Why is this important?

Well, Cuccinelli is either behind by a little or behind by a lot. I don't want to say it's the Libertarian candidate's "fault" Cuccinelli is behind -- you earn people's votes; you are not owed them -- but there are probably a number of libertarian-minded people who would vote for Cuccinelli if there weren't a Libertarian candidate in the race.

So Ron Paul will actually be rallying such people to not vote for the Libertarian candidate, but rather for the conservative one.

We'll see if this has any impact. Cuccinelli is being pummeled over his cosponsorship of a law that says life begins at fertilization, a premise that sounds innocent enough, until one realizes that many birth control pills, such as the popular "mini-pill," sometimes cause a fertilized egg to not implant, and thus could be construed as illegal.

You can judge for yourself if that is a fair charge, but MacAuliffe is absolutely hammering Cuccinelli with "voted to ban some birth control pills" ads.

Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM | Comments (452)
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm sorry, did I mislead the public with that headline? I meant Timothy P. Carney of the Washington Examiner. I expected you to know I meant that when I said something that would lead you to think I meant someone else.

He writes of the perpetually dishonest campaign for Obamacare, spending a while on Obama's use of regulations to take back the promise that you could keep your insurance supposedly encoded into law.

I know I keep talking about this. But I'm linking this because I'm happy to see that momentum is growing on this meme.

I'll skip the regs-writing part and quote some other lies. Read the whole thing, though.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:26 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

The most breathless claim in his speech, I thought, was the lie that only those making $250,000 per year or more are being "asked to pay a little more."

This is a lie. Anyone making over $48,000 or so will get the doubled or tripled premiums (and often doubled deductibles to boot!) and no subsidies.

Jonah Goldberg wrote earlier of Obama's Big Lie.

I would say I'm shocked, but that would be a lie. I think I am too emotionally deadened to Obama's constant lies to even have a reaction. I'm just numb.

One thing I wasn't shocked about but am a little perplexed about: Obama claims that it's Republicans' fault all these bad things are happening because they won't "pitch in" and help him or something.

What actual legislative action is he proposing? I have not heard him request a specific change in Obamacare.

He wouldn't be thinking about a large tax increase on the general public to help defray some costs of Obamacare by any chance, would he?

That's the only thing I can imagine -- and yet that would of course be a New Lie, because he sold this thing as "only" costing a trillion or so in new (admitted) taxes.

Posted by: Ace at 12:47 PM | Comments (256)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama is now speaking at Faniuel Hall Fanueil Hall Boston, to claim that this is all Mitt Romney's and the Heritage Foundation's fault.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:01 PM | Comments (488)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Mary Katharine Ham, who will be doing the podcast this All Hallow's Eve, De Season of De Witch, compiled the best euphemisms used for the simple sentence "Obama lied."

But it's Politico that I think wins the award. Many of MKH's quotes are from Democrats and progressive shills, who can be expected to shamelessly lie for Obama. In fact, they are paid to do so.

What's Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown's excuse for the following?

Some of the highest-profile challenges are the White HouseÂ’s own making. Obama made sweeping generalizations that can be contradicted by individual experiences. Not everybody will see the deep savings that he promised during the 2008 campaign. A large percentage of people who buy their own insurance wonÂ’t be able to keep the exact same policy. The website hasnÂ’t been nearly as breezy as predicted

Did you just say "sweeping generalizations... can be contradicted by individual experiences"?

Holy Shit, you did. "Certain verbal assurances may be contradicted by known facts," huh?

And, "The website isn't as breezy as predicted"?

Wow.

POLITICO

Certain representations and warranties about what Obama would or would not be depositing in your mouth may be belied by the presence of genetic jetsam.

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah.

This whole kerfuffle ignores that insurance plans were changing all the time and premiums were skyrocketing pre-Obamacare. Suddenly, a whole range of bad behavior on the part of insurance companies is blamed on the Affordable Care Act. ItÂ’s just like employers trying to shaft their workers by cutting hours and benefits and blaming it on the Affordable Care Act, even though employer mandate provisions donÂ’t take effect for another year.

Trying to blame Obamacare for every problem in the private insurance market is paradoxical: The whole reason for passing the Affordable Care Act was to fix whatÂ’s broken with private insurance [no period; sic]

Every word of her article is a lie, including the punctuation. But let me take a 10,000 foot view of this.

Here's the reason the "If you like your insurance, you get to keep your insurance" promise was so important: Because it promised people choice. People only agreed to this boondoggle (actually, they never agreed, but let's say they resisted less) because Obama swore up and down that they would have the choice of retaining their old insurance or switching to the new, supposedly "better," insurance.

See, if you have that choice, then you can switch if the new policy is in fact better. You are thus held harmless -- if you think the new policy is in fact worse, you can simply opt-out by not signing up for the new policy.

This is the whole reason this promise was so important. If the new policy was actually worse in terms of cost, deductible, and so forth, people would still have the option of retaining their old policy.

On the other hand, if you are not allowed this choice, the government can force you to accept worse coverage -- or the same coverage at stratospherically-jacked-up premiums -- and you cannot do anything at all about it, except take your punishment.

Obama knows damn well the new policies are not "better." They cover a few things near and dear to progressive hearts (substance abuse, birth control pills, mental treatment), but these new things are rather cheaply covered, and cannot possibly account for the doubling or trebling of premiums -- nor with the doubling of deductibles that usually comes with Obamacare's doubling or trebling of premiums.

These policies are not in fact "better" in any way, which is why Obama must force people into his high-risk polls to subsidize other people.

The "you will have your choice" promise, made repeatedly, reassured people that they would not simply be forced into high-risk pools and be offered catastrophic coverage and comprehensive coverage prices.

But he was always lying.

Sally Kohn can spin that this is "better" insurance. But if it were better, people would sign up for it willingly. If it were actually "better," Obama would not have had to write the HHS rules to un-grandfather supposedly grandfathered policies and dump people into the high-risk pools, thus forcing them to buy the supposedly "better" insurance.

It's not "better" insurance -- it is what conservatives have been saying for five long years: It is stealing some of someone's private insurance in order to pay for someone else's.

Which is precisely what Obama promised it was not. And, in fact, people have been called "racist" for speaking such "lies" for five years.

If it's "better" insurance, Sally Kohn, why does Obama feel required to break his solemn promise that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance"?

If it was really "better," he could afford to keep this promise. What does he care if people choose worse coverage?

No, the whole point is that he wants to force people into subsidizing others, by terminating their supposedly grandfathered policies and dumping them into the high-risk pools.

Insurance that costs three times as much as previous insurance, and double the deductible, is not "better" for the person paying for it. It may be better for the person being subsidized by those jacked-up rates, but not for the person paying for the policy.

This guarantee -- that people could choose themselves -- provided them with an escape hatch to make sure they could personally enforce Obama's promise that they would be held harmless.

Without that, Obama can punish them with higher premiums, and they have no way out -- which is precisely what he's doing.

And that's why Obama promised people that they could keep their insurance -- so that they wouldn't realize they'd now be paying for the insurance of a couple of strangers.

And that's why he must now reveal that promise to have been a lie all along.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (281)
Post contains 790 words, total size 5 kb.

So here is the game: the White House wrote regulations to insure that the maximum number of people were terminated from their old policies, thus intentionally breaking its oft-made promise.

The White House and Democrats now wish to claim it's the insurance companies who are doing this.

The insurance companies would like to say that this isn't true -- that the White House is forcing them to do this, and furthermore, that they warned the White House that Obamacare regulations were forcing huge numbers of terminations -- but the White House demands they be silent and take their scapegoating.

And why are they are afraid? Because with the stroke of a pen, the government has now become the country's biggest insurance customer.

Oh, and this White House is vengeful, vindictive, petty, and Nixonian, of course.

Is this still America?
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (450)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Checked: Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan

Conclusion:

Whopper

BAM!

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:19 AM | Comments (505)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

By now, many of you have read the tweet-saga outlining my experience with Healthcare.gov, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to lay it out in a format more conducive to the story.

Yesterday, I was stoopid.

I ignored the signals, the bright, flashing, red signals, my own instinct, and even Consumer Reports, and I created an account at the new healthcare website.

Here's why:
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:33 PM | Comments (157)
Post contains 1808 words, total size 10 kb.

Let me sum up...she's responsible, someone else made all the decisions and actually said "the website never crashed" while it was down.

Via Allah

Posted by: DrewM at 06:27 AM | Comments (597)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.