WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Presidential mea culpas oozing from President Obama's statement & news conference

By just about any yardstick, President Obama's statement and news conference - heard here on WDEL 1150 A.M. & Delaware 105.9 F.M. over the Noon hour - set a record for the number and extent of Presidential mea culpas at a single event.

In the process, the President caved to escalating political pressure, unveiling new rules that would allow insurance companies to retain subscribers on health-care plans not allowed under the President's health-care overhaul.

Yet, despite the President's turn-around, House Speaker John Boehner declared his intentions to proceed with a House vote Friday on a rule to allow consumers to retain their canceled policies without penalty, and allow others to sign up for them. In contrast, the President's health fix would ONLY apply to folks who had their existing policies terminated. Others lacking insurance would not be able to enroll in the old plans. Doubtless the President acted when he did to divert significant numbers of Dems from voting for the Republican legislation.

Insurance companies appear to see a house of cards in all this tweaking: They fear healthier folks would choose to retain the old policies, with less healthy people enrolling in the new insurance exchanges.

Many early news accounts of the President's statement and news conference (and the crawls running at the bottom of the screen for the cable news channels) focused however on the extent the President said he had been aware of the problems with HealthCare.gov BEFORE the deadline. The President said he had not been "informed directly that the website would not be working, as the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed I wouldn't be going out saying, 'boy, this is going to be great'. You know, I'm accused of a lot of things, but I don't think I'm stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn't going to work..."

From NATIONAL JOURNAL on line...


Some Senate Democrats are STILL not completely happy.

From POLITICO on line...


Coverage from the U.S. edition of the U.K. tabloid, DAILY MAIL...


Posted at 1:48pm on November 14, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Nov 14, 2013 3:21pm
Boehner's plan might pass the House, but probably won't pass the Senate, and the Prez definitely won't sign it into law. So Boehner's bill will make some news and remind folks that Obama and the DEMS are sticking it to them with their health-insurance plans, forcing them to pay more for coverage they don't want or need. Just so college girls like Sandra Fluke can have her fun on campus while we pay for it, as she gets free birth-control pills and if needed, free abortions, so she can be the life of the frat parties. Ain't America great.

It's one thing to help folks get real health-insurance coverage, but something else to be made a fool of, as this nonsense does.

2015, after the 2014 elections, might be a different story. If the G.O.P. could retake control of the Senate and get enough of their folks in the House to be veto-proof, THEN many things are possible. Of course, THAT's a big IF.

Thu, Nov 14, 2013 4:16pm
Can the president legally do what he now promises to do? Or is he simply lying...again? Does anyone besides kavips still believe anything this man says?


Thu, Nov 14, 2013 5:59pm
Yes. quite a few do actually... I'll get back to you when I find out how many... But insurance companies are now saying, 'Wait, Mr. President, you can't do this to us, we've already set the rates for next year!'... Insurance companies are currently the only funder of the Republican Party, so Boehner will have to balance out funding versus momentary political advantage... My guess, his bill only goes forward if he knows in advance it will fail....

Although it is with disgust I watch the Democrats in their scramble to jump off, and return to the Republicans every advantage they got from the Republicans' governmental shutdown... Maybe you are right. Democrats as a party lack sufficient spine to lead...

It appears that this excitement over the Obamacare rollout is only occurring among those who closely watch the media.... Most of America doesn't really understand what all the fuss is about....

Still, I appreciate Earl reminding all of us that ... this is the best American President we shall see in our lifetimes... Just getting this health-care deal out there, puts him in the top five... Not even Reagan could get it done.

Thu, Nov 14, 2013 7:21pm
Time to deport the snake oil salesman back to Kenya from whence he came.

Thu, Nov 14, 2013 9:28pm
kavips, kavips... Now you are just embarrassing yourself...You really should admit the failure of "dear leader" and hop on the Hillary train like all other forward-thinking Progressives.



mrpizza: Even if said in jest (as I suspect your comment was), please don't resurrect the "birther" talk. If you want to talk about serious possible consequences from all these lies and the purposeful cover-up of facts to push ACA onto the American public, then IMPEACHMENT is the choice, not deportation.

Fri, Nov 15, 2013 8:44am
"It's Bush's fault. It's the Koch brothers fault. It's the insurance companies fault." So basically he is saying that all the yes men (and women) around him told him all the beta testing, etc., of the website was performing flawlessly or did he just not care?

The smartest thing for the young and healthy people to do is not sign up at all. The ACA is like a perpetual COBRA plan. Sign up when you need it because it has no Pre-X so you can't be denied if you suddenly need health care. I'd rather pay $150 out-of-pocket once a year for a physical then $400 a month for an annual physical.

And the BS of "you can have your old plan for a year" is the same as telling a kid "if you behave, I'll get you ice cream." All the president is saying is "once you vote for Democrats next november we'll then say, starting in January you have to give up the insurance you like for our insurance."

Fri, Nov 15, 2013 11:11am
Arthur: Spot on analysis...if the Democrats gain seats in 2014 ACA will be fully back in full-force. That's why 2014 is almost more important than 2016...if Republicans screw up the 2014 elections 0bama will get to fulfill the "dreams of his father". God help us all if that happens.

Mon, Nov 18, 2013 6:22am
The liar-in-chief can't fool 'em anymore!

Mon, Nov 18, 2013 12:34pm
In response to Earl above... Perhaps I'm a smarter than those "other progressives"....

I don't think it is embarrassing to discuss the truth at all. For you see, unlike the tea party, truth is actually on the side of those who want to improve the lot of Americans, and not on the side of those who wish to take them back to the times there was no recourse against corporate America, and big money decided the difference between right and wrong.

So all the Tea Partiers here are in a dither. Truth is, Obamacare only applies to 17% of Americans, none of whom are represented here on these pages...

But everyone here on these pages no longer has a lifetime cap against their health-cost, no longer has to kick children off at 18 when they go off to college, no longer will be sued by a medical provider over some misfortune befallen them requiring emergency medical treatment... Everyone here can get checked out for cancer, whether lung, colon, breast, pituitary, liver, testicular, penile, bladder, or skin, with no cost to them. Everyone here can get birth control at affordable rates. Everyone here can, if sick, finally get proper care.

These are huge, and benefit everyone. Which I'm sure is why the Tea Partiers on this thread are so apoplectic over something which initially does not concern them. None of them have seriously looked for insurance on the exchanges....

They are just scared it is going to be successful for 80% of Americans and become permanent like those other programs they or their predecesors got so apoplectic over... Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid...

They did not get apoplectic over the Bush Prescription Plan which was funded entirely by borrowed money, because most of them are over 50, and need those prescriptions at the cheaper cost.... But if you are under 30 and reading this, you are the ones paying for those freeloading TEA PARTIERS now doing drugs on your dime.....

Bottom line, the ACA is a very good act for every American, but has a website that started out with some glitches....

Just don't get hit by a car until January 1st, at which point these benefits kick in... otherwise you will lose your house...

Last point... Earl. Everyone always expects the criminal to say he was framed... Stop giving us links to publications supported by the Insurance industry...

Mon, Nov 18, 2013 3:48pm
kavips: I guess you will have to give me a list of publications which are supposedly supported by the insurance industry... Is Howard Dean on this list?

Mon, Nov 18, 2013 5:55pm



And to properly analyze the capitalistic ferocity behind the marketing of insurance, who can better explain that than the Chinese?


Mon, Nov 18, 2013 6:17pm
.... and Earl... With more thab $1 billion being spent by both sides on the advertising battle over Obamacare.... the challenge for you is to find a publication... not financially affected...

And I didn't yet know about Howard Dean so I didn't respond to it above, but upon looking up his concerns, he is promoting in his own book arguing Obamacare DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TOWARDS SINGLE-PAYER, hence his criticism....

Now, if you were solidly behind getting rid of all for-profit corporations out of our health-care process, as is Dean, then we would certainly agree on the problems implicit with the Affordable Care Act, particularly that it does not go far enough....

Mon, Nov 18, 2013 11:49pm
kavips: Regardless of Howard Dean's position on Single-Payer...his question was whether or not the president (Executive Branch) can "willy-nilly" change anything in the law. It was passed by Congress (Legislative Branch) and any changes to the ACA should go through them first unless we have a dictator-in-chief.

..."I wonder if he has the executive capacity to do this because I think this is a law and I don't think the president can write the law the way he wants."~Howard Dean

I checked out your link for the list of publications tied to the insurance companies but only saw dozens of non-related articles.

Tue, Nov 19, 2013 12:58am
Thanks for the update on Howard Dean. I was unaware of that point since I took a small vacation from Breitbart for an hour.


I concur that Dean has a point, but since executive orders ruled the land for 8 years under Cheney/Bush, a conservative Court would probably uphold Obama's position once that precedent was pointed out.

And no one seems to have documented all the insurance advertisements in national publications, so I gave to all instead, a link that showed inside white papers from within the insurance industry which talk about how to deceive the public, how to deny certain benefits to achieve higher yields, and how to use delaying tactics on benefits the law force them to pay in order to make bonuses through increased quarterly profits, and basically prove to all, that insurance companies are the worst corporations in American history.... They have one goal; take your money and pay nothing back. Obamacare despite its problems is already better than that.....

Tue, Nov 19, 2013 10:29am
kavips: So because Bush did it that means it's OK? It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Will you support the next president abusing Executive power if they happen to be a Republican?

Same with ObamaCare...it was wrong for the private insurance companies to "take our money and pay nothing back" and it's even "more wrong" when it's done by our own government. The private companies were bad but they didn't force you to purchase their products and at least they could be sued for deceptive practices...good luck suing a faceless government representative. The ACA probably used your white-papers above as part of their playbook to deceive the public and deny coverage on a nationwide level (millions of people).

Tue, Nov 19, 2013 11:22pm
Earl Grey. Our government was founded on precedents. Bush was not the first to use Executive orders. Obama will not be the last. If there were fewer Republicans in the House of Representatives, executive orders would not be necessary.

As for suing Obamacare, no one sues Social Security. no one sues Medicare. Why would anyone sue Obamacare?

You just said it was wrong for private insurers to take money and not pay it back. So why are you advocating getting rid of Obamacare and cheering Ted Cruz WHEN HE SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN for it, when it will take us right back to that position?

Government is more trustworthy than private businesses, anytime.

Wed, Nov 20, 2013 1:30am
kavips: If the private sector sold the public a product/service as bad (and misrepresented) as ACA is turning out to be...people in charge (much like Bernie Madoff) would be facing serious jail-time; however, ObamaCare has done exactly that and no one is even being fired!

The private sector has Lemon-laws, as far as I know, there is no Lemon-Law to get a refund on this poorly planned government-run insurance/tax scheme :(

The private sector insurance companies were bad (we both agree on that) but I happen to trust privately run insurance companies more than I trust the government. The government is needed for oversight and regulation of the industry...not running it. Same with the auto industry...Govt should regulate and be in charge of auto companies making safe products for our highways and our families.

No one sues Social Security because it's a forced/tax-funded retirement program. It seemed like very good idea when it first started...back when there were more workers than retirees and most retirees only lived till 65 (no coincidence that SS kicked in at 65).

Wed, Nov 20, 2013 1:36am
One more question...would you trust government over private business if this next election we ended up with a Tea Party president and Republican control of both House and Senate?

My answer would remain the same. I trust privately run business with government oversight/limited regulation.

Thu, Nov 21, 2013 1:55am
Earl that is a great question. I would have to look at that and determine would do the least damage, since obviously we would not be going forwards anytime soon.

Businesses have no responsibility to anyone, and those in government have responsibility to the voters who elect them. I would still side with government.

My assumption would be that those Tea Partiers would not be in those positions, unless they were the voted choice of the American People. (If they got there by a coup, the choices would be different.)

If that was the way American People wanted to travel, then I really couldn't argue against them. I would be going against America. I could try to persuade them, but to go against the Tea Party who in the situation you ascribe, would represent all of America, would be treason.

Of course I would cover it up as "expressing my opinion," but it would be treason all the same. So if we tried to defund law, refused to pass budgets, or shut down the government simply because more American people agreed with the Tea Party than everyone else, I would think that would be a form of sedition...

So, I would cast a vote against those programs, but I would not commit treason, as have some today, to prevent Congress from doing its Constitutional duty....

That was indeed, a great question.

Thu, Nov 21, 2013 11:36am
kavips: Thanks for at least being honest and answering the question. I know that I have supported political positions/programs from politicians I liked/supported, but when they left office...it was a completely different story. So now, when it comes to programs/laws/policies, I tend to want less power given to anyone in government regardless of the letter next to their party.

Here's another question for you: Which do you think has been worse for our country?
(a) The partial government shut-down or
(b) The ObamaCare rollout (ignoring the "glitches" and just focusing on the actual program.

This question was posed by Judge Napolitano (FoxNewsBusiness host and Libertarian).

When Congress was unable to agree on a budget for this present fiscal year because tea party Republicans saw this mess coming and wanted to dull its sting and congressional Democrats refused to negotiate with them, the federal government partially shut down.

The Democrats and the mainstream media went wild. They claimed the government would default on its obligations and millions would suffer without the conveniences normally offered by the federal government.

Yet, the only inconvenience we really heard about was the inability of a few hundred folks to visit federal parks and monuments. All federal services -- defense, the courts, the airports, the TSA (ugh), customs, and meat inspectors -- continued to operate as before the shutdown.

Yet, when ObamaCare was rolled out earlier this month, more than 5,500,000 innocent Americans lost their health insurance, and the president knew of this in advance and lied about it repeatedly, and caused it with the one-size-fits-all mentality of his signature piece of legislation.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach