Thursday, January 12, 2012


On Tuesday night in New Hampshire, during his ugly, lying, demagogic, smear-filled, slanderous victory speech, Willard again promised to repeal "Obamacare" (as radical right-wingers call the Affordable Care Act). Mittens has been traveling the country mouthing yet another of his incredible lies: that the ACA is aimed at a total, 100% takeover of everyone's healthcare. The folks at Politifact, with whom I have had my differences recently, were right on the money when they labeled this a "Pants on Fire" LIE:

According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans without health insurance nationally was slightly under 17 percent in 2009, the year Obama began pushing for the bill. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate, the number was about the same in 2010, when the measure was signed into law. Other estimates have pegged the national number at about 15 percent.

Meanwhile, Romney said that Obama’s law "dealt with 100 percent of American people." That’s not exactly correct -- the law allows a few categories of people to opt out of the individual mandate, primarily those for whom it would be a financial hardship. But it’s not too far off.

However, if that’s the standard, then the two bills [the ACA and Romney's healthcare law in Massachusetts] are quite similar. The Massachusetts plan has affordability and religious exemptions for the individual mandate that echo those in the federal law, so both laws would affect something approaching 100 percent of the population, even if not exactly 100 percent.

Comparing 8 percent to 17 percent "would have been apples to apples," said Henry Aaron, a senior fellow with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution.

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a critic of the federal health care law, agreed. To be consistent, he said, Obama’s plan only impacted 15 percent to 17 percent of the U.S population. 

"Romney appears to be suggesting that his bill only impacted the uninsured in Massachusetts. Not true, as I have written," Tanner said. "You can only get to those numbers by assuming that the only relevant part of either bill is the individual mandate and that only the currently uninsured are impacted by the mandate. Neither of those premises is true."

In other words, Willard is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.

I swear to God, this guy would lie to his own mother if he thought it would help his career out.

He needs to be kept REAL far away from the presidency.