« Why Sir, Why? | Main | The Best Result Possible »


Last Liberal Standing

Q: Is there any chance that Obama THOUGHT his plan would reduce costs for most individuals and small businesses, but he was wrong? If so, he didn't lie.

Q: Is there any chance that the jury really isn't in yet on the issue of how Obamacare will ultimately affect costs? If so, branding Obama a liar is premature.

Q: Is there any chance that Anthem is trying to get away with something here, and that it'll have to be resolved in court? If so, "another lie" is a rush to judgment.

If you already despise the guy, then everything he says is a lie. If you don't, then the anti-Prez furor seems excessive.


LLS, if it was not a lie, then how can Obama say this now?


Said he never expected to extend insurance coverage to an additional 31 million people "for free."

Uh, yes he did say this - at least he did when he was trying to promote this legislation.

And, I'm afraid that the jury is not out in Connecticut. Roughly a 20% hike has already been requested and approved there.

I think that the president was correct the second time around: "how can you add 31 million people and not expect costs to go up?" Just would have been nice if he and other Democrats had been straightforward with the American people about this. Or - better yet, overhauled health care in such a way that it once again became really insurance rather than coverage for everything under the sun - and returned personal responsibility to the system, too.

Last Liberal Standing

From the Las Vegas Sun article you're citing:

Last August he predicted: "The American people are going to be glad that we acted to change an unsustainable system so that more people have coverage, we're bending the cost curve, and we're getting insurance reforms."

On Friday, he conceded: "Bending the cost curve on health care is hard to do." The goal: "Slowly bring down those costs."

If Obama's Friday answer is honest, he's saying that REAL improvements take time. I believe him and agree with him.

For years now, I've suspected that right-siders are less patient than lefties, and your posting might be an example.

It should be obvious that verdicts ought to be delayed until enough data are in. Mission Accomplished, for instance. Another: the argument that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam hadn't PROVEN that he didn't have WMD. We couldn't wait, and let the inspection process continue. We had to go into Iraq quickly, with our shocking and awesome weapons technology a-blazing! We just KNEW he was hiding mushroom-cloud-makers.

Calm down, righties!

I don't mean wait forever. I don't mean there won't be glitches, mistakes, embarrassments, regrets, and shocking new revelations. But you seem to prefer to sweep out the "liars," whom you've identified (I think) by a combination of your own hunches and the earliest data. Seems to me you're verrrrry eager to find "proof" that conforms to your expectations: "Obama's a snake-oil salesman? I knew it all along!"

New Balance 574

Your write-up is fantastic. It is essentially extraordinary to me. I like it greatly and I hope to determine you additional content articles.

The comments to this entry are closed.