SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)10/31/2015 10:17:25 PM
From: Bonefish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574439
 
Has it been verified Isis was involved?



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/1/2015 8:01:20 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1574439
 
3 Thugs Murder Grandma Hendrix in Her Front Yard: She Makes EPIC Last Stand! 8 joeforamerica



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/1/2015 12:16:30 PM
From: locogringo3 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
Jane4IceCream
longnshort

  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1574439
 
If it is proven that ISIS brought down that Russian plane, you will see how a real world leader answers the murderers. I guarantee you it won't be some phony red line to save face (pastel pink, in the case of the sissy obama), and then watch it crossed repeatedly as the world laughs at you.



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/1/2015 12:36:36 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 1574439
 
How stupid are Obama cultists to keep believing a pathological liar?
+++

Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/01/2015 09:23 -0500

Afghanistan Australia Iraq Meet The Press Middle East national security Obama Administration Saudi Arabia White House


One thing you might have noticed if you watched White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest trying to explain to reporters why embedding US spec ops with the YPG in Syria doesn’t amount to putting US boots on the ground, is that despite the fact that there are any number of more important questions the media should be asking about the new “plan” (see our full account here), Americans are far more concerned about the apparent contradiction between Obama’s “new” strategy and statements he’s made with regard to US forces in Syria in the past.

Indeed, nearly every question Earnest fielded revolved around whether The White House is set to recant on the administration’s pledge not to put American “combat” forces in Syria.

Make no mistake, these questions probably seem absurd to anyone in US intelligence and/or military circles. Obviously, there have been boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq for years and indeed, the public seems to have forgotten that just five months ago, US commandos executed a raid in Syria that purportedly killed Islamic State’s “ gas minister” (and yes, that’s just as absurd as it sounds).

Additionally, Washington has made no secret of the now defunct “train and equip” program for Syrian rebels - clearly, the American public hadn’t thought very hard about who was doing the on-the-ground “training.”

Finally, there’s no telling how many CIA operatives and black ops have been running around in Syria assissisting Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s proxy armies from the very beginning.

Still, the Obama administration has gone out of its way in the past to dismiss the idea of American boots on the ground in Syria and because we’re happy to see that the mainstream media has at least partially woken up to this ridiculous charade, we present 16 instances of Obama swearing there will be no boots on the ground, courtesy of USA Today:

* * *

Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."

Interview with the PBS Newshour, Sept. 9, 2013

"Tomorrow I'll speak to the American people. I'll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We're not talking about — not boots on the ground. We're not talking about sustained airstrikes. We're talking about a very specific set of strikes to degrade his chemical weapons capabilities in terms of delivery."

Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 2013

"What I'm going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that. This isn't like Iraq. It's not like Afghanistan. It's not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important."

Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013

"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities."

Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014

"We are doing everything we can to see how we can do that and how we can resource it. But I've looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem."

News conference in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014

"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria. I don't think that's necessary for us to accomplish our goal. We are going to have to find effective partners on the ground to push back against ISIL."

Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2014

"(You) cannot, over the long term or even the medium term, deal with this problem by having the United States serially occupy various countries all around the Middle East. We don't have the resources. It puts enormous strains on our military. And at some point, we leave. And then things blow up again. So we've got to have a more sustainable strategy, which means the boots on the ground have to be Iraqi. And and in Syria, the boots on the ground have to be Syrian. ... I will reserve the right to always protect the American people and go after folks who are trying to hurt us wherever they are. But in terms of controlling territory, we're going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that."

Address to the Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014

"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground."

News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014

"Yes, there are always circumstances in which the United States might need to deploy U.S. ground troops. If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then, yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it. So the question just ends up being, what are those circumstances? I'm not going speculate on those. Right now we're moving forward in conjunction with outstanding allies like Australia in training Iraqi security forces to do their job on the ground."

Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015

"The resolution we've submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. ... As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That's not in our national security interest, and it's not necessary for us to defeat ISIL. Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL, and that's what they're doing."

Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

"There are no current plans to do so. That's not something that we currently discussed. I've always said that I'm going to do what's necessary to protect the homeland. One of the principles that we all agree on, though, and I pressed folks pretty hard because in these conversations with my military advisers I want to make sure I'm getting blunt and unadulterated, uncensored advice. But in every one of the conversations that we've had, the strong consensus is that in order for us to succeed long-term in this fight against ISIL, we have to develop local security forces that can sustain progress. It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists."

* * *

Summing it all up in one hilarious picture of Ash Carter listening to Obama tell reporters at The Pentagon that their will be no boots on the ground in Syria...



Average:



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/1/2015 1:46:15 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1574439
 
Video - Adriani Relandi's trip to 'Palestine' A.D. 1699 revisited. 8 mfs-theothernews



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/2/2015 7:22:14 AM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 1574439
 
A smart move by a very able leader,

Wrong again Donny boy. Those troops as brave and able as they are will not be able to shape the battle in any appreciable or significant way. Obozo, Clown POTUS, needs political cover for doing NOTHING. He's put some of America's best in harms way for no appreciable gain. Totally reprehensible. Our POTUS is a genuine POS.



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/2/2015 7:29:45 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
jlallen

  Respond to of 1574439
 
Obama will leave them to hang out and dry like he did Ambassador Stevens. this is for show and he doesn't give a shit about their lives. Or yours



To: Don Hurst who wrote (897725)11/2/2015 3:59:47 PM
From: jlallen1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Bill

  Respond to of 1574439
 
Another triumph of our "able leader"'!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

What a clown!


Nearly Half of ObamacareCo-Ops Have Failed
Expert: $1.1 billion in taxpayer dollars lost after 10 of 23 co-ops go out of business





Ali Meyer
November 2, 2015 5:00 am

Ten of the 23 health insurance co-ops created under Obamacare have gone out of business, and experts say more will follow.

Utah’s Arches is the latest co-op to fail, along with others in Kentucky, New York, Nevada, Louisiana, Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee, South Carolina and a co-op that served both Iowa and Nebraska.

Experts say that the co-ops are failing because of artificially low premiums, strict regulations, and too many people requiring payouts.

“In most cases, they priced too low relative to what their claims costs were going to be, that’s what the operating margins were all about,”said Thomas Miller, a fellow specializing in health care policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

“Now what made them attractive was they’re offering lower premiums so more people want to sign up for that, but that’s a dangerous proposition where you’re making up your losses on volume,” Miller explains. “You’re getting more people, but those extra enrollees you’re bringing in are being underwritten at a loss.”

“The co-ops are losing more than they’re bringing in because they’re paying out for older, sicker populations and don’t have enough younger, healthier people to help share the cost burden,” says Nathan Nascimento, a senior policy adviser at Freedom Partners. “This is in part because the monthly premiums set up by the co-ops were set artificially low compared to other plans.”

“Co-op insurers are heavily subsidized and operate under strict regulations,” he explains. “They’re more heavily regulated than other insurance plans offered in the health care exchange.”

“When you have artificially low premiums, a pool of people requiring more payouts, increased regulations, and reductions in risk corridor subsidies, it’s the perfect storm of insolvency,” he said. “They’re a public option comprise concept that clearly does not work – a thought experiment that is not practical in reality.”

Akash Chougule, deputy director of policy at Americans for Prosperity, says that as costs continue to rise, less people will enroll, causing more co-ops to go out of business.

“It doesn’t require an advanced degree in economics to see why this is unsustainable,” explains Chougule. “As costs and premiums continue to increase, people will increasingly avoid enrolling. And as co-ops succumb to the reality of higher rates, they’ll continue failing at their alarming pace.”

“More co-ops will likely fail – they were doomed from the start,” said Nascimento. “We’re already seeing another co-op collapse, this time in Utah, with 66,000 people losing their health care coverage and costing taxpayers more money – $89,650,303 to be exact.”

“With the now collapse of Utah’s Co-Op, Arches, well over $1.1 billion in taxpayer dollars has been lost to ten failed co-ops under the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

An official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wouldn’t rule out that more co-ops may fail in the future. “If a co-op has solvency issues, and we cannot rule out that others may this year, we will work with the states so that consumers have affordable options on the marketplace,” said Aaron Albright, an HHS spokesman. “As a startup business, we recognize not all will succeed.”

With more co-ops closing their doors, consumers will have fewer choices and may have to pay more out of pocket or risk being penalized by the federal government.

“The closure of the co-ops will most certainly lead to higher costs for people,” says Nascimento. “People kicked off the co-ops will now be mandated to choose a new health care plan and potentially one they turned down previously due to higher costs.”

“People may also be forced to lose their current doctor because they are out-of-network, or they will have to pay even more out of their pockets to stay with their current doctor,” he said.

According to the Iowa Insurance Division, “Your coverage with CoOpportunity Health will stop, and claims will not be paid after cancellation. If you do not purchase replacement insurance, you may be penalized by the federal government.”

A proponent of the co-ops, the former North Dakota senator Kent Conrad, said they were “sabotaged.”

“Those who wanted to kill them—largely Republicans and competing insurance companies – just step by step took actions to subvert them and to assure they would have an extraordinarily difficult time surviving,” Conrad said.

Yet, Miller explains that the co-ops wouldn’t be able to go into the private market and get loans the same way they were able to with the federal government.

“One of the things that people sometimes don’t take into account – this is almost “free” money, the solvency loans that are $2.4 million, those were on extremely attractive terms, whereas the startup loans had to be paid back earlier—within five years,” said Miller.

“If you’re the federal government in a low interest rate environment you could say, well that’s how it is and that’s just how the market charges for slow growth and limited loan demand, but these co-ops are in effect not very credit-worthy organizations with a lot of risk behind them,” Miller said.

“If they had to go into the private market to get loans they’d be floating junk bonds in a sense,” he said.

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Health Care, Obamacare. Bookmark the permalink.