TRUST ME

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Via Investors.com

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
bb
bb
April 4, 2014 7:07 am

Will anarchist pay this penalty ? I bet all anarchists will submit to the thing they hate the most which doesn’t make for a good anarchist.just saying.

card802
card802
April 4, 2014 8:33 am

It must be pretty simple to be the president with so many simple minded drones to preside over.

We should have a new movie, along the same lines as Groundhog Day, call it Aprils Fools Day, staring obama, progressives and the fawning ignorant voters, ah forget it, that’s reality already, nobody would go see it…….or would they? Hmmmmmm.

AWD
AWD
April 4, 2014 10:54 am

Noonan: A Catastrophe Like No Other

The president tries to put a good face on ObamaCare.

By Peggy Noonan

April 3, 2014 6:21 p.m. ET

Put aside the numbers for a moment, and the daily argument.

“Seven point one million people have signed up!”

“But six million people lost their coverage and were forced onto the exchanges! That’s no triumph, it’s a manipulation. And how many of the 7.1 million have paid?”

“We can’t say, but 7.1 million is a big number and redeems the program.”

“Is it a real number?”

“Your lack of trust betrays a dark and conspiratorial right-wing mindset.”

As I say, put aside the argument, step back and view the thing at a distance. Support it or not, you cannot look at ObamaCare and call it anything but a huge, historic mess. It is also utterly unique in the annals of American lawmaking and government administration.

Its biggest proponent in Congress, the Democratic speaker of the House, literally said—blithely, mindlessly, but in a way forthcomingly—that we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. It is a cliché to note this. But really, Nancy Pelosi’s statement was a historic admission that she was fighting hard for something she herself didn’t understand, but she had every confidence regulators and bureaucratic interpreters would tell her in time what she’d done. This is how we make laws now.

Her comments alarmed congressional Republicans but inspired Democrats, who for the next three years would carry on like blithering idiots making believe they’d read the bill and understood its implications. They were later taken aback by complaints from their constituents. The White House, on the other hand, seems to have understood what the bill would do, and lied in a way so specific it showed they knew exactly what to spin and how. “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan, period.” “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.” That of course was the president, misrepresenting the facts of his signature legislative effort. That was historic, too. If you liked your doctor, your plan, your network, your coverage, your deductible you could not keep it. Your existing policy had to pass muster with the administration, which would fight to the death to ensure that 60-year-old women have pediatric dental coverage.

The leaders of our government have not felt, throughout the process, that they had any responsibility to be honest and forthcoming about the major aspects of the program, from its exact nature to its exact cost. We are not being told the cost of anything—all those ads, all the consultants and computer work, even the cost of the essential program itself.

What the bill declared it would do—insure tens of millions of uninsured Americans—it has not done. There are still tens of millions uninsured Americans. On the other hand, it has terrorized millions who did have insurance and lost it, or who still have insurance and may lose it.

The program is unique in that it touches on an intimate and very human part of life, the health of one’s body, and yet normal people have been almost wholly excluded from the debate. This surely was not a bug but a feature. Given a program whose complexity is so utter and defeating that it defies any normal human attempt at comprehension, two things will happen. Those inclined to like the spirit of the thing will support it on the assumption the government knows what its doing. And the opposition will find it difficult to effectively oppose—or repeal the thing—because of the program’s bureaucratic density and complexity. It’s like wrestling a manic, many-armed squid in ink-darkened water.

Thinker
Thinker
April 4, 2014 12:01 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

Thinker
Thinker
April 4, 2014 12:06 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

[imgcomment image[/img]

Stucky
Stucky
April 4, 2014 12:18 pm

“Trust me” ………… government terminology for “fuck you”.