Showing posts with label carney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carney. Show all posts

Monday, May 19, 2014

Video: Anyone want to guess how Obama allegedly found out about the VA scandal?

Video:AnyonewanttoguesshowObamaallegedly

Video: Anyone want to guess how Obama allegedly found out about the VA scandal?

posted at 3:21 pm on May 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

You get three guesses and the first two don’t count.

I swear, I meant to add “learned about it on the news” to my handy guide to Obama crisis management but I got sidetracked with something else before the post went live. Ah well. By now, after the IRS and AP scandals, you guys should have been able to mentally scribble that one in the margin yourselves. We all know how the M.O. works at this point.

I figure we’re three, maybe four weeks away from Carney pronouncing the VA scandal “old news.” Exit question: When Obama told veterans in 2007 that we need a “new sense of urgency” in making sure sick and injured vets are quickly seen, what else did he mean if not proactive investigation and resolution of the problem by the new president?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Carney: We dispute the GOP’s paid enrollment numbers for ObamaCare, and no, we don’t have any numbers of our own

Carney:WedisputetheGOP’spaidenrollmentnumbers

Carney: We dispute the GOP’s paid enrollment numbers for ObamaCare, and no, we don’t have any numbers of our own

posted at 4:21 pm on May 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Have a laugh at the headline but there’s a fair critique hidden in his shpiel about that bombshell 67 percent figure that was dropped by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday. I already gave you one potential flaw in the Committee’s analysis in my post on that — namely, it may be that populous states like California and New York, which operate their own independent state exchanges, are seeing higher rates of payment among enrollees. That data wasn’t included in the Committee’s analysis because they looked only at the federal exchange. If a big state like California, say, is seeing an 85 percent payment rate, that’s going to drag the total national payment rate up from 67 percent. And in fact, according to a report in March, that’s exactly what California’s seeing — 85 percent. That’s red flag number one.

Red flag number two is Carney’s point here about the surge in enrollment right before the deadline. Here’s Peter Suderman, making the same argument:

April 15 [the as-of date used by the Committee] is just too early to measure anything close to a final payment rate. A huge portion of Obamacare exchange sign ups came in the last few days of open enrollment, for coverage that doesn’t begin until the first day of May. More people signed up later in the month, in the law’s special open enrollment period, and in some cases their coverage won’t start until June. Since the first payments aren’t due until the first day coverage starts, or even as long as 10 days after, that means that lots of people who have signed up still have time to pay. The deadline hasn’t arrived yet. And one thing the end of March sign up spike revealed is that when it comes to health insurance under Obamacare, lots of people wait until the very last minute to take action.

In other words, the fact that 33 percent hadn’t paid as of April 15th doesn’t mean that most of them are deadbeats. What it could mean, given the huge spike in sign-ups in late March, is that a bunch of them simply hadn’t received their first bill yet or were waiting to pay their first bill during the second half of April. They’re not late in paying, they simply haven’t cut the check yet. That may explain the discrepancy between the shocking 67 percent payment rate detected by the Committee and the 80 percent payment rate that insurers have been whispering about for months. Maybe the 13 percent difference is just people who signed up on March 31st and were planning to pay on, say, April 20th. They wouldn’t show up in the Committee data, which ended on April 15th, but they’re valid enrollees nonetheless. For what it’s worth, WellPoint, a major insurer, says the payment rate among its customers is in the ballpark of 90 percent. Hmmmm.

If this is what’s happening, why would the Committee float a bombshell number that may very well turn out to be wrong? Could be it’s just their way of planting an extra seed of doubt in the public’s mind about O-Care: Even if the 67 percent figure is incorrect, it’ll stick in some voters’ minds. Seems awfully stupid, though, to give the White House a chance to say “I told you so” if the final payment rate ends up being much higher. By lowering public expectations to 67 percent, now the White House can spin an 80 percent rate as a “success” rather than the PR black eye that it is. (Twenty percent nonpayment would mean more than a million people would be tossed from the rolls.) I hope this doesn’t blow up in the Committee’s face.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, February 28, 2014

As Russia takes over Crimea, Kerry, Carney warn Putin not to cross the “line”

AsRussiatakesoverCrimea,Kerry,Carneywarn

As Russia takes over Crimea, Kerry, Carney warn Putin not to cross the “line”

posted at 2:01 pm on February 28, 2014 by Allahpundit

In their defense, what else can they say? If they say nothing, they’ll be pilloried for silence in the face of aggression. If they get too explicit about the consequences of line-crossing, everyone will think of Obama’s humiliation over his Syria “red line” and laugh. There’s nothing the U.S. can do to stop Russia from knocking heads and reclaiming Crimea if it wants to. Which means all that’s left is the traditional stern yet scrupulously vague admonishment.

Kerry, in comments that highlighted Washington’s rising suspicion of Moscow, said the U.S. is watching to see if Russian activity in Crimea “might be crossing a line in any way.” He added that the administration would be “very careful” in making judgments about that.

“While we were told that they are not engaging in any violation of the sovereignty and do not intend to, I nevertheless made it clear that could be misinterpreted at this moment,” Kerry said. “There are enough tensions that it is important for everybody to be extremely careful not to inflame the situation and not send the wrong messages.”

Meanwhile:

What on earth is an “intervention line” and how has Russia not already crossed it? AP photographers snapped pics this morning of Russian personnel carriers on the move inside Crimea:

Between that and the seizure of the airports in Sevastopol and Simferopol, for which, apparently, Russia is now admitting responsibility, Ukraine’s new interior minister says this has become a “military invasion and occupation.” Seems like the fabled “intervention line” has been crossed. Then again, if there’s any one lesson to take from the Syria “red line” debacle, it’s that the White House is willing to look the other way repeatedly at violations in order to avoid having to enforce its lines. Remember, Assad’s side was accused more than once of chemical attacks before the big one last August that finally compelled the White House to act. Could be that Obama and Kerry are following a similar approach here: So long as the movements of Russian troops can kinda sorta be explained as defense of their naval bases in Crimea, that’s technically not an “intervention.” Just like, er, this isn’t an intervention either:

The White House’s plan, I assume, is to hope that Putin will be satisfied with this little bit of muscle-flexing and agree to talks on the disposition of the country rather than take parts of it by force. The goal is probably partition: If the choice is between letting eastern Ukraine and Crimea leave and a major war that Russia will have much more interest in prosecuting than the EU will, why not try to secure Russian acquiescence in letting western Ukraine go and call it a day? The Russians aren’t waiting around on their end of this:

There was a draft law debated to this effect in the Russian State Duma. Now, this announcement on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Facebook page:

“Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Simferopol urgently requested to take all necessary steps to start issuing Russian passports to members of the “Berkut” fighting force.”

In other words, Russia is now urging the nationalization of Yanukovych’s riot police.

Why is this important? Before Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 they issued passports to ethnic Russians.

At now, the Russian State Duma is discussing a draft law for adding a new subject of the Russian Federation, i.e. Crimea. In other words, Russia is taking many steps that it took before invading Georgia. This looks to be an attempt to annex Crimea.

I’m … reasonably sure that full annexation would cross the “intervention line,” requiring some sort of U.S. response, but we’ve been through too much to underestimate O’s ability to retreat from his own ultimatums. Stay tuned.

Update: The fact that Kerry’s saying things like this makes me think Russia’s not too worried about crossing anyone’s line.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, January 6, 2014

Video: Jay Carney hits puberty

Video:JayCarneyhitspuberty postedat

Video: Jay Carney hits puberty

posted at 6:01 pm on January 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

An especially hacky joke from an especially hacky blogger to keep the slow post-holiday news cycle moving along. Today it’s the beard, tomorrow it’s the voice, and then before you know it the little guy will be using Old Spice body spray. A strange-yet-true fact from the Greenroom comments on this: It does make him look a bit younger, doesn’t it? Before the beard, I would have guessed that Carney was in his early 40s; looking at him in the clip below, I would have guessed late 30s. He’s 48. Who’s laughing now, America?

If you took this as a sign that he’d turned over a new leaf and was going to lie less at the daily briefing, rest easy. Not a chance:

Speaking to reporters from the White House Monday, Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl how many people between the ages of 18 and 35 have signed up for Obamacare.

