Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Apparently this is not a parody

An Obamacare ad::



HT: Instapundit

37 comments:

  1. doyougotinsurance.com is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit.

    Wow, looks like the add works better than expected. They either didn’t count on all the little Egnors helping to spread the message, or their plan worked too well.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing is ever so over-the-top stupid, crass, and insulting that leftists will admit it rather than trying to defend it by looking for some way to deflect and attack - even if the only attack available is something as lame as trying the "Dysfunctional website just proves how popular it is, so there, durr hurr hurr!" excuse twice in less than two months.

      Delete
    2. It's a great add!

      Colo. Is signing up Insurance marketplace patients 30x the rate Massachusetts did when it opened its exchanges in 2007.


      -KW

      Delete
  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 7:28 AM

    More Than 1M Californians Having Insurance Cancelled Due To ACA
    --- CBS News

    [E]ven if it takes a change in the law, that the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they've got.
    --- Bill Clinton

    And was it only two weeks ago that I read this, right here in Egnor's comment section?

    Conservatives shot themselves in the foot, having gained nothing whatsoever. They lost a PR battle and tanked in the polls. The smell of Schadenfreude is sweet.
    --- A Hoots Toot

    Tanked in the polls? Did someone say tanked in the polls?

    President Obama has reached his lowest approval rating in any Quinnipiac University national poll since being elected president, with 39 percent of registered voters now approving of his job performance and 54 percent disapproving.

    Here's how this could have played out...

    President Jeebus McLIghtworker could have refrained from telling barefaced lies, multiple times at multiple venues, to get his way. He could have been birdogging the technical development of his eponymous and gargantuan software project widely regarded as his "signature achievement". Somewhere along the line, he cold have hired contractors with a good reputation, instead of contractors familiar with failure and cost overrun and, more importantly, Friends of Michelle. His team could have made appropriate technical decisions about architecture and testing instead of political decisions.

    If he had done these things, he would have known that Jeebuscare was not ready for prime time. Or any time, actually. He could have walked up to the podium, the bully pulpit, and said "Because I love this country and I have no desire to punish our aging WWII veterans who suffered living hell on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima, or punish the American people, I will compromise with the Republicans in Congress and delay - not defund! - delay the rollout of Jeebuscare. I want you all to remember when your insurance premiums are due every month that the Republicans are the cause of your pain. And it will only be a matter of time until I can rescue individual purchasers, as I have done for the unions and major corporations, from substandard policies, excessive premiums, costly sex-change operations, male maternity expenses, expensive slutware, unaffordable aromatherapy, and the risk of cancellation."

    But not only did President Jeebus McLightworker not compromise, he

    ...stressed to congressional leaders on Wednesday that he will not negotiate with Republicans."
    --- Reuters

    He would not even negotiate with those evil Teabagging Rethuglicans!!!

    Truly a profile in courage.

    Well....

    He's negotiating now...

    President Barack Obama heard an earful at the White House Wednesday from Senate Democrats running for re-election next year who are fuming about the Affordable Care Act’s rocky rollout... Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska [D] issued a release after the meeting torching the administration.

    Jeebus McLightworker, "Almost like a god!", eh?

    Heh.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all relative, Grandpa.

      Obama's lowest approval rating of 40 is way better than W's (25 percent). House Republicans have their approval rating in single digits.

      The "unpolular" President stumped for Terry McAuliffe in Virginia and Terry won.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 8:01 AM

      The Gallup daily tracking poll for November 5th 2013 puts Obama’s approval at 39 percent, with 53 percent disapproving of his job performance.

      By comparison, polling for the first week of November in 2005 had Bush’s approval at 40 percent, with 55 percent disapproving of his job performance.

      --- Yahoo News

      Delete
    3. Can't read, Grandpa? I compared the two presidents' lowest ratings, not the week of November 5.

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 8:09 AM

      I can read. I just thought I'd fix your stupid. But then I realized... Pintos and iPads.

      Delete
    5. Fix yours first, Grandpa. You don't have much time.

      Hoo

      Delete
  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM

    Push marketing Jeebuscare:

    The Obama administration is asking people frustrated by early application problems with HealthCare.gov to give the website a second chance.

    So they’re reaching back out to the earliest HealthCare.gov shoppers who may have given up on the broken website after the awful Oct. 1 launch, hoping they’ll try again.

    --- Politco

    "Dear Mr Bobby

    I am being Nigerian Minister of Public Heatlh in Nigeria and also as well qualified Jeebuscare Navigator. Your name was... etc."

    Yeah. It should work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Obama’s Massive Fraud: If he were a CEO in the private sector, he’d be prosecuted for such deception. By Andrew C. McCarthy on 11/9/13

    ‘If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.” How serious was this lie, repeated by Barack Obama with such beguiling regularity? Well, how would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?

    Fraud is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.

    Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual, recommend prosecution for fraud in situations involving “any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.” So, for example, if a schemer were intentionally to deceive all Americans, or a class of Americans (e.g., people who had health insurance purchased on the individual market), by repeating numerous times — over the airwaves, in mailings, and in electronic announcements — an assertion the schemer knew to be false and misleading, that would constitute an actionable fraud — particularly if the statements induced the victims to take action to their detriment, or lulled the victims into a false sense of security.

    For a fraud prosecution to be valid, the fraudulent scheme need not have been successful. Nor is there any requirement that the schemer enrich himself personally. The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.

    Continue reading at :"Obama’s Massive Fraud".

    ReplyDelete
  5. McCarthy: The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.

    Let's see. If I hit a pedestrian while driving a car and the pedestrian is actually harmed, this is the best evidence that I intended to hit him?

    That's a can of stupid.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

      Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and you are... full of shit.

      Delete
    2. The logic in that paragraph is totally idiotic. If it was written by an attorney, too bad for the attorney.

      Try a cogent argument for once, Grandpa.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. In any event, McCarthy is only venting. He understands full well that the President will not be prosecuted, not even impeached. What's even the point of this toothless article?

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 2:38 PM

      As if you, a silly troll, know anything about the law.

      Delete
    5. I didn't know you were a lawyer, Grandpa. SHow me how this even makes sense:

      The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.

      This makes no sense whatsoever. I explained why. Your counter argument?

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM

      You "explained" nothing because you don't know anything about the law. You're merely full of shit. Pass the bar. Then explain.

      Delete

    7. But then you can't determine whether I am right or wrong either, Grandpa. Unless you pass the bar.

      So shut up, old fart!

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 4:51 PM

      You're not even wrong, just full of shit.

      Delete
    9. Poor Grandpa, you can't even muster a semi-coherent argument. "Full of shit" is a good one for the third grade or nursing home, I suppose.

      Come on, dickless wonder, explain how the fact of inflicted harm can serve as "the best evidence" that the harm was intended. If you still don't get the stupidity of such a claim, try reading this comment again. Ask your nurse to read and explain it to you if necessary.

      Hoo

      Delete
    10. Let's see. If I hit a pedestrian while driving a car and the pedestrian is actually harmed, this is the best evidence that I intended to hit him?

      Because accidentally hitting a pedestrian with a car is exactly analogous to financial harm caused by fraud. Your nastiness doesn't make up for your ignorance, stupidity, and general worthlessness, Hoo. Just shut up and go away rather than embarrassing yourself by trying to play smart.

      Delete
    11. Oh, Deuce, long time no see. :)

      No analogy is perfect, but this one holds pretty well. How do you prove fraud in the first place? You have to prove intent to deceive. Fact of financial harm is not evidence of intent to deceive. Get that? I hope so.

      Try an argument this time, not a string of insults.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 14, 2013 at 7:22 AM

      Hoots: "Try an argument this time, not a string of insults."

      Hoots: "Come on, dickless wonder, explain how the fact of inflicted harm can serve as "the best evidence" that the harm was intended. If you still don't get the stupidity of such a claim, try reading this comment again. Ask your nurse to read and explain it to you if necessary. "

      Why would anyone argue with you about the law. You're just full of shit and don't know anything about the law. I have forgotten more about the law than you will ever know.

      But I tell you what, you cite the black-letter and case law governing financial fraud and the black-letter and case law governing motor vehicle law, and we'll talk.

      But I'm not worried. You're just full of shit.

      Delete
    13. Admiral: "Why would anyone argue with you about the law."

      And yet here you are, Grandpa, arguing that the law backs McCarthy, and not citing any. Just insisting that McCarthy is right and Hoo is wrong. An argument by assertion is a great argument! LOL

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. I'll start with Wikipedia, Grandpa. You ratchet it up to the USC if you so desire. :)

      In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.

      Intentional deception is key, Grandpa. Damage alone won't suffice.

      Further down:

      To establish a claim of fraud, most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be pled with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence).

      Damages suffered by plaintiff are just one of the elements (9). Intent to deceive is 3 through 5. Just proving damage is thus not enough.

      I eagerly await your next argument.

      Hoo

      Delete
    15. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 14, 2013 at 7:48 AM

      Hoots: "And yet here you are, Grandpa, arguing that the law backs McCarthy"

      I did? Where? Cite the text.

      "I'll start with Wikipedia..."

      I'll be sure to tell my wife to check Wikipedia before she next goes into court. :-)

      Wikipedia is not even a start, Hoots.

      You, kid, are full of shit. :-) Fun, but full of shit.


      Delete
    16. No argument still, Grandpa? Wikipedia is a pretty good starting point for lots of things. The great thing about it is that it is sourced. The nine elements required to establish fraud are sourced to a court case, Schnellmann v Roettger. See here, and scroll down to Part II. Fraud.

      Tell us some more about shit, Grandpa. :)

      Hoo

      Delete
    17. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 14, 2013 at 8:00 AM

      hoots: "Wikipedia is a pretty good starting point for lots of things."

      But not the law. But I'll be sure to mention your theory to Judge Hall next time he's over for dinner.

      Delete
    18. Can't you read, Grandpa? I cited the case from which Wikipedia takes its nine elements required to establish fraud.

      Linky

      Hoo

      Delete
    19. Poor old fart has painted himself into a corner. :))))

      Hoo

      Delete
    20. Nurse, vital signs check, stat!

      Hoo

      Delete
    21. So Grandpa has conceded that in South Carolina courts proving fraud requires to not only show the fact of damages to the plaintiff, but also of intent to deceive on the part of the defendant. Grandpa now claims that what works in South Carolina does not necessarily work in other states or in a federal court.

      It would be rather amazing if proving fraud required vastly different burden in different states and in federal courts. Grandpa doesn't cite any cases that would indeed prove that. So let's examine how things are in other states.

      Here is what an attorney from Michigan writes:

      To establish fraud, a plaintiff typically has the burden of proving each of the following elements:

      * The defendant made a representation of one or more material facts;
      * The representation was false when it was made;
      * The defendant knew the representation was false when the defendant made it, or defendant made it recklessly (i.e., without knowing whether or not it was true);
      * The defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff rely upon it;
      * The plaintiff relied upon the representation; and
      * The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the reliance.


      (end of quote)

      So, it's the same in Michigan. It is not enough to establish the fact of damages. One has to prove intent to deceive.

      Grandpa, you have two options now. One, you concede this point. Two, we keep going. You decide.

      Hoo

      Delete
    22. Here is how Virginia handles this:

      A litigant who prosecutes a cause of action for actual fraud must prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and knowingly, (4) with intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled, and (6) resulting damage to the party misled.

      Again, it isn't enough to establish the fact of damages. One must establish the intent to deceive.

      Come on, Grandpa, say something coherent.

      Hoo

      Delete
    23. Grandpa is silent. Poor bastard.

      Let's go federal!

      While the exact wording of fraud charges varies among state and federal laws. the essential elements needed to prove a fraud claim in general include: (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) by a person or entity who knows or believes it to be false; (3) to a person or entity who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation; and (4) actual injury or loss resulting from his or her reliance.

      There we go again: one must prove intent to deceive, not just the fact of damages.

      Hoo

      Delete
  6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyNovember 13, 2013 at 3:34 PM

    Looks like negotiations are over:

    On Wednesday morning, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) announced that he was co-sponsoring a bill to allow individuals who buy their own insurance to stay on their current health care plans indefinitely rather than be forced into better regulated plans through the newly created exchanges....

    [T]op [House Democrat] aides were warning of a swarm of potential defections should the Obama administration not introduce its own administrative fix for the issue of canceled health insurance plans by the end of the week.

    --- HuffPo

    The natives are restless. The drums are ominous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dems have no clue how to circle the wagons.

      -KW

      Delete