy-seven days between January 3, 2009 and August 25, 2009, the date of Ted Kennedy’s death, exactly whose fault was that? I mean, 235 calendar days and they only managed to work 77 of them?!!! And more important, Kennedy’s death didn’t mark the end of full Democrat control of the Senate. The Republicans didn’t seat their forty-first member, Scott Brown replacing Kennedy, until February 4 of the next year. Democrats could invoke cloture on any bill or amendment related to health care (or other) legislation right up to that date. That’s why Harry Reid made such a big stink about trying to delay Brown’s swearing in.

            The Democrats had 397 calendar days to work their legislative will. ACA was their baby. They didn’t go for single payer because they understood that the country didn’t want single-payer. Openly pushing that far beyond what voters were willing to support would have been political suicide for many of them, and there are few profiles in courage seated on the Democrat side of House or Senate today.

            You’re a little confused about Pelosi’s “we need to pass this bill” comment. Even she has acknowledged that she wasn’t referring to possible compromise in conference on House or Senate versions of the bill. She claimed that she meant people needed to get away from the confusing atmosphere of debate about the bill in order to actually find out what would really happen when the bill became law. Imagine that! We shouldn’t debate the bill because debate is confusing the issue. Let’s just pass the darned thing blind and see what happens!

            I’ve never argued that Republicans haven’t opposed Democrats and Democratic initiatives for political purposes, although I think you did overstate the case when you claimed that their raison d’être after the 2008 election was to do everything they could to promote the failure of the Obama Presidency. For context, consider Nancy Pelosi’s March 2005 remark about President Bush’s Social Security reform initiative and the Democrats’ failure to offer any alternative on the issue: “Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him. He must be stopped. “ That’s politics today, I’m afraid.

            Nancy Pelosi apparently didn’t think passage of the ACA was an open and informative process. She wanted to end debate and pass the bill because debate was too confusing. See above.

            Sweeteners are often added to legislation to encourage passage. The Louisiana Purchase was enough sweetener to give all of us diabetes.

            I don’t think I libeled a public figure like Brock with my comments. I stuck to statements of fact that I can support or made it very clear that I was engaged in informed speculations of a non-professional nature. But if you think it might be libel, feel free to mention it to Brock at an alumni meeting. You can also pass my contact information on to him if he decides to pursue legal action.

            FEMA death camps. Don’t exist. Got it. I was trying to be funny. May have missed the mark.

            Does Issa know you’re saying stuff like that about him?

            It was suggested by more than a few on the left that Sarah Palin was responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords. I’m not sure if that’s being a terrorist sympathizer. Sounds more like an accessory before the fact to me.

            Politics goes on. Oh, the horror!

          • JMax

            “Do you think maybe we could let Republicans decide what their version of health care reform looks like?”

            They already have. Here it is:

            That was 77 days from January 20, 2009 until Brown was sworn in on February 2010. I point this out every time someone claims that Obama had complete control of Congress for his first two years. It simply isn’t true.

            But just because Dems had 60 votes in the Senate it doesn’t mean there was a bill to vote on starting January 20th.

            RE Pelosi, I give you her words:

            “In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups…were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority.

            “So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying….”

            Regarding Republicans agenda to be sure that Obama failed I give you one of many sources about the January 20, 2009 meeting of Republican leaders:

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/inside-obamas-presidency/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/

            There was never any need for Democrats to present an alternative to the Bush plan for Social Security “reform”. Social Security was not in need of reform then as it is not in need of reform now. All it needs is a higher income cap. Can you imagine if you were about to retire in 2007 and your Social Security was invested in the stock market? The Bush proposal was without merit, without need, and a total give away to Wall Street. If the idea was to have a portion of retirement savings in control of the individual and inheritable by their heirs, Bush must have forgotten about IRAs and 401ks. And remember, Social Security does not only provide retirement income, it provides disability insurance and life insurance. In contrast, ACA provides health care to 40 million people who don’t have it as well as health care security and financial security for millions who have been one accident or illness from financial ruin.

            Yes, of course FEMA death camps don’t exist. My point was that Beck was not a credible source for anything given that he believes they do exist.

            Issa can go pound salt.

            More than a few on the left? Talk about overreach.

            Palin is guilty of calling Obama a terrorist sympathizer.

          • sjangers

            So which is it, Jim? Is the ACA the Republicans’ version of health care reform or is their version of health care reform “ “? I don’t think you can have it both ways.

            Democrats controlled both houses of Congress starting on January 3, 2009. So even though the President didn’t take office until January 20, the Democrats were free to begin work on legislation from the first day the 111th Congress was in session. If they were only in session for seventy-seven days before Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4, 2010, then they really weren’t working very hard. I have no idea why they didn’t have enough time to enact their version of health care reform, assuming that the version they enacted wasn’t ‘theirs’.

            Here’s what Pelosi said about the ACA on March 9, 2010, speaking before the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties: “(b)ut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy”. Speaking to writers during a Capitol Hill luncheon on June 20, 2012, Pelosi explains that by that remark she meant people needed to get away from the confusing atmosphere of debate about the bill in order to actually find out what would really happen when the bill became law. That’s her own explanation, as reported by the Washington Times’ Jonathan Capehart on the same day. And it tends to be consistent with her 2010 remark that the bill needed to be passed and then people would understand what was in it, “away from the fog of controversy”. In 2010 she didn’t claim that the lack of a Senate bill was an obstacle to understanding it. She made no attempt to say that, while there may be some compromises necessary after the Senate passes their version of the bill, this is what’s in the House version and what it will mean for people. She just said that the bill needed to be passed in order for people to find out what’s in it; or to understand it, if you want to be really charitable about what she might have meant. Some of us already understood.

            I’m not sure where or when Pelosi offered the explanation(s) you offered in your most recent post, but if she wants to revise and extend her excuse- er, explanation- again, well I really don’t know what to do. Perhaps a sympathy card would be in order.

            I’m perfectly willing to concede that both parties are guilty of obstructing the political process for purely partisan gain. If you’re not… well, perhaps I should purchase more than one sympathy card.

            Here’s a brief list of people from the left who accused Sarah Palin of responsibility in the shooting of Rep. Giffords and eighteen other people in January of 2011: Keith Olbermann, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, political consultant John Aravosis, Michael Moore, Kathy Griffin, Jane Fonda, Rep. Raul Grijalva, the blog Firedog Lake, Roger Ebert, blogger and NPR contributor Xeni Jardin, blogger Matthew Yglesias, blogger GottaLaff, Michael Daly of the New York Daily News, John Nichols of The Nation, and Paul Krugman, just to name a few.

            Here’s a brief list of people and organizations from the left who avoided the direct accusation but left a clear implication that Palin might bear some responsibility: Pima County (AZ) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Gary Hart, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Andrew Sullivan, David Weigel of Slate, Piers Morgan, the Huffington Post’s Marty Kaplan, and Caroline Howard of Forbes.

            Even your buddy David Brock, in a letter to FOX News, indirectly indicted Palin for the “violent rhetoric” of far right commentators like her that contributed to incidents like Tucson. And your buddy David Corn, while not making the allegation directly, also helped to spread the message by repeating the words of others while failing to repudiate them.

            There were plenty on the left who either directly accused Palin of bearing some responsibility for the Tucson shooting or who were perfectly willing to help get the message out that she helped create the culture in which it happened. Is that “more than a few” on the left or is that “overreach”?

          • JMax

            The ACA is based on conservative principles put forth by the Heritage Foundation. Obviously that is the Heritage Foundation’s conservative plan and not the Republican plan since the Republicans have not offered any legislation based on that or anything else. So in a way I am having it both ways. and I stand by it.

            I’ll feel sorry for Palin when she retracts her “pal-ing around with terrorists” comments and everything she’s ever said about “death panels”.

          • sjangers

            That’s probably as good a note as any on which to wrap up this thread. When death panels are mentioned, I feel the urge to go into hiding.

            Until next time, Jim. I’m sure we’ll bump into each other again soon if we keep lurking about this site.

            Take care and don’t let the death panels get you.

          • JMax

            I couldn’t get into this week’s Bernie column but who knows what next week will bring.

            Cheers!

          • Jen

            You voted for him. I hope you enjoy paying for health insurance.

          • JMax

            I have no problem paying for health insurance. I’ve done it for almost 40 years. I’d gladly pay $100-$200 more a month if it meant almost all Americans would get coverage, I never had to worry about benefit caps or worry about being denied coverage for me or my fellow Americans.

            Funny thing though, my premiums haven’t gone up any more for next year than they have most previous years.

          • JMax

            I’ve learned some more on this today. Any health insurance plan in force prior to ACA passage in early 2010 that has had no significant changes by the insurance company since then is grandfathered in and not subject to new coverage rules. However, any significant change requires full compliance.

            Thus it is the insurance companies that are causing the old policies to be dropped because they changed them after 2010.

          • nickshaw

            You just found this out today??!!
            Yet, you have been defending O’kare based on what, exactly?
            What you’ve been told by Stinkprogress?
            Wait ’till you find out more about what “significant” really means in Skeeterspeak.

          • JMax

            I found out about the grandfather part. I’ve been defending ACA based on a college course I took at U Penn and extensive reading from health care and health care policy experts including health care institutions.

            Anything you found false in that lined article?

            Skeeter?

          • Jeff Webb

            Except, BO’s promises are still false.
            You seem to have a hard time grasping this: he said, very clearly and repeatedly, that under no circumstances whatsoever would anyone not get to keep their plans & doctors. PERIOD! NO EXCEPTIONS!
            Speech after speech after speech, he could’ve at any point offered some sort of qualification. HE DIDN’T.
            It was never “most” people. It was never “if you like your plan, you can keep it, unless the way you like it is not allowed by the law.” It was never just the plans not “grandfathered in.”
            BO’s very point was that nothing would happen to their policies as a result of anything having to do with the law. These insurance companies you say “are causing the old policies to be dropped” are doing so because Obamacare requires them to. A daycare guaranteeing nobody leaves hungry can’t serve expired milk and moldy crackers at snack time, and then say your kid is starving because he refused to eat.
            BTW, I learned more about this yesterday: according to NBC, Obama knew these claims were false the whole time he was making them. Saves you the hassle of picking between incompetent fool and shameless liar, at least.

          • JMax

            Do you have any citations that the president said “that under no circumstances whatsoever would anyone not get to keep their plans and doctors”.

            This must be the first time in history that a leader fudged on promises.

          • Jeff Webb

            J, just what do you think it means when someone says “PERIOD!”?

            If you really don’t know he was speaking in 100% absolutes, I can post a link a little later (have to get ready for an appointment now), but you honestly seem a lot smarter to me than to still not get this.

            Seriously, what don’t you get?

          • JMax

            The first president to say something that wasn’t true. Let’s put a monument on the national mall to mark the event.

            But let’s put this in perspective. The relatively small number of people who buy individual insurance on the open market do not keep their insurance plan for more than one year, a few for two years but rarely longer than that. Then they get insurance through their employer or some other group. Clearly their plan is changing almost every year. The doctor they can see is dependent on the networks their insurance companies allow. Nothing to do with ACA.

            By law, anyone receiving a notice from their insurance company that their policy is being cancelled must BY LAW offer a similar policy that is ACA compliant.

            So nobody is being thrown off their insurance plan. Nobody is having their insurance cancelled.

            So to say they are is a lie.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>The first president to say something that wasn’t true. Let’s put a monument on the national mall to mark the event.<>By law, anyone receiving a notice from their insurance company that their policy is being cancelled must BY LAW offer a similar policy that is ACA compliant.<>So nobody is being thrown off their insurance plan. Nobody is having their insurance cancelled.

            So to say they are is a lie.<<

            No, it is absolutely true, and it's been established that Obama knew he was making false claims.

          • JMax

            I’m quite grown up. Maybe you should grow up, though.

            If you tell me that George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, then I’ll tell you that Barack Obama lied about keeping your health care plan.

            Megyn Kelly is lying in your Acme clip. You are not required to get rid of your Acme plan. That plan is grandfathered in IF your insurance company makes no significant changes to it after March of 2010. So she’s lying.

            You are not required to buy a policy on “the exchange”. You can buy a compliant plan from your current insurer or any other insurer directly. So Kelly is lying.

            Millions have not been dumped. Their old plan has been discontinued and they have been offered a new one in its place. Kelly is lying.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>If you tell me that George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, then I’ll tell you that Barack Obama lied about keeping your health care plan.<>Megyn Kelly is lying in your Acme clip. You are not required to get rid of your Acme plan. That plan is grandfathered in IF your insurance company makes no significant changes to it after March of 2010.<<

            I remind you yet again: BO's claim was not that you can keep your plan if "your insurance company makes no significant changes to it after March of 2010." His claim was if "you like it"…PERIOD.
            As an aside, who gets to determine what is or is not a "significant" change? Is there anything preventing them from, at any point in time and with any frequency, deciding a now-insignificant change will become significant?

            Did you miss the part of the clip where it was pointed out that the grandfathering wouldn't withstand other mandates, that millions of people would get the short end of it, and that the whole administration was completely aware of this?

          • JMax

            Insult your intelligence? I think it’s a fair challenge. What position do you think I’m not confident in?

            The president was not accurate in what he said.

            Who decides what is a significant change is a distraction.

            Can you give an example of someone who has gotten the “short end of it”?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Insult your intelligence? I think it’s a fair challenge.<>What position do you think I’m not confident in?<>Who decides what is a significant change is a distraction.<>Can you give an example of someone who has gotten the “short end of it”?<<

            Are you asking me if anyone has actually been dropped, or was that a request to have one of their names?

          • JMax

            It is no more clear that Obama knew that they were false than it is clear that Bush knew claims of WMD in Iraq were false. I’ve already said that Obama’s statements were inaccurate. You don’t need to explain anything to me, but if you do, the ridiculous is on you.

            The fact is most people’s health care plans change every year or so even if it is an employer plan. Why don’t you ask any health insurance consumer how many years their current policy has remained unchanged? Every open enrollment period I get a notice about “what’s new” in my packet. And there have been times when my doctor’s network was not one covered by my insurance.

            What I think the president was trying to convey is that there is no “Obamacare” provided insurance policy that you would be forced to buy instead of your current company’s compliant policy. The ACA does not sell insurance. And it is a given that policies change nearly every year.

            I’m asking you if anyone has been dropped from their policy without being offered another plan from the same company. I’m asking you if anybody has not been able to find a policy that meets their needs for a reasonable price.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I’ve already said that Obama’s statements were inaccurate.<>What I think the president was trying to convey is that there is no “Obamacare” provided insurance policy that you would be forced to buy instead of your current company’s compliant policy.<<

            Speculation on your part. If a supposedly extremely smart person had wanted to convey that, he would've clearly said it that way.

            The ACA does not sell insurance. And it is a given that policies change nearly every year.<>I’m asking you if anyone has been dropped from their policy without being offered another plan from the same company. I’m asking you if anybody has not been able to find a policy that meets their needs for a
            reasonable price.<<

            Damn, I've got to say this AGAIN? Obama didn't promise people would get "another plan from the same company." His repeated promise was directed at people who didn't want "another plan."

            I'll put it this way: BO wanted as much support for his proposed law as he could get. He figured a substantial number of people liked their present situation exactly as they had it, so he reassured them incessantly, emphatically, and sometimes downright loudly, that nothing whatsoever would happen to their situation as a result of the law.

            Again, he promised that nothing whatsoever would happen to their situation as a result of the law, and despite your belief to the contrary, he did know otherwise. It has now been revealed he had info that made his repeated claim false, but kept making it anyway.

            Anything about this you're still not getting?

          • JMax

            It’s not that I’m not getting it. It’s that I don’t think it matters that much.

