Wednesday, 06 November 2013

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS GIVES US A HINT ABOUT OBAMACARE ENROLLMENT

Ken Berwitz

Unless you are a card-carrying Obamaniac, this will not surprise you in the least:  enrollment in ObamaCare is about as disastrous as the web site itself.

But wait until you read HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, about why the site was not held up until it she and her people made it at least minimally operable.

Excerpted from Jennifer Haberkorn and Jason Millman's article at politico.com:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today acknowledged that long-awaited enrollment figures for the rocky first month of Obamacare will be "very low."

She said the initial batch of enrollment figures being released next week cover "the first month of enrollment" and will include both Medicaid and health plan numbers in the new insurance exchanges.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who helped write the law and get it through the Senate in 2009, told Sebelius bluntly that Obamacares early problems have been "unacceptable."

"I want you to burn their fingers and make them pay for not being responsible," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) told Sebelius.

Sebelius repeated the administration's commitment to having the site repaired by the end of the month. She reported progress on the list of a "couple of hundred" fixes that have been identified but admitted, "we are not where we need to be." 

"For millions of Americans, delay is not an option - people's lives depend on this," Sebelius said.

Let's see:  Sebelius is setting us up for terrible enrollment numbers - numbers which anyone with even a smidgen of common sense should have been expecting for weeks.

It is so bad that at least two Democrat Senators - Max Baucus (retiring) and Bill Nelson (hoping to keep his job) publicly humiliated her over it.

And Secretary Sebelius's answer?  Well, we have implemented a couple of hundred fixes, but we are not where we need to be.

Unbelievable.  In other words, Sebelius is throwing out a big number of "fixes" to iimpress us, as if it means a thing if the web site is still not working.  Simply stated, she is talking to us as if we are a bunch of idiots. 

Do you care how many "fixes" they have implemented, if the site is still not where it needs to be?  

Wouldn't you be 100% more impressed if she said "We fixed one or two things and now we are where we need to be"?  Well, don't wait for Ms. Sebelius to say that, because it isn't happening.

But the topper of them all is her remarkable comment that delay is not an option, because people's lives depend on it. 

This genius had THREE YEARS to get ObamaCare started, spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS to do so - geometrically more than just about any private web site launch in the history of the internet - and it is a complete disaster.  And she has the effrontery to tell us it had to go up anyway because people's lives depend on it? 

Depend on what?  Spending hours trying to get into this momument to incompetence and wild overspending, so they can find it impossible to navigate the site and sign up for a thing?  That's good for their health?

If Kathleen Sebelius had one tenth of one ounce of honor, she would have resigned already.  But she does not. 

And if her boss had any honor, he would long since have been beyond the point of trying to cover for her, and would have told her to take a hike.  But he has not done that either...he is too busy lying to us about the cancelled insurance policies he told us point-blank would not be cancelled.

But there is hope for Ms. Sebelius and Mr. Obama.  They do have a safety valve. 

See, as long as mainstream media keep covering for them - by pretending Mr. Obama did not lie to our faces about how many people would lose their insurance (he "misspoke", "misstated", etc.), by ignoring the estimates of some health care professionals that tens of millions of people will lose coverage in the next year or two, and by criticizing the ObamaCare web site but not howling for Ms. Sebelius to step down... they are able to keep up this grotesque charade.

How much easier it is to win, when the referee is on your side.


SPORADIC BLOGGING

Ken Berwitz

For the next several days, my blogging will be sporadic - if I'm able to blog at all.  

No medical emergency, I assure you.

I'll explain why on Monday.


DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: MARATHON LIAR

Ken Berwitz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) appeared on Chris Jansing's MSNBC show yesterday, and lied so much in so little time, that I've given it a name:  marathon lying:

Here, courtesy of a piece by the unfortunately (actually, offensively) named "allahpundit"  is a 2:14 segment of her interview.  Count 'em up and see how many you can find - not just from Wasserman Schultz, but by Jansing as well:

I hope you had your calculator out.

Jansing serves up the softball to Wasserman Schultz by noting that just 3% of the country is losing their insurance coverage (just about everyone else's estimates range from about 5% - that's 15 million people, by the way - to 90- 100 million once ObamaCare fully kicks in).  And then, instead of asking whether the President lied, she instead asks whether he "knowingly oversimplified this".  Huh????????

Now it's DWS's turn: 

-She starts by assuring us that Marco Rubio has zero credibility.  That's a standard political swipe so we'll push ahead. 

-She then tells us that at the end of the day Americans were not - I'll do this phonetically - MY-zelled - by the President (I'm guessing she had read her talking points, saw the word misled, did not realize that is how it is spelled, and just recited what she thought the pronunciation was). 

-She then repeats Jansing's claim about how few people are involved.

-She then tells us that says that the problem is not ObamaCare, it is insurance companies choosing not to keep the plans they could have grandfathered".  But that, of course, is a lie - because ObamaCare was written with specific criteria which made those plans illegal, which is why the cancellation notices went out.

-She then says that there is a happy ending for the folks who no longer have coverage, because they will get better benefits at lower cost.  If you believe this, I have a great sale on unicorns in my backyard.

-She then she says all they have to do is go on the exchange and shop around, as if that is as simple as logging onto, say, amazon.com.  The fact that - as even most Democrats admit - the web site is almost impossible to log onto and navigate through.

-Then comes my favorite lie:  she then says the web site "arguably needs to be easier than it is now"  Arguably?  The word means that it is open to discussion with two viable sides.  Who - other than maybe Ms. Wasserman Schultz - thinks that the ObamaCare web site is ok as-is?  I suggest she look up the meaning of "arguably", when she looks up the pronunciation of misled.

-She then claims there was nothing that President Obama  - or her or other supporters of ObamaCare - said that was not true.  The literally dozens of times Mr. Obama told us, explicitly, in so many words, that if we liked our current coverage we could keep it, period?  Irrelevent'n'immaterial.

-She finishes by bashing Republicans, and insurance companies to boot.  

Please keep in mind that these are only the lies I've uncovered.  If you watch/listen to the video I've provided, it is entirely possible you will find more.  When they come this thick and fast, anyone can miss a couple. 

Put another way, if marathon lying ever becomes an olympic sport, Ms. Wasserman Schultz can dust off the middle of her mantel.  Because she will have a framed gold medal for sure.


IRAN'S MODERATE "DEATH TO AMERICA" DEMONSTRATION

Ken Berwitz

Is "Death to America" a moderate position?  If so, what is a radical one?

I ask this question because, yesterday, "Death to America" was enthusiastically chanted by tens of thousands of Iranians, during a demonstration celebrating the 34th anniversary of  the US embassy takeover, when 52 hostages were taken hostage, then held for over a year while then-supreme leader ayatollah ruhollah khomenei laughed at the hapless President Jimmy Carter.  They were finally freed on the day Carter was replaced by Ronald Reagan, whom khomenei was actually worried about.

And how did the "moderate" government of hassan rouhani react?  It didn't.  The demonstration, and chanting, went unchallenged.

But media have spent months telling us hassan rouhani was a "moderate".  How could he allow this to happen? 

The answer is a simple one:  hassan rouhani a) is not a moderate at all, and, in any case, b) he is only a figurehead.  A puppet.  Since the Shah of Iran was deposed (in no small part because President Carter cut him loose), power has always resided with the mullahs and their "supreme leader".  It is that "supreme leader" - currently ayatollah ali khamenei, not rouhani, who runs the show.

But it didn't have to be this way.

In 2009, when mahmoud ahmedinejad won a second term as President, in an obviously rigged election, protesters filled the streets of Tehran and other major Iranian cities.  They demanded that ahmedinejad step down, a legitimate election be held, and Iran become a truly democratic state. 

The world looked to newly-elected President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on earth, for leadership.  For guidance. 

Mr. Obama's "leadership" and "guidance" was to tell the protesters that they were on their own.  The USA wasn't about to get involved with Iran's internal affairs. Have a nice day. 

Not surprisingly, the mullahs' goon squads moved in, beat and killed Iranian citizens in the streets, then jailed or killed the protest leaders.  So much for the freedom movement in Iran.

Months afterwards, however, when Israel announced it was building residential housing units in a largely Jewish section of Jerusalem, Mr. Obama had no compunctions about getting involved in an internal matter.  The weight of the USA came down on the Netanyahu government, demanding that those units not be built - and effectively telling Palestinian Arabs that they had no reason to negotiate with Israel, because the Obama-led USA already recognized at least half of Jerusalem as being theirs.

A freedom movement in Iran was not worth it.  Stopping residential housing units in Jerusalem was.  That, in a nutshell, was - and remains - the quality of USA foreign policy under Barack Obama.

Four the last four years, Mr. Obama and his administration have held to sanctions against Iran in an effort to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear capability - sanctions Iran has ignored as it rapidly moves towards that objective. 

Mr. Obama has also offered to meet with Iran - no preconditions, not even a renouncing of its stated intent to wipe Israel of the face of the map.  But no matter how many times we have humbled themselves before khamenei & Co, essentially begging him to talk to us, Iran has refused to do so, while continuing with the construction of a nuclear bomb.

Now, many analysts feel Iran is on the brink of succeeding in this effort, and becoming a nuclear power.  Not at all surprisingly, Israel - which, as noted before, Iranintends to vaporize - is therefore on the brink of attacking Iran to prevent this from happening. 

And the Obama government?  It is still clinging to the "we have a moderate in place, we can talk" fantasy.

Is it possible that a government-approved "Death to America" demonstration will wake them up?  Frankly, I doubt it, because nothing else has. 

Why do I feel this way?  Because President Obama appears to be every bit as hapless as President Carter was in 1979, and Secretary of State John Kerry's main accomplishment of the past 30 years is how far he has gotten without accomplishments.  So you'll pardon me if I am skeptical.

At this point you might be asking "What happens if Israel hits Iran?"  No one knows the answer to that question...or , for that matter, what side the current administration will take if Israel does so.

It seems to me that anyone who values freedom, democracy, not to mention peace on planet Earth, should be worred sick about this.


SOME QUESTIONS I WOULD LOVE ANSWERS TO

Ken Berwitz

Here are some questions - of varying importance and in no particular order - that I would love someone to answer for me.

-How come, for most media venues, right wingers always seem to be "right wingers" and far right wingers always seem to be "far right wingers"....but left wingers always seem to be "liberal" and far left wingers always seem to be "very liberal"?  Why is the term "right wing" perfectly usable, but "left wing" buried?

-How can vegans, who refuse to eat eggs because they could have become chickens, possibly be anything but pro-life? 

-Why did everyone in New Jersey, New York and a bunch of other states, have to move their clocks back an hour this past weekend, and then have to move them forward an hour in the spring?  Why can't we do what columnist Jerry Jacoby has suggested for years, and split the difference - which could have been accomplished by moving them back just a half hour this past weekand, or forward just a half hour next spring, and keeping them there?  Wouldn't that accomplish much of the purpose with none of the hassle?

-Isn't "buy one get one free" the same as "buy two and get half off both of them"?  Isn't buy two and get one free" the same as "buy three and get a third off your entire order?", and so on?  Evidently using the word "free" is more powerful than saying it the other way.

-While we're on that subject, isn't $4.99 just a penny less than $5?  But, amazingly, people are far more positively reactive to the lower first number, even if it's only a cent worth of difference.  Perception is a funny thing.

-All of the newer strip malls in my area require drivers to go past the entire strip, enter at the end, and then - unless they happen to be patronizing the very last store - drive backwards to where they wanted to be.  Maybe a traffic engineer can explain why this makes more sense than just driving in where the mall starts and going to the store you want to be in, but, as of now, it seems completely idiotic to me.

-Why would a merciful God have created phlegm and bowel viruses?

-Why do they make bubble packs so hard to open that you're lucky if a scissor works...and you don't wind up bleeding from at least one, maybe more than one, place on your hands?

-How come farting is the single funniest thing in the world when you're a kid...and stays in the top three when you're an adult?

-When you go to the beach in New Jersey, why are you "down the shore" no matter whether you're coming from the north, south or west (don't ask me why I didn't include east...it will make you look bad).

-Now that Joe Biden has been Vice President for five years, does he finally realize that the duties of the Vice President (i.e. presiding over the senate, and casting the deciding vote on legislation if there's a tie) are legislative, not executive?  When, after all that time as a Senator, he claimed, during his debate with Sarah Palin that Article 1 of the constitution gave the Vice President executive duties, and virtually no media venues called him out on it, I had no doubt that most of them would do everything in their power to insure that he and Mr. Obama won the election.  And I was right.

 

free' -While we're on that subject, isn't $4.99 just a penny less than $5? But, amazingly, people are far more positively reactive to the lower first number, even if it's only a cent worth of difference. Perception is a funny thing. -------------------- I have been upset about this since I learned what it costs to make a penny. We should do away with it, IMO. BTW, here is what it costs. ---- To make 1 cent, it costs 1.99 cents as of 2013. This is a significant cost to the U.S. government, and as a result, to the U.S. taxpayers. In 2012 it cost even more $2.41 for each penny. ------- What a sick waste over $100 million dollars lost, just in the last two years. (11/06/13)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!