Bill of Goods

Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

President Obama sold the U.S. a bill of goods concerning Obamacare. He knew 93 million people would lose their health-care plans, many would lose their doctors, premiums would rise, and doctors and major hospitals would not accept those on Medicaid.

But who cares; he is the first black president, and he gets to keep his health-care plan.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Outrageous racial allegation? Well, if it were untrue, wouldn't it spark mirth rather than outrage? Taboo rhymes with true... coincidence? No one wants to see a propaganda hog in the mirror, or a two-legged herd animal. OK, that's not you, but boy is there never any shortage!

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(Oh, c'mon, peeps, some of you WERE outraged, right?)

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Death to pedestals!

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Thorn as usual makes little sense. I tried to parse this sentence: "He is the first black president, and he gets to keep his health-care plan." -- uh, because he's black he gets to keep it?? That's a racist insinuation I guess. But these Thornbirds babble the Tea Party line so assiduously one can't even get exercised about that. Anyway, Diana, the Republicans shafted the original Obamacare idea when they forced the President into giving up on the single-payer option. Obama blew it two years ago when he blinked.
The current ACA is in the throes of a difficult birth, but your assertion "He knew 93 million people would lose their health-care plans" is a lunatic attack. Please note: "Obamacare" is not the law of the land, the ACA (a very different beast than the original idea) is the law of the land. Your Tea Party idiots went wild to stop it, Sen. Cruz etc., not caring that they cost and are costing millions of Americans a lot of money, and as Sen L. Graham (R) sagely observed, the House Tea Party fanatics managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I specifically recall Obama stating that, yes, young and healthy citizens might have to pay more. It is what it is.
Why do you bring up the "black" term, here, Diana? Please clarify, if you dare.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Really, Indy? You gave space to this simple-minded racist letter?

SBthinksso (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I rather enjoy her Tea Party/conspiracy blather and think the Indy should give her a regular column, sort of a "Pet Psychic" for political loons.

Like the theories promoted by other fringe types and conspiracy buffs, these sort of messages, racially tinged and largely unintelligible, usually have the opposite of their intended effect.

zappa (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agree, zappa.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The letter is not racist, I have no idea whether the author is racist or not but you would not be able to say for certain simply by reading this letter that she is racist.

What she is insinuating is at minimum that people may have been willing to overlook the possible downsides to an Obama Presidency because it would mean a big step forward in race relations in this country to elect a black President. In other words, many people didn't really want government getting more involved in health care in the way that Obama was planning, there were many who were more interested in showing how much our country has progressed by electing a black President. So she is actually accusing many of those who elected Obama of using race in their decision to vote for him. Whether she is racist or not does not even hinge in the truth of this claim, it's just an opinion.

I am especially frustrated that our country was willing to elect Obama for a second term after his horrendous foreign policy that put Bush's war mongering to shame, with increasing drone strikes and increasing death tolls of innocent people. Then you have Bush who ran as a conservative before him and ended up doubling the size of government. It really goes to show that it doesn't matter if you vote for the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left, our overseas empire will continue to expand and our domestic government will continue to expand and strangle the market.

The other frustrating thing is to listen to progressives say that every single American should have the "right" to quality affordable healthcare and in the same breath perform actions that will make health care lower quality and less affordable!! Health care is, in my opinion if you look at total cost, at least 10 times more expensive than it should be if not more. This is because the majority of people get their insurance through their company or government, their insurance covers everything and tells them where to go and what to do and so individuals are UNABLE to go out and seek quality, affordable health care because they are told where to go and how much to pay. This is not a market at all, you need a market with prices where there is competition in order for prices to go down - otherwise you just have some dictator or insurance company or medical industrial complex determining how much they want to charge you. That's where we are today, and that is why health care is so expensive.

People in the lower middle class are seeing 30-40% increases in their premiums and higher deductibles. This is not a surprise for those of us who understand how markets work and how government intervention like this destroys these markets. This is going to be a huge burden for everybody.

The only person in D.C. who really understands these concepts and who also wants to help curtail or foreign empire, protect our Civil Liberties and stop spying on everybody is Senator Rand Paul. He will be running for President in 2016.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obamacare is not going to destroy health care, they destroyed health care in the 1970s when they decided to give huge tax incentives to corporations who offered their employees health care, the goal being to 'get more people insured'. This all created the problem I described above, nobody shops for health care, nobody shops for doctors, nobody shops for prescription drugs. You get a job and based on that your insurance company tells you what to do and where to go and how much to pay.

If this concept doesn't make sense, imagine if everybody was told what grocery store they HAD to shop at. You go to the grocery store and milk costs $15/gallon. So you go to a different grocery store to check the price of milk and they say, "Oh, sorry, we don't take your insurance". Is it starting to make sense yet why health care in this country costs so much?? There is literally no competition. This is not because of the market of health care, this is due to government intervention in health care dating back from the 1970s.

The result was that it significantly drove up the cost of health care and has made it completely unaffordable. Obamacare is just going to magnify the problem further and not only bankrupt our country, but many individuals, especially the middle class.

Most Republicans and conservatives DO NOT really comprehend this problem. Rand Paul does.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

zappa, we have enough idiots with their own column/talkshow/'news' program. Not only does she let her 'true colors' show regarding her racism, she is asserting that 1/3 of the population lost their healthcare which is beyond misleading. It's wrong, false, a lie. That's what you get when you listen to fox/alex jones/limbaugh/beck and a whole slew of other non-truthers, a bunch of 'white lies'.

spacey (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Um, spacey, again what she said was not racist at all... Just because somebody describes the color of another person's skin doesn't mean they are racist, you will have to explain why her statement was racist. And I've already explained why it isn't.

I don't know if the number is exactly 91 million, but tens of millions of people have definitely lost their health insurance plans are are being forced to sign up for plans that are 30-40% more expensive with fewer benefits. Fact. Deal with it, read my posts and learn why that is happening instead of bitching about Tea Partiers. Bitching about Tea Partiers is not going to make our country better.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When somebody calls the president a socialist, communist, hitler, it makes one think 'why' when none of it is true. Could it be his skin color? think about it. As well loon, your 'Fact' is proved false right here:
So, who do you trust? Insurance companies? Politicians? good luck.

spacey (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

exposing Tea Partiers false numbers [93 million HA HA!], crazed logic, and lack of real patriotism isnt "Bitching about Tea Partiers", loon. And oh my, such an unlovely term.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at noon (Suggest removal)

"The letter is not racist, I have no idea whether the author is racist or not but you would not be able to say for certain simply by reading this letter that she is racist."

Actually, yes it is and yes she is.

Context is everything. To say, sarcastically, that people are willing to overlook this problem because the president is black makes it about race.

You don't have to be a card-carrying white supremacist to be a racist. All you have to do is: (1) believe that the black president "sold us a bill of goods" and (2) believe that the reason he'll get away with it because of his race. That's exactly what she does here.

SBthinksso (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All you have to do is take this letter in context with all the other Thorn missives and you paint a picture of someone who needs to revisit the dentist.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Each day we are learning more about how President Obama lied to
us about Obamacare. He gave the white House, including himself, a
waiver from Obamacare. Like all the other corruptions that happened
before the Obamacare web site failure, it is questionable whether he
will admit responsibility or be held accountable. Everyone is afraid to
confront him, because he is the first black president. Never mind that
he is part white and arab. Personally, I would support him if he believed
in limited government, supporting our military or growing our free
market economy. Sadly, he believes just the opposite and our country
is suffering as a result.

thethorns4 (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just don't remember all these complaints from the Thorns when W. Bush was pulling shenanigans. Anybody else?

My favorite part of Obama is the "Arab" part, the "white' part is boring.

I too wish Obama had spent more time designing a webpage than running the country. He hasn't responded to my Fb posts in months, what's he doing anyways? Foreign policy?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"part white and arab (sic)" Hmm, whatever could you be implying?

I hereby deem this thread "Game of Thorns."

You're welcome.

zappa (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Limited government with "support" of our military. That sounds like an oxymoron to me.

If you are for limited government, you should be for a limited military too. I am.

If you are for a limited government, you should be for limited intrusion into the personal life of individuals, I am.

Either you are for limited government or you are not. If you try to have it both ways, your hypocrisy will be showing.

Botany (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

part white and part arab...yowza... teahadists are too much sometimes.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SBthinksso, no you are wrong. I never said whether she is racist or not, I just said the letter is not racist. It isn't.

Read my post again - I said specifically that she is making the statement that many voters voted for him because he was black - she is insinuating that THEY made the election about race, she is merely bringing up her opinion that other people made their decision to vote for President based on race. It is not racist in any way shape or form to hold that view.

If you are going to pick on tea partiers, at least do so intelligently. I don't agree with all of them and there are probably quite a few things I disagree with this person on, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to call them racist because they used the word "black" in their letter.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tea Party trolls like Thorns4 deserve no more responses, it feeds their sick need to be important when the truth is they're so fearful because they're [politically] impotent. The "arab" thing is a lie, it's ludicrous, but it does show the level of unreality in which the Thorns and their Tea Party ilk revel. Hey guys: the USA is changing, it's not all positive, but facing what is occurring and attempting to deal with it is better than telling yourselves these obvious falsehoods. No one is afraid to confront Obama: he's about the most maligned President in several decades, going back to Nixon.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to see her birth certificate before I comment further.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"First black president"! I'm offended. It's "African-American"! I HATE it when people call me "white", I demand to be called European-American, even though, like Obama, I'm only half European.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No way DrDan, even I maligned George Bush way more than I malign Obama. You should have seen it.

I can't tell you how many people I knew who had pictures of Bush in their house with a swastika or a Hitler mustache, or just a BUSH with a swastika in place of the S.

That was one evil administration. I remember honestly being scared that something was going to happen in the '08 election and Bush would some how end up with a third term..

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But who cares; he is the first black president

He is black? I never even noticed!

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can vouch for LoonPt being consistent in his criticisms across the board, even if I don't always agree with their conclusions. LoonPt is more of a real PJ O'Rourke kinda Republican mixed with Art Bell. You'd probably really like LoonPt if you met. Good person.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is amazing how leftists attack people personally who disagree
with them. Never mind that our country is failing apart under this
administration. To bad they can't live in the real world, instead of
playing word games and assuming they know who people are.

As an after thought, it is estimated around 1 million people in
California will lose their HC insurance because most major HC
insurance companies were required to contractually drop non-ACA
compliant plans on December 31, according to the San Francisco
Business Times. So much for the president telling the truth.

thethorns4 (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The country has been falling apart under every administration since Washinton and still we've managed to make it this far.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Will it be pedestals vs millstones, world without end? Adoring handicappers vs xenophobic gatekeepers? Emo te absolvo? (On top of or underlying cleaner factual disputations, of course.)

D Thorn might wish to expand on her points in the future, especially with so many confounding factors involved in race & politics.

BTW, "thornbirds" & "game of thorns": nice coinages, heh heh!

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 5, 2013 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loon: and how does Rand Paul confront his problem with plagiarism?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is yet another half baked haiku from the goofy Thorns. Clearly the Indy will print any and all letters to the editor.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

more Obama bill of goods:
LAPD & Airport Police Drilled for Shooting Scenario Weeks Before, LAX Police Chief Patrick Gannon states.

Latest DHS false flag using violent psychopath SWAT forces to justify gun confiscation.
More incentive for health care providers to screen gun owners for mental health problems.

Yesterday, confiscation of guns in NY owned by people taking prescription anti-anxiety meds.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

re loonpt's reference to people depicting GW Bush/George H. Sherff Jr. as a Nazi; a photo of the Prescott Bush/George Sherff family given to reporter Eric Berman by Hitler's bodyguard, Otto Skorzeny.

Prescott Bush's management of Fritz Thyssen's investments is documented.
Thyssen helped finance Hitler in the 30's.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan, I suggest that people focus on substance rather than whether Rand Paul's speech writer lifted a synopsis for Gattaca off wikipedia, which is legal btw bc wikipedia is not copyrighted. Yes, his speech writer should have changed the wording, but this is not a matter of substance this is a matter of nitpicking. It would be far more worthy of our time to discuss the reason why Rand brought up the film Gattaca and how that ties into his political beliefs than it is to discuss where he got the synopsis for his speech.

Let me ask you this: Which is more important, the fact that Rand Paul lifted a synopsis of Gattaca off wikipedia for one of his speeches or that Dianne Feinstein's husband's company is going to profit $1 billion for the sales of United States Post Offices that Dianne Feinstein helped to shut down?

Which story is Rachel Maddow covering and why?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In my opinion, if something is worth saying it bears repeating. If you want to go through life with flickers of citations flying everywhere, then fine. But I don't think it is even inherently dishonest to repeat something you've heard before. Copying other people's works and ideas and passing it off as your own in some cases may be offensive if it is a creative work like a poem, but when passing on and discussing ideas it just can be too overwhelming and doesn't always make sense to cite every little thing. So I leave it to individuals to judge, but I wouldn't automatically judge every piece of plagiarism as negative.

If you judge that what you are hearing is a good idea and bears repeating, then go ahead and say it!! The person who said it to you probably wants their ideas to be more broadly accepted and very likely has no problem with you repeating their ideas whether you describe them in the same way or add your own spin.

Our modern society has had this idea of plagiarism always being bad beaten into it over and over and over, between our copyright laws and educational institutions.

Wikipedia states, "The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement."

The fact is that human progression has often come through copying. We need original thinkers and people who can recognize great things and copy them to spread more good things far and wide and people who can do both.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rand is apologizing, admits his errors, and promises to use footnotes next time. Good.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The real issue with Paul's speech is that a US Senator would use the plot of a goofy Sci Fi movie to make point about public policy. It shows how completely unqualified the junior senator from Kentucky is for public office. I think that he may still be hitting the aqua Buddha on a regular basis.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was plagiarized by Rand Paul, and I don't care
In fact, I'm rather flattered
By Dan Stewart

Rand Paul has more qualifications for President in his pinky than anybody else in DC has in their entire body, Hershel.... It's about the message of liberty, and there is nothing wrong with citing fictional sources to make a broader point. Your post doesn't have any good substantive reasons why Rand Paul is anything that you say. Try again.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So let's see here - Rand Paul plagiarizes a couple of paragraphs about mandatory minimum sentencing in a WaPo article and as a sitting Senator is making major headway into significantly reducing mandatory minimums. The issue here should be that there are non-violent innocent people who have been kidnapped by the state and are sitting in a cage like an animal for no good reason.. This country was in shock and awe when they found out that some older guys had three teenage girls locked up in their basement for almost a decade getting raped, but the government has MILLIONS of innocent people locked up in their basement getting raped and we sit around talking about how Rand Paul plagiarized a couple of paragraphs regarding public policy?! STICK WITH THE REAL ISSUE!!

But yes, Rand will be making a website that will include all of his speeches and articles with footnotes - it will be a fantastic resource and there is nothing wrong with that - but constantly citing sources during a speech can distract from the message and nobody provides footnotes for their speeches so I really don't see what the big deal about what happened was, unless you just want to attack a Tea Partier for fascists' sake.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. This is a new low from Ms. Thorn (who writes so many letters to the Carpinteria and Montecito papers that one wonders how much time she has for logical thought to begin with.)

Doesn't really matter to me what side of the health care debate people are on. Argue away, I say!

But once someone makes a conscious choice to bring the President's race into their argument, they should be considered unpublishable as well as intolerable.

Poor form giving a forum to a letter like this.

Native1 (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Native1: Ignore race, and it will go away? Whether the president's father's race is a factor in support or opposition to his policies, and which tendency has the greater impact, are real issues.

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

writing that for Rand "It's about the message of liberty" -- Orwell showed us that simply using a term, say "freedom" or "liberty", is useless. If it's the kind of Ayn Randian sophomoric baloney about discovering of the "I" from the We [Anthem] or worshipping the hyper-individualistic Dagney Taggart... that's just return to the late 19th cent. Robber Barons' period of old capitalism. Balderdash, I say!
and yes, loon, it's good and about time "Rand will be making a website that will include all of his speeches and articles with footnotes ". Now we can check his thinking more carefully.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't care about the white race, the black race, or people of mixed race. The only race I care about is the Indianapolis 500.

Now back to ABC sports in New York.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 6, 2013 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a thread! LOL.
(Please keep infowars and WND out of it, that is beyond LOL.)

Here is a comedian's take (the best):

Note the very last commentary; it summarizes it best.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2013 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Better yet, keep Tabatha's disinformation out of it. Be aware that ad hominem attacks are white noise and a well-known disinformation technique used to distract others from the truth, particularly if they're a standard MO.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2013 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams: "Be aware that ad hominem attacks are white noise and a well-known disinformation technique used to distract others from the truth, particularly if they're a standard MO."

This would ring a lot truer if you weren't linking to an article by Jerome Corsi - a man who hasn't met a conspiracy theory he doesn't like (e.g. 9/11 cover-ups, Obama's origin of birth, NAFTA superhighway - those are just the good ones...)

I mean, really....

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EatTheRich: Excellent example of the use of an ad hominem attack in disinformation as well as implied conformation of Corsi's article.

"Conspiracy theory" was coined by the CIA, referring to those who questioned the government's explanation for JFK's assassination. It's a US government disinformation term.

A conspiracy requires two or more participants.
Who are the conspirators in Obama's non-US citizenship? -

the state of Hawaii, that says his birth certificate is forged?

The Indonesian state school system whose records show that he attended school there when the country was at war and only admitted citizen students?

Columbia University, whose records show that an Islamic Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro attended the university as a foreign student?

The IRS, in rejecting a 1040 e-filed with Obama's name and his phony SS#, based on an invalid SS# on the 1040?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How ironic that a president who gets away with ignoring the constitution gets unfairly criticized because of his critics' ignorance of that document.

His mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. If even one (1) parent is a U.S. citizen when a person is born, (regardless if that person is born in the U.S., or on the moon) that person is automatically a U.S. citizen.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2013 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: