Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:
  •   Please send any comments or suggestions about America 3.0 to:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • HHS Secretary Sebelius is Baghdad Bob in Drag…

    Posted by Trent Telenko on October 30th, 2013 (All posts by )

    …and the Obama Administration is having a worse than “Hurricane Katrina” class credibility meltdown unseen in the West since Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s political collapse in July 2008.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the outrageously untrue statement in Congressional hearings today about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that: ‘The website has never crashed.’

    As this Instapundit link makes clear that the split screen between her testimony and objective reality is well into the Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf AKA “Baghdad Bob” territory in terms of “Who are you going to believe, me? Or your lying eyes?”

    The bottom line of Pres. Obama’s spokesman for his signature achievement as President getting laughed at as a Democratic Party version of “Baghdad Bob” is a “Pres. George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina” moment.

    The Obama Administration’s credibility on domestic policy is now as crippled as his foreign policy was after his Syrian Nerve Gas “Red Line” misadventure. It is all downhill from here.

    The final fate of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert now awaits Pres. Obama.

     

    10 Responses to “HHS Secretary Sebelius is Baghdad Bob in Drag…”

    1. TMLutas Says:

      Depending on how bad the fallout is, this could salvage the GOP’s electoral chances even as it goes through a civil war between the establishment and the tea party.

    2. Bill Brandt Says:

      i heard something today that was the basis for all the trouble – all these contractors who were doing bits and pieces – it has never really been run with them all together and integrated – in which case the problems are almost insurmountable if you are looking at a timeline – the longer you go the less credibility they have.

    3. Dan from Madison Says:

      I don’t know much about computers compared to many that post here, but the very idea that you could build ANY website that will take into account all of the different browsers, operating systems, hardware, software, and all the rest is mind boggling to me. Then you take into account all of the different insurance companies running different platforms PLUS different doctors in different regions that make for different plans AND the fact that doctors are always moving back and forth among providers – what a recipe for disaster. I just can’t fathom that ONE website could handle all of it. And it apparently cannot.

      But this should be seized upon and drilled home that the Dems DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. Hubris won’t get the website up and running, as they seem to think. Time to make them own it.

    4. David Foster Says:

      Has anyone found a transcript of the Sibelius hearing anywhere?

    5. pst314 Says:

      “Hubris won’t get the website up and running, as they seem to think.”

      I think “up and running” is secondary to the main goal of destroying the old system.

    6. pst314 Says:

      Not just Sebelius: Virtually everyone in the Obama administration is a Baghdad Bob, including Obama.

    7. Tom Holsinger Says:

      The GOP and related blogosphere should be screaming that most group health policies will be terminated next year, just like most individual health policies are being terminated now, when the group policy exemption from mandates kicks in. This is true. Attention should be drawn to it.

    8. Tom Holsinger Says:

      Here is the _Forbes_ article by Avik Roy on the coming destruction of existing group health plans:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

      “Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare

      … The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

      Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

      How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans …”

    9. tomw Says:

      Does the reference to Ehud Olmert pertain to his trial for FRAUD?
      It has been said that the repeated statements by the President that “You can keep your policy, you can keep your doctor” are fraud by inducement.
      If that is the case… he really is following Olmert. I guess.
      A more pertinent question is: “What happens if there are not enough young participants {suckers} to pay the premiums in amount enough to support the oldsters in the system? Does it all die? Does the insurance cut payments? Do the policies get cancelled? Do the premiums rise astronomically?
      I think it would be a good idea to figure out a good way to ease out of the ACA should it be declared un-Constitutional due to any reason.
      The ‘taxes’ will soon be collected, and some will be ‘treated differently from others’, or another cause of action will be discovered.
      A simple automatic extension of existing contracts / policies for a specified time period would make for an easier transition from ACA… I think.
      tom

    10. Gospace Says:

      The comparison with Bush and Katrina is grossly unfair- to Bush. The Democrat mayor of New Orleans failed to carry out evacuation plans that the city had in place. The Democrat governor of Louisiana refused to allow federal asets to be be pre-positioned, and refused to allow federal troops in to pre-position before Katrina’s landfall. President Bush, had he ordered troops in in opposition to the governor would probably have faced impeahment hearings, because that’s how it works. Republican presidents are required to adher to the law, and if they do, and the results are sub-optimal- thay’re blamed for the results.

      Almost all of the reported violend in New Orleans that was blamed on Bush not getting troops there quickly enough- never happened. The vast majority of the American people probably still believe stories about rapes and rampant violence in the Superdome.

      The state and local authorities are responsible in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster to take charge and deterrmine priorities. The New Orleans police force had evacuated and took days to get it’s personnel back.

      The Coast Guard and Navy were on scene literally within hours after landfall engaging in search and rescue operatioons and evacuations. FEMA showed up within days. If the governor had allowed federal intervention prior to landfall, they’re response time wouled have been lessened by days. And Bush was blamed for the lagging response time. Which is actually what is called for in planning scenarios. Local forces first. State authorities second. Federal assets last.

      Neighboring Mississippi under Republican governor Haley Barbour was hit justt as hard, if not worse, by Katrina. Entire towns along the coast were flattened. Yet, problems there never made the media. Because even with the widespread destruction, state authorities executed their pre-existing plans, and co-ordinated with federal assets as they became available.

      If you’re going to blame the New Orleans debacle on Bush, then you would have to credit him with the Mississippi success, and then wonder how one man can simultaaneously execute a briliant response in one state, and a horrible one in the next. Or, you can look at the state government. Successful handling of a widesspread disaster in a Republican run state, and disasterous disaster handling in a Democrat run state.

      Current articles in wikipedia and other sources state the New Orleans mayor and Louisiana governor ordered mandatory evacuations. Thet don’t mention they were called a day late and a dollar short, more then 24 hours after teh NHS had recommended those measures.