Another lie: Sebelius claims she had no choice but to launch the ObamaCare exchanges on October 1

posted at 8:31 pm on October 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Actually, we don’t know for sure that this is a lie. Could be that Sebelius and her team simply don’t know all of the nuances of the law they’re tasked with implementing, which is almost — almost — forgivable given the complexity of the project.

As it is, we’re back to a recurring theme of Launch Month. Are she, Obama, and their deputies lying about who knew what and when? Or is this simple guileless negligence at work?

In a visit to a community health center in Austin, Texas, on Friday, Sebelius acknowledged more testing would have been preferable. “In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that and the law said the go-time was Oct. 1,” she said.

But the law imposed no legal requirement to open the website Oct 1. The law says only that the enrollment period shall be “as determined by the secretary.” The launch date was set not in the law, but in regulations her department had issued. Agencies routinely allow themselves flexibility on self-imposed deadlines.

Officials could have postponed open enrollment by a month, or they could have phased in access to the website. Oregon, one of the 14 states that built its own website under the federal law, did just that, allowing initial website access only for counselors instead of the general public.

Two obvious reasons why they didn’t delay. First, the deadline for enrolling is December 15 if you want coverage to take effect on January 1. The White House probably figured they were better off letting people try, with a select few succeeding through sheer luck and perseverance in running the Healthcare.gov gauntlet, than to keep the whole thing offline so that no one could sign up. There’s political advantage in that. The people who are most determined to enroll early are the sick, to take advantage of the new preexisting conditions rules that go into effect on January 1. The more of them who are on the books now, the crueler and thus less politically palatable it’ll seem to delay the whole law later because of persistent website problems. Second, they didn’t want to hand the GOP a major political victory, especially with a shutdown in effect. Not only would that have been even more of an I-told-you-so moment for Republicans than we’re experiencing now, it would have looked like Obama was bowing to “defund” demands. For all the arguments that the defunders shot the GOP in the foot with their brinksmanship, it may be that the White House wouldn’t have exposed itself to this weeks-long humiliation by insisting on rolling the site out on October 1 if not for them.

Anyway, here’s what the law says about setting a date for launch:

(6) ENROLLMENT PERIODS- The Secretary shall require an Exchange to provide for–

(A) an initial open enrollment, as determined by the Secretary (such determination to be made not later than July 1, 2012);

Sebelius’s point, I think, is that once she set October 1, 2013 as the launch date, she can’t now undo it. The ObamaCare statute itself says that the date has to be chosen by July 1, 2012. Her hands are tied! Except, as Phil Klein noted on Twitter earlier, there’s nothing forcing her to roll out the *website* on October 1. She could have opened enrollment via phone calls and paper applications on that date and promised that the website was coming. Another problem for the my-hands-are-tied excuse is that 10 Democratic senators signed a letter last week urging Sebelius to extend the initial open enrollment period beyond March 31, 2014 due to all the website glitches. If, as she claims, she was forced to launch on October 1 by the statute, she should also be forced to stick to March 31 as the deadline. Bear that in mind, because the White House will think carefully about an extension if they’re not showing progress in solving Glitchapalooza in a few weeks. Which, of course, wouldn’t be the first time they’ve ignored the law: The employer mandate is required by statute too but Obama wished that into the cornfield this past summer as part of his novel “I don’t have to enforce laws that are politically inconvenient” theory of the Constitution. They care about the rules only when it helps them to care about the rules.

Speaking of which, read this post by Chris Jacobs of the Heritage Foundation noting an upcoming deadline that you likely haven’t heard of but which might become important over the next few days. Insurance companies that have joined the ObamaCare exchanges have until October 31 to withdraw if HHS “materially breaches” their contract. Failing to create a functioning online insurance hub by the end of October is, arguably, a material breach. Will any insurers decide to abandon ship over the next 72 hours or would that be too politically dangerous for them at this point?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If it’s comin’ outta her mouth…it’s a lie

workingclass artist on October 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Isn’t this the same person that was going to let the little girl that needed a lung transplant die because she didn’t meet her criteria?

jpcpt03 on October 28, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Will any insurers decide to abandon ship over the next 72 hours or would that be too politically dangerous for them at this point?

