Author Topic: Integrity  (Read 36913 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #75 on: September 10, 2013, 10:45:57 AM »
Election-year shock: Obama boasts of ‘decimated’ al Qaeda undermined by intel briefings
Agencies warned administration the group was expanding, not ‘on the run’
By Guy Taylor
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
 
As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.

Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.

The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.

Many Americans believed when they voted in November that the president was justifiably touting a major national security success of his first term. After all, U.S. special operations forces succeeded in May 2011 in capturing and killing the al Qaeda founder and original leader, Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan.

But key players in the intelligence community and in Congress were actually worried that Mr. Obama was leaving out a major new chapter in al Qaeda’s evolving story in order to bend the reality of how successful his administration had been during its first four years in the fight against terrorism.

“I completely believe that the candidate Obama was understating the threat,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “To say the core is decimated and therefore we have al Qaeda on the run was not consistent with the overall intelligence assessment at the time.”

Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told The Times that “we need to evaluate statements, by the administration or anyone else, in the context of when they were made” during an election.

Like the intelligence community last year, Mr. Ruppersberger draws a distinction between al Qaeda central in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the offshoots gaining strength in Africa.

“It is important to define what we mean when we are talking about al Qaeda,” Mr. Ruppersberger told The Times. “Core al Qaeda is the original organization, headed then by Osama bin Laden and now by [Ayman] al-Zawahri, that orchestrated 9/11 and has a safe haven in the FATA in Pakistan.

“That group has been weakened, but is adaptive and resilient,” he said. “Thus, its strength level fluctuates.”

Obama administration officials declined to comment on the record for this article, though many described privately the nature of the intelligence that the president was receiving last fall.

With America approaching the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and the one-year anniversary of the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Mr. Obama will try Tuesday night to rally war-wary Americans to support military action by asking them to trust his description of the intelligence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons.

Some of those who will be listening in Congress say the president’s handling of the al Qaeda intelligence last year might provide a red flag for the coming debate.

Mr. Rogers, the House intelligence committee chairman, told The Times that there was “more than enough info at the time to understand the changes that were occurring in al Qaeda” and that two possible scenarios were at play behind the narrative Mr. Obama pushed on the campaign trail.

“One, he wasn’t getting the information that the rest of us were getting, or two, he got the information and decided to disregard it for political purposes. Either of those is a problem for a commander in chief,” he said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/intel-clashes-obamas-election-year-al-qaeda-claims/#ixzz2eVrUIbnb

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #76 on: October 22, 2013, 12:38:02 PM »
Was it a Deception or Incompetence?
by Keith Koffler on October 22, 2013, 2:42 pm

It’s hard to understand, given the information that has come out during the last couple of days, how the White House could possibly have argued just after the Obamacare exchange website launched that what was happening resulted from high traffic volume.

First of all, while the website took a sizable hit the first day, it was evident even before the site got flooded that it wasn’t going to work.

From today’s Washington Post:

Days before the launch of President Obama’s online health ­insurance marketplace, government officials and contractors tested a key part of the Web site to see whether it could handle tens of thousands of consumers at the same time. It crashed after a simulation in which just a few hundred people tried to log on simultaneously.

Despite the failed test, federal health officials plowed ahead.

When the Web site went live Oct. 1, it locked up shortly after midnight as about 2,000 users attempted to complete the first step, according to two people familiar with the project.

And yet, here is what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed october 2:

There’s no question that the volume was so high and continues to be so high that that has caused some delays, but it is related to — those delays are, in our view, related to the high volume.

It is, as I mentioned, a good problem to have that interest in these first two days exceeds what we anticipated.  And we have an extremely competent team that developed a very user-friendly website and they are working on these problems every day, and the process gets improved every day.

Well, it was not a good problem to be having, because it was already clear to the administration that the website’s difficulties were structural and that it couldn’t even take a small load of traffic. It wasn’t, as Obama’s spin team tried to suggest, a decent technical effort that merely ran into heavier than expected interest.