            Didn’t Dick Cheney say that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of a few weeks? Didn’t Wolfowitz say that the Iraq War would probably pay for itself because of the liberated oil industry in Iraq? Weren’t these assertions used to sell the invasion of Iraq?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>It’s not that I’m not getting it. It’s that I don’t think it matters that much.<<

            It's pretty obvious it matters to you plenty, unless it was someone else using your name that kept trying stuff like reinterpretations and technicalities to paint BO as a truth-teller.

          • JMax

            So what matters to you? Did you “lose” your insurance and now you’re feeling betrayed by someone that you totally believed in?

            Or do you have some deep need to satisfy yourself that someone who supports the president concedes that he lied?

            And I would never paint Bill O’Reilly as a truth-teller.

          • Jeff Webb

            Hey, it’s nothing personal, big guy. I get that it’s annoying to you that the guy YOU believed in knowingly perpetuated a big (even for a politician), indefensible lie that couldn’t be spun with a centrifuge.

            It would matter to me if a president, ANY president, uses a sledgehammer on a problem that needs a precision instrument, but it’s a whole ‘nother thing when he uses a nuclear bomb. And you know what? It should matter a great deal more to you. Are you under the impression that of all the people who are unhappy (and those who will keep becoming unhappy) are Republicans, or that none of them is now at a serious disadvantage?

            Think about this: millions of people who are not rich (my wife and me included) are getting smaller paychecks directly as a result of policies brought by the guy who promised quite the contrary. (All of us have unfortunately had to make some sort of adjustment, though not all of us were surprised by it.)

            Now we’re going to have even smaller paychecks, and it’s a direct result of that damned law! It’s happening to people who can’t afford it (again, us included) on both sides of the aisle, One can only hope that matters to you.

            I’m a firm believer in intellectual honesty from people whether left or right. I believe the same standard should be applied to democrats as Republicans. I believe that, even given that the world of politics is ripe with shallowness & B.S., politicians should respect the citizenry.

            Nothing wrong with that.

          • JMax

            I don’t believe that the president perpetrated a big lie. I believe he generalized something that wasn’t true 3-5% of the time.

            The Republican party hasn’t offered so much as a hand grenade, much less a precision instrument at least since Nixon. A reform which benefits at least 95% of the population is hardly a nuclear bomb. It is unclear how many are or will be unhappy when all is in place or how many IF ANY are at a serious disadvantage. And even if it proves that some are, that could be tweaked if we could get anybody to cooperate on it.

            Please explain why your and your wife’s paychecks are smaller because of the president. Mine haven’t been. But I would gladly have a bit smaller paycheck if I got universal coverage, non-denial, and no caps for all out of it.

            Please explain why your and your wife’s paycheck will be smaller because of this law.

            If you’re going to apply the same standard to both parties, you can start by capitalizing “Democrats”. :-)

          • Jeff Webb

            Oh, he did indeed lie, it’s not a matter of interpretation. You might as well say “I don’t believe December comes after November.”

            Regardless of anything the Republicans did or did not do, this does not excuse democrats doing what they do.

            I actually figured that OC would benefit at least SOME people, specifically the “pre-existings.” I also knew BO’s claim that costs would go down as much as $2500 wasn’t true. Moreover, I predicted insurance companies would be forced to cancel millions of people’s plans and/or raise rates, and I predicted democrats would try to pin this all on the insurance companies, as if OC had nothing to do with it. I predicted that the website would cost far, far more than what was budgeted, and would not merely have minor glitches (which aren’t unusual), but huge problems.

            I was right on every count. Liberals, especially the ones in power, on the other hand predicted an outright smashing success

            Speaking as a guy with a good track record on predictions, I say with absolute certainty that any experience the 95% have with OC will more likely be bad than good.

          • JMax

            This must be the first time ever that a politician overstated something. I don’t think Obama lied anymore than Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq.

            You didn’t think no annual or lifetime benefit caps would benefit SOME people? You don’t think no copays on preventative care would benefit SOME people?

            You don’t know yet if costs would go down as much as $2500. It is purposefully misleading to say that insurance companies cancelled (by force or otherwise) millions of people’s plans without saying that they were at the same time being offered continued coverage.

            Of course the website needed more money than was budgeted. I guess the Republican House would have put more money into it if they had only known, right?

            http://egbertowillies.com/2013/10/16/hear-real-obamacare-stories-believe-lies/

          • JMax
          • http://karlq.spaces.live.com Karl Quick

            And the next President will report that drug you are on is CRAP and fine you half your salary. Or decide that someone so easily misled as you needs to be confined in an insane asylum!

            .

          • JMax

            Are we paranoid at all?

          • USA Rocks

            Put down the koolaid and step back

          • Stimpy

            Dream on. Not the same insurer and not the same doctors … in most cases.

          • JMax

            In most cases? Prove it.

            Most “cases” are people with employer-provided health care insurance anyway.

          • Tova Feinman

            You do not have the right to tell someone they must buy a cadillac when all they WANT is a Ford Focus. That is none of your or Obama’s damn business. As my grandmother would have said, you Leftists sure are neb noses. That’s what drove me screaming out of the democrat party and into the arms of the Republican party in 2012. I regret ever voting for Obama in 2008. Worst vote I ever cast and I will pay for it over and over again with every paycheck, every purchase at the gas pump, every electric bill, now every healthcare premium. No body appointed you king to rule over the rest of us who just want to be left alone by our government. Pass me the 20 oz soda and please don’t make me pay for maternity care at 55.

          • JMax

            It is true that “I” (as represented by the federal government) cannot tell you to buy a Cadillac when you want a Focus. And “I” have never told you to do so.

            I do however have the right to insist that your Focus have passive restraints and headlights, tail lights, and turn signals. And tires that won’t blow up after 30 minutes of highway speed driving. I have that right because it effects my safety as a fellow motorist and well as my wallet as a fellow insurance consumer and taxpayer.

            There is no such thing as “the democrat party” for you to have been driven from. It is “the Democratic Party”. It says so on their letterhead and their websites.

            Just as with Bush, the president has little or nothing to do with the price of gasoline. I said that then and I say it now.

            You might consider going solar as I have. My electric bills are about $3.50 a month.

            Does your son or daughter at 27 years old pay for your knee or hip replacement? If you are on an employer group plan, haven’t you been paying for maternity care for the child-bearing women in your company? Insurance is not a cafeteria product. It’s a pool of resources to provide all members of that pool with the benefits they need when they need it.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Insurance is not a cafeteria product. It’s a pool of resources to
            provide all members of that pool with the benefits they need when they
            need it.<<

            Think about it: a 59-year-old couple who don't have maternity care in their policy would now have to get it, even if at a higher cost, in order to comply with the law.

            One of the arguments for Obamacare has been people will be getting a better plan for themselves. Are you really going to insist that an older couple, heck, even a single older man, forced into pregnancy & childbirth coverage are getting a better plan for themselves?

          • JMax

            I’m over 59. My wife and I will never have more children. We are on a group plan. Only 5% of Americans are in the individual health insurance market. We pay for maternity care. Younger people in our group plan pay for knee replacements and for the medications I need at my age and condition. It’s the nature of insurance.

            That said, it’s worth discussing the possibility that consumers have some choices like maternity coverage within ACA compliant policies. Too bad that this could never happen today without the total repeal of the system since Republicans will never allow improvements. They want it to fail, American consumers be damned.

          • Jeff Webb

            Oh, another attempt to put this on Republicans. Cute.
            First, Republicans were shut out of the whole legislative process, so don’t pretend this is anything other than 100% democrat-caused.
            Second, with all the exemptions, delays, and exec actions applied by KS and BO, which all remain in place, what exactly do you think is preventing another? Even in the highly unlikely event a bunch of toothless Republicans would suddenly be against making the law LESS burdensome, you think BO’s about to start giving a crap now?
            Yes or no: is it really reasonable to say that a single man in his 50′s, forced into a package that covers maternity care, is “getting a better plan for himself”?

          • JMax

            There are many reasons to put much of this on Republicans. But you tell me if Republicans would change the law to allow people to have some choices in what’s covered.

            All of the exemptions, delays, and executive actions (if any) are within the realm of regulations that the law tasks the executive branch with developing and carrying out. I’m not sure if allowing insurance companies to offer policies without maternity coverage falls into that category but it might. It’s really unclear at this point, since the law hasn’t really started yet, to know what the effect of such a change would have one way or the other.

            It is laughable to claim that Republicans were shut out of the whole process. The entire concept is conservative and was proposed by conservatives. Furthermore Republicans were allowed to offer bills or amendments to the ACA bill. Just because their proposals were in large part (but not entirely) voted down doesn’t mean they weren’t considered or weren’t part of the process.

            Obama would be happy to make tweaks to the law. He’s said as much. He’s just not willing to repeal it or remove major features of it.

            Yes.

            It is very reasonable to assume that a single man in his 50s with a package that covers maternity is getting a better plan for himself. First of all, he can now not be denied a package or kicked off of a package because he has diabetes, acne, cancer, MS or something else. He will never face an annual or lifetime cap on benefits.

            Second, it is unclear how much maternity coverage for members of a group of insured costs the actual individual policy holder. I’d be glad to read anything you might have on that. Regardless, it’s going to be less than the $1,000 a year extra he pays for emergency room care for the uninsured.

          • Jeff Webb

            My bad: the Republicans were not shut out of the WHOLE process:

            http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/04/democratic-leaders-plan-secret-health-reform-deliberations

            http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/05/democrats-cut-out-republicans

            >>Furthermore Republicans were allowed to offer bills or amendments to the ACA bill. Just because their proposals were in large part (but not entirely) voted down doesn’t mean they weren’t considered or weren’t
            part of the process.<>The entire concept is conservative and was proposed by conservatives.<>It is very reasonable to assume that a single man in his 50s with a package that covers maternity is getting a better plan for himself. First of all, he can now not be denied a package or kicked off of a package because he has diabetes, acne, cancer, MS or something else. He will never face an annual or lifetime cap on benefits.<<

            Bull again. Look at what a man with a 59-year-old wife has to say, and take a wild guess what he'd think of it if he actually were single:

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/10/30/NBC-ObamaCare-explodes-premium-400-percent

            Perhaps you could tell him he'd save a bundle if he ends up getting a c-section.

          • JMax

            What “problems with the law’s content” are you referring to?

            As to the mandate being a conservative idea, I give you the Heritage Foundation: http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html

            You can call “bull” but you haven’t provided any evidence of how much of the single man’s premium includes maternity coverage. Until you do, your point is moot. On the other hand it is an indisputable fact that the man can no longer be denied coverage, kicked off his plan, or face financial ruin from annual or lifetime caps.

            I wouldn’t sully my computer screen with Breitbart. Try something else.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I wouldn’t sully my computer screen with Breitbart. Try something else.<>On the other hand it is an indisputable fact that the man can no longer be denied coverage, kicked off his plan, or face financial ruin from annual or lifetime caps.<<

            YOUR point is moot. If you were to remind the angry, misled people of these indisputable facts, it will not change the fact they were lied to repeatedly, and will more likely make them remind you it's not your place to decide which way is better for them. That, and men don't get pregnant.

          • JMax

            You are familiar with AmericaBlog enough to compare it to Breitbart? Or are you just guessing as to its reputation?

            Your Heritage blog link fails to even stand up to its own claim. 1) He admits they wanted universal health care coverage. 2) He admits that included a mandate that everyone should have insurance. 3) He admits that it would be in part subsidized by the government. 4) He says that buying insurance would not be a “legal” requirement but would be enforced essentially through tax penalties. You know…like ACA.

            He further says that the purpose of the mandate was not to protect the individual but to protect others as if ACA does not have many features that implicitly and explicitly benefit or protect people besides the individually insured.

            What he is admitting here is that people getting or staying well for their own sake, that people not
            going bankrupt from benefit caps or not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions is really secondary to Heritage’s primary goal of protecting the makers.

            You should do your homework better by actually reading your article all the way through instead of only the headline and the first paragraph.

            Single women don’t get vasectomies either. Or prostate cancer. You still haven’t shown me that maternity coverage costs the single man more than $5 a year more. If that.

          • Jeff Webb

            You mischaracterized.

            Gov’t “subsidy” is not the same thing as letting a taxpayer keep more of his own money. Further, Butler’s exact words seem to have been lost on you:

            “…the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs— so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the
            expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
            (My note: what was Obamacare’s primary intention? The so-called “45 million” or whatever # would now get the care, far more than merely catastrophic, they didn’t have before, according to the ever-compassionate Barack. Not the same focal point.)

            Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than
            by a stick.
            (My note: Obamacare doesn’t involve any such tax reform–it only makes people pay higher costs & taxes, making even more of Obama’s promises false.)
            And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.”

            Remember, BO promised no additional taxes for the non-rich, and insisted the penalty/fine was not a tax. Then what happened? Attorneys he sent to SCOTUS argued it was a tax, and Roberts agreed. Do you see BO repeating his no-tax promise now?

            I actually thought you’d understand there is a difference between “buying insurance means you get a tax break/not buying means not getting that tax break” and “buying insurance gets you no tax break/not buying means you’re forced to pay an additional tax”.

            The above examples clarifiy that OC lets the govt take more power from the people than what Heritage suggested, and we know now & will continue to learn, since OC is a passed law, that it’ll keep taking more & more power.

            Refresh my memory: between conservatism and liberalism, which of the two prefers a less powerful govt than the other?

          • JMax

            If A=B and B=C then A=C.

            Of course it’s not the same focal point and I said as much. One approach cares about people and the approach cares about makers.

            There is no evidence that “people” are paying more taxes or higher premiums. Most anecdotal evidence I have seen show better coverage for basically the same or even lower premiums. Most of the “horror” stories presented so far are from people who are under informed on their options. For example, there is a story from NBC that tells of a woman whose insurance was “cancelled” and it was going to cost her double for a new policy. It turns out she assumed her insurance company’s offer of a replacement policy was the least expensive compliant policy it actually offered which was not the case. Furthermore a search of Covered California showed better coverage for her for $23 a month LOWER than her current policy. And that is assuming she doesn’t get a subsidy.

            A “mandate” is a “mandate”. Whether it is enforced by tax incentives or a very small tax penalty doesn’t change that.

            It appears from this article that what Heritage wanted to do was eliminate the tax deductability of health care premiums and replace it with a voucher. Meh.

            There is no non-compliance tax for anyone who complies.

            I understand the difference but I don’t see how it applies. The former is what happens today. The latter is false because people will continue to get a tax break for buying insurance.

            The above examples do not clarify much of anything. As I said, a mandate is a mandate. It’s something one must do. Whether the enforcement is from loss of tax benefit or loss of tax refund makes little if any difference. It certainly doesn’t make for a power grab. What is the basis for you assertion that ACA will expand government power?

            Which prefers less powerful government? You mean in the bedroom or doctor’s office? Liberals prefer a government that has the power to provide justice for all. Conservatives, not so much.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>There is no evidence that “people” are paying more taxes or higher
            premiums.<>Most anecdotal evidence I have seen show better coverage for
            basically the same or even lower premiums. Most of the “horror” stories
            presented so far are from people who are under informed on their
            options<>Which prefers less powerful government? You mean in the bedroom or doctor’s office?<>Liberals prefer a government that has the power to
            provide justice for all. Conservatives, not so much.<<

            Is Eric Holder, the guy who said white victims of hate crimes will not be heard, a liberal or conservative? Good God, that was a thoroughly ignorant comment you just posted.

          • JMax

            I would like to know the circumstances of Powers’ doubling premiums including the difference in total out of pocket expenses. I’m wondering if she investigated competitive insurance offers. The same goes for you. Does your 80% increase in premiums include the same number of doctor visits? Same deductible? Are you in the individual market? If so did you do comparison shopping on the exchange or from a broker? I sort of like Powers because she sometimes stands up to Bull O’Reilly but she still isn’t a liberal. She just plays one on Fox. Fox doesn’t have a good track record on honest anecdotal reporting of Obamacare. Hannity’s three couples of a couple of weeks ago is a case in point.

            So, maybe check the exchanges and see if you can do better.

            What “more” tax after the law is implemented are you talking about?

            You did say the ACA model makes people pay higher costs and higher taxes. You just haven’t proved that that is the case for most people. A replacement knee costs $350. Tax on that is what? $12.25. Knee replacement surgery is about $35,000. Think that $12.25 is going to deter the patient?

            Acceptable numbers for me are 40 million fewer uninsured people, 45,000 fewer people dying each year from lack of insurance, and $1,000 less a year on by insurance bill due to coverage of uninsured emergency room care. Just to name a few.

            Nobody is demanding free abortions. “Free” checkups are paid for with premiums. Abortions would be subject to deductibles and copays. And if not, they’re still covered by premiums.

            Holder never said that. He said hate crimes were not designed to protect groups that were not historical targeted for violence.

          • Jeff Webb

            >> Does your 80% increase in premiums include the same number of doctor visits? Same deductible?<>So, maybe check the exchanges and see if you can do better.<>What “more” tax after the law is implemented are you talking about?<>There is no non-compliance tax for anyone who complies.<>You did say the ACA model makes people pay higher costs and higher
            taxes. You just haven’t proved that that is the case for most people.<<

            Now that you've added "most," that makes two of us who have refuted your "no evidence that 'people' are paying more taxes of higher premiums" claim.

            Look, if OC really were a great, affordable, beneficial law that truly assures things will be as good or better than before, then:
            -it wouldn't have been necessary to use lies to sell it

            -it wouldn't be necessary to give anyone a delay or exemption

            -the same people who promoted and passed it would willingly participate in it

            -the ones who reluctantly did agree to participate, who range from wealthy to extremely wealthy, wouldn't ask for (let alone be granted) a substantial compensatory subsidy to go with it

            -you wouldn't need to keep changing your argument or denying its realities when we discuss it

          • JMax

            So if you are being offered the exact same plan, you are keeping it right? What makes you think it went up 80% because of ACA? Curious-80% of what? And if you don’t like the pricing on the “same policy” why are you adverse to looking for the same policy on the exchange? Is this the first time your policy rate ever went up. Did your “same policy” previously include no annual or lifetime benefit caps? No exclusions for pre-existing conditions? No recisions?

            I believe I already showed you the minimal effect of the medical device tax.

            I don’t think the president ever needed to qualify the non-compliance penalty. What is “rich”? Someone with a low income can be just as stupid as anyone else who doesn’t want to carry health care. And do you know any “rich” people who can’t afford to pay for a compliant policy?

            My bad. I should have said that there’s no evidence that “most” people are paying higher premiums and more taxes.

            -If it were really that bad, it wouldn’t have been necessary to tell lies about it.

            -Nonsense. Delays are only for administrative reasons and there are different exemptions all of which have nothing to do with how good or bad the law is.

            -Almost all the people who promoted and passed it are willingly participating in it. Who do you think isn’t?

            -Who are the wealthy people asking and being granted a subsidy?

            -If it were really that bad, you wouldn’t have been denying realities.

          • Jeff Webb

            I didn’t say I was among the cancelled, now did I? Focus.

            I don’t “think” it went up as a result of the law. It actually did. The notice my wife got actually mentioned that.

            Besides your hoping it’s the case, what has you so convinced I’m uninformed about my situation?

            Even if there were not a single person inconvenienced by paying more for a medical device, it doesn’t unmake BO’s promise, now does it?

            Re: non-compliance penalty, it’s not that he should or shouldn’t have qualified it. You doubted there were taxes, I simply showed you there were.

            I’ve noticed that you argue something is really no big deal AFTER you insist that same thing didn’t happen. You’d save a lot of time by just saying your mind is made up, no matter what information comes to light.

            As little as it matters to you, it matters plenty to the millions of affected people! It sure as hell mattered plenty to BO when he incessantly promised them otherwise.

            If there’s one thing that guy is really good at, it’s give a forceful, articulate speech. And he gave an awful lot of them. In all those speeches, we were being shown a guy a who would never justify so much as .00001% of the population having the problems the 3-5% you say.

          • JMax

            You and your wife believe everything your insurance company tells you? Of course they blame it on ACA.

            Because most people ARE uniformed.

            A tax on a medical device is not a tax on a consumer. Nevertheless, there are no new taxes on the vast majority of consumers.

            There is no new information to come to light. Obama overstated the case.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>You and your wife believe everything your insurance company tells you? Of course they blame it on ACA.<<

            Quite ironic, you accusing a company of lying with no evidence, while you defend a guy who actually did lie, with actual evidence.

            I couldn't agree more that most people are uninformed (just look at who is president). But if you're going to keep saying EVERYONE, myself included, who brings up problems with OC is uninformed, you have a problem of your own to deal with: willful, patronizing ignorance.

            You actually think the burden of the medical devices tax won't be passed onto the customers? If you see a kid hit a baseball that ends up breaking your window, are you going to let him get away with "it wasn't me, it was the ball"? Man, you ain't exactly fit to call others uninformed.

            You can keep using "most" and "vast majority" in your arguments all you like, but Obama's actual statements trump you every time.

          • JMax

            I did not accuse a company of lying. I suggested they might not be offering all the compliant plans they have but rather trying to up-sell you. Insurance companies don’t have a sterling reputation when it comes to treating customers fairly and honestly since paying benefits is not in the best interest of their bottom lines.

            I never said EVERYONE who brings up problems with ACA is uninformed. Many if not most are.

            I did not say that the “burden” of the medical devices tax won’t be passed on to customers. I implied that it was negligible.

            Sparring with you is kind of fun, but you’re really kind of a dick. Why don’t you go “focus” yourself?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I did not say that the “burden” of the medical devices tax won’t be passed on to customers.<>Insurance companies don’t have a sterling reputation when it comes to treating customers fairly and honestly since paying benefits is not in the best interest of their bottom lines.<>I never said EVERYONE who brings up problems with ACA is uninformed. Many if not most are.<>I did not accuse a company of lying. I suggested they might not be offering all the compliant plans they have but rather trying to up-sell you<<

            As you questioned me every step of the way, I thoroughly explained to you that there were increases, that they were for the same plans, and that they were because of OC.

            After all that, you're STILL convinced I'm wrong, to the point of saying I shouldn't trust my insurance company?! Our insurance company has always been good to us. Any increases we've had before were tiny ones, and there was even one decrease. Before OC, we never got anything that was remotely unreasonable, let alone unspeakably massive as 80%!

            Don't post stuff like this and then say I'M kind of a dick.

          • JMax

            From an article by Dylan Scott on November 4th -

            Donna received the letter canceling her insurance plan on Sept. 16. Her insurance company, LifeWise of Washington, told her that they’d identified a new plan for her. If she did nothing, she’d be covered.

            A 56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter, Donna had been looking forward to the savings that the Affordable Care Act had to offer.

            But that’s not what she found. Instead, she’d be paying an additional $300 a month for coverage. The
            letter made no mention of the health insurance marketplace that would soon open in Washington, where she could shop for competitive plans, and
            only an oblique reference to financial help that she might qualify for, if she made the effort to call and find out.

            Otherwise, she’d be automatically rolled over to a new plan — and, as the letter said, “If you’re happy with this plan, do nothing.”

            If Donna had done nothing, she would have ended up spending about $1,000 more a month for insurance than she will now that she went to the marketplace,
            picked the best plan for her family and accessed tax credits at the heart of the health care reform law.

            “The info that we were sent by LifeWise was totally bogus. Why the heck did they try to screw us?”
            Donna said. “People who are afraid of the ACA should be much more afraid of the insurance companies who will exploit their fear and end up overcharging them.”

            You said your company was raising your premium by 81%, but you didn’t say if that was from $25 a month to $45 a month or something else. And if it’s the “same plan”, are you telling me you previously had no annual or lifetime caps, you couldn’t be kicked off for any reason other than non-payment of premiums, and maternity was covered? (Was maternity optional?)

          • Jeff Webb

            As if I needed any more proof you don’t pay attention to my comments–where did you get 81%?

            I don’t get why you’re asking more about the increase. It means the amount we pay per month goes up 80%. Multiplying that number x 12 results in the amount we pay per year.
            Now, if what you’re asking for is the actual dollar amount, that’s the sort of thing I don’t like sharing, and it doesn’t even matter in the first place.
            I’ve made it abundantly clear, so stop doubting it, disputing it, questioning it, and reading into it: the cost of my exact policy went up. It’s that simple.

            I have no doubt there are untrustworthy insurance companies out there–no industry is without at least some bad apples. Same goes for organizations, communities, agencies, you name it. Unlike politicians, however, the bad apples are outnumbered.

            Look, I get it: there are facts that you don’t want to accept, and the facts you can’t avoid are no big deal to you. But they are facts nonetheless:
            -Obama repeatedly & knowingly lied to the country;
            -millions of people are paying more, even though they were told they wouldn’t;
            -millions of people don’t get to keep their plans, even though they were told they could;

            And it’s a damn big deal to them!

          • JMax

            The reason I doubt what you’re saying is that it doesn’t make sense. You are telling me that your old/existing policy had no annual or lifetime benefit caps, could not deny you benefits for a pre-existing condition, covered all preventative care without copay, and covered maternity?

            Otherwise the policy is not the same.

          • Jeff Webb

            It doesn’t make sense to YOU, because you don’t have the notice in front of you and don’t know the context of the statement.

            I’ll go a little outside my comfort zone for you here–and I’ll ask you from this point on to allow for the possibility that people can actually know what they’re talking about, whether or not it adds up to you.

            The notice we got said that as a result of OC, the cost of various covered services was going to be raised, and that there would also be those other services (with their own respective costs) that the law required now be sold to us. I called for more details. With my policy right in front of me, I had the agent first tell me the “before” and “after” rates of each service as I went down the list, and then tell me the cost of the newly-mandated stuff. The 80% number was the result I got based only on my present policy’s services–before including the new stuff.
            I did all that largely out of curiosity. It really shouldn’t matter if the higher costs are only due to the added services, with no increase in the original services. I was promised OC wouldn’t make my costs go up, and that I would get to keep my plan. That’s two bullshit promises.

            Just in case you plan on repeating it: I couldn’t care less if or how much the newly-mandated services would benefit me. I don’t want them and I was promised I wouldn’t have to have them, period. I liked my plan just the way it was; if that’s so questionable, then BO wouldn’t have pretended to respect it in the first place.

            This whole thing just gets more & more offensive. It was bad enough being lied to to push the law. Then BO lied about his lies. Then we saw a president who, knowing his blatant dishonesty has been widely exposed, issued an apology he hopes will fool enough people into believing he admitted he lied, let alone regrets it.

            IMO, the most offensive thing of all was OC’s defenders condescendingly telling us it’s actually good that we’re not keeping our plans, because the new plans are better for us.

          • JMax

            I was ASKING for the context of the statement.

            So you’re saying that the features of your previous policy that carried over to the new policy are going to cost you 80% more and the insurer is blaming that on Obamacare every though none of the Obamacare coverage is included in your calculations?

            What years in the last 10 have your rates not gone up?

            It used to be that insurers could cap annual and lifetime benefits. If your old policy had caps, your new one isn’t the same. And if your insurer can’t now stop your benefits because you’ve reached their limit, is that good or bad? And if it is good, is it OK for me to tell you that it’s good?

            It used to be that insurers could refuse to pay you benefits if in their determination you had a pre-existing condition. If your old policy could deny you benefits, your new one isn’t the same. And if your insurer can’t now deny you your benefits because you have a pre-existing condition, is that good or bad? And if it is good, is it OK for me to tell you that it’s good?

            Have you heard any apologies from Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Chuck Grassley. Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan? Me either.

          • Jeff Webb

            What I’m saying is “since my statement confused you, I gave you some details to explain it, and I hope you’re at least less confused now.”

            OC was already a massive law when it was only about 2,000 pages long, it’s now bloated up with tens of thousands of pages’ worth of regulations. It’s simple economics that the more regulations and/or taxes you place on a business, the more expensive it is to operate it. I’m under the impression you have enough economic savvy to also know that costs are passed onto the customers, and that raising prices is no more a sign of greed than lowering them is a sign of kindness.

            Best I recall from the last ten years: at least 2 of them had no increase, at least 1 had a drop in cost, and the rest were very slight increases. However, at no time in my 25+ years as a working man has there ever been an increase of the magnitude OC brought.

            I’ve had different insurance companies, numerous plan packages, and countless medical practitioners. I’ve also been a customer of my current carrier for years, and they’ve never failed to be highly professional, competent, and fair.
            So, was the insurance company’s increase legitimate, or was it a lack of ethics on their part? You argue the latter, apparently out of pure supposition. I argue the former, based on my witnessing over 12 years of consistently ethical conduct, and the fact they now answer to a mammoth law with 30,000+ pages of regulations.

            You cannot get around this: BO didn’t promise my costs wouldn’t go up “unless the insurance companies raise them and cite Obamacare.” He promised my costs wouldn’t go up.

            In response to your two paragraphs that begin with “it used to be”, I refer you to the third-to-last paragraph of my last comment.

          • JMax

            ACA was NEVER 2,000 pages or 2,400 pages. One earlier version of the bill was over 2,000 pages. The version as passed is 947 pages (http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf). Sometimes regulations save money.

            I’m assuming you believe that most of what Obama says is a lie, so I’m unclear why you are so upset that you think he’s proved you right.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I’m assuming you believe that most of what Obama says is a lie, so I’m
            unclear why you are so upset that you think he’s proved you right.<<

            Seriously, why do you make so many comments as if you weren't already told something?

            I don't think most of BO's statements are lies–I think he truly does believe a lot of what he says. But, no matter how you slice it, parse it, or justify it, he is responsible for more suspicious behavior, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies than you'd want to admit.

            He has proven to be a different kind of politician, only not in the way he advertised. All those qualities that make pols the subject of so much scorn (dishonesty, shamelessness, gutter tactics), BO has in stockpiles precious few other have.

            He lied time & again to sell this monstrosity, and a hell of a lot of people are suffering consequences he'll never have to. Believe me, nothing would make me happier if I was wrong.
            Sadly, it appears you're more disappointed you're wrong than with the overall situation.

          • JMax

            Suspicious behavior? Like what?

            The only things I’m disappointed in are that they messed up the roll out of the web site and that Republicans will do anything to sabotage the law.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Suspicious behavior? Like what?<>The only things I’m disappointed in are that they messed up the roll out of the web site and that Republicans will do anything to sabotage the law.<<

            Perhaps Obama's utter dishonesty in this case would be a disappointment if he were an honest man in the first place.
            Yes, thank goodness Republicans failed in their "sabotage" efforts, seeing how things are just absolutely WONDERFUL right now!

          • JMax

            That is suspicious? What are your suspicions?

            Things with the exchanges are actually pretty good right now and healthcare.gov getting better every day. Part of why there were roll out problems is GOP governors’ refusal to set up exchanges in their states. Made federal exchange much more complex than expected and House did not approve additional funds. Still website roll out was HMFU.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>That is suspicious? What are your suspicions?<<

            A hypothetical:

            Imagine it's early in President Bush's first term, and AG John Ashcroft engaged in highly unethical and possibly illegal actions that have dire consequences. Suppose he independantly learns that the administration just got offered custody of Osama bin Laden, like Clinton was. Whether or not JA believes Bush knows about the offer, he sees it as a political hot potato and conceals the info. The USA is attacked on 9/11/01, and the public later finds out what JA did. The Bush administration denies any knowledge of the offer and the AG's actions.

            Democrats in Pelosi's House demand JA provide a comprehensive list of doc's and communications to them. He resists practically every effort by the House investigators, providing a fraction of the demanded doc's, blaming Clinton and giving them false info.
            Having regularly stonewalled a frustrated House and on the verge of being held in contempt, JA asks the president to exert executive privilege, which would prevent his having to release anything more. Despite his stated, complete uninvolvement and knowledge of any part of what JA did, Bush exerts EP.

            Look suspicious to you?

            As for OC, blame the GOP all you want, but a competent administration would've been prepared for any contingency, wouldn't they? Especially an administration that regularly complained about their stubborn, obstructive opponents, right?

            Additional funds?! This rollout was expensive to start with, and its costs have continued to balloon into the stratosphere. Blaming the House is insanity.

            Oh, and there are more and more ingrates losing their plans and getting rate-hikes, it's gonna keep happening, and no improvement in the site will make this whole pile of crap smell like lavender.

          • JMax

            There is no evidence that a credible offer was made to the Clinton administration to hand over Osama bin Laden.

            http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/

          • Jeff Webb

            THAT is your response? Damn, even after I framed it in a way you’d understand.

            Frustrating repetition aside, you are a breath of fresh air (no sarc) around here, J. Having a direct, spirited discussion with “the enemy” is kind of a rarity.

            My brain doesn’t get its proper exercise with some of the others. Trolls and race-carders are a boring lot; one can only hope they catch some of your posts and take notes.

          • JMax

            Thank you for the (I think) compliment. I’d like to say “back at you” for sticking with it, being responsive, and not simply throwing “low information, commie, terrorist sympathizer, queer loving liberal” at the wall and going away.

            In my opinion F&F has been thoroughly vetted. The program may not have been effective, but I don’t believe there was any dastardly doing by the ATF or DOJ. The killing of a US border guard was tragic, and though a couple of F&F weapons were found at the site, there was never any proof that those or any other F&F weapons caused his death. And again, the uproar about this particular tragic death seems to ignore the fact that law enforcement is dangerous work, and this man was not the first nor the last to be killed in the line of duty regardless of what barrel the bullet came from. In short, the F&F hearings and subpoenas from Darryl Issa were merely a means of boosting Issa’s visibility and distracting the administration from its agenda. I have a strong negative opinion of Issa starting from his cheap attempt at attaining the governorship of California through the uncalled-for recall of Gray Davis.

            I’ve had some good debates here on Bernie’s blog. I try my very best to avoid ad hominem attacks and try to stick to facts as i have researched them while including opinions that I think are valid and relevant. The best part for me is that researching claims by the articles online and of their commenters has made me a much more knowledgeable “enemy” than the average comment section denizen.

            I can’t see if the link I posted last night showed up, the one about a psychotherapist’s Obamacare trials and tribulations. I particularly like the part about not wanting to pay for maternity care coverage after already having had children. Here is the link again: http://gawker.com/psychotherapist-is-unable-to-understand-what-medical-in-1462401830

            Cheers!

          • Jeff Webb

            This should explain “about 2000 pages”:
            http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/patient-protection.pdf

            Not disputing your info–from what I saw, the difference appears to be simply a matter of formatting, not content.

          • JMax

            Something for you to read. I especially like the part about maternity coverage.

            http://gawker.com/psychotherapist-is-unable-to-understand-what-medical-in-1462401830

          • Jeff Webb

            >>-Who are the wealthy people asking and being granted a subsidy?<<

            You really didn't know this about the Senate & House?

          • JMax

            The Senate and House don’t get a subsidy. They get an employer contribution as they have for decades. Only now they can only get that contribution if they sign up for one particular plan on the DC Small Business Exchange.

          • JMax

            BTW, almost everybody is already getting a very generous subsidy for health care insurance. Since the amount an employer pays is not subject to payroll tax and the amount the employee pays is not subject to income tax, employees are getting as much as a 40% or more subsidy for health insurance coverage outside of the employer contribution.

          • ibraney

            Jeff, don’t waste your time trying to have an intelligent discussion with JMax. It’s obvious he’s totally FOS.

          • Tova Feinman

            He’s a typical arrogant, self aggrandizing, paternalistic Leftist. He knows better for you, your family, your parents, etc. than you do. Just ask him, he’ll tell you. It must be an overwhelmingly burdensome responsibility to have so much power over other people’s lives.

          • Stimpy

            “replaced by ACA compliant policies”? Not automatically. You still have to get in line and pray that the system works to process your request. From what I am hearing … it ain’t working so well. And yes, their previous insurers are most definitely telling them (and by proxy, Obama and his henchmen) to “f**k off”.

          • JMax

            Maybe automatically. Why would an insurance company cancel a paying customer’s policy and not at the same time offer them a compliant policy so the customer CONTINUES to pay them premiums instead of going to a competitor. Why would they not want to collect those premiums any longer?

            When you were in school, how many times did you complete in the first three weeks an assignment due in three months? The web site will work better soon. In the meantime, most state sites are working well and families can still get coverage over the phone or in person.

          • Stimpy

            Insurers are just abandoning some markets altogether. Cigna isn’t accepting any ACA customers in Illinois, for example (probably don’t want to deal with all the gun shot trauma cases). Get your facts straight before you brag about how well this new system is going to work. It is a mess that likely will collapse of its own weight. Put that in your liberal pipe and smoke it.

          • JMax

            Do you have any citation for this? There is no such thing as “ACA customers” unless you consider that.all insurance company policies must be ACA compliant so ANYBODY who has insurance is an “ACA customer”.

      • Newsjoc2004

        “By order of the Central Government, you will forfeit your ‘crap’ policy immediately, and purchase, a policy the Central Government determines is better for you, or you will be fined”.
        It’s called Tyranny, JMax. We are losing our freedom and right to choose in order for the president to have a signature achievement and legacy, damn the consequences. You just don’t get it.

        • JMax

          Actually by law invented by a conservative think tank, passed by elected people’s representatives in both houses of Congress, signed by the elected president of the United States, and verified by the conservative Supreme Court. It’s called Democracy, Newsjoc.

          I get it just fine. Universal health care has been a goal of presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Richard Nixon up to the present day. We are the only major industrialized country in the world who didn’t have it before ACA.

          If you would rather be able to purchase crap insurance for the sake of your “freedom” rather than insuring 40 million Americans who didn’t have coverage and rather than ending the estimated 45,000 American deaths each year of people who don’t have insurance and rather than providing financial and psychological piece of mind of bankruptcy protection, then I don’t think YOU get that America is a society as well as individuals.

      • Tova Feinman

        Nice of you to make that decision for the ignorant, unwashed masses. We will all bow down to your infinite wisdom and insight into our healthcare needs.

      • nickshaw

        How do you know it was “crap” before?
        Apparently, this is the new lib’rul talking head routine.
        How do you know it will be “solid coverage”?
        Medicaid was supposed to be “solid coverage” too but, Medicaid has a worse track record than the insurance companies for mistreating their “clients”.

        • JMax

          I’d love to read a source for that claim.

          It was crap because the insurance companies could cancel at any time and severely limit the benefits caps.

          Since the coverage will be provided by PRIVATE insurance companies, it will be AT LEAST as solid as those provided by the same private insurance companies before ACA. Only now it will include no copays for preventative care, no recisions, no denial, no caps.

          • nickshaw

            Having to provide all those things practically removes it from the realm of “insurance”.
            Did you really think having all those “perks” weren’t going to have an effect on premiums, as Skeeter apparently does?

          • JMax

            Yes. Healthy people cost less than unhealthy people, both to the insurance companies and the economy as a whole. And 40 million new customers are going to provide a lot of new premiums to those insurance companies.

          • nickshaw

            Apparently, you didn’t get the memo.

            Only about 7.5 million are actually going to sign up for O’kare and about 2 million have to be healthy young ones.

            As of this moment, Medicaid seems to be taking most of the new enrollees.

            Hmmm, this is getting closer to “single payer” by the day.

            ‘Course, that was the plan all along.

            http://minx.cc/?post=344566

          • JMax

            There is no such thing as Obamacare for anybody to sign up for. Obamacare is a set of rules. It hires no doctors, no hospitals, and no insurance companies.

            Why are you concerned that people are signing up for Medicaid? It’s good that people are signing up for Medicaid. The point is to get people insured for health care.

            I’m all for single payer. I’ll be starting my single payer coverage in less than a year. It’s called Medicare. People love it.

          • nickshaw

            C’mon! Why be deliberately obtuse?
            By signing up for O’Kare you know very well I mean those who use the exchanges to buy insurance.
            Seeing as the number expected is set well below the number that was bandied about for those Americans who had no coverage at all (the bulk of applicants who are signing up for “new and improved” insurance currently hold policies at this point and they are going to lose them), who is it that is really being “helped”?
            Could those “millions without insurance” not have been accommodated with Medicaid, as it seems is happening now?
            This is nothing but a plan for control and redistribution.

          • JMax

            “Could those ‘millions without insurance’ not have been accommodated with Medicaid?”

            How many Republican states have refused to expand Medicaid?

            I’m trying to make sense of your post, but it is very unclear.

      • Qurys

        Yes…solid coverage…whatever that means. Do they have a “solid” doctor somewhere near where they live? Does that doctor get “solid” payments? None of those questions are answered. However you miss the basic point. The Federal government is deciding what is “crap”. The buyer is not. It is my right to shop at the least expensive store in town if that is what I can afford. It is not your right to tell me that what I buy is crap. Go to the grocery store and walk down the aisles and tell people they are buying “crap” in your humble opinion. You won’t last too long.

        • JMax

          You can shop at the cheapest store in town. But your food, water, medications, appliances, tires and more that they sell you must meet minimum requirements for safety, requirements set by the government by laws set by representatives elected by the people.

          That’s who tells you what’s crap. Not me.

          • sjangers

            And what a lot of people seem to be saying to the government is that they’re tired of being told what meets the minimum requirements for safety and are frustrated that they don’t even have an option to make that decision for themselves if some bureaucrat, perhaps angling for a future cushy industry job in the private sector, determines otherwise. I could tell you an interesting story or two about the standards by which federal bureaucrats decide what is safe, but perhaps I can illustrate better with a question. How is my government serving me and making me safer if they decide that I, a single male, can’t purchase a health insurance policy that doesn’t include (and charge for) coverage for birth control and maternity? Why can’t I purchase a cheaper policy that doesn’t include those costs now, then buy up to a more expensive and comprehensive coverage when it looks like maternity might be in my future? I may be able to shop at the cheapest store in town, but it isn’t going to stay very cheap if the government prevents them from putting the cheapest products on its shelves.

          • JMax

            A lot more people are VERY HAPPY that the government decides that tires should meet minimum safety requirements. And I’m one of them.

            Who wants to be driving Northbound on a road where a Southbound car’s tire blows because it’s a cheap piece of crap? Who wants to stand in line at the grocery with someone whose medication for a communicable disease is not effective? Who wants to live anywhere near an airport where aircraft manufacturing and procedure rules don’t meet safety standards?

            Do you need hip replacement coverage? Do you need ebola coverage? Do you need HIV coverage?

            Do the fertile women who have the same policy as you need hip replacement coverage? Does a single male need maternity coverage or mammogram coverage?

            The nature of insurance is to pool resources to be able to provide benefits for people who need those benefits when they need it. My wife and I will never ever need maternity benefits, but we’re on the same
            plan as younger families who do and will have more children. Those same people don’t need a knee replacement that I might. Insurance is not a
            cafeteria product.

            I posted this earlier:

            “No, the government doesn’t tell you what dealerships you must buy tires from nor what insurance companies you must buy from. But they can and do tell the tire manufacturers and dealers certain specifications
            that those tires must meet in order to sell them to you. Same as health insurance.

            “ACA does NOT tell you “what color tires…or who the manufacturer should be”. You can use any insurance company that is willing to sell you insurance coverage that meets requirements. Same as tires.

            “And like choosing tires that fit 15″, 16″, or 17″ rims or 195 or 215 tread width, etc. you can choose plans with higher or lower deductibles, higher or lower copays, higher or lower total out-of-pocket costs, and
            higher or lower premiums.

            Like tires that have to meet requirements of not blowing up after 30 minutes of highway-speed driving, insurance plans have to meet basic requirements of non-denial for pre-existing conditions, no recisions, no
            caps on benefits, and no copays for preventative care.”

          • sjangers

            The problem is that while some government involvement in setting basic requirements for quality, safety and standardization may be helpful, once the camel’s nose gets under the tent we always end up with the whole camel in our bed and humping our wife, which is never a good thing for anybody. I won’t quibble with any of the examples you posted above, although some certainly do deserve a quibble of two, but will note one example from personal experience with government setting standards that directly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (I’m not even remotely qualified to calculate the indirect costs) and kept a necessary and valuable product out of the marketplace for close to two years.
            About fifteen years ago I was involved in a project to bring a new alternate fuel to the marketplace. It was a safe, cost-efficient product that has since proved its value to our economy. Because the raw material to make the product could also be used as a food, both the EPA and the FDA had to be satisfied before it could be marketed. There was a lot of costly and perhaps-difficult-to-justify nonsense that ensued in order to win approval of both agencies, but my favorite part was the requirement (I think it was from the EPA) that the safety of the product be determined by quantifying the morbidity of lab rats who had been exposed to it. And that was the rub. It didn’t kill the rats. It didn’t even make them a little bit sick. But the agency had to know how much of the product it took to kill a lab rat before they would approve it as “safe”. (Weird concept, huh? It has to kill something so we can certify that it’s safe.) Since it couldn’t kill a rat, there was a lengthy and costly regulatory process that had to be followed to dispense with the requirement to determine morbidity. At one point, in frustration, I suggested to a friend who was leading part of the application process that we fill a five gallon bucket with the product, hold a rat under the surface of the product until it drowned, and use that volume as the amount it took to kill one lab rat. I’m not sure, but that might even have satisfied the humorless bureaucrats who had the final say in whether or not people would someday be able to purchase this fuel. Fortunately, it eventually ended well. Eighteen or so months later the product did finally win its necessary regulatory approval- and no rats were harmed in the process- but the absurdity of the process has stuck with me ever since.
            So for every time that you don’t have to witness some southbound driver careening out of control because the government prevented a driver from purchasing unsafe tires, there’s also those years that you have to purchase dirtier, more expensive, environmentally-unfriendly fuels because government regulators don’t appear to be able to get their heads far enough out of their butts to make common sense decisions that benefit all of us. I don’t mind having some level of government involvement in helping to make the marketplace safer and more convenient for all of us. But when their involvement starts to have to opposite effect, I’d say that things have now gone too far.

          • JMax

            Good post and interesting. I would have to ask who really really got in the way of your project. Corn industry? Petroleum companies? People say it was the environmentalists that killed nuclear energy. I say it was Exxon.

            Who killed the electric car?

          • sjangers

            I wasn’t close enough to the regulatory process to say which, if any, special interest was creating the obstacle. It may have simply been bureaucratic indifference or inertia.

    • nickshaw

      “Soothing”? ;-)
      Yeah, I know…

  • SimplyGilly

    The problem with WDC is representatives do not represent, political leaders do not lead and a president who demonizes, divides, smears and belittles, and a general public too naive, ignorant or just plain stupid to accept without question. The country might be more solvent, in a better place, if politicians were required to represent their constituents not the party, lead, and READ THE BILL before voting. Those who voted for ACA without reading it should be ashamed… and repealed.

  • sjangers

    I share your frustration with big media’s failure to get out the whole story about the travesty called the Affordable Care Act, Bernie. But at least they are starting to get out part of the ugly story. Baby steps. Baby steps. Eventually most of the truth will come out.