Skip to comments.Obama, Clinton to Launch Healthcare Campaign Push Tuesday
Posted on 09/23/2013 7:58:23 PM PDT by lbryce
President Barack Obama will turn to his unofficial "secretary of explaining stuff," former President Bill Clinton, on Tuesday to help with a final push to extol the benefits of U.S. healthcare reform before new insurance exchanges go live on October 1.
Obama, who is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, will meet with his most recent Democratic predecessor at the Clinton Global Initiative, a conference where the two men will talk about Obama's healthcare reform law, which Republicans continue to try to repeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ladies and gentleman, I urge you to steel yourself for the biggest onslaught of lies, deceit, deception, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion , evasion, fabrication, falsehood, fiction, inaccuracy since the 2008 election, expected to launch tomorrow, as soon as George Orwell has been confirmed rolling over in his grave via the OrwellCam.
Imagine, if you will, the myriad possibilities in which the Sociopath Who Would be King combines resources, objectives with Special Secretary of Explaining Things, aka Mendacity Czar, Bill Jefferson Clinton (you can call him simply BJ) (most of which that really needs explaining to be done are the ones he really hasn't gotten around to as yet).
ObamaCare, which sounded as reassuring as a hospital euthanasia rid has been re-assigned as "the Affordable Care Act".
Considering the parties involved in promoting the Affordable Health Care Act, there's every reason to be concerned about ever getting to meet a doctor.
Bill Clinton ,the tireless campaigner, slick-tongued prevaricator will be out and about doing what he does best in trying to get this giant white elephant off the ground.
Part of his litany of lies will be anyone of the five listed below, already in use as means to putting America deeper into the abyss we're already in.
Five Lies Democrats Have Been Using To Sell ObamaCare
1) Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care. If only. When Obamacare goes into effect next year, many Americans can expect STEEP increases in the cost of health care.
President Obama (promised)...that the cost of insurance would go down by $2,500 per family per year. ...In fact, the average 25 and 40-year-old will pay double under Obamacare what they would need to pay today, based on rates posted at eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH). More specifically, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoker, the average Obamacare bronze exchange plan in California will cost between 64 and 117 percent more than the cheapest five plans on eHealth. For 40-year-old male non-smokers, its between 73 and 146 percent more.
2) Obamacare will not increase the deficit. Calling for a massive new government program to cut costs is sort of like moving to Death Valley for the reduced air conditioning bills. Alas, it's not so.
Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill, and dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false.
President Obama and other Democrats attempted to win support for the health-care bill by touting it as a fiscally responsible enterprise. I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future, Obama told a joint-session of Congress in September 2009. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.
You mean Obama lied to us AGAIN? Who would have ever guessed?
3) "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period." Soon, many Americans will be happy if they can find A DOCTOR, much less THEIR DOCTOR.
Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obamas health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.
The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.
Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.
What good is health care, even the bad health care we'll get through Obamacare, if you can't find a doctor to see you when you're sick?
4) Obamacare will create jobs. That would be true if you added "...at the IRS" to the end of it, but companies have already begun to move millions of workers from full to part time to avoid punitive new costs under Obamacare.
Retailers are cutting worker hours at a rate not seen in more than three decades a sudden shift that can only be explained by the onset of ObamaCares employer mandates.
Nonsupervisory employees logged an average 30.0 hours per week in April, the shortest retail workweek since early 2010, Labor Department data out Friday show.
This reversal doesnt appear related to the economy, which has been consistently mediocre. Instead, all evidence points to the coming launch of ObamaCare, which the retail industry has warned would cause just such a result.
...One way for employers to minimize the costs of providing affordable coverage to modest-wage workers is to shift more work to part-time, defined as less than 30 hours per week under ObamaCare.
So not only are they going to get crummy health care, they're getting their hours cut back, too. Thanks, Obama!
5) If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep it. According to Obama, even though the government is about to come crashing into the health care market like a Blue Whale bellyflopping into a pond, it isn't going to have any impact at all on the insurance companies that were already swimming along. Why, if you like your own insurance, then there is nothing to worry about because you can keep it.
Their 2013 Pimpin’ Communism Tour.
Remember when President Reagan brought in former Presidents Ford and Nixon to help him explain SDI to the people?
Obama/Clinton = Sh!t meets Flies
Why bother? It’s the law of the land /s
I’ve noticed that every little leftist worm has wriggled out from under their rotted logs to troll on Øbozocare so it should surprise me that The Bent One would want to take his rightful place at the head of the fool’s parade.
1) Clintons own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people - Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We cant be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans that we forget about reality. -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful by Debbie Howlett
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare However, now theres a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say theres too much freedom. When personal freedoms being abused, you have to move to limit it. Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese Peoples Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clintons decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities. Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to Americas security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that days grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese chemical weapons factory, and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clintons action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, Im not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clintons pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinskys grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they werent a total loss.
On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddams weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clintons chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure, he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.
Whether or not one buys Clintons assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harms way for purely political reasons.
4) Clintons reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was only about sex. But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising Americas real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And dont even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
WAR IN KOSOVO
During Bill Clintons 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)
We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.
Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.
But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a humanitarian war. In March 1999 the same month that the bombing started Clintons State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevics regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.
Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevics War Crimes trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 bodies and body parts. During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.
BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the worst economy of the last 50 years.
In fact, as CNNs Brooke Jackson has reported: Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office. See (See http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/jackson.recession.primer.otsc/).
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.
According to a report by MSNBC: The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP the countrys total output of goods and services shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3676690/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/gdp-figures-revised-downward/.
I kept hearing from The gop-e that Ted Cruz is wrong, and that he can not possibly defund. Every gop-e pundit has told me that it is impossible, unconstitutional and gosh-dang it un-American. So why are they now screaming??
Healthcare as explained by Bill: Put some ice on it.
Getting the "Clinton" brand out there.
Make no mistake. Hillary will be running for president.
Obama is in trouble if he had to call Clinton in to save him.
What about the health care industry, of which 78% is female? Will Sandra Fluke appear with slick Willy?