INSOLVENCY DANGEROUS is a lot more harmful than POLITICALLY DANGEROUS.

If they look at who’s signing up, and all it is are the old and those with pre-existing conditions, you can bet those companies will be giving it a long hard think.

GarandFan on October 28, 2013 at 8:37 PM

What comes after “shameless” and “brazen” on the lying scale.

Sorry there, Frau Mengele, if you Dog Eating boss can toss out waivers to federal law left and right then there’s no way a little thing like a start-date is going to be written in stone.

Plain and simple, Bark said “It’s goin’ live on Octeeober first, mofacky!” and that was it.

Bishop on October 28, 2013 at 8:39 PM

That had really cool names for the rollout, but they couldn’t decide between Operation Eagle Claw, and Operation Barbarossa

faraway on October 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Can’t be a lie unless the State Run Media deem it such…and then their sources may walk back their statement.

d1carter on October 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Will any insurers decide to abandon ship over the next 72 hours or would that be too politically dangerous for them at this point?

How rotten that a company fears the political payback and illegal chicanery of the Obama Admin. more than going out business. That’s the new America.

conservative pilgrim on October 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Insurance companies that have joined the ObamaCare exchanges have until October 31 to withdraw if HHS “materially breaches” their contract. Failing to create a functioning online insurance hub by the end of October is, arguably, a material breach. Will any insurers decide to abandon ship over the next 72 hours or would that be too politically dangerous for them at this point?

No, that would be no “arguably material breach”, but a fatal breach of the contracts with insurers, entitling them to billions in damages. Moreover, the case would be a slam-dunk, given the insurance companies’ requests for delay in enrollment, etc. I don’t doubt for a second that the companies are deliberating on this right now, and it could be a way for them to save their asses, knowing full well that the real objective of Obama and company is to put them completely out of business.

This is a moving, 3D chessboard, and I trust that the insurers will act in a way to protect their shareholders and, in so doing, the entire health care system.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

That evil smile of Ezekial Emanuel Mengele won’t leave me alone…

d1carter on October 28, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I remember my young daughter making little square pieces of folded and decorated paper that she could put on her fingers. After asking for a response to a question, she’d open and close the tabs while singing a rhyme to come to some sort of conclusion.
 
I think they’ve reached that point in their governance.
 
(Hopefully Kathy is almost finished braiding Barry’s friendship bracelet, too.)

rogerb on October 28, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Didn’t Dear Leader just meet with the heads of the largest insurance company this past week…?

d1carter on October 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM

C’mon babe… lie to me

Ugly on October 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Given her past, including her support for “Tiller the Killer,” there has to be a special place in hell for Kathleen Sebelius.

bw222 on October 28, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Actually, we don’t know for sure that this is a lie.

Ah, yes we do.

bgibbs1000 on October 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

The incompetence is breathtaking. It reminds me of when Bush 43 thought Harriet Meirs would make a fabulous SC justice. Team O can’t sustain the cracks in their Unaffordable Care Act charade.

btw-does anyone know how the nightly news is reporting on this issue? Are they reporting anything substantial or still covering for Obama and crew? I don’t watch those shows, but many people do–well, the Boomer gen and older do. I’m curious how this is playing out beyond cable news and online.

conservative pilgrim on October 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Didn’t Dear Leader just meet with the heads of the largest insurance company this past week…?

d1carter on October 28, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Yes he did, to beg them to not withdraw or file suit for damages. His problem is that the CEOs all have something called shareholders, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty and the violation of which could subject them and their Boards of Directors to significant liability … while he, Obama, is nothing but a community organizer gone wild and without a clue.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

well said +

bazil9 on October 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I had no choice. I had to post this comment now.

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM

.The guy who never knows what’s going on, never sees it coming …..happens to be the smartest guy in the room.

Someone should create a blog that contains nothing but the best hagiographies and nonsense speeches and commentary from 2008-present……post racial, post partisan, amazing abity to know all…

R Square on October 28, 2013 at 8:54 PM

A grey ghost swam up her hiney and won’t leave. A really Grey dusty lying ghost. That’s why she has no soul.

