Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Obamacare’s Woes Become a Credibility Fight

November 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — Throughout President Barack Obama’s first four years in office, he prided himself on his ability to bounce back when much of Washington thought his presidency was in peril....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-18-13 12:54 AM

Credibility, Mr. President? Start with a public apology to every member of Congress who asked for a one-year delay in the implementation of Obamascam, including an admission, they were right.

And an apology to the American people for your petulant Democrat party's unwillingness to negotiate, and your ownership of the unnecessary and annoying government shut-down.

And an apology to American Veterans for Barrycading their national monuments.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 1:19 AM

After you get past this Obamacare F-up, if ever, We the People will still be asking you to explain where you were when Americans died in Benghazi.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 6:32 AM

Seems to me the very same people who told us that the Bush tax cuts would create jobs are the very same people who are saying the health care law won't work....

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 6:35 AM

Hey littlefox, good luck with that Bengazi thing. We are still waiting for Bush to explain the eleven attacks on our embassy's where nearly a hundred Americans were killed while he was President. We haven't got an explanation on those either......

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 6:51 AM

What credibility? He never had a job, never paid union dues, never had to apply for unemployment, lied his way through politics, lives in a house he never paid for, lied about health care. Seems like a pretty clear record.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:06 AM

Credibility? Oh. I thought mr. O was just asking for more Credit to buy himself more toys. give him credit, where his credit is due. List him right up there, just below Hoover and Carter.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 8:15 AM

@hoopie, "eleven attacks on our embassy's where nearly a hundred Americans were killed while he was President"

Liberal website Media Matters lists 7 attacks w/ NO Americans dead (search Krauthammer Whitewashes Bush's History To Bash Obama Over Embassy Attack Sept 12, 2012).

From the article,

"But Seven U.S. Embassies And Consulates Were Attacked Under George W. Bush"

- 2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:

-2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article

-2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article

-2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article

-2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:

-2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 8:31 AM

hoopie, how many Americans DIED in those 11 attacks?

Let me remind you of a few inconvenient truths. It wasn’t the attack on Benghazi that was the problem. It was the Obumbler Administration’s refusal to provide adequate security at Bengazi, even after REPEATED PLEAS from the Ambassador for more security there. The Obumbler Administration’s decision to leave Americans in danger there. The Obumbler Administration’s LIES about the cause of the attack – it was NOT in response to a film. The Obumbler Administration’s repeated LIES about the nature of the attack – it was NOT a spontaneous demonstration. The Obumbler Administration’s protracted cover-up of the details and the LIES. The Obumbler Administration’s stonewalling and lengthy refusal to investigate the attack and bring the MURDERERS to justice....

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 8:32 AM

....The Obumbler Administration’s cavalier attitude about the seriousness of the MURDER of an American Ambassador and three other diplomatic staff members, described best by Obumbler’s Secrebarely of Stasis Hillary “Butcher of Benghazi” Clinton in her pathetic excuse to Congress “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

You own ANOTHER fatal debacle, Demorats. Now let’s hear the usual pathetic “but BUSH!” excuse from you. Because after 5 YEARS of nothing but Ofailure after Ofailure after Ofailure, that’s all you Obamazombies have.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 8:33 AM

-2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:

Some other liberal website list an attack on a housing complex (not an Embasy or Consulate) in Riyadh in 2003 where 8 Americans were killed. But to say "nearly a hundred Americans were killed" is an out and out lie.

And I don't believe any of the attacks were covered up or lied about to avoid pre-election negative press like the "video" deception!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 8:50 AM


"that the Bush tax cuts would create jobs"

Unemployment Rate November 2004 - 5.4%

2005 - 5.0%

2006 - 4.5%

November 2013 - 7.3%

Americans employed October 2007 - 145,946,000

Americans employed October 2013 - 143,568,000

So after the Bush tax cuts we enjoyed of 5% or below unemployment rates and over 2 million MORE Americans working 6 years ago than TODAY.

Speaking of a fight for credibility, hoopie has lost this one!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 9:40 AM

Droopie, Bush tax cuts created 8.4 Million jobs gross and 2.4 Million Net with NO Stimulus, while fighting two wars, the effects of 9-11-2001 and the worst hurricane in US history, Katrina.

Obama ended two wars, killed the NASA space programs so all of that surplus is doing...WHAT?

Budget deficit for the MONTH of October was $475 BILLION!!!!

Budget deficit for the YEAR of 2007 was only $162 Billion for 12 MONTHS.

THAT'S what the Bush tax cuts did, putz.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 9:55 AM

whoopie, "Hey littlefox, good luck with that Bengazi thing." That "thing" has names. Those names are Chris Stevens, Tyrone S. Woods, Glen A. Doherty, and Sean Smith. They are real people with real families. They were fathers, sons, husbands, brothers, uncles. I'll remind you of those names every single time you discount their lives and their service.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 10:26 AM

@wvdopey: It seems the left wing lugnuts, which you are one, still wants to bring up George Bush who hasn't been in office for over five years. Why don't you give him a break and concentrate on the idiot that is in office now lying to all Americans and whom is wrecking our fine country? Well h*ll no, I'd rather defend Mr. Do-Little (Obama) than think about helping the people of our country. It's because of of idiots like you we are in the shape we are in. I heard when they was passing out brains, you thought they said trains, and you said you didn't need any.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 3:29 PM

The more Hillary distances herself from BO the more his credibility will decline.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 6:03 PM

Once Hillary is President, we will have single payer and all this will be HISTORY! LOL

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:41 PM

obama's War on the Insurance & Medical industy= obamascare.

obama's War on the middle-class= obamascare.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:52 PM

President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:53 PM

2. First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.

The plans being terminated because they don't meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:53 PM

3. However if the insurers didn't tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.

In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:54 PM

4. In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:55 PM

5. As a practical matter, there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. It's hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obama's pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obama's pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?

If Obama's pledge was understood as ensuring that every plan that was in existence in 2010 would remain in existence, then it would imply a complete federal takeover of the insurance industry. This would require the government to tell insurers that they must continue to offer plans even if they are losing money on them and even if the plans had lost most of their customers. This would at the least be a strange policy. It would be surprising if many people thought this was the meaning of President Obama's pledge.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:55 PM

6. Finally, there will be many plans that insurers will stop offering in large part because of the changed market conditions created by the ACA. For example, last week the Washington Post highlighted a plan for the "hardest to insure" that was being cancelled by Pathmark Blue Cross of Pennsylvania.

This plan is likely being cancelled because it is unable to compete with the insurance being offered through the exchanges. The exchanges charge everyone the same rate regardless of their pre-existing health conditions. A plan that is especially designed for people who have serious health conditions would almost certainly charge a far higher rate. If these high-priced plans no longer exist because they cannot compete with the exchanges would this mean that President Obama had broken his pledge?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:56 PM

7. On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special. In the only way that the pledge could be interpreted as being meaningful, the pledge is true. The ACA does not eliminate plans that were in existence at the time the bill was approved.

If we want to play Fox News, President Obama also promised people they could keep their doctor. Since 2010 tens of thousands of doctors have retired or even died. Guess the pledge that people could keep their doctor was yet another lie from the Obama administration.

-- Dean Baker at AlterNet

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 9:14 PM

Closet Bush Fan -

It all boils down to the fact that Progressives believe in personal freedoms when it comes to a woman's right to kill a fetus occupying her body, but Progressives believe there is no personal freedom for intelligent citizens to refuse to buy the insurance plan selected by the Great One Obama because he needs us to participate in order for the Progressive Dream of Big Brother Health Care A.K.A. Redistribution of Wealth from producers to users.

It's never been about health care with the Progressives, its class warfare, arrogant self-importance, greed, and power over others.

Progressives note.....Freedom will prevail.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: