Obama, Sebelius and Gang Would Be Prosecuted For Fraud

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 3:50 AM GMT
    The writer has a point.

    President Obama’s oft-repeated falsehood, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — something the administration knew was untrue — would almost certainly be a textbook case of deceptive advertising, punishable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practice in or affecting commerce.” This includes a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer,” such that the consumer would be “likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.”

    [i]Other examples of potentially deceptive practices include the apparently deliberate decision to withhold information from HealthCare.gov visitors as to the actual prices of the policies offered via the exchanges. In fact, users aren’t told how much those policies will cost until after they have created an account, which requires giving a slew of personal and financial information.




    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363994/prosecute-healthcaregov-andrew-stiles
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 4:15 AM GMT
    That didn't even rhyme.
  • AmaboTe

    Posts: 30

    Nov 17, 2013 6:01 AM GMT
    Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    Mission accomplished.

    I did not have sex with that woman.

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

    I am not a crook.


    ---

    For fuck's sake, all presidents say things that aren't true - whether intentionally or not.

    At least this one didn't topple a nation, ensnaring us in a civil war, leading to countless deaths from all parties with no foreseeable end. It's just an administration daring to step forward and attempt to regulate an industry that has for far too long been allowed to go unchecked.

    If someone is losing their insurance because of cancellations, blame the insurance companies who were charging for sub-standard policies. Blame the healthcare system and the companies who profit from it, and not the government finally doing its job and attempting to regulate it.

    This bitching and complaining, mostly from the right, that the public should be permitted to continue to be taken by the healthcare system as a whole and by insurance companies is ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 6:08 AM GMT
    AmaboTe saidWeapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    Mission accomplished.

    I did not have sex with that woman.

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

    I am not a crook.


    ---

    For fuck's sake, all presidents say things that aren't true - whether intentionally or not.

    At least this one didn't topple a nation, ensnaring us in a civil war, leading to countless deaths from all parties with no foreseeable end. It's just an administration daring to step forward and attempt to regulate an industry that has for far too long been allowed to go unchecked.

    If someone is losing their insurance because of cancellations, blame the insurance companies who were charging for sub-standard policies. Blame the healthcare system and the companies who profit from it, and not the government finally doing its job and attempting to regulate it.

    This bitching and complaining, mostly from the right, that the public should be permitted to continue to be taken by the healthcare system as a whole and by insurance companies is ridiculous.


    "Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    be a big bunch of folks going away on that one







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 8:09 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    AmaboTe saidWeapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    Mission accomplished.

    I did not have sex with that woman.

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

    I am not a crook.


    ---

    For fuck's sake, all presidents say things that aren't true - whether intentionally or not.

    At least this one didn't topple a nation, ensnaring us in a civil war, leading to countless deaths from all parties with no foreseeable end. It's just an administration daring to step forward and attempt to regulate an industry that has for far too long been allowed to go unchecked.

    If someone is losing their insurance because of cancellations, blame the insurance companies who were charging for sub-standard policies. Blame the healthcare system and the companies who profit from it, and not the government finally doing its job and attempting to regulate it.

    This bitching and complaining, mostly from the right, that the public should be permitted to continue to be taken by the healthcare system as a whole and by insurance companies is ridiculous.


    "Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    be a big bunch of folks going away on that one









    You're so cute when you're wrong!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 2:56 PM GMT
    AmaboTe said

    Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    Mission accomplished.

    I did not have sex with that woman.

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

    I am not a crook.

    For fuck's sake, all presidents say things that aren't true - whether intentionally or not.


    You miss the point. This is about something that the American people are being forced to purchase directly. It is commerce and commerce is what is regulated under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The examples you post would not be subject to Section 5 even if the government was not exempted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 3:31 PM GMT
    They all lie. Very few people use the word lie, but that's what they do.

    Everybody knows plausible deniability is a bunch of bullshit, they know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 4:23 PM GMT
    somersault saidThey all lie. Very few people use the word lie, but that's what they do.

    Everybody knows plausible deniability is a bunch of bullshit, they know.


    Yes. In this particular circumstance, though, the lie meets the legal definition of fraud under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, with the exception that Federal government employees are exempt as it relates to their official duties.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Nov 17, 2013 6:25 PM GMT
    AmaboTe saidWeapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    Mission accomplished.

    I did not have sex with that woman.

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

    I am not a crook.


    ---

    For fuck's sake, all presidents say things that aren't true - whether intentionally or not.

    At least this one didn't topple a nation, ensnaring us in a civil war, leading to countless deaths from all parties with no foreseeable end. It's just an administration daring to step forward and attempt to regulate an industry that has for far too long been allowed to go unchecked.

    If someone is losing their insurance because of cancellations, blame the insurance companies who were charging for sub-standard policies. Blame the healthcare system and the companies who profit from it, and not the government finally doing its job and attempting to regulate it.

    This bitching and complaining, mostly from the right, that the public should be permitted to continue to be taken by the healthcare system as a whole and by insurance companies is ridiculous.


    Absolutely false. In fact it was the plan of the Administration to use the private insurance market first then the employer market as a way to fund its program.

    It new that if it told the truth the 50% disapproval with the program would have been 80-90% at the time.

    And last by and large as in every market most people were satisfied with what they had.
    Now they are in a situation where its clear the government cant help them.

    If it were a good deal do you think only a 100 thousand people would have signed up?

    All quietly why the Administration exempts itself and congress from the crappy program it created.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 10:46 PM GMT
    How can you tell when a politician is lying?

    When their lips are moving.

    All politicians lie. What's amazing is that anyone with half a brain believes their promises and statements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 11:30 PM GMT
    HikerSkier saidHow can you tell when a politician is lying?

    When their lips are moving.

    All politicians lie. What's amazing is that anyone with half a brain believes their promises and statements.



    Yes. In this particular circumstance, though, the lie meets the legal definition of fraud under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, with the exception that Federal government employees are exempt as it relates to their official duties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 12:17 AM GMT
    For those able to understand, here's a link to the actual Act:

    http://tinyurl.com/n27azmz
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 12:22 AM GMT
    Why am I feeding the troll?....his entire list of threads is political bashing...not a single thing about health and physical activity or human interaction....still...

    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.

    HOWEVER, 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.

    This was an easy mark for the insurance companies to assure that they would be gaining a higher profit margin, by making some/any change to an existing plan that would exempt the old, sub-standard plan from being grandfathered. Again, this has more to do with the greed of insurance companies, as opposed to the good intention of the law.

    Yes, the WH had internal estimates of anywhere from 40 to 67% of currently insured could face cancellation, but that jumped to about 80% when the Department of Health and Human Services narrowed the provisions.

    Still, this is a GOVERNMENT program, NOT a PRIVATE company. As is being repeated continually, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT ACTIONS.
    End of argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 12:28 AM GMT
    Sporty_g saidWhy am I feeding the troll?....his entire list of threads is political bashing...not a single thing about health and physical activity or human interaction....still...

    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.

    HOWEVER, 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.

    This was an easy mark for the insurance companies to assure that they would be gaining a higher profit margin, by making some/any change to an existing plan that would exempt the old, sub-standard plan from being grandfathered. Again, this has more to do with the greed of insurance companies, as opposed to the good intention of the law.

    Yes, the WH had internal estimates of anywhere from 40 to 67% of currently insured could face cancellation, but that jumped to about 80% when the Department of Health and Human Services narrowed the provisions.

    Still, this is a GOVERNMENT program, NOT a PRIVATE company. As is being repeated continually, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT ACTIONS.
    End of argument.


    No argument. That's the whole point. If this wasn't done by the Federal government, which exempts themselves from laws far too much, and instead done in the private sector, it WOULD have been a classic case of fraud. Thank you for your participation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 12:49 AM GMT
    ...if it was colder outside, our current thunderstorm WOULD be a blizzard....but it's not, so the sirens are blowing right now....

    If my LOTTO numbers were all one digit different, I would be a MULTI-Millionaire....but the weren't....icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 1:03 AM GMT
    Sporty_g said...if it was colder outside, our current thunderstorm WOULD be a blizzard....but it's not, so the sirens are blowing right now....

    If my LOTTO numbers were all one digit different, I would be a MULTI-Millionaire....but the weren't....icon_rolleyes.gif


    Now I see you're missing the whole point.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 18, 2013 1:11 AM GMT
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g said...if it was colder outside, our current thunderstorm WOULD be a blizzard....but it's not, so the sirens are blowing right now....

    If my LOTTO numbers were all one digit different, I would be a MULTI-Millionaire....but the weren't....icon_rolleyes.gif


    Now I see you're missing the whole point.

    His point is that your thread is just a hypothetical scenario.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 1:23 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g said...if it was colder outside, our current thunderstorm WOULD be a blizzard....but it's not, so the sirens are blowing right now....

    If my LOTTO numbers were all one digit different, I would be a MULTI-Millionaire....but the weren't....icon_rolleyes.gif


    Now I see you're missing the whole point.

    His point is that your thread is just a hypothetical scenario.


    No, it's very real. The conduct of the top officials in the Obama admin (including Mr. Obama) was fraudulent. That's a fact. It's also a fact - as the opinion piece cited in the OP states - that said individuals are able to commit fraud without fear of prosecution.

    No hypotheticals at all. Both of you missed the point completely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 1:33 AM GMT
    Got your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 2:12 AM GMT
    Sporty_g saidGot your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif


    I'm not talking about the SCOTUS or agreeing or disagreeing with the law.

    Clearly our minds are wired differently, as you have made an honest and sincere explanation (twice now) of how you see what this topic is about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 2:54 AM GMT
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g saidGot your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif


    I'm not talking about the SCOTUS or agreeing or disagreeing with the law.

    Clearly our minds are wired differently, as you have made an honest and sincere explanation (twice now) of how you see what this topic is about.

    Why you such a douche?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 3:24 AM GMT
    smartmoney said
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g saidGot your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif


    I'm not talking about the SCOTUS or agreeing or disagreeing with the law.

    Clearly our minds are wired differently, as you have made an honest and sincere explanation (twice now) of how you see what this topic is about.

    Why you such a douche?


    Shall I compare SB to a Summer's Eve?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 3:26 AM GMT
    Ernie1961 said
    smartmoney said
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g saidGot your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif


    I'm not talking about the SCOTUS or agreeing or disagreeing with the law.

    Clearly our minds are wired differently, as you have made an honest and sincere explanation (twice now) of how you see what this topic is about.

    Why you such a douche?


    Shall I compare SB to a Summer's Eve?


    Sure, provided we can compare you to

    TM/presentmind/balancing/buildingup/georgelifts/jockthevote/unintended/memorex/jim2013/backtotop/cajock753/SteveFla9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 3:32 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Ernie1961 said
    smartmoney said
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g saidGot your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif


    I'm not talking about the SCOTUS or agreeing or disagreeing with the law.

    Clearly our minds are wired differently, as you have made an honest and sincere explanation (twice now) of how you see what this topic is about.

    Why you such a douche?


    Shall I compare SB to a Summer's Eve?


    Sure, provided we can compare you to

    TM/presentmind/balancing/buildingup/georgelifts/jockthevote/unintended/memorex/jim2013/backtotop/cajock753/SteveFla9


    Look, I know who it is you think I am. As stated prior, I've been lurking here a LONG time.

    But I'm not that person. I have one, and only one, identity here.

    This ends my attempt at convincing you of what you so desperately need to not be true.

    Sad fact is, you're wrong.

    Again.

    Deal.

    (So many delusional wingnuts; so little aluminum foil for their hats.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 3:43 AM GMT
    Ernie1961 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Ernie1961 said
    smartmoney said
    PrickleyHeat said
    Sporty_g saidGot your point just fine thanks....just don't see the logic in arguing it with you.
    The law is in place and has been upheld by SCOTUS... and as usual everyone that disagrees is an armchair QB after the fact.
    So, is the law an issue or is it the fact that the FTC holds a different bar to businesses and has an exemption for government? If the issue is the exemption then that is what should be addressed, instead of cherry picking the topics. You accuse me of not getting the point in this thread, when it is you that cant see the forest for the trees and continues to harp on the "what ifs"....
    Have a good evening.icon_cool.gif


    I'm not talking about the SCOTUS or agreeing or disagreeing with the law.

    Clearly our minds are wired differently, as you have made an honest and sincere explanation (twice now) of how you see what this topic is about.

    Why you such a douche?


    Shall I compare SB to a Summer's Eve?


    Sure, provided we can compare you to

    TM/presentmind/balancing/buildingup/georgelifts/jockthevote/unintended/memorex/jim2013/backtotop/cajock753/SteveFla9


    Look, I know who it is you think I am. As stated prior, I've been lurking here a LONG time.

    But I'm not that person. I have one, and only one, identity here.

    This ends my attempt at convincing you of what you so desperately need to not be true.

    Sad fact is, you're wrong.

    Again.

    Deal.

    (So many delusional wingnuts; so little aluminum foil for their hats.)


    Ohhhhh right, lurking, my ass, TM/presentmind/balancing/buildingup/georgelifts/jockthevote/unintended/memorex/jim2013/backtotop/cajock753/SteveFla9