Remember when Obama Lied about his position on Gay Marriage to get elected?

Another ObamaCare Fail: You MAY NOT be keeping the Doctor you like after all.

 

As Obamacare was being pushed through Congress in 2010, the Obama administration and its allies were unequivocal in two claims: If you like your doctor and you like your current health care plan, you can keep them both. 

 HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the president fully in this regard. The White House even went so far as to post a "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" on its website, where "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors."  President Obama upped the ante, putting the promise in the form of a "guarantee":

THE PRESIDENT: Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change what doesn't work in the system.

While there has been sniping back and forth between the administration and its detractors about the real-world application and implementation of Obamacare, the new Healthcare.gov website has taken some of the mystery out of the controversy.  And President Obama and his administration do not fare well in this latest "reality check."  Among the questions that HHS recently added to the website: "Can I keep my own doctor?":

"Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor."  The bottom line is that Obamacare guarantees neither. Doctors may be only available through certain networks, just as in the current system.  And only plans that existed in their current form on March 23, 2010, are even eligible to be "kept." The vast majority of plans will be new, subject to a raft of new regulations, requirements, and restrictions.
Now that Health and Human Services has confirmed that the suspicions of Obamacare opponents were justified, the Obama administration will have some explaining to do to friends and foes of the law alike. Because now everyone is finding out "what's in it."

The Weekly Standard

Was Benghazi a Hostage Taking Gone Wrong?

 

by Kevin DuJan / Hill Buzz

Kevin Dulan accuses the Obama administration of deliberately attempting to stage a hostage-taking in Benghazi as part of a manufactured “October Surprise” that Obama intended to make himself look great on the foreign stage in the lead up to the election.  The plan — if you were paying attention — was set in motion at the Democrats’ convention in Charlotte in early September when repeated mentions of Obama as a “foreign policy president” were made.  This was timed to lead up to September 11th…when deliberately lowered security at the Benghazi consulate (and OTHER consulates and embassies in the Mideast) was supposed to encourage Muslims to take Americans hostage like they did in 1979.  Only, Obama’s plan was to negotiate their quick released by trading the “Blind Sheik” from the 1993 World Trade Center bombings for any Americans taken hostage on 9/11/2012.

 

The plan was to make Obama look like “a badass” and a to have him revel in this through October and into the November election.  In fact, the hostages were probably planned for release not long before the Foreign Policy Debate (the last of the three presidential debates this year) in Boca Raton, Florida.  This was supposed to show Obama standing up to Muslims, negotiating “peace”, and proving to the world what an effective and strong leader he was.
Only…it blew up in his face and the administration has been in overdrive trying to cover this stuff up ever since.

The only way any of this makes any sense, including the deliberate lowering of security and the disregard of Ambassador Chris Steven’s multiple pleas for help on the ground in Libya in the weeks prior to his murder, is that Barack Obama WANTED a hostage situation to happen so he could “look presidential by resolving it in October”… but the Muslims in Libya went overboard and killed people instead of just taking them hostage.
This also explains why no effort was made to even look for the Ambassador and others missing from the consulate for many hours:  Obama’s gang just assumed he was taken hostage as planned and were STUNNED to learn the ambassador was murdered.

Why else would Obama go to sleep so casually at 3am that night if he didn’t think things were just going according to plan…but when he woke up at 11am the next day he found that all Hell broke loose instead.

And then the coverup began.

Read More: Hill Buzz

CBS Busts Obama in Benghazi Cover-Up

 

by Joel B. PollakBig Government

CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack--and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming protests against an anti-Islam video. CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month--but did air Obama’s attack on Romney that same night.

READ MORE: Breitbart Big Government

Obama Campaign 'Inflated' Jobs Claims (by Over 4 Million)

By Tom Blumer NewsBusters

Obama’s Inflated Jobs Claim
In a new TV ad, President Obama makes an inflated claim to have added 5.2 million new jobs. The total added during his time in office is actually about 325,000.
In the ad, the president says “over 5 million new jobs” while the figure “5.2 million” appears on screen. But that’s a doubly misleading figure.
Viewers would need to pay close attention to the on-screen graphic to know that the ad refers only to employment gains starting in March 2010, omitting the 4.3 million jobs that were lost in the first year of Obama’s term.
And there’s no way a viewer would know that the total counts only private-sector jobs, omitting continuing losses in government employment.

Read More: NewsBusters

Funny Obama Fail Cartoons

Net job impact of stimulus zero, from SF Federal Reserve study

By August, 2010, the impact of the stimulus on net job creation had disappeared.  This is an astounding result, which destroys the Paul Krugman argument that the economy would be so much better right now, if only Congress had approved much more spending in February 2009.  Double the initial spending,  double the number of temporary jobs, with likely the same net result by this point in time, or a trivial number of "permanent  jobs created .  In fact, the unemployment rate is at a substantially higher percentage rate today at 9.8% than when the stimulus bill was passed. 


READ MORE


Courtesy: The American Thinker