“We don’t have the data to provide, we don’t have data that is ready to be released,” Carney said. “Demographic data is not available.”

Of course they have the data, if not from every state exchange than at least from the 30+ states covered by Healthcare.gov. There’s no reason why they wouldn’t and every reason why they would. If, for instance, they’re seeing unusually strong sign-up numbers from a particular age/racial/religious demographic, they’d want to know that ASAP so that they can study their enrollment outreach techniques for that group and expand them to others. There’s no time to waste; they need to know what’s working and what isn’t in order to maximize the number of sign-ups before March 31st. If they’re keeping the data to themselves right now, it can only be because the numbers don’t include enough “young invincibles” and they’re nervous about a new rash of bad headlines. Remember, Carney also used to claim that day-to-day enrollment totals weren’t available before the numbers began to tick upward in November and HHS started leaking them to reporters. Good news is always, always available to share. Only the bad news isn’t.

Via Charlie Spiering of the Examiner, here’s Carney claiming that HHS itself never mentioned seven million as their target enrollment number by the end of March. Truth or lie?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, October 28, 2013

Question for Jay Carney: Didn’t Obama lie when he told people, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”? Update: Obama knew for at least three years

QuestionforJayCarney:Didn’tObamaliewhen

Question for Jay Carney: Didn’t Obama lie when he told people, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”? Update: Obama knew for at least three years

posted at 5:11 pm on October 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Here’s Ed Henry of Fox News picking up right where my last post left off. Everyone remembers Obama endlessly promising in the run-up to O-Care’s passage that you’ll be allowed to keep your plan if you like it. What you may not remember, but which righties like Charles Cooke of NRO are reminding people about on Twitter today, is that The One was unusually unequivocal in making that promise. Go look at the long list of quotes compiled at the end of this recent post at Forbes. Here’s my favorite, from his address to the AMA in June 2009:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health-care reform should be guided by a simple principle: Fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

All that’s missing is a perfunctory “let me be clear.” Carney’s reply to this is, essentially, (a) a lot of people will be able to keep their plan if they like it, even if it’s not quite everyone, and (b) those who are getting dropped from their plans will get more comprehensive coverage on the exchanges. The latter point is like having the CEO of DirecTV tell customers that their monthly bill is about to double but they’ll now receive an extra hundred channels in return, maybe one or two of which people will actually watch. Comprehensive coverage is lovely, but if you’re on a budget basic coverage might be more cost-effective; why pay $1,000 extra a year for a new package that includes substance-abuse treatment, say, if you don’t drink or do drugs? Obama took the option of cheaper catastrophic care away from people because insurers wanted to squeeze healthy middle-class suckers for extra revenue by forcing coverage on them that they don’t need. And yet Carney’s basically selling this as a *good* thing about the law, a sort of upgrade over the basic — but affordable! — plans people have now. Remind me again: Isn’t “affordability” supposed to be a key plank of the Affordable Care Act?

As to the first point, that a lot of people will be keeping their plans, it depends on how you define “a lot.” Sixteen million people being dropped and half of them being forced to pay more sounds like “a lot” too:

[A]ccording to health care analyst Bob Laszewski, about 19 million people are currently in the individual health insurance market and 16 million of them are going to lose their current plan thanks to Obamacare.

Now many of those people will qualify for tax payer subsidies that will help them afford the higher premiums. But how many people that currently have individual health insurance will qualify for any help?

Well, according to a recent Kaiser Study, that number is less than half. Just 48 percent of people now buying their own insurance will be eligible for a tax credit that will help protect them from sticker shock.

That’s 8 million Americans who, like Deborah Cavallaro will be “infuriated because I was lied to.”

Two clips for you, one of Carney not answering Henry’s question and the other of him politely dodging when CNN’s Jim Acosta asks why Obama never seems to have any advance warning when his administration’s engaged in a grand cock-up. The IRS scandal, NSA eavesdropping on world leaders, and now the Healthcare.gov rollout — somehow his inner circle spared The One any prior notice of these debacles until it was too late. You would think Obama would be enraged by now that his yes-men keep letting him get blindsided this way, but no one is fired, no one is held accountable. Go figure.


Update: Of course he knew. How could he not have known that people would be dumped onto more expensive plans when he was counting on the higher revenue from premiums for those plans to help cover other people’s preexisting conditions? The law is supposed to work this way. Of course he knew.

But he didn’t want you to know. So he and his deputies lied and lied and lied.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. 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.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”…

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms.

So they carved out a phony “grandfather” provision to take some political heat off of themselves while the law was being debated in Congress, then basically eviscerated it after the law passed to quietly maximize the number of people who got soaked. Laszewski himself is suddenly staring at a 66 percent premium increase and higher out-of-pocket costs now that his own plan got canceled. Remember when John Roberts was torn to shreds by righties for calling the mandate a tax? The mandate might not be a tax, but the provisions about which plans are and aren’t legal under the law effectively is. It’s a direct hit on middle-class wealth in the name of subsidizing the sick. But rather than sell it that way, as a de facto tax to provide welfare for the needy, and risk a political backlash, Obama chose to lie his ass off in falsely reassuring people they could keep their plan if they liked it. You’re welcome, America.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Question for Jay Carney: Didn’t Obama lie when he told people, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”?

QuestionforJayCarney:Didn’tObamaliewhen

Question for Jay Carney: Didn’t Obama lie when he told people, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”?

posted at 5:11 pm on October 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Here’s Ed Henry of Fox News picking up right where my last post left off. Everyone remembers Obama endlessly promising in the run-up to O-Care’s passage that you’ll be allowed to keep your plan if you like it. What you may not remember, but which righties like Charles Cooke of NRO are reminding people about on Twitter today, is that The One was unusually unequivocal in making that promise. Go look at the long list of quotes compiled at the end of this recent post at Forbes. Here’s my favorite, from his address to the AMA in June 2009:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health-care reform should be guided by a simple principle: Fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

All that’s missing is a perfunctory “let me be clear.” Carney’s reply to this is, essentially, (a) a lot of people will be able to keep their plan if they like it, even if it’s not quite everyone, and (b) those who are getting dropped from their plans will get more comprehensive coverage on the exchanges. The latter point is like having the CEO of DirecTV tell customers that their monthly bill is about to double but they’ll now receive an extra hundred channels in return, maybe one or two of which people will actually watch. Comprehensive coverage is lovely, but if you’re on a budget basic coverage might be more cost-effective; why pay $1,000 extra a year for a new package that includes substance-abuse treatment, say, if you don’t drink or do drugs? Obama took the option of cheaper catastrophic care away from people because insurers wanted to squeeze healthy middle-class suckers for extra revenue by forcing coverage on them that they don’t need. And yet Carney’s basically selling this as a *good* thing about the law, a sort of upgrade over the basic — but affordable! — plans people have now. Remind me again: Isn’t “affordability” supposed to be a key plank of the Affordable Care Act?

As to the first point, that a lot of people will be keeping their plans, it depends on how you define “a lot.” Sixteen million people being dropped and half of them being forced to pay more sounds like “a lot” too:

[A]ccording to health care analyst Bob Laszewski, about 19 million people are currently in the individual health insurance market and 16 million of them are going to lose their current plan thanks to Obamacare.

Now many of those people will qualify for tax payer subsidies that will help them afford the higher premiums. But how many people that currently have individual health insurance will qualify for any help?

Well, according to a recent Kaiser Study, that number is less than half. Just 48 percent of people now buying their own insurance will be eligible for a tax credit that will help protect them from sticker shock.

That’s 8 million Americans who, like Deborah Cavallaro will be “infuriated because I was lied to.”

Two clips for you, one of Carney not answering Henry’s question and the other of him politely dodging when CNN’s Jim Acosta asks why Obama never seems to have any advance warning when his administration’s engaged in a grand cock-up. The IRS scandal, NSA eavesdropping on world leaders, and now the Healthcare.gov rollout — somehow his inner circle spared The One any prior notice of these debacles until it was too late. You would think Obama would be enraged by now that his yes-men keep letting him get blindsided this way, but no one is fired, no one is held accountable. Go figure.



Related Posts:

Source from: hotair