Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category
Harry Reid’s disgraceful diatribe included his accusation that people who told the truth about the Affordable Care Act’s disasters were un-American. Sen. Reid’s accusation is disgusting, one worthy of throwing him out of the Senate. Still, let’s not dwell on Sen. Reid’s comments to the exclusion of learning the definition of patriotism. Without a doubt, this person is a patriot:
There doesn’t seem to be any other large company trying to do this so it might as well be us. Somebody has got to work to save the country and preserve a system of opportunity. I think one of the biggest problems we have in the country is this rampant cronyism where all these large companies are into smash and grab, short-term profits, (saying) how do I get a regulation, we don’t want to export natural gas because of my raw materials.
Well, you say you believe in free markets, but by your actions, you obviously don’t. You believe in cronyism. And that’s true even at the local level. I mean, how does somebody get started if you have to pay $100,000 or $300,000 to get a medallion to drive a taxi cab? You have to go to school for two years to be a hairdresser. You name it, in every industry we have this. The successful companies try to keep the new entrants down.
Now that’s great for a company like ours. We make more money that way because we have less competition and less innovation. But for the country as a whole, it’s horrible. And for disadvantaged people trying to get started, it’s unconscionable in my view. I think it’s in our long-term interest, in every American’s long-term interest, to fight against this cronyism.
As you all have heard me say, the role of business is to create products that make peoples’ lives better while using less resources to do it and making more resources available to satisfy other needs.
When a company is not being guided by the products they make and what the customers need, but by how they can manipulate the system, get regulations on their competitors, or mandates on using their products, or eliminating foreign competition, it just lowers the overall standard of living and hurts the disadvantaged the most. We end up with a two-tier system.
Those that have, have welfare for the rich. The poor, OK, you have welfare, but you’ve condemned them to a lifetime of dependency and hopelessness. Yeah, we want hope and change, but we want people to have the hope that they can advance on their own merits, rather than the hope that somebody gives them something. That’s better than starving to death, but that, I think, is going to wreck the country.
Is it in our business interest? I think it’s in all our long-term interests. It’s not in our short-term interest. And it’s about making money honorably. People should only profit to the extent they make other people’s lives better. You should profit because you created a better restaurant and people enjoyed going to it.
You didn’t force them to go, you don’t have a mandate that you have to go to my restaurant on Tuesdays and Wednesdays or you go to prison. I mean, come on. You feel good about that?
In my estimation, that’s the definition of American patriotism. Capitalism and innovation being used to make the United States the greatest nation on the face of the earth is the definition of patriotism.
When companies makes money because their lobbyists get the government to build roadblocks in front of the competitors, that’s crony capitalism, which hurts the American economy overall. When companies’ profits increase because they’ve built a product that improves people’s lives, that’s competitive capitalism. That type of capitalism is the type of capitalism that strengthens the economy while improving people’s lives.
People that put the long-term health of the nation ahead of short-term profits and personal gain are patriots. That isn’t to say short-term profits are automatically evil. In many instances, they aren’t. It’s that building products that create profits now and long into the future has a stabilizing effect on a nation’s health.
That’s the definition of patriotism. That’s what Sen. Reid apparently doesn’t understand.
Dr. Patricia McLaughlin has a dispute with Sen. Harry Reid. Sen. Reid’s statement that the “horror stories” being shown nightly on TV are all untrue doesn’t fit with Dr. McLaughlin’s experience with the ACA:
Here’s a partial transcript of her interview with Greta van Susteren:
GRETA: You have patients that have insurance and that go to you but now you’ve been knocked off one of the networks. Is that correct?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I’ve not been dismissed but I have not been offered participation status in some of the subsections from one of the insurance companies and that would be insurance that would be covering individuals taking out insurance through the Affordable Care Act or through small business plans outside of the Affordable Care Act. It also included them.
GRETA: Does that mean that some patients of your’s can no longer go to you unless they pay for it out of their pocket?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: That’s correct.
GRETA: Have any of your patients said anything to you? Are they distressed or are they just happy to move onto another doctor?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know, most patients are attached to their doctor. We’ve had longstanding relationships. We don’t just take care of the illness. We take care of the human spirit as well. So we know things about their spouse, their children, their parents. We’ve been through their trials and tribulations. There’s a relationship. Of course, they’re distressed.
Let’s be succinct about this. The horror stories that Sen. Reid lightly dismisses are real. I think Sen. Reid knows that. Further, I think Sen. Reid won’t hesitate in lying about this to deflect attention away from the fact that the ACA is a failure that Sens. Pryor, Begich, Hagans, Udall, Landrieu, Franken and others voted for.
Sen. Reid knows that the AFP ads are devastating. Sen. Reid knows that AFP’s ads are hitting his vulnerable incumbents frequently and hitting them hard. If those ads weren’t working, Sen. Reid would lightly dismiss them or totally ignore them. It’s painfully obvious that Sen. Reid is worried that he’ll be Senate Minority Leader and his committee chairs will be ranking members within a year.
The bad news for the American people is that the Affordable Care Act is a trainwreck. The bad news for Democrats is that the American people might just take their frustration out of Senate Democrats this November.
Ronald Reagan once famously said that a recession is when your neighbor is unemployed, that a depression is when you’re unemployed and that the recover starts when Jimmy Carter was unemployed. This year, that should be translated into the recovery starts when Sens. Begich, Franken, Hagans, Landrieu, Pryor, Shaheen and Udall are unemployed.
Technorati: Harry Reid, Al Franken, Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Kay Hagans, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, Democrats, Insurance Cancellations, Insurance Networks, Doctor-Patient Relationship, Election 2014
This exchange between overmatched Ron Fournier and Charles Krauthammer is the stuff that President Obama’s nightmares are made of:
Here’s a partial transcript of the segment:
KRAUTHAMMER: But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
Fournier didn’t have a rejoinder when Charles said “It isn’t incompetence. It’s the willful breaking of the constitutional order. Where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter the law 27 times after it has been passed?” Fournier did write something approaching intellectual honesty when he wrote this article. Unfortunately, he’s still bitterly clinging to the thought that the ACA might still work. Here’s is the opening of the article:
It’s getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. The latest blow to Democratic candidates, liberal activists, and naïve columnists like me came Monday from the White House, which announced yet another delay in the Obamacare implementation.
For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers. Employers with 50 to 99 workers were given until 2016 to comply, two years longer than required by law. During a yearlong grace period, larger companies will be required to insure fewer employees than spelled out in the law.
Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy.
The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point—”If you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan.” And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.
Mr. Fournier and other journalists shouldn’t have been that intellectually incurious. They should’ve questioned the ACA while it was being written. Furthermore, he shouldn’t still cling to the notion that it’ll work. Unfortunately, that’s what he’s doing for all the wrong reasons:
Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits. I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken. I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.
Fournier’s anti-conservative blind spot still exists. Saying that “the GOP hasn’t offered a serious plan that can pass Congress” is giving Harry Reid a pass. The Patient CARE Act will do the things that the ACA was supposed to do without raising taxes. It isn’t the Republicans’ fault that Sen. Reid is so intransigent that he’ll do anything to sabotage plans that might help families. It isn’t the Republicans’ fault that Sen. Reid is willing to do anything to keep President Obama’s signature legislation from getting declared a total failure before he leaves office.
Why won’t Fournier take Sen. Reid to task for being intransigent? Why won’t he ask him tough questions about why he won’t consider legislation that’s a serious attempt to fix what’s broken in the ACA? When Mr. Fournier is willing to take off his ideological blinders, then I’ll pay attention to him.
At this point, he isn’t a serious man because he isn’t willing to take those blinders off.
Technorati: Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, President Obama, Ron Fournier, Agenda Media, Progressive Movement, Charles Krauthammer, Constitution, Patient CARE Act, Dr. Tom Coburn, Republicans, Election 2014
This NYTimes article lowers the boom on vulnerable Democrats. Meanwhile, this video will certainly pop up in campaign ads this fall after CBO’s announcement:
Here’s the devastating part of the CBO’s announcement:
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says that the Affordable Care Act will result in more than 2 million fewer full-time workers in the next several years, providing Republican opponents of the law a powerful political weapon leading up to this year’s midterm elections.
The law is also expected to have a significant effect on hours worked, the nonpartisan budget office said in a regular update to its budget projections released Tuesday. With the expansion of insurance coverage, more workers will choose not to work and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise, it said. The decline in hours worked will translate into a loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.
The administration’s spin on this report was disastrous. One of the talking points sounded like the reduction in hours would let people cut their hours to keep their subsidies. The administration then suggested that those people will be able to pursue more creative activities. What they didn’t say is that other families would get hit with paying those subsidies.
The simple fact is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act is a job-destroying disaster. The administration will attempt to suggest otherwise but that’s pure spin. The proof is in the monthly jobs reports, most of which have been disasters.
What isn’t getting reported enough is that the subsidies cover the health insurance premiums but they don’t subsidize those policies’ high deductibles. In most of the policies sold, those deductibles are enough to bury families in debt.
What that means is that the Anything But Affordable Care Act a) is expensive, b) is a job-killer and c) will devastate Democrats next November.
Glenn Reynolds’ latest USA Today column highlights why the Anything But Affordable Care Act, aka the ABACA, is destined for failure:
In his excellent book, Two Cheers For Anarchism, Professor James Scott writes:
One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called ‘Irish Democracy,’ the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.
Simply put, people, making decisions based on their own self-interests, are saying no to the ABACA. They’re saying no because it’s a rip-off. It’s a rip-off because it was designed by politicians, whose highest priority was passing a bill, not cutting families’ health care costs.
While the political class worries about ‘the art of the possible’, families worry about doing what’s right for their families. The fact is that politicians ignored their constituents when they wrote this bill in Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s offices. By making this federal legislation, President Obama eliminated the states’ experimentation, which is the strength of the US’s federalist system.
Top-down, government-centric systems don’t work because they implement a system that isn’t individualized. Does anyone think that a nation that loves its iPhones and individualized apps would accept a system where their health insurance and health care choices are made for them?
It’s possible that something called the Affordable Care Act will still be in place a decade from now. If it still exists, which isn’t guaranteed, it won’t look anything like the system that’s currently in place.
That’s because Americans aren’t satisfied with accepting conventional wisdom. When we see difficulties, our initial instinct is to fix them.
Now, as February draws near, things don’t look much better. Far fewer than half the number needed by March 31 have signed up. And, as it turns out, most of the people signing up for Obamacare aren’t the uninsured for whom it was supposedly enacted, but people who were previously insured (many of whom lost their previous insurance because of Obamacare’s new requirements). “At most,” writes Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle, “they’ve signed up 15% of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll. … Where are the uninsured? Did hardly any of them want coverage beginning Jan. 1?” It looks that way.
Based on public sentiment, this would’ve been the right time to let a good crisis go to waste. It’s pretty apparent that the people are speaking with a loud, passionate voice that they want this system scrapped. They aren’t sending mixed signals on this. They aren’t sounding an uncertain alarm. They’re saying that a) they don’t want to return to the previous system and b) they’re rejecting President Obama’s top-down system.
What they’re saying with exceptional clarity is that they want to design a system that a) puts them first, b) puts doctors, not politicians and bureaucrats, in charge of the health care system, c) lowers health care costs and d) lets them create their own network of health care providers.
The Anything But Affordable Care Act is 0-for-4 on those merits. That’s why it’s destined for failure.
The Obama administration appears intent on causing another showdown because it’s insisting on another my-way-or-the-highway bill:
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told “Fox News Sunday” that President Obama will “not pay ransom” for getting Congress to fulfill its duty to increase the ceiling and that members should “spare the country the drama.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said later on the show that Obama’s demand for a no-strings-attached deal to raise the debt ceiling, now at about $17 trillion, in the coming weeks is “irresponsible” and that demands from Congress have been the pattern for 50 years. “I think the president is taking an unreasonable position,” the Kentucky Republican said.
It’s astonishing that Pfeiffer would characterize negotiations as Congress holding the nation ransom. Where in the Constitution does it say that presidents always get their way right down to the tiniest detail?
If President Obama wants to fight for bailing out health insurance companies, then let’s have him state that, along with vulnerable Senate Democrats, bailouts of health insurance companies isn’t negotiable. I triple dog dare this administration and Harry Reid to fight over that.
Whatever happened to doing what’s right for the nation? This administration hasn’t shown proof that they care about that. There’s tons of proof that they’re only interested in winning ideological fights. If this administration wants to fight for bailing out the insurance companies, they’ll all but guarantee Republicans taking control of the Senate.
That’s a dangerous position for the White House to put itself in because it means Republicans can pass their agenda at will. With the majority in the House and Senate, President Obama won’t be able to pretend that Republicans don’t have a set of solutions. He won’t be able to tell voters that Republicans are the ‘party of no’ or the do-nothing party. He won’t be able to do that because he’ll be busy vetoing bills landing on his desk.
Republicans in the House and Senate will be able to make a powerful argument that we shouldn’t raise the debt ceiling while promising to give health insurance companies multi-billion dollar bailouts. That’s a principle people would quickly understand.
Finally, I’d love hearing Democrats accuse Republicans of being for Wall Street fat cats while giving health insurance companies a massive bailout. Good luck selling that one.
About 6 minutes into this video, Harry Reid said some things that Republicans should tattoo into Sen. Reid’s forehead:
Here’s what Sen. Reid said:
SEN. REID: The rich keep getting richer. The poor keep getting poorer and the middle class is under siege. This country can’t allow the gap between the fabulously wealthy and those that are just getting by to let their incomes going up and the middle class going down.
A little history lesson is in order to emphatically drive this important point home. In 2009, the Democrats controlled (dominated might be more descriptive) Washington. They passed a pork-filled stimulus bill that didn’t jumpstart the economy. Shortly thereafter, they passed a budget funding the government for the rest of FY2009. Since then, the budget blueprint hasn’t changed. After the Democrats’ shellacking in 2010, government has been funded through continuing resolutions. That means that, prior to a month ago, the government was funded by the Democrats’ FY2009 budget.
In short, Sen. Reid’s diatribe was unwittingly an anti-Democrat rant. He disparaged the Democrats’ budget blueprint.
Here’s another history lesson for the less-than-informed. As a youth, Harry Reid was an amateur boxer. It’s possible that Harry took a few too many shots to the head during his boxing career.
As usual, Charles added the requisite clarity to the situation:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I think when you heard Harry Reid talking, it sounded as if the Democrats had been out of office and were railing against the current administration. Income inequality has risen dramatically under this administration. The Fed, with the blessing of the administration, is pumping $1,000,000,000,000 a year into the economy, which goes right into the stock market…
I’ve said for quite some time that there’s really 2 economies right now. There’s the Wall Street economy, which is assisted by K Street lobbyists and the Democrats’ crony capitalist policies. That economy is going strong. After all, it’s impossible to do poorly when a) you’re borrowing money without paying interest and b) you’re getting the benefit of a well-funded army of K Street lobbyists.
The other economy is struggling. It’s best called the Small Business Economy or the Main Street Economy. It’s struggling because it’s getting buried beneath an avalanche of regulations and tax increases. As the name suggests, this economy isn’t doing well because they a) don’t have an army of lobbyists or b) aren’t part of the Obama administration’s crony capitalist economy.
The DC suburbs and New York City are doing well. The stock market frequently hits new record highs. Meanwhile, people dealing with the Main Street economy are telling pollsters that they think we’re still in a recession.
During the coming campaign, Republicans should highlight this fact daily. They should remind people that the Democrats’ policies have been the policies that’ve directed this economy. Republicans should tell President Obama and Sen. Reid that, if they want to talk about income inequality, their first conversation should be with the man they see in the mirror each morning.
Technorati: Harry Reid, President Obama, Income Inequality, Continuing Resolutions, Budget Blueprint, Crony Capitalism, Democrats, Charles Krauthammer, Small Businesses, Main Street, Capitalism, Election 2014
This editorial includes the usual collection of straw man arguments, which I’m about to deconstruct. This paragraph is especially worth demolishing:
The individual mandate was a Republican idea as well as set forth by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989. It was supported by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley who also introduced bills promoting this legislation. Newt Gingrich was also for this idea.
There’s no disputing the information in that paragraph. These senators supported the Heritage Foundation’s idea. What’s important, though, was that people started making the argument that the individual mandate wasn’t constitutional in the early 1990s. That’s when Republicans, generally speaking, stopped supporting the individual mandate.
Now all these individuals oppose the ACA because it is Obama’s and the Democrats’ signature piece of legislation.
What a stupid statement to make. First, it’s pure projection. There’s no proof of that. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations is the writer has. Argument? Dismissed as foolish. Second, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Hatch oppose the Affordable Care Act because, in the words of Sen. Baucus, it’s “a train wreck” happening in slow motion right before our eyes.
The Democrats’ arguments are built on the shaking sand arguments that the ACA is working fine or will soon be working fine and that the policies bought through the ACA’s exchanges will be significantly better than the policies families had prior to implementation of the ACA. That’s demonstrably false. Networks have shrunk. Premiums are significantly higher. Facilities that offer cutting edge medical treatment are either being excluded from the exchanges or they’re opting out because the reimbursement rates will drive them into bankruptcy.
Those are legitimate explanations for why Republicans oppose the ACA.
The letter stated Republicans were mostly shut out of the planning and development of the ACA. However, for years, the Republicans were arguing for legislation exactly like the one that passed.
That’s a non sequitur argument. It’s possible for Republicans to be shut out of crafting the ACA after previously supporting similar legislation years earlier. During the 2012 campaign, all of the GOP presidential candidates made substantive arguments against Romneycare.
The biggest difference between Romneycare and the Affordable Care Act is that Romneycare’s rollout wasn’t the disaster that the ACA’s rollout is.
The letter also infers Democrats’ recent dominance of the U.S. House, Senate and presidency contributed to the polarization that now exists in Washington, DC.
This isn’t disputable. The Democrats’ arrogance for which they’re currently getting crucified contributed to DC’s polarization. It isn’t the sole cause of DC’s polarization but it certainly contributed to it.
At the end of the day, though, what’s important is that Democrats not named Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Wasserman-Schultz aren’t arguing that the ACA is great legislation that is helping families. It’s true that the ACA helped people who couldn’t get insurance because they had pre-existing conditions. It’s equally indisputable that the ACA caused millions of people to get cancellation notices of quality health insurance policies that paid for life-saving treatments at the world’s finest research hospitals.
There’s no doubt that some health insurance policies were junk. That’s proof that state health insurance commissioners didn’t do their jobs. They shouldn’t have approved those policies for sale in their states. Likewise, there’s no doubt that some policies that President Obama, Jay Carney and Frank Pallone say are substandard are actually pretty good policies.
Technorati: Obamacare, President Obama, Affordable Care Act, Romneycare, Nancy Pelosi, Frank Pallone, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Straw-Man Arguments, Insurance Cancellations, Essential Health Benefits, Democrats
When Bill Hemmer interviewed Frank Luntz about the Affordable Care Act, he played this Americans for Prosperity, aka AFP, ad to lead into the discussion:
The ad features Nancy Pelosi spewing the usual Democratic Party chanting points:
PELOSI: Democrats stand tall in support of the Affordable Care Act.
Then, against a black backdrop, comes this simple, effective message from AFP:
Tell Congress Obamacare isn’t working. Stand tall for patients, not politics.
President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been exceptionally stubborn in their support of the ACA. Eventually, the people will rebel against them when they see how the ACA is limiting their choices without lowering their costs.
Hemmer asked Mr. Luntz a question that led to this exchange:
BILL HEMMER: The issue is trust. How does that play out in the ad, do you believe?
LUNTZ: That’s exactly the point, Bill. You get it, that it isn’t about the health care act that’s important. It’s about politicians refusing to take accountability when they make mistakes. Clearly, the rollout wasn’t effective. Clearly, people were being thrown off their plans. And health care is just symbolic of a greater problem, that these Washington politicians like former Speaker Pelosi are making promises to the American people that they can’t keep.
It isn’t just that people think Democrats aren’t trustworthy. It’s that they’re mad politicians don’t even listen to them.
Lots of people appear on the Sunday talk shows or on FNC or CNN. They repeat their scripted message as often as it’s warranted. That’s a major mistake. Republicans, myself included, frequently disagreed with Bill Clinton. That said, they learned that listening is a virtue. Democrats seemed to have learned the opposite lesson. Michael Barone noticed that flaw in this column:
If Obamacare’s architects were keen on preventing exit, they blithely ignored voice. The legislation was unpopular when it was proposed, while it was passed and in the months and years afterwards. Barack Obama seldom mentioned it in the 2012 campaign except for the provision allowing “children” under 26 to stay on mommy and daddy’s policies.
That’s another way of saying that Democrats shoved unpopular legislation down the American people’s throats. Then they lied about what the bill wouldn’t do.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that that’s a recipe for disaster.
Rep. Steve Israel’s op-ed is long on whining. The message that comes through clearly is that he doesn’t like it that Republicans put together a strategy for highlighting the ACA’s multitude of shortcomings:
New Yorkers have two ways of looking at a problem. You can ask, “What went wrong, and who do we blame?” or you can roll up your sleeves and ask, “What went wrong, and how do we fix it?”
If anyone in America had any question about which question congressional Republicans would ask, we now have an answer: House Republicans engineered a 17-page playbook detailing how to sabotage and repeal the Affordable Care Act so they can score political points. In this lengthy manual, however, Republicans didn’t offer a single idea for solutions, for helping constituents enroll in health care or understand their benefits. Rather, the entire handbook is a tactical guide to tearing down the law.
I’m impressed with the GOP’s playbook. What’s clear is that they’re effectively attacking the Democrats and the Affordable Care Act with statistics, personal anecdotes and op-eds.
Additionally, this isn’t a policy document on how to fix the Affordable Care Act’s multitude of shortcomings. It’s a playbook for attacking the Democrats while they’re especially vulnerable.
No DCCC op-ed is complete without a healthy dose of Democratic demagoguery. This blast of BS satisfies that ‘requirement’:
Republicans have no playbook to create jobs, they have no playbook to build infrastructure, they have no playbook to pass immigration reform, they have no playbook to pass a budget and they have no playbook to propose a better health care system.
Their only playbook is to take us back to a system that didn’t work, that led hardworking people into bankruptcy and gave insurance companies unchecked power to deny care and drop coverage. Democrats, on the other hand, are going to relentlessly remind Americans that one party is willing to fix the Affordable Care Act and that one party, the Republican Party, wants to repeal the law and put insurance companies back in charge.
To quote a friend of mine, those paragraphs are more full of BS than a Christmas goose. The DCCC, like President Obama and the DNC, can’t talk without piling on the BS. That’s why people don’t trust President Obama anymore. He’s repeatedly lied to the American people about keeping their plan if they liked it. Now that he’s been caught lying, President Obama’s apologists have started rationalizing those promises away, saying that you can’t reform the health care system without significant changes.
That’s indisputably true but that isn’t the point. What’s equally true is that the ACA couldn’t have passed had President Obama told the American people that they could keep their plan if they liked it and if his HHS secretary approved of people’s plans.
Next, the GOP plan for creating jobs is equal parts repealing the ACA, expanding oil, coal and natural gas exploration and cutting EPA regulations that are killing industries.
Third, there’s one party, the Democratic Party, that’s trying its best to paint the Affordable Care Act as fixable, which it isn’t, while the other party, the GOP, predicted about the cancellation notices, the crashed website, the rising premium prices. Democrats call that being mean-spirited. Truth-seeking people call that getting it right.
If Democrats don’t want to get tagged over the Affordable Care Act every few minutes, they should worry first about doing right by the American people, not about how news affects them politically. No op-ed would be complete without them lying. Here’s Israel’s lie-infested trash:
Because when Americans see Republicans in Congress sharing an anecdote or holding a hearing, they can know it is designed to do one thing: Take the country back to the dark days when our health care system didn’t work.
The “dark days when our health care system didn’t work” is now. It isn’t that the system worked perfectly before the Democrats shoved the ACA down Americans’ throats. It’s that that system worked significantly better than it’s working under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have offered their own plans, which Democrats have refused to consider. It isn’t Republicans’ fault that Democrats, starting with Harry Reid and President Obama, are the obstructionists in DC.
Rep. Israel’s statements are misleading, incomplete or verifiably false. In other words, they’re what’s expected from Democratic leadership.