On the Hannity program of Dec. 6 2013 guest Katy Pavlich sparred with a democrat of Thinkprogress.com. He said, referring to Obama’s statement “if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance”, that it was an “overly broad statement”. My initial thought was, “seriously I thought it was a lie.”
After further thought I decided to try and determine if the Obama statement should be called a lie. A lie, especially one of this significance alleged against the most politically significant person in the world, should be defined in a stringent manner. The seriousness of the charge demands there be no mistake that this incidence of reality not conforming to rhetoric was not just a misspeak of some kind. In this context a “lie” would be a deception that is intentional. The question then must be asked, how would we know if this was an intentional deceit? If it was discovered that there was previous knowledge in the administration of the damaging results of Obamacare, including the loss of insurance by millions, and still the President continued to state that “you can keep your health care” was true, it might be the deciding factor. Well, voila! Guess what we precisely do know now?
To be fair, the term “overly broad statement” should also be defined. What might something like that be? How about this? “K.C. Chiefs running back Jamaal Charles ran for 160 yards in last week’s game” when in fact he had only run for 150 yards. The difference here is that this statement could easily be attributed to a mistake in math or communication.
If both of those terms are applied to the Obama statement it is indeed “an overly broad statement”. It is also a lie. There is simply no getting around it now that we know this administration had advance knowledge of this misinformation. Furthermore it is a terribly damaging lie because it has caused immense suffering and will cause more!
Of course another explanation could be offered. It could be that the President actually thought he was telling the truth and didn’t really know people would lose their insurance and not be able to keep their doctors even if they liked them. It’s possible, but not likely for many reasons. One of those reasons is that to believe Obama didn’t know the ills of his signature legislation before it was passed is to believe that he is grossly incompetent. He is incompetent either because he did not require those who did know in his regime to keep him informed, or he told them he didn’t want to know, or his staff withheld the information from him. Additionally, if he told his underlings he didn’t want to know it would mean he didn’t care about Obamacare not working or how it hurt others as a result. So Obama is either incompetent, ignorant, or insensitive, or a combination of all three!
However, it is likely Obama did know the failings that we know his underlings were aware of. I don’t believe he was ignorant or incompetent. Of the three possibilities, Obama being insensitive is the most likely. If that is the case, it is even worse than having an incompetent President because it means we have a malevolent one. It means Obama is a leader who doesn’t care who suffers as long as he furthers his own agenda to “fundamentally transform” our nation. It could mean, as some have suggested, that the abysmal performance of Obamacare was intentional so as to make a stronger case for a “single-payer” health care system. This would fit the fact that Obama has also stated back in 2008 that he was a “proponent of single payer” for health care. I believe Obama is viewing the fate of Obamacare as a win/win situation. If Obamacare fails then he can offer single-payer as a rescue plan. If it succeeds, then it can be a stepping stone to single-payer while the Feds are getting some practice controlling America’s health care system, and make no mistake, that is the ultimate object of all of this, the acquisition of power and control. Once a single-payer system is implemented, such control will be total, and there might be little, if anything, anyone can do about it.
There is but one way to avoid such servitude. Obamacare must be repealed and replaced by a free-market oriented alternative. Several such alternatives have been proposed and any one of them would better than Obamacare. We who call ourselves “conservative” should be pushing hard for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare for the sake of ourselves, and future generations. Our very freedom is on the line right here, right now. Will we fight to preserve it or give in to the power in D.C.? The ball is now in our court.