Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

Comments Off on Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

Well Harry Reid is finally admitting what we already knew. Obamacare is designed to fail and lead us to what the Dems wanted in the first place but couldn’t go directly to it, they had to do an end run to get the result they really wanted….government run/socialist health care (single payer).

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option, sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health care bill.

“We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” Reid said on the PBS program, recalling how then-Sen. Joe Lieberman’s opposition to the idea of a public option made them abandon the notion and start from scratch.

Eventually, Reid decided the public option was unworkable.

“We had to get a majority of votes,” Reid said. “In fact, we had to get a little extra in the Senate, we have to get 60.”

Reid cited the post-WWII auto industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, remarking that “we’ve never been able to work our way out of that” before predicting that Congress would someday end the insurance-based health care system.

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system – Las Vegas Sun News.

Advertisements

Visibly Annoyed Obama Unveils Non-Reforms on NSA Surveillance

Comments Off on Visibly Annoyed Obama Unveils Non-Reforms on NSA Surveillance

The President was angry? Angry at what, the fact that he got caught doing even more unconstitutional things?…

The president promised four “reforms,” three of which amounted to talking with other officials about how to sell the American public on the idea that everything is going as well as he thinks it is, and the fourth of which offering a minor tweak to FISA courts.

That tweak was the idea, proposed before, to have a “civil liberties advocate” present at FISA courts, since apparently judges in secret courts don’t take individual freedom very seriously. Obama expressed openness to the idea, but would only allow advocates “in appropriate cases.”

From the moment he emerged at the White House press conference today, President Obama had a visible chip on his shoulder, apparently annoyed that facing growing public outrage over the NSA surveillance schemes he had to make public promises of reforms.

Or at least what passes for reforms in his mind. Obama insisted that he is entirely “comfortable” with the surveillance system as currently constituted and expressed anger that “rather than a lawful process” the public debate was a result of leaks.

The president promised four “reforms,” three of which amounted to talking with other officials about how to sell the American public on the idea that everything is going as well as he thinks it is, and the fourth of which offering a minor tweak to FISA courts.

That tweak was the idea, proposed before, to have a “civil liberties advocate” present at FISA courts, since apparently judges in secret courts don’t take individual freedom very seriously. Obama expressed openness to the idea, but would only allow advocates “in appropriate cases.”

Beyond that, the sum total of the promises amounted to hiring a “full-time privacy officer” to work at the NSA, a single employee who will no doubt get lost in that ever-growing leviathan, and a pledge that the intelligence community will eventually make a web site explaining to people how great surveillance is.

Oddly, Obama conceded of the surveillance that “I would be worried too if I wasn’t inside the government,” but then went on to insist that the public would’ve been fine with the program but his trust was “undermined” by leaks, which of course are the only reason the American public knew about the surveillance in the first place.

Most of the press conference was of little substance, with Obama angrily rejecting questions about drone strikes in Yemen and mocking Russian President Vladimir Putin’s slouch, saying he’s “lookin’ like the bored kid in the classroom.”

 

 

Visibly Annoyed Obama Unveils Non-Reforms on NSA Surveillance — News from Antiwar.com.

FSOC moves Metlife into final stage for additional supervision

Comments Off on FSOC moves Metlife into final stage for additional supervision

You haven’t seen this in the MSM. FSOC has been slowly but surely putting all major insurance companies under the control umbrella of the Federal Reserve. This will mean greater regulation, higher cost to consumers and less services provided. Let us not forget, the AIG’s sins had nothing to do with their insurance business and the quantity and amount of financial investments involved in the insurance business would not have a ‘run on the bank’ type impact if companies like Prudential, MetLife, etc., ever got into financial trouble. This is nothing more than government trying to control additional financial services industries.

Our Land of the Free?

MetLife, the nation’s largest life insurance company, said Tuesday that financial regulators have moved one step closer to placing it under tougher government supervision.

In a closed session on Tuesday, the Financial Stability Oversight Council voted to advance MetLife to the final stage of a three-step process for designation as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI), a label that would subject the firm to oversight from the Federal Reserve. That would impose on the company a number of strict regulations, including setting aside more money to cushion against losses.

For months, MetLife’s chief executive Steve Kandarian has warned that the FSOC’s plans to subject insurance companies to federal oversight could lead to higher prices and fewer products across the industry. He stressed that point Tuesday, suggesting MetLife could dial back its business in the face of higher capital requirements.

“If only a handful of large life insurers are named SIFIs and subjected to capital rules designed for banks, our ability to issue guarantees would be constrained,” he said in a statement. “We would have to raise the price of the products we offer, reduce the amount of risk we take on, or stop offering certain products altogether.”

Kandarian said he anticipated the council would name MetLife because the company is larger than its competitor Prudential Financial, which is appealing the government’s designation.

It’s unclear what action MetLife would take if it meets Prudential’s fate, since the company declined to comment on the matter. But Kandarian is unwavering in his belief that Metlife does not engage in the sorts of risky financial activities that could rattle the economy.

“Not only does exposure to MetLife not threaten the financial system, but I cannot think of a single firm that would be threatened by its exposure to MetLife,” Kandarian said in the statement.

Tuesday’s vote arrives a week after the council finalized its designation of GE Capital and American International Group. The interagency panel of regulators has ushered in a new era of oversight for a broad swath of firms that play in the financial markets but have largely escaped federal supervision, including private equity firms and hedge funds.

The goal of the designations is to ensure that nonbank financial firms will not fall through the cracks of the regulatory system the way AIG did at the start of the financial crisis. Lawmakers called for tougher oversight of financial companies after the insurance giant received a $182 billion bailout to save it from collapse in 2008.

In a memo explaining the AIG decision, regulators said the company could face the equivalent of a bank run if policyholders got spooked about its financial health and cashed out en masse. The same could be said for MetLife or Prudential.

Kandarian argued in his statement that the council’s scenario is a little far fetched because “even during periods of financial stress, the long-term nature of our liabilities insulates us against bank-like ‘runs’ and the need to sell off assets.”

MetLife’s main rival Prudential has requested a closed-door hearing before the FSOC, which has until August to schedule the meeting. Attorneys and others following the process doubt that Prudential has much of a chance of getting the FSOC to reverse course.

The three-step process of examination was so lengthy and detailed that it may be difficult for Prudential to make its case at this point, analysts say. Any outcome could have significant bearing on how regulators proceed with future designations.

FSOC moves Metlife into final stage for additional supervision – Washington Post.

A Military Coup Will Remove Obama

Comments Off on A Military Coup Will Remove Obama

I found this article very interesting:

President Obama’s presidency has a definitive shelf life. His backpedaling in the Middle East is of major concern to the military establishment but also to special interest groups such as the Carlyle Group. Obama is threatening to let Iraq and Afghanistan follow in the footsteps of Vietnam. Further, Obama’s refusal to attack Syria and Iran threatens the viability of the Petrodollar. This two part series will examine the forces which are lining up against this President and how five simultaneous political scandals are being held over his head to gain compliance from several powerful special interest groups.

The Aftermath of Benghazi

benghazi obama leaves em behindObama’s presidency may not survive until 2016. He has the most dramatic set of political scandals in the history of the Oval Office. The only question remaining for this president is will he leave office as a result of the scandals or the result of a direct military coup? Obama has already survived one military coup attempt, but it is difficult to believe that there aren’t more military coups waiting in the wings for the right moment to strike.

The First Military Coup

In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.

Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration.

The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup.  What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.

Can you imagine the reaction of Stevens, his security team, and two senior command officers if Stevens had indeed been rescued? The gun-running stories of the CIA to Al-Qaeda would have turned the general populace on its ear. This would have been Obama’s Watergate moment. Of course, Stevens had to be murdered to cover up Obama’s complicity in gun-running to Al-Qaeda. Remember, it was Hillary Clinton, on behalf of Obama, who refused to beef up security for Ambassador Stevens at his request. With all that the Benghazi event represents, the sheep of America would’ve been awakened if Stevens had survived to talk. With the inability of the Obama administration to squelch the cries of conspiracy in the aftermath of Benghazi, Hillary, in an effort to preserve her 2016 election hopes, could not jump off the Obama ship fast enough. And even Napolitano has jumped ship and look for more defections in the weeks ahead. Obama is in real trouble. Spying on reporters and using the IRS to harass political enemies is damning, but Benghazi is career ending.

A Review of Benghazi

Let’s review what we have learned about what transpired at Benghazi. The Benghazi consulate, which was no more than a CIA safe house, came under attack by Al Qaeda forces and the attack lasted several hours. We now know that CIA forces were right down the street at the time of the attack that murdered Stevens Al Qaeda attackers, as they attempted to flee the murder scene, were subsequently murdered by the CIA forces, who could have been used to rescue Stevens. This was a desperate attempt to conceal Obama’s gun running operations. We also know that several key personnel at Benghazi have been forced to sign nondisclosure agreements about what they know. What did they know?

The Truth Is Hiding In Plain Sight

What is known, and what was reported in the New York Times, is that this administration ran guns to Al Qaeda in a Middle East version of fast and furious. We’ve also learned that Ambassador Stevens was the conduit between the establishment and Al Qaeda receiving weapons, which they used to overthrow the Libyan government.

The murder of Stevens and his team at Benghazi is a seminal moment in American history. We have further learned that al-Qaeda forces, fighting on the side of NATO in Libya, obtained 20,000 hand-held stinger missiles. This means that the Obama administration has allowed al-Qaeda to be armed to the teeth including the acquisition of 20,000 stinger missiles in which only one is needed to take down an American airliner. To cover their tracks, the Obama administration left Chris Stevens and his bodyguards defenseless as they were killed by the very terrorists who this administration armed. Can you imagine how the election of 2012 would’ve turned if the American public had this information. This is why Stevens had to be killed, but there’s more.

Arming Al-Qaeda In Syria

It is now common knowledge that this administration was also running guns to Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow Assad of Syria. However, news of their gunrunning was beginning to leak and the source of the gunrunning had to be eliminated. That source was Ambassador Chris Stevens and the sensitive information that he held, unfortunately for Stevens, came only a couple of months prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is quite apparent that this administration felt that the evidence of their gunrunning trail must be totally obliterated and the only way to accomplish that was to arm Al Qaeda forces to assassinate Ambassador Stevens. These are not shocking revelations and I believe it’s likely that Congress knew the truth is far back as December of 2012. However, the congressional investigation did not succeed in their attempts at getting to the bottom of the Stevens murder. For more than a month Hillary Clinton refused to show up and testify. Other establishment figures were less than cooperative with regard to the congressional investigation. However, there is a clear and distinctive pattern of high command military awareness of this establishment’s murderous and treacherous actions which culminated in the death, the preventable death of Stevens and his bodyguard contingency.

The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopular with the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.

Before we get into why Hamm and Gayoutte were sacked on the same day, please allow me to first say that Obama’s action of sacking two high ranking officers is so unprecedented, so reckless, that it is difficult to comprehend.  Please allow me to offer a sports analogy in order to explain the magnitude of this action. Imagine that your favorite football team was on the eve of playing in the Super Bowl and the owner of your team fired both the head coach and the quarterback the night before the big game. Wouldn’t this throw your team into a state of disarray? Of course it would, and subsequently your team would face annihilation. This is exactly the case with our forces in the Middle East after the firing of these two military leaders at this critical point in time. The deposing and subsequent arrest of the AFRICOM commanding officer, and the firing of a Carrier task force commander was an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and left a dangerous leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk. And it is important to note that these firings took place at a time when it appeared that war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia was on the immediate horizon.

Admiral Gayouette

Admiral Gayouette

The positions held by Hamm and Gayouette are so powerful and so sensitive, that their replacements require approval from the Senate. Why would Obama engage in such a reckless act when the country was so close to war? Very simply, both men were jointly attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, despite being told to stand down by Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta who was acting under Obama’s orders.

As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Hamm had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, was under attack. When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he still continued with his plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contravening the order by his second in command, General Rodriquez. Admiral Gayouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Hamm’s rescue in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.”  What is so significant about the sacking of these two military officers is that they were from two completely different command structures in two different branches of the military. This speaks clearly to an overall military mindset with regard to how they view Obama.

It is abundantly clear that had Obama been concerned for saving the lives of the four murdered Americans, American forces could have stopped the mortar fire that eventually killed Ambassador Stevens. However, Panetta and Obama blocked any rescue attempt. In legal parlance, Obama, Panetta and Clinton are, at minimum, accomplices to murder. At maximum these three rogue government officials are co-conspirators to first degree murder and now they have sacked two senior command military leaders to cover their complicity in an act of treason. I feel like I am watching an episode of the former popular television show, 24, as we are presently engaged in a plot that scarcely anyone would have believed if it had aired on television and not occurred in real life.

Others Have Taken Note and Spoken Out

Even though the corporate controlled media refuses to provide detailed coverage of the events in Benghazi, Representative Buck McKeon wrote a letter to Obama in which he boldly stated  ”As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command (author’s note: General Hamm) and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.”

There is also proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.

There’s further evidence that US agents in Libya were at least aware of weapons and militants moving across the border. The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA and brokered arms deals with Al-Qaeda and their affiliate rebels in both Libya and Syria. Can anyone imagine the political fallout to this President if word of this had ever leaked out? Stevens was the link between the CIA and Al-Qaeda. With Stevens out of the way, the trail could grow cold and the American public would be none the wiser. This is why a rescue attempt was not permitted and this explains why two senior level officials were sacked for trying to do so. However, it is becoming increasingly clear this mutiny represents a military mindset and has the backing of the Carlyle Group. This connection will be explored in part two.

Obama’s Tumultuous Relationship with the Military

General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders.  The first sign of a major rift between the American military and Obama became evident when the supreme commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, was fired by Obama for derogatory comments made by the general about the president. Interestingly, the reporter who published a story which led to McChrystal’s firing was none other than recently murdered reporter Michael Hastings.

First McChrystal, then Hamm and Gayoutte were fired by Obama. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that the military is becoming more emboldened in their rebellion against this rogue President.

  CIA Director David Patraeus Is Sacked

Patraeus was the former commander in Iraq and in Afghanistan after McChrystal was fired by Obama. He was rewarded when he was appointed to be the CIA director. An extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell brought down his reign as CIA director in November of 2012, just following the election.

There is the reason given to explain an event and there is the real reason behind the event. Sixty percent of all married men cheat on their spouses. The more money they make and the more power a man possesses, the more opportunity for cheating.

I have swamp land for sale, in Florida, for anyone to purchase if they are naive enough to believe that David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resigned solely based upon having an extramarital affair with the biographer-turned-mistress, Paula Broadwell. How did the affair compromise Petraeus’ position as CIA director? The FBI, who vetted Patraeus for the CIA director position, concluded that it did not.

Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged by Obama:

  • Gen. Hamm, on October 18, 2012.
  • Adm. Gayouette, on October 18, 2012.
  • Gen. Petraeus, on November 9, 2012.
  • General Allen, on November 13, 2012.

Other casualties of military leadership during this time frame includes General Keene and General Odierno. Further, the second in commander of Central Command, General Mattis, And who could forget about General Mckiernan? In total, Obama has sacked nearly 20 generals during his tenure as president.

Conclusion

Not wanting the Middle East to become America’s next Vietnam, the military wants Obama gone. And now the military has a strong partner, the Carlyle Group whose connections ripple through the American power structure. These connections and the other reasons why the Obama administration may not be standing by the end of year will be presented in part two.

 

A Military Coup Will Remove Obama | Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show.