You have no idea how big the Obama lie is


big lie

image courtesy of

It’s HUGE. John Rosenthal at PJ Media:

And thanks to the recent reporting of CNN (where were they and the other media three years ago, when we needed them?), more people will realize that shortly after the passage of Obamacare the Obama administration implemented rules specifically designed to ensure that millions of people — those who provided for themselves on the individual market, i.e., who did not receive coverage through their employer or union — would not be allowed to keep their current insurance. Thus not only were Obama’s assurances untrue; they were purposeful deceit in which a supine press was complicit.

Jay Carney, the Official Propagandist of the Obama regime said:

One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the underinsured. And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office.

That was part of the promise we made.

No, not 5%. Try 69%.

John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog:

The Obama administration projected low-end, mid-range and high-end estimates for how many plans would be terminated, in total and broken down between large and smaller employers. The bottom line is that the administration expected 51% of all employer plans to be terminated as a result of Obamacare. That is the mid-range estimate; the high-end estimate was 69%. So as of 2010, the Obama administration planned that most Americans with employer-sponsored health care plans would lose them, whether they liked those plans or not.

As for individual, as opposed to group plans, the Obama administration said that data were insufficient to predict how many would lose grandfather status, but in any given year the percentage of such policies losing such status would “exceed[] the 40 percent to 67 percent range.”

Those numbers starkly contradict Obama’s “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” assurances. But it is worth noting that the percentage of pre-Obamacare plans that would terminate within the first few years after the law was enacted isn’t the main point. The administration never intended to allow any American to keep a non-Obamacare insurance policy for any length of time.

And for small business, it’s more like 80%.

Sen. Mike Enzi:

Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses–the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent–will not be able to keep the coverage they have.

Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance.

Obama said in video that you could keep your plan at least 36 times:


This is not simply a lie. It is a lie of galactic proportions. All hell is going break loose next year when nearly everyone loses their plans, and that is why the employer mandate was delayed. So Obama could lie through another election cycle.

Democrats see the handwriting on wall and are getting skittish:

More than a dozen anxious Senate Democrats facing reelection next year met with President Obama at the White House Wednesday to review the administration’s progress in fixing technical problems hobbling the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

The website is the least of their problems.

Megyn Kelly asks the obvious:

Megyn Kelly interview Fox editor Chris Stirewalt on a White House press conference with Jay Carney, and the political possibility arose that Obama may have won the 2012 election by lying about ObamaCare.

As if there was any doubt. The real question is- does he ever tell the truth about anything? And when will the press stop treating Obama as a novelty and hold him to account for these lies?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Tom:Tom, I’m quite sure you were looking in a mirror when you wrote this:

It”s because you’re an extremist ideologue and partisan.

Just curious Tom, have you heard of any LIBERAL states in the US making assisted suicide legal? Hint: there are 3.

Then how do you explain, on this thread, convincing Redteam that the ACA will inevitably lead to forced euthanasia?

Pete didn’t convince me of this, as far as I know, he didn’t attempt to convince anyone. He just pointed out that is one of the goals of socialized medicine as practiced in Germany and UK. I’m quite sure one of the goals of ACA is to lower costs by withholding expensive treatments that would extend life. It is just one of the things that Obama plans to do illegally by executive order when he thinks no one is looking.


Glad to see the peanut gallery is full.

And you’re in the front row!.
What kind of medical insurance you have Tommy? You paying for it?

Scott in Oklahoma,
that is a good way to get rid of a troll a throl, a tholl, a thhroll
OOPS, i just remember the question i wanted to ask you,
what do you say about OBAMA telling the insurers to break the law to recall the one who where out of their policy,they say it”s against the law, so he said i wont have you charge, do it AND DON’T WORRY,
i’M trying to remember the last time he said that to another one
but it was the same thing of asking to break the law,
shouldn”t he get arrested for inciting those to break the law?


What kind of medical insurance you have Tommy? You paying for it?

I am fortunate enough to have what is commonly refereed to as employer-based insurance. I pay the same as an old man or a women of child bearing years, even though her potential costs far exceed mine. This does not bother me. I understand insurance. I understand the concept behind the ACA.


Pete didn’t convince me of this, as far as I know, he didn’t attempt to convince anyone. He just pointed out that is one of the goals of socialized medicine as practiced in Germany and UK. I’m quite sure one of the goals of ACA is to lower costs by withholding expensive treatments that would extend life.

Tom wants to play on the fact that no one is killing people (yet) all in the name of Obamascare. He’s like the German in 1930 Germany that says “No one is talking about killing any Jews. That is just silly.”

Perhaps he has never heard of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s go-to guru for all things medical, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, was Obama’s constant advisor when the ACA was being written. Dr. Emanuel is a real piece of work. He supports nationalized health care, but with a caveat. He thinks that health care, when it becomes scarce, will have to have some tweaking. You know, like taking a systematic view of the value of citizen’s life. Older people, past their childbearing/working years, and children under school age, where the State has not yet invested in them, would be the last on the list to get specialized medical treatment as these citizens are not productive to the state.


And Emanuel’s own thoughts:

You see, medical care will be doled out by your productivity and your ability to contribute to “society.”

Oh, yeah, Dr. Emanuel thinks waste and fraud need to be abolished, but the government would not be able to provide certain medical treatments to all people since it would be just too expensive, so some would just have to left to die.


I am fortunate enough to have what is commonly refereed to as employer-based insurance.

And you think you will be able to keep that at the same low cost/no cost to you under the ACA?

What a silly boy you are, Tommy Troll.


Here is the basic ideological division. Obama wants the health-care system to do more to pool risk — which is to say, to shift the burden of covering the sick onto the healthy. Republicans want it to do less to pool risk, so that healthy people can be free of the burden of subsidizing the costs of those less medically fortunate.
conservatives may prefer an individualized market where healthy people get cheap, bare-bones insurance. But Americans overwhelmingly prefer more comprehensive insurance. Employer-based insurance, which charges young, healthy workers the exact same rate as older, sicker ones, is the most redistributive form of insurance, and also the most popular kind by far”….

The Republican plan is to move as many people as possible from the kind of insurance they like to the kind of insurance they hate. Obama’s plan is to make unpopular individual health insurance more like the popular employer-based health insurance, with lots of cross-subsidies from healthy to sick. The conservative plans propose to make popular employer insurance more like the unpopular individual market.

The right’s dilemma grows more acute when you move from the general to the particular. Their argument is that Obama forces healthy people to pay higher premiums to pay for a bunch of crap they don’t want or need. Karl Rove argues in his Wall Street Journal column that Obamacare forces people to pay for “expensive and often unnecessary provisions.” And what provisions are these? Where is the medical equivalent of Bridge to Nowhere or scientific research on animals that Republicans love to mock? The problem turns out to be a requirement that “every policy offer a wide range of benefits including mental health and addiction treatment, and maternity care (even for single men or women past childbearing age), and cover 100% of the cost of an array of preventive services.”

This is a morally bizarre conception of what health insurance means. Most of us don’t need mental-health or addiction treatment. Some of us do. Some of us who don’t currently need mental-health treatment might potentially need it one day. You could have a system in which only people who need mental-health treatment pay for mental-health insurance, but then it wouldn’t be insurance anymore. It would be a system in which you pay for a doctor out of pocket.
I suppose one could, if inclined toward a certain libertarian mind-set, defend on moral grounds Rove’s belief that mothers alone should bear the cost of giving birth, rather than forcing the rest of us to foot the bill. But is this an argument Republicans have any chance of winning? Their plan is literally to run against motherhood.


I am fortunate enough to have what is commonly refereed to as employer-based insurance.

Ahhh, soooo. You get to wait a year on Obama’s illegal exemption for employer insurance. so your price won’t triple until next year. I’ll just bet you’re really going to be thrilled to start paying for all those people that have been too cheap to buy insurance. Make sure they thank you for providing for them.


Oh, yeah, Dr. Emanuel thinks waste and fraud need to be abolished,

I’m quite familiar with Emanuel, he is basically in favor of people not having anything but what they get from the government. His theories include eliminating support for non-productive persons.

@Tom: Tom, is the next plan going to be the Affordable Car Act? Which means if I can’t afford a car with all the bells and whistles that those rich Republicans are gonna have to contribute to my car fund? I mean the insurance concept is that those that can’t afford insurance will get it paid for by the rich Republicans, why not cars? How about Houses? Can I get the government to insure that my house is as big as Al Gore’s and let Al pay my electric bill for it? How did it work out that the only thing right now is health care? How did that get to be the target instead of cars and houses?


You really are the most confused person. The point of Obamacare is to make those people buy insurance.

Boy are you gonna be surprised. Those people that didn’t have the money to buy insurance are gonna sign up for the same thing you will sign up for and you will have to pay for the insurance that they will then have but still can’t pay for. Why do you think all these premiums are tripling? This is going to be hysterical when the libs get their tripled insurance premiums (and the same insurance)

Now, I get it. The dimocrats think people don’t buy insurance just because they don’t want to buy insurance. They think all those people have plenty of money to buy the insurance but just don’t want to buy insurance. well, I’ll bet they’re really going to be surprised to find out that a lot of people don’t buy insurance because they don’t have the money to pay for insurance. But now they will be able to sign up and if they can’t pay for it, then all those that have money and have been buying insurance are going to pay for the insurance for all those that can’t afford it. What in the world do they think this ‘subsidy’ thing is? That means if my premium is $1000 a month and I can not afford anything, then those others are going to pay $1000 a month(when they had been paying $300) and that extra $700 is going to be paying those subsidies. Wait til your $500 car payment goes to $1000 to pay for your neighbors subsidy on his car, so he can drive one as nice as you. This subsidy thing will be great for those that don’t work. Boy are these libs in for a shock!!!

that is a good one, very informative,
thank you,

1 8 9 10