“Stray Cats and Dogs … Some of the Provisions That Got Snuck In Might Have Violated That Pledge”

Obama’s “stunning admission” runs from the beginning of this video to about 50 seconds in.  The video was uploaded in January 2010.  (The date of his admission is unknown.  Emphasis added to quotes.)

If you look at the package that we’ve presented–and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating–for example, for example, we said from the start that it was gonna be important for us to be consistent in saying to people:

“If you can have your, if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it.”

That you are not gonna have anybody getting between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated this pledge and so we were, we’re in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it’s tight

Consider this story from December 2009, which warns that Obamacare

Endangers Americans Quality of Care: President Obama used to promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” But as the CBO confirmed this month 10 million Americans will be forced out of their current health insurance plan should Obamacare become law.

Even worse, CMMS has reported that Obamacare’s $493 billion in Medicare cuts could force as many as one-in-five health care providers into insolvency thus forcing them out of the Medicare program.

The problem is that Obama didn’t just “used to say” this. He kept on saying it, even after he knew it wasn’t true. On June 28, 2012, Obama said:

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. 

Here’s some truth:

… 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 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, copays or deductibles, then a person’s plan likely loses that status. …

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.”

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. …

The Washington  Post gave Obama four Pinocchios for this deliberate whopper.

Of note, and something which the mainstream media avoid, is that any insurance policy that resulted from collective bargaining is automatically protected by the Obamacare law (not HHS policies).  That means that unions, which uniformly support Obama, got special protection in the law, and yet you did not.  In fact, HHS deliberately created policies that would ensure that you would lose your formerly grandfathered policy:

Union plans were “grandfathered” with none of those fine print tricks and exceptions [Sec. 1251(d)].

The law also left open the possibility that the president could impose additional requirements on grandfathered plans (except union plans). Two months after Obamacare was passed, the IRS, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services — all reporting to the president — churned out hundreds of additional rules to make it even harder for grandfathered plans to survive.

The rule makers knew they were turning the president’s promise into a flim flam. They estimated that up to 69% of individual plans and 89% of small group plans would be cancelled by the end of 2013 as a result of their rules. (Federal Register, June 14, 2010.)

The president understood that Americans don’t want socialized medicine or big government poking into their healthcare. So when he campaigned to pass Obamacare, he told the public what it wanted to hear: that his plan would help the uninsured and leave everyone else alone. After all, 85% of Americans had insurance, and most were happy with it. …

As Rush Limbaugh said today, if Obama’s administration can use policy to create this problem for millions of people, then they can as easily remove these impediments and make sure that everyone can keep his or her policy.

So why isn’t this president keeping his pledge by changing the policies to remove the “stray cats and dogs” and those “provisions that got snuck in” to his signature law?

Because he knew and this was all done by design, with his knowledge aforethought.  He lied. It’s as simple as that.

Woof! Let’s dump this dog of a law.


53 responses to ““Stray Cats and Dogs … Some of the Provisions That Got Snuck In Might Have Violated That Pledge”

  1. New post and open thread.

    • The BEST hospitals and doctors won’t “be available” to you, either. So Obamacare is either deliberately creating two classes–the rich who can afford the best and the rest of us, who will be FORCED into using inferior hospitals, inferior doctors (if we even see doctors and not nurses) and other inferior health “services”. (This is EXACTLY like you see in COMMUNIST countries, where the big shots have all the trappings of the richest of the rich, while everybody else simply subsists, if they don’t just outright die.) Or else Obamacare is “leveling the playing field” by deliberately shutting out and starving out of business ANY hospital that IS superior. That way, we’ll all, in the collective, be equal by receiving equally crappy “health care” (except for the big shots, including Obama and his family, who will get superior care, paid for by us, no matter what).

  2. From today’s hearings. 🙂

    • That’s their usual disrespectful attitude: “Whatever. I don’t work for you. You’re not the boss of me, and even if you are, I’m not going to acknowledge it. Try to do something about it. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.”

      Did you hear Barry practically WHINING in Boston yesterday? What a freaking embarrassment these people are.

    • Just how much he really is in charge? Are they serious? He plays golf while Val and maybe Mooch run the show.

    • We’re supposed to believe that Sebelius knew the train wreck that the website was and yet she didn’t tell Barry and then it crashed and burned and she still has her job? AFTER embarrassing him on his “signature achievement”? We’re supposed to believe that a petty little man like him did NOT call for her resignation AS SOON AS HE GOT EMBARRASSED?

    • What difference, at this point, does it make? Big Brother knows everything already. The law and the Constitution are meaningless to Obama already. How can you violate laws when there are no laws?

      I’m less concerned about “hackers and criminals” than I am about the government and its minions. The NSA is already out of control. Is it not a CRIME to “hack” into the servers of private companies? One would think so. It’s up to Google and Yahoo! to take it to the Supreme Court. This is BEYOND outrageous.

      They can’t “legally” operate with no security and yet, of course, Tavenner has given themselves a waiver of the law! Isn’t that typical? http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/new-security-issues-surface-as-sebelius-testifies/article_17fbc649-e5ad-585c-ba4d-dc16727fcb03.html

      There are no laws. There’s no Constitution. What difference, at this point, does it make? Barry is above the law. The law is whatever he declares it to be and nobody, I mean nobody, is stopping his illegal “waivers”.

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        You know, I kept vacillating about whom he was vis-a-vis prophecy, and I still do. But the man who appeared from nowhere is certainly increasing in lawlessness, completely unabated. Too much still has not occurred. If he turns Damascus into a sheet of glass he’s still not necessarily the one. He has to be the salvation of all unimaginable devastation. Revelation 9:6 “During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.” And I find it so interesting how zombies seem to be the meme in Walking Dead, WWZ. Were it just one show, I’d shrug my shoulders and think how creative. But the world has to descend to depths so untenable that mankind would prefer to die. Prior to the zombie meme, I always thought that alluded to life post worldwide nuclear devastation.

        The tell: the one has to sign a seven year peace treaty and then break it.

        So, precursor or the one? Wait and see is all we can do. But we are instructed to pay attention to the signs as with the parables about the virgins and the fig tree.

        But germane to this discussion there is this:
        2Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”

    • It would be a disaster if there’s a “security incident”? Well, if there is one, as with Benghazi, they will simply LIE about it. We won’t KNOW about it. When will the media WTFU? Wake the eff up?

    • Healthcare.gov is not secure and was not tested to ensure security

      Congressional hearings on serious topics get silly to generate sound bites

      Sebelius doesn’t seem to know anything about the law she is implementing

      Obamacare forces single men to buy maternity coverage

      Democrats will defend Obama’s “if you like your healthcare, you can keep it” promise forever, long after it has been exposed as a lie

    • TY. I forgot to mention that after hearing it on radio a few days ago. You cannot make this stuff up. At the risk of sounding racist (like Moynihan years ago), I have to say: So Obama, the first allegedly black president, is using his signature law to consign “his people” to inferior health care, by forcing them to go for treatment by socially promoted, affirmative-action-enabled doctors and nurses? There’s a Catch-22 for you.

      “… While the 2010 Patient Protecion and Affordable Care Act’s language on diversity sounds innocuous, a review of the frankly separatist thinking of the law’s ardent supporters indicates Obamacare is aiming for a health care system that puts political correctness above the struggle against illness and death.

      A 2009 report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) examining the House and Senate bill eventually signed by President Barack Obama advocates pairing patients and doctors of the same race, a goal toward which the law channels taxpayer dollars. …”

      Yes, it’s redistribution to ensure a patient pool for what may be inferior doctors. Good point, Papoose. My question: Where the heck will they find all the Pakistani-American patients for all the Pakistani (and Indian) doctors? Import them? Or will they suddenly discover that Pakistanis aren’t “Asians” or “people of color” but are now white (again)?

      How about all the Mexican-Americans? Surely the pool of Mexican-American doctors will be small, so they’ll have to import doctors from Mexico. How good are their medical schools? Oh, wait. I got it. They’ll have to import Mexicans to GO to our medical schools. Or maybe We the People will have to pay for medical training for East LA “folks”. The possibilities are endless, aren’t they? [Note: I didn’t read the entire article before opining. No surprise. All that, and more, is in the proposal!]

      Divide and conquer.

      And this “law” lays the groundwork to “legally” DISCRIMINATE AND ENSHRINE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION in all medical schools and fields of study. They MUST discriminate and hand out free tuition and scholarships to persons of color so that there are proportionately the same amount of health care providers for various groups as they exist in the population. They include ethnicity in this, too, so how will they categorize we of many ethnicities and races? Will they force us to choose? How will white AMERICANS fit, ethnically speaking, with, for example, Turkish doctors (if they consider them to be “white”?)

      Will “white trash” be allowed to be seen by “white trash” doctors and nurses?

      • I have a question: They talk about targeting “medically underserved communities”. BUTT there will be no such thing after Obamacare, will there? An oxymoron?

      • After Hillary said she didn’t consider herself a liberal, but a turn-of-the-century progressive, I’ve dug around a bit…okay, quite a bit…over the last few years. A lot of people have. Many of you have too, I’m sure. It’s enlightening to return to the roots of progressivism, its merger with many from the CPUSA of the Pre-WWII era, then look at where we are today and at today’s progressivism. When we do this, we can easily see how the agenda simply morphed/adapted by the use of political correctness, special interest social justice and compassionate entitlement to disguise that the progressive agenda remains intact. Only the narrative and implementation has. Its agenda is more palatable when it’s called ‘help’ or ‘compassion’.

        Progressivism is a soul sister to Fabian Socialism. Margaret Sanger was at the front of the progressive Eugenics movement. She fled the U.S. to Great Britain, at one point, because of legal prosecution. There, she was aided by the members of the Fabian Society. The ties that bind this ideological sisterhood haven’t been severed.

        Sanger believed dysgenic people (Hispanics, blacks, Native Americans, the poor and Catholics) should be forced into confined sections of cities, away from ‘decent’ people, where they should be left to wither away. She did, however, believe they should be taught birth control. She did not believe in aiding them in any other way. She was at constant odds with the Catholic charities that provided health care, food, and housing. The Catholics also opposed her birth control agenda. She spoke to, and enlisted the aid of, the KKK, though she was not particularly fond of the class of people who populated its ranks.

        Woodrow Wilson segregated the military. During his administration, the first motion picture was shown at the White House. It was ‘Birth of a Nation’, a Klan film. Woody was a serious racist and a friend of Eugenics. He was also what we would call a globalist. His administration set progressivism back quite a few decades, but it didn’t go away. It adapted.

        These two examples of turn-of-the-century progressivism are not anomalies. Among today’s progressives, they both remain at the forefront of the highly esteemed. The work goes on, only now it’s accomplished by wearing the shroud of political correctness and compassion.

        For example: As I noted above, Sanger wanted the dysgenic removed from polite society and placed in designated areas where they could, more or less, destroy themselves. Now, we don’t let them starve for food or housing. Instead, we put them in Projects where we starve them with lack of knowledge, drugs, crime, violence and politically-induced anger. Abortions were illegal in Sanger’s day, but her work continues at her Planned Parenthood by encouraging and providing the abortions her successors finally got legally accepted. Obviously, segregation lives too. Social justice ideology and redistribution of wealth policies keep them in their place.

        What Miri is describing about pairing health care by race, etc. sounds like it’s just a continuation of the turn-of-the-century progressive agenda to me. It’s not that they care about the average white guy either, since once the middle class is destroyed, everyone other than their little group will be the ‘poor’. We’ll all be the dysgenic, but none will suffer more, or have suffered more, from their agenda of weeding out and segregating the undesirables than the very people they claim to care about. Sadly, many people who call themselves progressives truly believe the progressive agenda is about moving forward. It is progress, just not the one they think. They don’t know what they’re supporting and wouldn’t believe it, even if you showed them documentation.

        But the readers here might like to read some of Sanger’s work, if you haven’t already. It’s a window into turn-of-the-century progressivism. It lives today, no kinder or gentler than when it was first conceived, just fluffier. Be sure to note the left-hand navigation on the site’s page to documents. Also, check out the page to The Sanger Chronology. It has a lot of links worth reading.


        • Thanks for another insightful history lesson, 7delta! And for the link. I shall read it. Your comments about Wilson are interesting because I’ve recently heard Judge Napolitano touting his book about Wilson on the radio: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0078FACL2/thedaical-20


          “Judge Andrew Napolitano really doesn’t like Woodrow Wilson.

          Napolitano, a former Superior Court judge and the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, is out with a new book, “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”

          Asked whether there was anything about Wilson that he admired, Napolitano compared Wilson to the 20th century’s most notorious killer.

          “He was awesome the way Hitler was,” Napolitano said.

          “He succeeded in persuading vast numbers of people that they had consented to his destruction of their freedoms; and they believed him; and he destroyed the freedoms of many of them. He interpreted the First Amendment, which prohibits ‘Congress’ from infringing upon the freedom of speech, to permit the so-called Department of Justice to do the infringing.” …”

          Needless to say, progressives revere Wilson.

        • You’ve really got me thinking with regard to how and why they want to segregate the “dysgenics” into enclaves. These globalists also, as we have seen, believe in the necessity of drastically reducing the population of the world in order to “save” it (environmentally speaking) from the plague that is humankind (themselves excepted, of course). As you see, even now they exempt themselves from the onerous policies they invent to destroy the middle class and impoverish everyone except themselves. That movie Matt Damon was in recently may not be that far from truth, except the elite aren’t planning to live in space, but to eradicate those who are, in their opinion, a pestilence upon it (again, themselves excepted). That’s my theory.

        • Excellent commentary, 7delta… yes, 100 solid years.

          I really do want to study all if this further.

          Back in the 70’s we were advised to drop our husband’s names and in essence, fracture the American family forever. Ms. Steinem was not only a playboy bunny, but she was a proud member of Democratic Socialist party.


          wow, she’s going on 80.


  3. Rosemary Woodhouse

    Although I STILL cringe whenever I hear his voice, it hasn’t ceased to amaze me how “the smartest most articulate president, ever” stumbles and mumbles whenever his has to speak extemporaneously.

    • Megyn Kelly is an actress or else a fake. I can’t listen to her sing songy, false outrage. Go Mychal!

      • “Bill O’ Reilly and Megyn Kelly Think Newspaper Birth Announcements are Legal Documents?”

        At YouTube:

        “And they laugh at US? Megyn Kelly should be disbarred for this interview. She is a Murdoch puppet and a sell out.”

        Uploaded on April 16, 2010

        [Go to 2:07]

    • Megyn attributed an article by Kevin Jackson to Joe the Plumber and then called it racist? Say it ain’t so.

    • I think Megyn got punked by an incorrect article at Huffpo, which she must have assumed was accurate when it attributed the article to Joe instead of Kevin. It’s all good for both of them because the lying meme has brought readers to their blogs! My guess is that the tools at Huffpo didn’t even read the entire article, so they never got to the part which indicated that the story was reblogged from The Black Sphere. All they need to read is headlines and they’re off an running on their progressive obot paranoid fantasies.

    • http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/joe-plumber-publishes-racist-article-blog-article-1.1484131

      #1: The article is not racist (besides which, it CANNOT BE racist because the author is black and the progressives have told us ad nauseum that blacks can’t, by definition, BE racist).

      #2: It’s not racist to reblog an article that’s not racist.

      #3: All these people need remedial reading classes, because they totally fail reading COMPREHENSION. They totally miss the point, unless they do it deliberately, which is a distinct possibility; but I don’t want to give them credit they don’t deserve. I think the truth is that they do not comprehend, perhaps because their own racism and bigotry prevents them from comprehending.

      #4 Joe is wrong to assume that the article is about a black guy by a black guy. While Kevin is black, assuming Barry is black assumes facts not in evidence.

    • Kevin Jackson says he keeps white women around to blame for things: Napolitano, Hillary, Sebelius. He noted that Rice got PROMOTED. She’s not white.

    • Could she be kin or know the truth? A governor may know what’s faked and what’s real. Ask Abercommie.

    • I know. That was great. I saw where, as Sebelius testified that there have been no crashes, CNN showed a split screen of the real time Obamacare webpage, which was DOWN.

  4. I….KNOW where 2 … BOOT…UM ALL….


  5. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/30/adobe_data_breach_millions_of_accounts/

    “Remember that Adobe security breach earlier this month that leaked the account records of some 3 million customers? Scratch that: the actual number hacked was at least 38 million, it has emerged.

    In early October, Adobe warned of “sophisticated attacks” on its network in which hackers gained access to data for what was then believed to be about 2.9 million customers: that data included names, encrypted credit or debit card numbers, expiration dates, and other information relating to customer orders.

    In addition, the company said, the cyber-crooks had managed to abscond with source code for “numerous Adobe products.”

    But in a blog post on Tuesday, investigative journalist Brian Krebs said those early estimates were far too low, and that the actual list of accounts that had been compromised numbered in the tens of millions. …”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s