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 8:55 PM

If they had such a blatant disregard (for the very law they wrote) that they were able to give exemptions to everyone except individual citizens, then the start date was arbitrary. As a matter of fact, this entire administration is a nonstop contradiction.

smoothsailing on October 28, 2013 at 8:56 PM

the insurance companies will have to stick with the Barry team, because in the end they’ll have to be in a favored position to get those bailouts.

i imagine that was the quid pro quo that barry and the CEOs talked about….if you bolt, me and my media will make your life holy hell…and if you stick with me, and no one snitches, you get a bailout to cover your loses

r keller on October 28, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Poor Ms.Sebelius, I know what you mean. I too have been in a cell playing a harmonica dejectedly intoning, “Nobody Knows the Troubles I’ve Seen”.

Mason on October 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM

That chick could make ice want to put on a heavy coat.

msupertas on October 28, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Yes he did, to beg them to not withdraw or file suit for damages. His problem is that the CEOs all have something called shareholders, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty and the violation of which could subject them and their Boards of Directors to significant liability … while he, Obama, is nothing but a community organizer gone wild and without a clue.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Uh, what? Since when has that ever concerned Obama? Recall the shareholders in the auto bailouts got screwed. He does not care about the rule law, except when it suits his needs. No, he strong-armed and/or threatened the insurance CEOs in that meeting.

conservative pilgrim on October 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Because when I think Team Obama, I think respect for the letter of the law.

rob verdi on October 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Just imagine if we wouldn’t have had that senseless shutdown…we’d be coming up on 4 straight weeks of wall-to-wall coverage. The GOP, specifically Cruz & Co., should be calling the President and personally thanking him for his bald-faced lies, utter incompetence, and sheer ignorance. I would be shocked if this last week and a half hasn’t started to tilt the polls back in the GOPs favor.

ncconservative on October 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Sebelius is a fugly and chilling inhuman POlyingS…

OmahaConservative on October 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

If it’s comin’ outta her mouth…it’s a lie

workingclass artist on October 28, 2013 at 8:33 PM

…or a forked tongue.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I’ve been to that site and poked around a bit. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone in this administration in a position of authority was asleep at the switch. There is no way they knew what shape it was in.

I’m sure they didn’t delay because they didn’t even know the go live date.

kcewa on October 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Sebelius is a fugly and chilling inhuman POlyingS…

OmahaConservative on October 28, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Damn OC..But I agree 100%..:):)

Dire Straits on October 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Because when I think Team Obama, I think respect for the letter of the law.

rob verdi on October 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Heh.

Exactly my first reaction …

ShainS on October 28, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Awww shucks Obama could of issued one of his famous delays to Queen Sebelius.

Dasher on October 28, 2013 at 9:13 PM

ncconservative on October 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

If we hadn’t had that shutdown people would be asking why we didn’t try to stop this. The Republicans would own this as much as the Democrats do.

kcewa on October 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM

This is a moving, 3D chessboard, and I trust that the insurers will act in a way to protect their shareholders and, in so doing, the entire health care system.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

This I would love to see.

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:14 PM

I wouldn’t want this ghoulish phantom faced freak to be between me and my auto mechanic let alone between me and my doctor.

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Daily Beast Gets In Front Of NBC Investigation, Claims HHS At Fault

The original policy stipulated polices from March 23, 2010, and on would be honored, but tweaks made by the Department of Health and Human Services amended it to mandate cancellation if any part of the policy was significantly changed after that date.

Resist We Much on October 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

She looks like someone who would volunteer for guillotine duty.

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Did anyone else notice the threads at top right and top left are both on the administration lying?

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

I noticed it INC. (:

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Obama Refuses To Say If He Knew NSA Was Spying On Merkel…

Take that for a ‘yes.’

Resist We Much on October 28, 2013 at 9:18 PM

She looks like someone who would volunteer for guillotine duty.

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Madame Defarge

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

As all these lies are being laid bare and the media are having difficulty dealing with this, I find it hilarious that there’s an adage among newspaper editors that goes as follows: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

The media in this country have checked NOTHING out about Obama and anything he does.

BuckeyeSam on October 28, 2013 at 9:19 PM

The White House probably figured they were better off letting people try, with a select few succeeding through sheer luck and perseverance in running the Healthcare.gov gauntlet, 

Reminds me of the sadistic game show in the movie The Running Man called Climbing For Dollars. ..where contestants climbed a rope reaching for $$$ while Rottweillers snapped at their heels ready to devour them when they fell.

ted c on October 28, 2013 at 9:21 PM

The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.

I have a question for insurance people and/or attorneys re this quote from the post at the Carney thread/Obama lie thread. Does HHS have the authority to rewrite the law in this way and change its intent?

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:21 PM

OT: Have you seen the new creepy Uncle Sam Obamacare ad?

http://generationopportunity.org/2013/10/25/halloween-horror-2013-get-the-door-chad/#axzz2j4OGVa6Y

BuckeyeSam on October 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Daily Beast Gets In Front Of NBC Investigation, Claims HHS At Fault

The original policy stipulated polices from March 23, 2010, and on would be honored, but tweaks made by the Department of Health and Human Services amended it to mandate cancellation if any part of the policy was significantly changed after that date.

Resist We Much on October 28, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Thanks, March 2010 was the date I was looking for, but shouldn’t Daily Beast have said “policies from March 23, 2010, and before would be honored?

Otherwise, it’s not a ‘grandfather’ clause.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2013 at 9:24 PM

SparkPlug on October 28, 2013 at 9:18 PM

I’m not surprised at your sharp eye. :)

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Yes he did, to beg them to not withdraw or file suit for damages. His problem is that the CEOs all have something called shareholders, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty and the violation of which could subject them and their Boards of Directors to significant liability … while he, Obama, is nothing but a community organizer gone wild and without a clue.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Banks had shareholders too,but let’s remember communist organizers like Hussein forced them to give home loans to welfare parasites and illegal alien moochers and then when SHTF, these banks were bailed out to shut’em up. Now how much of that money was kicked back to Hussein and Piglosi etc . is something to be investigated,
but this healthcare thing is just another extortion and shakedown by Hussein.

burrata on October 28, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Just imagine if we wouldn’t have had that senseless shutdown…we’d be coming up on 4 straight weeks of wall-to-wall coverage.

ncconservative

You mean the shutdown that happened because of the very disaster of a law being discussed? The very same shutdown that reminded people exactly who was responsible for the law, and who wants to save them from it?

Yeah, senseless indeed. I’m sure the media would have been all over it otherwise, lol. Cuz, like, they were totally prevented from doing so during the shutdown.

xblade on October 28, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I have a question for insurance people and/or attorneys re this quote from the post at the Carney thread/Obama lie thread. Does HHS have the authority to rewrite the law in this way and change its intent?

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:21 PM

I’m spitballing, but I suspect that they were hanging their hat on the notion that any one of the changes materially affects the policy enough to say that what you really have is the issuance of a new policy and, if it’s a new policy, Obamacare mandates apply so that it can eventually be canceled. A good question is whether someone who decided to increase a deductible–to reduce the premium increase, for example–was expressly informed by the insurer that he or she would lose the grandfathered status of the policy.

BuckeyeSam on October 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Obama Refuses To Say If He Knew NSA Was Spying On Merkel…

Take that for a ‘yes.’

Resist We Much on October 28, 2013 at 9:18 PM

What, wait. This morning we were told he didn’t know, now he says he won’t say whether he knew. What will he say tomorrow?

bgibbs1000 on October 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Officials could have postponed open enrollment by a month, or they could have phased in access to the website. Oregon, one of the 14 states that built its own website under the federal law, did just that, allowing initial website access only for counselors instead of the general public.

Wasn’t Oregon just in the news Friday, or over the weekend, for having ZERO people enrolled so far?

Dusty on October 28, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Uh, what? Since when has that ever concerned Obama? Recall the shareholders in the auto bailouts got screwed. He does not care about the rule law, except when it suits his needs. No, he strong-armed and/or threatened the insurance CEOs in that meeting.

conservative pilgrim on October 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

A big difference here, cp. First, GM and Chrysler were about to go under because of their union/pension obligations, while the insurance companies are flush with cash and with balance sheets to dream for. GM and Chrysler, in other words, were on their knees because of the unions and the bailout to them solved that problem, at least for now.

Second, the insurers know that they alone can pull the plug on Obamacare by withdrawing from it and/or seeking hundreds of billions in damages, either or neither of which Captain Know-nothing wants to face.

Yes, Obama has never cared about the rule of law, but he has fvcked the insurers (way more than they even imagined, thinking they could control this clusterfvck, knowing now that they can’t), so they will go to the mattresses, and they know how to do so — actually, their controlling shareholders know.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 9:34 PM

BuckeyeSam on October 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Thanks. I would think—as probably most would assume—that a small change to premium or deductible wouldn’t be enough to justify calling it a new policy. Our insurance company usually inched those up every fiscal year.

If the insurance company officially did consider those changes as making the policy a new one, I’d also guess no one was informed about losing grandfathered status.

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Since when did the law get in the way of the Obama Administration?

Basilsbest on October 28, 2013 at 9:41 PM

If the insurance companies did officially consider that any change made the policy a new one, the grandfathered status clause in ObamaCare was essentially meaningless, because I’d love to know who doesn’t get some kind of change in premium/deductible every year.

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Sebelius: “They MADE me do it! They said they’d be my best friend if I did it!”

tpitman on October 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Obama lied. My plan died.

I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame a youtube video for that, too.

#StopTheLies

Resist We Much on October 28, 2013 at 9:49 PM

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Our paradigm consists of honesty, rule of law, competence, personal perspective. None of those qualities exist in Obama’s world. I still lean towards a shakedown of some sort occurred. We should find out in the next couple of days what went down in that meeting.

conservative pilgrim on October 28, 2013 at 9:51 PM

When private corporations eschew a legal action because it might be too “politically dangerous”, that is the textbook definition of fascism.

tngmv on October 28, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Thanks Kansas!

vityas on October 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM

The Progs/Socialists are about to release the hounds on NBC…

d1carter on October 28, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Thanks. I would think—as probably most would assume—that a small change to premium or deductible wouldn’t be enough to justify calling it a new policy. Our insurance company usually inched those up every fiscal year.

If the insurance company officially did consider those changes as making the policy a new one, I’d also guess no one was informed about losing grandfathered status.

INC on October 28, 2013 at 9:38 PM

One thing to consider is who initiated the change? If the feds were trying to be accommodating to individuals, you’d think the change would have to be requested by the individual. Also, premiums were increasing every year even if all other terms remained the same.

WARNING: I’ve already seen this spin two or three times since this policy modification lie was laid bare. Obamacare supporters are now claiming that this lie affects only a small part of the market. You start with the number of policies in the individual market–apparently, it’s about 14-15 million. Beyond that, about half are currently still in grandfathered status. That leaves about 7 million people directly affected RIGHT NOW. The Obama administration screwed these folks because they needed the money and because they weren’t part of any larger networks that had any political power. In contrast, they’ve postponed the employer mandate beyond the midterms. These phuckheads are such weasels. After these stunts, the GOP House should be passing legislation requiring all three branches of the federal government except the military be subject to Obamacare–today. See how they like it.

In the meantime, I wish the GOP and media would start analyzing what Obamacare will do to the employer-provided market. Again, the spinners are trying to say, “Oh, this affects just 7 million people–no biggie. After all, they new change was acomin’.”

BuckeyeSam on October 28, 2013 at 10:00 PM

The new WH talking point: it’s the insurance companies fault if you lose your coverage. (Has nothing to do with the regs of Obamacare. No siree.)

conservative pilgrim on October 28, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Wow. Of course it’s a material breach. I wonder what the cure provisions are? I wonder if all the insurance company participants will feel obligated to at least provide notice on October 31, hoping that HHS will sign some sort of make-well agreement with them.

MTF on October 28, 2013 at 10:03 PM

After these stunts, the GOP House should be passing legislation requiring all three branches of the federal government except the military be subject to Obamacare–today. See how they like it.

In the meantime, I wish the GOP and media would start analyzing what Obamacare will do to the employer-provided market. Again, the spinners are trying to say, “Oh, this affects just 7 million people–no biggie. After all, they new change was acomin’.”

BuckeyeSam on October 28, 2013 at 10:00 PM

I agree.

INC on October 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Its nearly time to defund Obamacare again. GOP listen up. You don’t even need it as leverage anymore.

plaidsheetman on October 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Change that. REPEAL Obamacare. Let the Dems hang themselves again. There is not one wit of good that will come from the Obamacare legislation.

plaidsheetman on October 28, 2013 at 10:26 PM

The obama campaign put a hold on all obamacare development for three months, to keep it quiet during the election. Then they handcuffed the website contractors in order to keep the site hidden from criticisms. These two political decisions cost months of time and prevented the site from being adequately tested. Not to mention the cronyism involved in the contractor selection process.

We’re simply getting lie upon lie upon lie from these liars. The question is – and I take nothing for granted at this point – is this enough to finally wake the American people up to the fraudulent nature of this administration? Is it enough to shame the media out of its delusional bias? These are the things that must happen if this nation is to be saved.

paul1149 on October 28, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Because when I think Team Obama, I think respect for the letter of the law.

rob verdi on October 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Well…that and their deep, abiding concern for the well-being of the American people.

.

.

.And their profound respect for the Constitution.

Solaratov on October 28, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Yes he did, to beg them to not withdraw or file suit for damages. His problem is that the CEOs all have something called shareholders, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty and the violation of which could subject them and their Boards of Directors to significant liability … while he, Obama, is nothing but a community organizer gone wild and without a clue.

TXUS on October 28, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Well, only if you don’t count the very strong likelihood of a large NSA dossier about each and every one of the CEOs…

bofh on October 28, 2013 at 11:01 PM

The obama campaign put a hold on all obamacare development for three months, to keep it quiet during the election. Then they handcuffed the website contractors in order to keep the site hidden from criticisms. These two political decisions cost months of time and prevented the site from being adequately tested. Not to mention the cronyism involved in the contractor selection process.

We’re simply getting lie upon lie upon lie from these liars. The question is – and I take nothing for granted at this point – is this enough to finally wake the American people up to the fraudulent nature of this administration? Is it enough to shame the media out of its delusional bias? These are the things that must happen if this nation is to be saved.

paul1149 on October 28, 2013 at 10:28 PM

That won’t save this nation. The media, and especially the democrat party in Washington will never turn on the Marxist, and the main reason they won’t is because he is black. But even that assumes they would want too when in fact they don’t. He was put there by the marxists elite simply because he is black, can read a teleprompter and looks good on TV. His skin color makes him almost untouchable.

They also control the voting machines and who counts and how the votes are counted. They control the information we get and they set the agenda. We cannot vote ourselves out of this mess. And once they control healthcare they will effectively control who lives or dies.

Oh and I think most Americans do realize what is happening and most don’t like it. But we will never know because of who controls the media.

bgibbs1000 on October 28, 2013 at 11:21 PM

Another lie: Sebelius claims she had no choice but to launch the ObamaCare exchanges on October 1

Apparently, various folks in the Obama Maladministration are trying out for key parts in a remake of “Dumb and Dumber:!!

landlines on October 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Sebelius’s point, I think, is that once she set October 1, 2013 as the launch date, she can’t now undo it. The ObamaCare statute itself says that the date has to be chosen by July 1, 2012. Her hands are tied! Except, as Phil Klein noted on Twitter earlier, there’s nothing forcing her to roll out the *website* on October 1

So, since there is absolutely nothing she can do, lets save some badly needed revenue by declaring the office of HHS secretary vacant and shutting it down.

landlines on October 29, 2013 at 12:17 AM

Will any insurers decide to abandon ship over the next 72 hours or would that be too politically dangerous for them at this point?

It isn’t if their shareholders insist on it. At that point, I would argue they have a fiduciary duty to do so…

JohnGalt23 on October 29, 2013 at 2:39 AM

Wow, it’s almost like a detached, centralized entity should not be managing something this complex and personal.

NickelAndDime on October 29, 2013 at 8:43 AM