Did the President Lie About Obama Care – The Affordable Health Care Act? If He Did Lie, Who Else Knew That You Could Not Keep Your Plan or Doctor?

The South Florida Sun Sentinel asks the question this morning: “Did Obama Blatantly Lie About Keeping Your Doctor Under Obama Care?” – and the answer from the paper’s, Gary Stein, is a resounding – yes.. One might also turn to the national NBC News article where it is revealed that the administration knew “millions could not keep their health insurance” – for three years prior to its implementation.” For those who understand the President has said, on numerous occasions, that one would not lose their insurance plan nor their doctor, it does appear as if he did, indeed, lie to the American People, however, the question should be asked: “Who else knew that one might not keep their insurance plan, or that their doctor was not about to accept patients under Obama Care? “: -

That answer is: every Congressional Representative, and every Senator – they had the bill, they had oodles of time to read the bill and should have been screaming from the rooftops in each and every hamlet that this plan was going to tug at the emotions, finances and general trust in government by those millions and millions who now find that they are losing both.

As the President’s team starts to go into “damage control”, the line is that one might not keep their “sub-standard” plan. The term sub-standard applies to any plan that does not meet the minimum requirements of additional mandates added to the program. For example, living in Massachusetts under “Romney Care”, one is obliged to carry infertility benefits in their plan, regardless of gender or age. The reason: the increase in insurance premiums that are collected by the insurance carriers (big business), on plans for individuals who do not need the coverage, pays for those who do! Some of the benefits mandated may seem medically unnecessary – however, in an attempt to please everyone, those who are socially liberal will mandate just about anything imaginable. – It is simply not fair. The nations workers already pay taxes for Medicaid – which is for coverage of those who cannot afford it, this type of mandate becomes a second or hidden tax.

Every single one of those Senators and Congressmen and women who supported this bill, or who allowed it to go through the last budget standoff (otherwise known as the government shut-down) knew about this – Those who were screaming to Defund Obama Care knew about it – Ted Cruz warned, Mike Lee warned, and their “Tea Party” crazy friends and allies – they knew too – they just wanted to let the America People know.

Now we know.

Did we expect a President to lie to the American People? If the answer to that is no, then one has a short memory – or has no reference in history. Nixon famously said “I am not a crook”, Bill Clinton “Did not have sexual intercourse with that woman”, Republican and Democrat alike, they both lied to the public. They both were chastised; Nixon resigned in disgrace and Bill Clinton was impeached, but forgiven in the long run. Assuming that all things are equal, then one would understand that this should be an impeachable offence, however, one would have to impeach: Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Congresswoman from San Francisco’s district, John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House, John McCain, former Republican Presidential Candidate, and so on and so on.

Since that’s not quite possible, one might also take their angst out at the voting booth – One might ask the important question of their Congressman or Senator, or Presidential Candidate, if they voted for either Obama Care outright, or if they voted to fund the government, and then Obama Care – if the answer is yea, then vote for the other candidate, Republican or Democrat, Tea Party or Progressive, Independent or Green Party – replace the incumbent who knew exactly what they were doing to a huge segment of the American People.

One cannot vote President Obama out of office, he’s a “lame duck” or in his final term and cannot run again (regardless of the conspiracy theorists). He may lose the trust of the American People (some of them) – but vote for the individual who might have wanted to fix the plan, start over and keep segments in place, but not fund the darn thing. Those that think that Ted Cruz was wrong to point out that the plan was a problem for millions, like potential 2016 presidential candidate and former 2012 Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, or Senator Elizabeth Warren of MA who clearly voted to fund the program, or anyone of their ilk, should not be given a glance – it should be the individuals who stood to uphold the Constitution, those crazy people who would rather have millions enjoy the freedom to choose their own plans, while funding a plan for those who could not afford one – a system that is already in place.

The media is already being clearly careful in its reporting on the issues (See the analysis here by Reuters this morning. Therefore, which suggests thousands might be affected, rather than millions, but does it really matter? It was the fact that from the President on down, throughout the hallowed halls of the Senate and the Congress, they knew – and they all lied to the public.

Gallup Predicts “Unprecedented” Change in Political Landscape – Republican’s Take Historical Lead Over Democrat Counterparts in Latest Poll

Gallup released its poll on the “Generic Ballot” yesterday, showing an “Unprecedented 10-Point Lead” for the GOP. The “Generic Ballot” is a general survey which indicates how voters will choose which by Party, the candidate they prefer when at the ballot box. The Survey, which has been conducted by Gallup since 1942, is historical in the fact that Republican and Democrat gains during mid-term elections are anticipated, however, in certain years, these gains are significant; Gallup specifically notes 1994 and 2002 in their release. According to Gallup in both 1994 and 2002, years that Republicans took significant numbers of seats in both houses, the Generic Gallup had Republicans with a 5 point lead over Democrats in both of those mid-terms. In 2006, when the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, Gallup polls in August (among other pollsters shown at pollingreport.com), gave the Democrats a 2 point lead over their Republican Counterparts in August.

Gallup is one of the most “conservative” (meaning cautious) pollsters – normally trending with smaller spreads than other pollsters on all subjects, including the Daily Presidential Tracking polls. Therefore, this particular Gallup poll is historically significant, and should November play out as predicted, the shift in the Political landscape at the Capital will signal not only a change in political parties but a rejection of the policy and legislation that has been passed by this Congress since 2006. The largest lead in Gallup history goes to the Democrat Party, which held a 32 point lead over Republicans in 1974. At that time, the mood of the country was dismal – President Nixon and Watergate dominated the news – Democrats took both Houses, and in the next election, a little known, inexperienced one term Governor from the State of Georgia, was elected to the Presidency - one Jimmy Carter. One note: these wide gaps in polls were also taken pre-1990 or prior to the “information age” – the only news outlets were traditional media: CBS, NBC, ABC and the local daily newspapers. In the 2006 and 2008 election, Democrats held the edge on new media, specifically Internet, and yet the Generic Ballot from 1994 onwards shows this election to be the only one trending “double digits”.

Included in the Gallup is a second poll on “Voter Enthusiasm”. Polls on Voter Enthusiasm give a general view of which party is likely to “get out the vote” in numbers sufficient to either take a lead and or hold onto house and Senate seats. The gap in Voter Enthusiasm is also high by percentage and it speaks to the mood of the nation overall. This poll is taken by party affiliation: Republicans are now at a 25 point lead in enthusiasm over their Democrat counterparts, which Gallup notes is a one-point lead. Gallup Conservatism).

How will this play out in November? Historically one must understand that midterms normally signal a change in the “guard” in the Congress, and sometimes in the Senate as well. Polling at Real Clear Politics, which offers a margin based on a wide range of polls taken over a period of time: The current trends indicate the following (based on this method): The Senate: Democrats 48 Safe Seats, Republicans 44 Safe Seats, with 8 seats noted as “toss-ups”, the House: 194 Democrats “Safe”, 206 Republicans “Safe” and 35 seats noted as “tossups” (Note: This includes only 1 of the 10 seats in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts- where at least 4 of the House Seats are competitive.)

Lastly, the Governors, which are perhaps more critical than both the House and Senate Polls – show the Democrats with 15 “safe”, the GOP with “26” safe and “9” States that are, at present a “Toss-up”. The Governors races are important for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is indicative of the 2012 Presidential race and which party might be favored during that year. In 2006 a total of 36 seats were in play, with Democrats taking 6 of the Governorships over the GOP.

In terms of polls, the Gallup, which has been consistent over the years, is the one to watch on the Generic Ballot in the next two months – should the Republican’s remain at 5 to 10 point lead, then it is certain that that the majority Party in the Congress will be one that has campaigned on lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and a smaller Federal Government. Victory on this magnitude on the side of the GOP, may play out in several ways, one of which would be to begin the repeal process of unpopular legislation put into play, and ensure that no further spending projects are allowed out of the House. Should the Presidency fall to the GOP in 2012, this would insure the repeal of unpopular legislation and the remaking of certain legislation to affect choices for the American Public as regards health care.

To those who would believe that the damage done to our great nation is irreparable and will take decades to undo – take heart and look to history for guidance. What has been done, can be undone by the stroke of a pen, in years, not decades. Whoever takes the executive branch in 2012 will be faced with difficult decisions, including the possibility of tax increases for a short period followed by across the board tax cuts(see Ronald Reagan), in order to quickly put the economy on the road to recovery. Those who have lived history understand that this can and will happen, those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it (i.e. Carter vis a vis Obama).

Afghanistan – In For the Long Haul – Troop Increases On the Rise – Historical Comparisons to the Viet Nam Conflict.

As military analysts make their assessment of the War in Afghanistan, the overall scope of the Operation has a dismal forecast. (Washington Post) The costs and time in-country are expected to exceed that of the Iraq War, and U.S. troop levels, now at 29,000, (NATO forces making up the bulk of the 61,000 troops), could see significant increases dependent upon the reports due later this month by the Head of U.S. Operations, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. The administrations, National Security Advisors, James Jones, on CBS “Face The Nation”:

"I don't think we're at a crisis level where there is any move by the Taliban to overthrow the government," Jones said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

But he said Washington would not rule out an additional increase in U.S. troop levels to secure the country.

Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has an unforgiving climate and geography that has made that country, to date, impossible to conquer. An interesting point of view from The Pakistan Dailysuggests that the administration’s foray into Afghanistan (which is dubbed the “Graveyard of Empires”), will require 500,000 troops, and that does not guarantee success. The author is basing his assessment on the history of the nation, and the Eastern perspective of the U.S. incursion into that country.

The comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam have been based on the level of troops and the likelihood of a successful outcome. From a January , 2009 piece in Newsweek, the consensus based on the article was that this war was not at all like Viet Nam, due to troop levels at the time. That said, with a reduction in military spending, an increase in troops, and an attempt to bolster the Afghani forces and win the hearts and minds of its citizens, sound eerily similar to the tactics taken by the Kennedy Administration in the early stages of the Viet Nam War. The situation escalated under Johnson, with the assessment by those in the same position as McChrystal, that additional troops would be needed to keep the peace. The difference between Afghanistan today and Vietnam is the military. At that point, there were insufficient numbers of volunteer military so the draft was reinstated. Should, at some point, the number of volunteer military be insufficient in fighting the Afghanistan War (the ratio of troops to population should be 20.1 or 600,000 on the ground), there would be no choice but to call up those who have registered for Selective Service. In the final analysis, as is usual (post Viet Nam) it will be the U.S. citizenry that will gauge how soon this particular war is ended. The Iraq War divided the nation, and insured (in part) the election of Barak Obama as he promised to pull troops out of Iraq (duly noted and achieved for the most part). The U.S. Press and the populace were fully complicit in the desire to end the Iraq conflict, while Barack Obama pointed out that the U.S. real interest lay in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were camped -a just war of sorts, which has been given a great deal of positive press, to date.

However, should the theater become unmanageable (based again on historical trends and geography), and troop levels increase, with fatalities fast outstripping those of the Iraq conflict, then the comparison would be justified, and history would have, once again proven a point. That said, history, although unkind to Johnson’s predecessor, Richard Nixon, must concede that he was elected based on ending the Viet Nam War, and he did so. It is the arrogance of those that believe they are able to ignore the consequences of the past, in self-righteousness and campaign promises of the present, that may, unfortunately, prove history rules the day.