Either the White House was deceiving the public about what was going on, or HHS, which runs the website, kept the White House in the dark about the problems plaguing the site. In which case President Obama is an incompetent chief executive, because he has not ensured a proper flow of information to his inbox.

Obamacare is the signature initiative of Obama’s presidency. No CEO could survive such a catastrophic product launch. Obama has tenure until January 2017, but HHS Director Sebelius should be ordered to click her heels and return to Kansas without delay.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/22/deception-incompetence/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2013, 07:23:03 PM »
 :-\


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2013, 07:24:27 PM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2013, 04:32:54 PM »


But . . . .

EXCLUSIVE: Key suspects in Benghazi attack include former courier, bodyguard for Al Qaeda, sources say
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 23, 2013
FoxNews.com

At least two of the key suspects in the Benghazi terror attack were at one point working with Al Qaeda senior leadership, sources familiar with the investigation tell Fox News.

The sources said one of the suspects was believed to be a courier for the Al Qaeda network, and the other a bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks.

The direct ties to the Al Qaeda senior leadership undercut early characterizations by the Obama administration that the attackers in Benghazi were isolated “extremists" -- not Al Qaeda terrorists -- with no organizational structure or affiliation.

The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who receives regular intelligence briefings and whose staffers continue to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack, would not discuss specific suspects or their backgrounds.

But he said the ties to Al Qaeda senior leadership, also known as Al Qaeda core, are now established.

“It is accurate that of the group being targeted by the bureau, at this point, there’s strong Al Qaeda ties,”  Rogers told Fox News. "You can still be considered to have strong ties because you are in the ring of operations of Al Qaeda core. ... There are individuals that certainly fit that definition."

Counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News that investigators are finding "more and more ties -- not just to Al Qaeda's branch in North Africa ... but Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan."

A year ago, Fox News' Bret Baier was first to report that a former Guantanamo detainee, Sufian bin Qumu, was suspected of training jihadists in eastern Libya for the attack.

Now, sources tell Fox News that Benghazi suspect Faraj al Chalabi, also a Libyan national whose ties to Usama bin Laden date back to 1998, is believed to be a former bodyguard who was with the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan in 2001.

After the Benghazi attack, al Chalabi fled to Pakistan where reports suggest he was held, then later returned to Libyan custody and eventually released. He was first publicly identified as a suspected terrorist in 1998 by the regime of former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi for his alleged role in the murder of a German intelligence official, Silvan Becker and his wife. An Interpol arrest warrant in March 1998 named al Chalabi, two other Libyans and bin Laden as the likely perpetrators.

“Our sources say al Chalabi is suspected of bringing materials from the compound to Benghazi to Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan. It's not clear what those materials consisted of but he is known to have gone back to Pakistan immediately after the attack,” Joscelyn said.

Separately, and for the first time, Rogers laid out a timeline for the attack which suggests significant advance planning. According to the congressman, there was an “aspirational phase” several months out, where the idea of an attack was thrown around, followed by “weeks” of operational planning, and then the ramp up to the Sept. 11 assault which lasted up to several days. This assessment is in stark contrast to initial administration statements that the attack was “spontaneous” and achieved with little planning.

“I believe that they had an operational phase that lasted at least a couple of weeks, maybe even longer. And then an initiation phase that lasted a couple or three days prior to the event itself. And so this notion that they just showed up and decided this was a spontaneous act does not comport with the information at least with what we have seen in the intelligence community,” Rogers told Fox News.

Some counterterrorism analysts concur with Roger’s assessment, describing the mortars used to strike the CIA annex in the second wave of the attack as "smoking gun" evidence -- as mortars require skill to fire, and typically must be pre-positioned to ensure accuracy. On Sept. 11, two mortars struck the CIA annex, killing former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

The opposing analysis is that the mortars were set in the early morning hours of Sept. 11, and that the terrorists did not bring equipment with them that suggests significant planning.

Fox News contacted the FBI which is in the lead on the Benghazi investigation, as well as the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC. Both the NCTC and the CIA declined to comment. There was no immediate response from the FBI.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/23/key-suspects-in-benghazi-terror-attack-were-working-with-al-qaeda-senior/

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2013, 04:00:08 PM »
He was supposed to be different.

NSA scandal highlights Obama's unfulfilled promise
By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
updated 3:10 PM EDT, Mon October 28, 2013

(CNN) -- The scandal over allegations about NSA surveillance overseas, including monitoring of the cell phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and millions of phone calls in France, is another huge blow to President Barack Obama.

The news has caused a big uproar in Western Europe, with Merkel demanding a response from Washington. It was "incredible that an allied country like the United States and at this point goes as far as spying on private communications that have no strategic justification," said Jean-Marc Ayrault, the Prime Minister of France. "Trust needs to be rebuilt," Merkel said.

While observers warn these complaints are hypocritical and have more to do with domestic politics in Western Europe than true feelings about the United States, this incident is nonetheless much more than a mere blip in the time line of Obama's presidency. The recent National Security Agency revelation is one more step in a series of revelations about practices that have undercut a central promise that candidate Obama made in 2008 -- to repair America's standing in the world.

When Obama took office, America's position in the global community had greatly deteriorated. President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, and his unilateral approach to foreign policy, had generated tremendous distrust and anger overseas, including among our closest allies.

So, too, had Bush's apparent disregard for civil liberties and willingness to ignore international standards against the use of torture. The United States was seen as a country that acted solely in its own interest and that cared little for protecting strong and durable multilateral alliances. The United States, in the minds of its critics, also took reckless actions to defend its national security interests without thinking about the consequences.

Obama was determined to correct this. This had been a constant theme of his campaign against presidential opponent Sen. John McCain, more so than almost any domestic issue. In June 2008, speaking in Germany near the place where the Berlin Wall once stood, Obama said that, "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in the world rather than a force to help make it right has become all too common."

He continued to expound on this theme in his first year as president. His stirring speech in Cairo in June 2009 offered inspirational words to many of his supporters, evidence that the president was serious about fixing the damage that had occurred under Bush.

But the promise is unfulfilled. Over the years, it has become clear that Obama left much more of Bush's foreign policy framework in place than many of his supporters had expected.

He continued with an extremely aggressive campaign against terrorist networks, employing drone strikes to destroy networks even when there have been significant civilian causalities, allowing for tough interrogation techniques and detention policies and depending on secret processes that created little accountability for what the government was doing, other than when leakers revealed classified information. Inconsistent policies toward authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes in countries such as Syria, as well as turbulence in Egypt following the fall of Hosni Mubarak, have greatly dampened the enthusiasm about Obama that had existed after 2008.

Nor did Obama do much to strengthen civil liberties. The public has begun to learn how extensive the surveillance has been on their phones, on their computers and every other type of communication that occurs. In short, the government has been watching.

To be sure, the success at generally preventing terrorist strikes within the U.S., barring Boston, is a central accomplishment of his presidency. But the difficulties he has faced achieving the balance he promised in relations with the rest of the world have come with a cost.

The NSA issue began with a debate about the proper domestic balance between civil liberties and counterterrorism and has now has extended into the realm of diplomacy.

Obama needs to make this right. The controversy hurts the ability of the United States to maintain strong relations with the allies whose support is essential to the war on terrorism, as well as in fighting against other global threats. He must provide answers and show that the government is responding to concerns about NSA practices.

One administration official has told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had been unaware of NSA spying on 35 world leaders and that, as soon as he learned of the practice through an internal review (a response to the political outrage over the revelations of the spy program), he put parts of the program to an end. Even if this is the case -- and the president will need to make clear this is so given how cynical and skeptical the world has become about U.S. political rhetoric on these matters -- the information begs the question of how the NSA was allowed to remain so unaccountable even to the Commander-in-Chief and, more importantly, what steps President Obama will now take to make sure we conduct our counterterrorism programs within some kinds of parameters and guidelines.

If Obama does nothing further, the ongoing revelations will leave behind the same kinds of problems that he, as a candidate, understood to be so devastating in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/opinion/zelizer-obama-nsa-world/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #82 on: October 28, 2013, 05:13:25 PM »
:-\




Quote
Keep knee padding libs, we warned you. Thanks for being part of the problem. And this is from a left wing rag..



NBC News

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.” 
Advertise | AdChoices

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.” 

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said  Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
 
The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs. “One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions.  The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.
 
Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”

Courtesy of Heather Goldwater

Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, says that she received a letter from her insurer saying the company would no longer offer her plan, but hasn't yet received a follow-up letter with a comparable option.

Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests “anywhere from 50 to 75 percent” of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is “probably about right.” She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.
Advertise | AdChoices

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), an insurance trade association, also said the 50 to 75 percent estimate was consistent with the range they are hearing.
 
Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.
 
George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.

And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.

"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."

"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."
 
Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.
 
"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business,” said Goldwater. “The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."

Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won’t be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."
 
Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was “irate” when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.

The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.

Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.

He said he never believed President Obama’s promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.

"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."

For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.

“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."


http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2013, 12:07:28 PM »
Good interview by Megyn Kelly.  Exposing the president's lack of integrity.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #84 on: October 30, 2013, 01:50:42 PM »
The Fact Checker
Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away’ your health plan
BY GLENN KESSLER
October 30 at 6:00 am

US President Barack Obama speaks about the Affordable Care Act at Prince Georges Community College on September 26, 2013 in Largo, Maryland. On October 1, 2013, open enrollment starts for the new Obamacare online, state-based exchanges, where consumers will be able to compare and shop for private health insurance plans. 

“That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

– President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009 (as the health-care law was being written.)
“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.  No one will be able to take that away from you.  It hasn’t happened yet.  It won’t happen in the future.”

– Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health-care law was signed into law.     

“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”
– tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew “millions” could not keep their health insurance.

Many readers have asked us to step back into time and review these statements by the president now that it appears that as many as 2 million people may need to get a new insurance plan as the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, goes into effect in 2014. As we were considering those requests, one of the president’s most senior advisers then tweeted a statement on the same issue that cried out for fact checking.

The Facts
The president’s pledge that “if you like your insurance, you will keep it” is one of the most memorable of his presidency. It was also an extraordinarily bold — and possibly foolish — pledge, unless he thought he simply could dictate exactly how the insurance industry must work.
At the time, some observers noted the problems with Obama’s promise.

After Obama made his speech before the AMA, the Associated Press ran a smart analysis — “Promises, Promises: Obama’s Health Plan Guarantee” — that demonstrated how it would be all but impossible for the president to keep that pledge. The article noted that the Congressional Budget Office assumed that 10 million Americans would need to seek new insurance under the Senate version of the bill.
Meanwhile, in the Republican weekly address on Aug. 24, 2009, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a doctor, made this point: “On the stump, the president regularly tells Americans that ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.’  But if you read the bill, that just isn’t so.  For starters, within five years, every health-care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage — one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.”

One might excuse the president for making an aspirational pledge as the health-care bill was being drafted, but it turns out he kept saying it after the bill was signed into law. By that point, there should have been no question about the potential impact of the law on insurance plans, especially in the individual market.

As we have noted, a key part of the law is forcing insurers to offer an “essential health benefits” package, providing coverage in 10 categories. The list includes: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

For some plans, this would be a big change. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services noted: “62 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for maternity services; 34 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for substance abuse services; 18 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for mental health services; 9 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for prescription drugs.”

The law did allow “grandfathered” plans — for people who had obtained their insurance before the law was signed on March 23, 2010 — to escape this requirement and some other aspects of the law. But the regulations written by HHS while implementing the law set some tough guidelines, so that if an insurance company makes changes to a plan’s benefits or how much members pay through premiums, co-pays or deductibles, then a person’s plan likely loses that status.

If you dig into the regulations (go to page 34560), you will see that HHS wrote them extremely tight. One provision says that if co-payment increases by more than $5, plus medical cost of inflation, then the plan can no longer be grandfathered. (With last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent, that means the co-pay could not increase by more than $5.20.) Another provision says the co-insurance rate could not be increased at all above the level it was on March 23, 2010.

While one might applaud an effort to rid the country of inadequate insurance, the net effect is that over time, the plans would no longer meet the many tests for staying grandfathered. Already, the percentage of people who get coverage from their job via a grandfathered plan has dropped from 56 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013.

In the individual insurance market, few plans were expected to meet the “grandfathered” requirements, which is why many people are now receiving notices that their old plan is terminated and they need to sign up for different coverage. Again, this should be no surprise. As HHS noted in a footnote of a report earlier this year: “We note that, as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we expect grandfathered coverage to diminish, particularly in the individual market.”

Indeed, at least six states — Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Wyoming and Kansas — require insurance companies to cancel existing policies, rather than amend them, if the grandfathered coverage lapses.

Now, it’s important to note that many people — perhaps a large majority — are receiving notices that they have lost their insurance plan because they were never grandfathered in the first place. In other words, they got a plan after the bill was signed into law back in 2010. If that’s the case, they have no option but to accept the more comprehensive insurance mandated by the law.

Still, it’s worth remembering that insurance companies pressed throughout the health-care debate to allow people to keep the policy they had effective at the end of 2013.  The consequences of the unusual March 23, 2010, cut-off date are now being felt. HHS, when it drafted the interim rules, estimated that between 40 and 67 percent of policies in the individual market are in effect for less than one year. “These estimates assume that the policies that terminate are replaced by new individual policies, and that these new policies are not, by definition, grandfathered,” the rules noted. (See page 34553.)

Moreover, it’s certainly incorrect to claim, as some Republicans have, that people are losing insurance coverage. Instead, in virtually all cases, it’s being replaced with probably better (and possibly more expensive) insurance.

In recent days, administration officials have argued that the plans that are going away are “substandard” and lacked essential protections — and that many people may qualify for tax credits to mitigate the higher premiums that may result from the new requirements.

“Now folks are transitioning to the new standards of the Affordable Care Act which guarantee you can’t be denied, you won’t be kicked off of a policy because you developed a problem, you may be eligible for tax credits, depending on your income,” said Marilyn Tavenner,  administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “So these are important protections that are now available through the Affordable Care Act.”

Or, as White House spokesman Jay Carney put it: “It’s correct that substandard plans that don’t provide minimum services that have a lot of fine print that leaves consumers in the lurch, often because of annual caps or lifetime caps or carve-outs for some preexisting conditions, those are no longer allowed — because the Affordable Care Act is built on the premise that health care is not a privilege, it’s a right, and there should be minimum standards for the plans available to Americans across the country.”

But such assertions do not really explain the president’s promise — or Jarrett’s tweet. There may be a certain percentage of people who were happy with their “substandard” plan, presumably because it cost relatively little. And while Jarrett claimed that “nothing” in the law is forcing people out of their plans “unless insurance companies change plans,” she is describing rules written by the president’s aides that were designed to make it difficult for plans to remain grandfathered for very long.

As the HHS footnote mentioned above stated: “We note that, as the Affordable Care Act is implemented, we expect grandfathered coverage to diminish, particularly in the individual market.”

The Pinocchio Test
The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

Four Pinocchios


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?hpid=z1

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #85 on: October 30, 2013, 02:11:42 PM »
Obama lied.   No kidding.

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Integrity
« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2013, 08:17:31 AM »


Or a bunch of cops...


[ Invalid YouTube link ]



woah...this is fucked up

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #89 on: November 04, 2013, 03:00:07 PM »
Obama Broke Super PAC Pledge During Campaign
Posted: 11/04/2013

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama quietly attended a fundraising event for the allied super PAC Priorities USA less than a month before the 2012 election, despite a campaign pledge to stay away from such functions, a new book reveals.

In February 2012, the Obama campaign gave its blessing to the creation of the super PAC, saying that while the president opposed the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to such outside political spending, he couldn't allow himself to be outspent by his conservative opposition.

But the campaign attempted to assuage concerns among Democrats and campaign finance reform advocates by promising that Obama would not solicit donations on behalf of the super PAC.

"While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won't be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA," Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina wrote in a blog post at the time. "I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President's campaign."

But according to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann' Double Down, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post before its release, Obama and former President Bill Clinton attended a Priorities USA event on Oct. 7, held at the $35 million estate of DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg in Beverly Hills.

Although attendees did not appear to donate money at the event itself, Katzenberg used the joint appearance to raise funds for Priorities USA (p. 429):

Obama and Clinton arrived there that Sunday afternoon, October 7, for lunch with Katzenberg and a handful of the rich and famous. Though the White House publicly described the event only as a "thank you" for a "small group of donors," it was, in fact, a Priorities USA function -- the sort of shindig that Obama had sworn never to attend.
[...]

Katzenberg pitched the lunch to invitees as a once-in-a-lifetime experience -- what he called "unobtainium." He recommended that they donate $1 million to Priorities, and bagged three checks in that amount just the Friday before. He pledged to keep his guests' presence secret.

Asked for a response during his press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney asked for more time to get to the bottom of the story. Later that day, White House spokesman Eric Schultz emailed The Huffington Post the following comment: “As was widely reported at the time, President Clinton joined President Obama at a thank you event for the campaign’s supporters.”

There were, indeed, reports at the time of Obama mingling with wealthy donors at an event and joking about his poor performance in the debate held several days prior. Those reports framed the gathering as a thank you event for donors, not a fundraising affair for Priorities USA. According to the pool report from that day, Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki denied the event was a fundraiser and said a pool reporter would not be allowed to attend:

On the nature of the event with Bill Clinton, which is not a fundraiser: Psaki said it’s for high-dollar donors who have maxed out around other events before. “It’s a thank you event for a small group of donors.” Because it's a small group, it is very informal and that's why pool will not be allowed in. She declined to name those who would be attending.
The statement from Schultz does not deny that there was a fundraising element to the event in question, and a request for comment from Priorities USA was not immediately returned.

When the Obama campaign announced its reversal on super PACs, there was a concern that the temptation to raise money through them would be too great for the president and his team to ignore. On Monday, campaign finance reform advocates voiced their disappointment with the new revelation.

"There was absolutely no reason for President Obama to reportedly break his pledge not to support Priorities USA," said Progressives United Executive Director Cole Leystra. "As our founder said last year, Democrats' embrace of the dirty politics of Citizens United is a dance with the devil. We know from the soft money era what happens when both parties play the game of unlimited money: Wall Street writes its own rules, corporations call the shots, and working families lose."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/obama-super-pac_n_4214466.html

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #90 on: November 04, 2013, 07:11:37 PM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #93 on: November 04, 2013, 08:58:13 PM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2013, 07:55:32 AM »
Unreal.  And what is sad is the media and his disciples will eat this up.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2013, 09:16:18 AM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39417
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Integrity
« Reply #97 on: November 06, 2013, 11:26:33 AM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63738
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Integrity
« Reply #98 on: November 06, 2013, 11:38:01 AM »


The Bush Sr. "read my lips" broken promise was bad, but this is worse because he repeated it so many times for years.  Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty who supported this man should feel abused right about now. 

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14997
Re: Integrity
« Reply #99 on: November 06, 2013, 01:36:15 PM »
The Bush Sr. "read my lips" broken promise was bad, but this is worse because he repeated it so many times for years.  Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty who supported this man should feel abused right about now. 

I would have been more inclined to accept "Fuck.. I didn't see this coming" than "What we said was, IF..." One is ignorance, the other is lying