« | »

Bill Clinton Explains Obama-Care (For How Much?)

From Reuters:

‘Secretary of explaining stuff’ Clinton stumps for Obamacare

By Roberta Rampton | September 4, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former President Bill Clinton attempted on Wednesday to cut through confusion and worries about the new U.S. healthcare law, telling Americans they will be better off with Obamacare and urging opponents to make the best of it. Clinton said the health of the nation depends on a successful rollout of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law.

Oh, that cuts through the confusion, all right. And it certainly relieves our concerns.

The program has been hampered by technical delays, fears about costs, and relentless pressure from Republicans who want to repeal it…

So the only problem with Obama-Care are some technical glitches, some unfounded fears about costs and the disinformation campaign by the mean spirited Republicans.

Obama dubbed Clinton the "secretary of explaining stuff" a year ago after the former Democratic president gave a rousing prime time defense of Obama’s economic policies at the Democratic National Convention.

Yes, thanks to Mr. Clinton’s "rousing" speech we no longer have to worry about Obama’s economic policies. They all make perfect sense now.

Debate over Obamacare is still raging a month before new health insurance exchanges go live. The White House enlisted Clinton to try to turn the page on the rancor over Obama’s signature law, and kick off the push to get uninsured Americans to sign up for coverage.

Questioning a new government entitlement that even top Democrats call a ‘train wreck’ is now "rancor" according to Reuters?

It is part of a broad outreach strategy by the White House to encourage community groups, businesses and celebrities to raise awareness about exchanges, which open October 1…

How much is Clinton getting? His standard speaking fee these days is up to $700,000 a pop.

Clinton acknowledged problems with the law, which requires Americans to have insurance or pay a penalty. He said Americans will be better off when more people have coverage under a program he argued will begin to reduce the staggeringly high cost of health insurance.

In other words he lied. What a shock. (By the way, did he bring up his strict veganism?)

"There are always drafting errors, unintended consequences, unanticipated issues," Clinton said in a speech from his presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas…

Except all of these problems (and more) were predicted even before the law was passed. Besides, the biggest problems with Obama-Care are the intended consequences.

Still, it’s pretty sad that Obama needs Bill Clinton to sell us on Obama-Care when he has the news media and even the Baltimore Ravens.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, September 5th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

12 Responses to “Bill Clinton Explains Obama-Care (For How Much?)”

  1. untrainable says:

    There are always drafting errors, unintended consequences, unanticipated issues,” Clinton said in a speech from his presidential library and massage parlor

    There are always drafting errors because the people who draft the laws aren’t thinking individuals. And the people who vote for laws with drafting errors don’t know that there are drafting errors because they don’t READ THE FREAKIN BILL BEFORE THEY PASS IT. If we were a functioning representative republic and the people in power actually had the best interests of the American people in mind rather than their own lust for more and more power, maybe there wouldn’t ALWAYS be drafting errors and (un)intended consequences that threaten to finally destroy the smoking ruins of our constitution.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I once worked for a LtCol who, it would seem, was the quintessential politician. He was not a “detail man” and hated that pesky details would stand in the way of doing/getting what he wanted.

      Often times I would be forced to explain those details whereupon his eyes would go glossy and he’d be lost in one of his fantasies.

      He once said, “You have a very negative attitude, lieutenant; You keep coming up with ways things CAN’T be done instead of how they CAN be done”.

      Well, very often what he wanted done violated regs, rules or convention and it was partly my job to inform him of that so he didn’t get his butt in a crack. But, in a crack it went anyhow. I couldn’t protect him and didn’t want to anyhow.

      I think over the years this “can-do” meme has arisen from a logical gung-ho, never-say-die attitude to one of “do-it-at-all-costs” instead. This is because the ante has been raised from those who really could get things done through ethical means to people who now want that same praise, but fail to understand how to play by the rules.

      Another expression I heard while on active duty often enough, “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin'”. That used to rub me the wrong way pretty hard.

      So….what has been put in the water is a whole bunch of these types into the bell-curve of the population who have no ethics and are in it for themselves and their “friends” are all just political allies, not real friends in the correct sense of the word.

      Again, ROME.

      Humans, given the chance to embrace God and learn from the bible did so for awhile but it’s become passe’ apparently, even having some factions of Christianity embracing socialism due to misinterpreting the word of God. Shame, that. Sad too.

      Our descent into this arbitrary world of oneupmanship is directly linked to our lost path of righteousness. The complete ignoring of our Judeo-Christian ethic base has resulted in where we are now. Unable to distinguish right from wrong as a society.

      Sorry to sound preachy….but….inasmuch as I’m not a very strong follower of the The Word, I happen to base my understanding of right and wrong via its contents. Society now prefers to seek its margins via the doings of Lady Gag-gag or Miley Cypress tree. We talk to each other the way Dave Letterman does to guests…and we’re all smartasses.

      If it wasn’t for the lack of technology, I’d almost love to go back to 1952

    • Petronius says:

      Rusty: “If it wasn’t for the lack of technology, I’d almost love to go back to 1952.”

      Damn straight. I hate to sound like Grandpa Goodolddays, but compare America in the 1950’s to today.  Was it better then or now? The people? The general level of intelligence? The manners, mores, customs, fashions, and entertainment?  The middle class?  Our cities? Crime? Our schools? Churches? Courts?  Our currency and coinage?  Our industrial base?  Global standing? The Constitution? The English language and the level of political discourse?

      Fast forward one decade at a time to the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, etc.  Are we getting better or getting worse?  Apart from science and technology, and the resulting economic growth, you can see an unmistakable decline steadily taking place.  Almost all other institutions and elements of society are unraveling. There was a nice, strong blip on the chart in the 1980’s, but it appears to have been temporary in nature, the last gasp of a civilization in terminal decay.

      When you change the trees in the forest, it is no longer the same forest.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      I added this video to one of my YouTube channel playlist last week.

      1952 Day In The Life Of A 1950’s Small Town
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqe4W08124M

  2. Noyzmakr says:

    He once said, “You have a very negative attitude, lieutenant; You keep coming up with ways things CAN’T be done instead of how they CAN be done”.

    That reminded me of something I heard a constitutional lecturer say.

    [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

  3. GetBackJack says:

    Lay that pipe, Bill, lay that pipe …!!!

  4. captstubby says:

    over time when i would get involved with the “how could you belong to a faith that created the horrible Crusades?” crowd,

    in one form or other, and to be honest, a mix of past readings,
    i would answer;
    “when a man does something contrary to his religions teachings,
    blame the man,not the religion.”
    this may not be official theology,
    but it works for me.

    • Petronius says:

      Ah, the Crusades! Were you there, too?

      How I loved whacking the barbarians alongside Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin the Leper!

      Those were the days, my friend!

  5. captstubby says:

    so long ago.
    were you the third guy on the right with the scar?

  6. captstubby says:

    “Fast forward one decade at a time to the 1960′s, ”

    again, from my files, origin unknown.

    “… white workingmen when they go home from work, they enter another world—the community of the neighborhood, of their kin, of their ethnic groups. And this home-community world is no longer under any control they can affect.
    In the age of experiment, as social theorists press government on to ends yet untested, it is the white workingman whose sense of community is most abused. From the tree-shaded streets of suburbia, the white middle class can insulate itself—by zoning and money—from the stress and strain of experiment, from the fear of violence. The white workingman and the white poor feel defenseless against such experiments; and since the cutting edge of all such experiments is the clash of black and white, the experiments seem to subject them, as powerless test-tube material, to an intermingling of race for which nothing in their education has prepared them. It is their neighborhoods that must be broken up by public housing that will drive them out and install blacks; it is their children, not middle-class children, who must be bussed; it is the streets on which their old ladies walk to midnight mass that become dangerous because of purse-snatchers; it is they who must, in their lives, pay in daily worries for the guilt of white slavers centuries ago. The fathers of these workingmen had come from Europe a generation ago, or they themselves had fled the South. What they had earned—the fat paycheck, the house, the school, the quiet neighborhood—they had earned by playing the rules. Now, from Washington,years, the rules had been undergoing change. But change not for the rich or the well-to-do or the comfortable—only for them, and for their communities.”

  7. canary says:

    I’m thinking of a catch phrase for Obama Care I can smart off to doctors with; doctors who think patients work for them; doctors who don’t realize they work for and are paid for by patients; doctors who lie that hurdles of b.s. they put the patients through are the law when there is not really a law; doctors who think they own their patients.

    “It’s not Obama Care yet” is just not good enough. And “It’s not Russia yet” doesn’t sound right.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »