"You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."AND: Remember Obama's program to collect information on "fishy" things people were saying about Obamacare?
Obama answering the question: "Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?"
Is he a fool or is he lying?
I'm leaning toward lying because of the way his answer emphasizes keeping insurance — which (I think) the bill permits — and avoids talking about writing new policies — which (I think) it forbids.
ALSO: From August 2009, a discussion of how the health-care debate would have gone if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency:
She wouldn't have blithely assumed Americans would quietly accept the vast, complex restructuring of health care that the congressional Democrats dumped on us. Obama naively thought that he was enough, and the more-liberal-than-America Democrats imagined they could get by on the magic of our admiration for the charming new President, who would look even lovelier as he amassed glittering accomplishments. Wouldn't he be wonderful? Wouldn't America be wonderful to have elected such a fine man President?MORE: Now, this is what I was really looking for when I went back into my old posts under the Obamacare tag. I took a "cold look" at a speech Obama gave on September 9, 2009. I quoted him:
[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.And I said:
I get it. Nothing will require anything of me if I have what I like (and I do). But if you change the structure of the insurance market, my insurance company may not survive or it may be forced to change. Then how do I keep what I have? What I have now may not exist in the future. This is why I do not feel secure.I quoted him again: "What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you." And I said: "But I like my plan now. You admit you're going to change it."
I quoted him: "Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition." And I said:
Not just me, but anybody. The health insurance business will have to change. I understand the good of helping people with medical conditions, but I wonder what it will do to the private business to suddenly change this.I can see very clearly that I never believed the lies he's apologizing for now. Much more at that link.
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
Lying fool.
both
I'm waiting for Obama to have his Nixon-shoving-Ziegler moment or Carter-haggard-jogging moment.
Maybe we'll see him bowing before Michelle.
Turns out he was lying about both new policies and keeping old ones, given that the administration had control over the regulations that effectively "ungrandfathered" most individual policies the statute - and Obama -- said you could keep.
Here's a quotation from President Obama:
"I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that, 'What you're going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we're going to lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and it won't cost anybody anything.' That's great politics. It's just not true."--Barack Obama, Washington Post, January 29, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902774_pf.html
The solution to the bumbled start of Obamacare is simple, then. Elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, which is what everyone should have done in 2008. But let's let bygones be bygones on that. Don't worry, you don't have to thank me for that advice, simply acting on it is thanks enough.
Both.
I agree with those who say the scariest thing is that they think he actually believes he is not, and have not been, lying.
Obama is lying. Obama is a purposeful malicious liar who lies for his personal gain.
It is a clusterfuck. The Dems are now all over Hillary thinking that would make up for the clusterfuck they voted for in 2008. Wait, wait, we made a mistake but we will correct it.
Dear Somefeller,
Yes, you are right! Let's elect Hillary, because it's time! Time we elected someone who has -- a vagina! Can you think of a better reason to elect someone? Other than skin pigment, I mean.
It may be hard to believe but Hillary would be even worse.
"the "health care provider" interrogate the "patient" at each app[ointment] and record the results in the government database. (And the provider who doesn't get the data gets financially punished.) The mandated interrogation is about smoking, whether or not the patient is being beaten at home, with whom and how often the patient is having sex, and how many guns are in the patient's home "
That's a quote from Obamacare describing your "annual health exam."
Lying doesn't cover half of it.
I think that Obams thinks, or at least feels, despite whatever Larry Summers and others may have trid to explain to him, that his insurance company should have replaced his jalopy back in his student days, even though he only carried the minimum required liability insurance, because he had "insurance;" likewise that his mother's company should have paid for any and all treatments recommended for her illness regardless of what her policy included, because she had "insurance." I think this is what Michael K. refers to about Obama's "cargo-cult mentality."
I do not think there is any use trying to get through to him. Whoever does will just find himself down at the corner bar drowning his sorrows with Larry Summers.
Anyway, we may be obsessing too much about this. Everybody on TV babbles about the 30 million uninsured who are supposed to be anxiously awaiting the "fixing" of the AHCA website so that they can sign up for "free" medical insurance.
However, so far, it looks like the 30 million are quite unaware of the AHCA, or that this has anything to do with them, and they certainly do not appear enthusiastic at the prospect when somebody tries to tell them about it on camera.
What it does look like, is that umpteen millions who are, or have been insured are considering "going bare."
This cannot possibly be good news for either the medical insurance industry or the Democrats.
The problem is, what is the landscape going to look like after the avalanche hits bottom, and what wll we do then? Nothing in the medical field is going to be like it was before.
If you can say that President Obama lied, can you really say that he lied to you?
You have conclusively proved that you understood the very nuances that President Obama is now accused of leaving out.
If Ann Althouse understood then, and other people didn't, does that reflect more poorly on President Obama or on the other people?
Still, I don't think that Ann Althouse can now say, "Obama lied, period" without making the same type of omission of which President Obama is now accused.
... And it follows that anyone else who says that "Obama lied, period" are either fools or liars.
If you like your policy you can keep your policy, unless it changes.
Obamacare requires insurance companies to alter policies to comply with new "standards" so there aren't any "sub-standard" policies.
Everyone's policy has to change, everyone loses their policy.
All is proceeding according to Obama's plan. Total government takeover of healthcare and a single payer program.
Yes!
Hillary in 2016!
What could possibly be wrong with that?
Both, and both of them you voted for.
"Bad apple insurance companies" ...Obama is so eloquent and smart when he is speaking without his teleprompter.
Hagar,
What Obama's mother had was health insurance, which did in fact pay for all her medical treatments. What she argued for was income replacement, which was not part of the policy.
Posts like this just remind me that he TOTALLY made a fool out of you; your offering a thorough, considered explanation of why you supported him was far worse than some clown who voted for Obama for racist reasons.
Left bank confuses lying with defrauding. Lying is the intentional statement of a falsehood. Unlike the concept of fraud, lying does not have any element of reasonable reliance. That is the reason why, for example, a person can be convicted of perjury in grand jury testimony even if the prosecutor knew that the witness was lying when he gave his answers (and even if the point of asking a particular line of questions was to give the witness every opportunity to perjure himself).
Whether Althouse or anyone else figured out at that time that O-man was a liar is not a defense to the charge (or the fact) that O-man was demonstrably lying (and still is).
The next year will be awesome. Watching the health care system of this country melt down will be amazing. How the US could have elected these clowns will be a question for history. We have to remember a bit of history. This is not the first time a leader/ruler completely fucked up his country.
The best example from modern history I can think of is The Franco-=Prussian War of 1870.
Napoleon III started it and lost, uniting Germany under Bismark, France lost the final battle of the war in 1940. They won in 1918 but it devastated them.
"If you like your health plan/doctor, you can keep your health plan/doctor" was not "just a lie". It was central to the Obama effort to portray Obamacare as a moderate reform to the health care system that would help the currently disadvantaged (the poor, those with pre-existing conditions, etc.), provide additional options and efficiencies for those who weren't committed to their current insurance, without causing any serious disadvantages to anyone. The opponents of Obamacare were able to persuade a lot of people that it was a bad idea, but they were not able to energize them to rise up in righteous anger against Obamacare and its sponsors. (The election of a Republican Senator in Massachusetts was a great first step in the right direction, and the Republican victories in the 2010 elections carried that movement forward. But then the momentum died.)
The Republicans need to focus "like a laser" on the 2014 and 2016 elections, and they should use Obamacare as a synecdoche for all the big government overreach we've experienced and been threatened with over the past several years. That will require, at least, an unapologetic conservative presidential nominee.
If you can say that President Obama lied, can you really say that he lied to you?
If Ann Althouse understood then, and other people didn't, does that reflect more poorly on President Obama or on the other people?
Oh, my. This one took my breath away. I mean, that much stupidity and mendacity combined into two sentences just doesn't happen by accident.
Apparently, if I go into court and lie under oath, it's not actually perjury if the jury doesn't believe it?
I've seen some pretty weak arguments used to try to defend Obama in the past few weeks, but I really think this one takes the cake.
"If you like your health plan/doctor, you can keep your health plan/doctor" was not "just a lie". It was central to the Obama effort to portray Obamacare as a moderate reform to the health care system that would help the currently disadvantaged (the poor, those with pre-existing conditions, etc.), provide additional options and efficiencies for those who weren't committed to their current insurance, without causing any serious disadvantages to anyone.
This. It was sold as 'oh don't worry, nothing will change for you, especially if you liek what you have, we will just pass something that helps those with pre-existing conditions and poor people who can't buy their own, and oh, those bastard insurance companies..'
We shouldn't feel like the only country with stupid voters. Chile, he great success story of free markets, is about to elect a Socialist president who promises to roll back free market reforms. The common element ? They have had a goofy billionaire like Bloomberg as president.
It now looks like they will have one more thing in common: hard-left successors. On Tuesday, Sandinista-supporter Bill de Blasio won the New York City mayoral contest. Polls suggest that this Sunday former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet —running for president again—could win in the first-round election. She is a Socialist but is the candidate for the New Majority coalition, which includes the Communist Party and weakened Christian Democrats.
The rise in populism on the heels of the Bloomberg and Piñera administrations is no surprise. Both the New York mayor and the Chilean president have been loath to defend individual rights when they think they know better. Is it any wonder that the electorate in both jurisdictions increasingly believes that elections give chief executives carte blanche?
At least we have company in the low information voter department.
Now, as spoken (written) before.
If you had taken depositions or tried cases, you would have known immediately that Obama was lying not only about Obamacare, but the stimulus, the IRS, Benghazi and most everything else.
He is quite easy to read.
The ObamaCare debacle is the exception that proves the rule. Wall-to-wall complaints are forcing the media to report that the law’s Web site is a lemon and that its rules are causing millions of people to lose insurance plans they liked.
The mainstream media is acting only because the story is too big to ignore. Had it been mildly skeptical sooner, it could have exposed the law’s destructive rules and prevented the disaster.
"We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" Nancy Pelosi
Left Bank of the Charles said...
... if someone lies to you and you don't believe it, then they really haven't lied to you.
Amazing. The mind reels.
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'nothing' is.
Perhaps Mr. Obama doesn't understand the concept of zero.
That would require some self awareness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr-yQaMbQ3o
Don't let them.
NotquiteunBuckley said...
"I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.
But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."
http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html
Madison, more than most any, but the worst, needs Sarah Palin back, this timed welcomed as if Madison were a proud democracy, of, by, for, the people of America, and nothing less.
I can see very clearly that I never believed the lies he's apologizing for now. Much more at that link.
But you did vote for this guy, and are therefore responsible for foisting him on the rest of us - and partly responsible for the fact that we've lost control of an important part of our lives. I won't forget this. And cannot forgive.
(he was always this person - many of us tried to tell you.)
Does it matter if he's a liar or a fool or both? (my vote is both)
What's amazing is his claiming to be an ignoramus to cover up his lying. the "Stupid Defense" Next time I'm pulled over I'll say that I can't read the speed limit signs.
You must feel like such a fool.
Actually my favorite "post Obama care" interview was with a female Jr college prof. She was stunned to find out her hours had been cut to avoid having to provide her insurance. She was stunned, and kept saying "but I didn't think it would affect me"
She got what she deserved.
Don't forget, Mr. Obama is a
lying sack of the worst sort.
Don't forget, Mr. Obama is a
lying sack of the worst sort.
Here's a quotation from President Obama:
"I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that, 'What you're going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms, we're going to lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and it won't cost anybody anything.' That's great politics. It's just not true."--Barack Obama, Washington Post, January 29, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902774_pf.html
Where were the folks to make that a far-and-wide-spread gaffe, as was made with some of Biden's? Here's the thing: A number of Biden's gaffes actually had to do with speaking the truth (inadvertently spoken or not so) about something. As that, so was this, only of Obama's.
---
It's a culture, the culture, and it's ever-spreading, as it has been for so long--and only the willfully stupid thinks it's only confined to his or her or their...what?...opponents, for just one example, and not the most tricky or dangerous, either.
Obama is a lying con man and we, alas, are the fools.
The difference is:
What, do you think?
Martha just partly answered my question.
A hint:
As that, so was this, only of Obama's.
So, it was different--even if Joe's was at least closer to a truth, and Barack's had nothing at all to do with a similar such, given the same realm of observation at hand.
Make no mistake: I'm not advocating Joe Biden for president. I am not.
OTOH, I think that people from left, right and center and all along the way tend to focus on the wrong gaffes (and don't test--don't test! period!--gaffes w/r/t to the truths and non-truths behind them).
In this way, I think, we the people tend to keep birthing the wrong leaders.
In this way, for just one example.
Keep in mind that no one appears to be tracking the number of canceled policies against the number of enrollees. The "benefit" of PPACA certainly decreases if the majority of people who apply through the exchanges (and are not on Medicaid) are those who had insurance before the law was passed.
It's not enough to say "One million people enrolled! Oh, frabjous day!" if those people (or a substantial fraction) were already enrolled, pre-PPACA; this particularly holds true if the net result is an increase in total insurance costs.
Callooh! Callay!
What is beamish, and what is chortling?
Yeah, this is akin to most-good questioning:
Blogger John Woycheese said...
Keep in mind that no one appears to be tracking the number of canceled policies against the number of enrollees. The "benefit" of PPACA certainly decreases if the majority of people who apply through the exchanges (and are not on Medicaid) are those who had insurance before the law was passed.
It's not enough to say "One million people enrolled! Oh, frabjous day!" if those people (or a substantial fraction) were already enrolled, pre-PPACA; this particularly holds true if the net result is an increase in total insurance costs.
Thanks, Blogger John Woycheese.
Why would anybody - add emphasis to anybody - think that the wonderfully efficient and effective Federal government could construct in a few years a completely new insurance bureaucracy that took the private insurance industry decades - add emphasis to decades - to build, make work, and make somewhat profitable?
Nice job/ analysis! Off the subject but didn't you once work for that Sullivan law firm that the the Dulles brothers were a big part of; NY Times mag article today. Obama has always had an excellent ability to, what I would call, hop scotch a statement forward. When you walk a statement forward you consider the interlocking parts of the argument. Hop-scotching would be, in this instance starting with a relationship of you and the insurance company and hop-scotching forward relies on hopping forward based on your ability to maintain the relationship. He allows a stability to one side of the relationship that leaves him finally jumping seemingly with both feet planted firmly on the ground whereas in fact one foot may be planted in an illusion. He seemed to do that in an answer on abortion using physicians and the Hippocratic oath in 2008 primary debates.
Hillary's platform was the same as Obama's. And she has a history of using the IRS on those she doesn't like/sees as a threat, hires thugs to intimidate others she sees as a threat, and a trail of dead bodies too.
Not sure the media would have played suck up as much as they have for Obama but they definitely would carry plenty of water. She just does not come off as a nice person.
Not only does Obama lie, but he inspires his disciples to lie as well. I keep hearing from Obama voters (Thankfully not Althouse) that they are saving money via Obamacare.
Yet when I ask them to show me the evidence, they vanish, or ignore the request. Curious, that.
I went back and read through the comments from this original post.
It is interesting to see some of the commentators (who I don't see in this comment section yet) defending President Obama then.
I wonder what they would say now?
The really funny part is, somefeller, is pushing Hillary because she'a what? Somewhat less of a liar.
My vote is that he really didn't care. Winning is everything to him, and he will do whatever that takes. The White House knew, but that often doesn't mean the President or Slo Joe the VP. It sometimes feels like there is a cable running the country, mostly from the White House since he moved in there, and they write his speeches, hand them to him to read (on his usually trusty TelePrompTer), he takes one of his private highly customized 747s wherever required, and delivers the speech. Gets in some golf and flies back to his mansion in DC for some hoops and more golf. In short, just an attractive front man, whose job is to be just that, an attractive front man, and in return for not being very curious about what is going on in his name, he gets all the perks - the big house, 747s, servants, private tribute band to play his private theme song, etc.
To paraphrase Rummy a bit, I don't think that Obama knows what he doesn't know. He never had a real job, and the only time he has had to make a payroll, he had a complacent Fed and the government printing presses to create the needed funds to do so out of thin air. His people told him it would work, and that was that. Of course, they also had never done anything like this before, with their humanities and law degrees, and so too didn't have a clue about what they didn't know, but knew that complex IT jobs were implemented all the time in this country, so why worry?
If it appears that I am painting them as the gang that couldn't shoot straight, keep in mind that they can do a couple of things quite well - messaging and campaigning. But that takes money, and hence the crony capitalism corruption.
IMO Bruce Hayden is spot on. He's just a figure head to Soros et al. and VJ implements their instructions.
@ddh,
Even more illustrative: Obama feels the company should have given her the money because she "needed it" in order to maintain her lifestyle; never mind that it was not part of the policy.
And, BTW, the term is medical insurance; no one can insure your health.
Is there any courses in contract law required in order to graduate from Harvard Law?
Is there any courses in contract law required in order to graduate from Harvard Law?
Pretty sure that there was when Obama went there - remember the movie/series "Paper Chase"? Prof Kingsfield taught Contracts there to 1Ls. Just a movie/TV series, but it set the tone for law school profs for at least a generation. If that was how they did it at Harvard, then they had better do it too. It's one of the basics needed on the bar exam.
Ann is obviously the expert here, but back when I was in LS, 1L had no electives. I think it was Contracts, Torts, Con Law, and pre-trial procedure first term when I was a 1L. All required on the multistate Bar exam. It sometimes really sucked - there were good profs and bad ones, and you didn't get to choose until later. And it seems like the real pieces of work tend to be the contracts profs. Kingsfield of course in that movie. Mine was bad, but my brother's was worse. Not that we didn't learn the stuff, but rather they were quite the AHs, adding nothing to the learning by their idiosyncrasies.
He is a lying fool.
He is lying but is a fool to believe his lies can be covered up by his propaganda machine.
You can stop whipping. The horse is dead.
I had an ex who would lie even when she didn't need to. I think she did it just to keep in practice. I think Obama is like that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा