Bill Clinton said in an interview published today that President Obama “should honor his commitment” to those who “heard the promise, if you like what you got, you can keep it.”
Clinton, speaking to the news site OZY, said it was unfair that certain recipients who are in the individual marketplace are having their policies cancelled and replaced by more expensive plans.
Clinton said:
I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor his commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.
The remarks suggests the Clintons may be starting to reposition themselves away from President Obama and trying to dissociate themselves from the Obamacare rollout debacle as Hillary Clinton gears up for her expected presidential campaign.
64 thoughts on “Bill Clinton: Obama “Should Honor his Commitment””
Music for Chameleons.
Bill looks so skinny and frail he is like one of those overdieted Lollipop Socialites.
Bill Clinton got busted for having sex in the White H. which did not include his wife. He had to go though the ringer for that. The only reason why he may have kept his mouth shut for all the other things O is involved is that: He does not want to humiliate his daughters mom for starters.
I don’t think so, Lee. He survived that little episode with just a bit of tarnish on his reputation.
Chelsea does figure into this but not because he doesn’t want to embarrass her or Hillary. Bill’s most important goal is to protect Chelsea…but not from humiliation.
You know, skeezy though it was, I don’t think it was hard for anyone to understand a man cheating on Hilz at all. I mean, seriously, did ANYONE believe that “marriage” in the FIRST place? And I don’t think she cared for men “that way” any more than the current, eh, “President” actually likes females anyway…
No, it wasn’t really the cheating on his, ahem, “wife” that caused him trouble. It was the lying about it later, just ask Nixon how that works.
And Obama seems set to outdo BOTH of them in the Lying Department…
Obama passed both of them long ago.
Time for Hillary to separate from the Obama train wreck…….
Hillary shoud have done that the night, and or week of Benghazi!
I hope it’s an impossibility for Clinton to escape responsibility for Benghazi although I think the 60 Minutes story was meant to promote just that. There’s Hillary’s word and then there’s this liar’s word. It’s either/or, black/white.
Before it’s over, Hillary will become a Goldwater Girl again.
LOL !
Too late for me to ever wander back into that fold. The woman has shown herself for what she is and I want nothing more to do with her.
“I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor his commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.”
Mustn’t this change come from Congress? I can see the Democrats in the Senate and House voting for the change, but not the GOP because this still is a step toward single-payer insurance.
Yes, I think Congress would have to order the ins cos to reverse things and even pay them to–this would be huge and probably impossible–all their computers have hit ye olde RESET by now…horrible situation.
It goes beyond the computer issue. Allowing people to pay for what they need would help collapse the whole shebang.
“shebang”
Considering this is about Bill Clinton, I think Dr. Freud has been paged.
LOL
Didja’ miss my “fork” post in the Schedule thread?
Well, all insurance has coverage you may not use–rehabilitation after surgery and so on–you don’t choose just what you predict you will use. But these policies are gold-plated with drug rehab (months), and in vitro (crazy expensive and not needed). I say they could have divided into individual and family coverage…and put the bells and whistles in fam.
“…in vitro (crazy expensive and not needed). ” – Star
It IS needed, for the newly-married gay and lesbian couples to reproduce…
Here’s some coming attractions for Obamacare;
“According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:
Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
But what does this blanket anti-discrimination language mean in the context of a gay or lesbian individual or couple? AB 460 maintains the existing two-pronged approach to determining infertility for purposes of requiring coverage, that is, either a “demonstrated condition” that causes infertility “or” the “inability to conceive a pregnancy . . . after a year or more of regular sexual relations.”
This raises a cogent question: Could AB 460 be construed to require insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments for gay couples simply because their sexual unions cannot produce children? For example, might the law require that insurance pay for an insured lesbian’s artificial insemination, even if she is fecund, based solely on her choice not to have heterosexual intercourse?”
http://www.kpcnews.net/fence_post/showthread.php?8048-CA-law-mandates-insurance-coverage-for-gay-infertility-Really
So I suppose it’s how you define “not needed”. It’s VERY needed, if a large, rich part of your base is “differently coital”, wants children, and wants US to pay for it…
“For example, might the law require that insurance pay for an insured lesbian’s artificial insemination, even if she is fecund, based solely on her choice not to have heterosexual intercourse?”
It’d be cheaper to buy them all turkey basters.
He knows Obastard can’t do what he suggested. Bill’s just pulling their tail.
It should have taken the entire Congress to waive the employer mandate, but it didn’t. We are outside of Constitutional waters now.
Vroom, vroom, the Clinton’s big, black bus is geared up and has a bead on MrObama.
Are we about to witness a Dem circular firing squad?
Will we see tears again?
Oh Lord have mercy, I certainly hope so!
I for one, and surely I’m not alone, pay NO HEED to a thing Bill Clinton has to say. He’s been diagnosed with the Schumer Effect, the primary symptom is feeling compelled to comment on every topic out there.
Bill needs to take the GW Bush approach – do not criticize a sitting president. As much as we all think Obama is doing a lousy job, it’s not Bill’s task to tell Obama what to do. As if Obama would actually listen anyway!! Too funny.
“NO HEED”
Again, Freud was right ’cause I read that as “HO NEED”.
I can’t believe I just read the words ‘Clinton’ and ‘honor’ in the same sentence.
There’s the difference between a politician and a tyrant. The politician in Clinton keeps moving toward a win. He was quite successful at that as president, and it made for a productive presidency despite all the noise that went on.
The tyrant, on the other hand, spends his energy telling us all that black is white, up is down, and “you can keep it” really meant you can’t keep it because we didn’t like it nearly as much as you did.
The last time my checkbook balanced comfortably at the end of the month, Bill Clinton was in the White House. I was primed to vote for Hillary in 2008.
No more. After Benghazi I would not vote for Hillary if you held a gun to my head.
Yes on both! The last time I had money was under Clinton. Well, not u under…oh never mind.
Oh, this is going to get sooooooooooooo good.
The Clinton machine gearing up for payback for stealing the nomination from Hillary in the first place.
Valerie Jarret’s days are going to get very, very frustrating.
The Clintons had better be careful. These people play hard ball.
Good point. Even the Clinton’s have never gone up against ValJar and Axelrod.
HaHaHa,…game on !!!
don’t worry about ValJar. she’s just thrilled Obama’s going to help the Iranian mullahs go nuclear.
Yea, I see a food fight between the Clintons and the Obamas coming on. Up to now they’ve been throwing little grapes at each other. But the big pizzas and custard pies are on the way. On the Jarrett angle, I am completely convinced that’s she’s been in charge of Obama’s Little Black Book of Dirt On People (ala Petraeus). I’m sure that the book has many, many pages about Hillary’s and Bill’s escapades for the past five years. If Billy gets too frisky with his comments, Jarrett may lower the boom on him big time, and thus cripple Hillary’s ambitions. You’d think that Obama would be more or less supporting Hillary (D’s hanging together), but the fault lines between the Clintons and the Obamas run very deep.
Hillary 2016!!!!
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The irony is thick enough to cut with a chain-saw. Bill Clinton couldn’t honor his commitment to one person, his wife, and one institution, marriage. This is a rather simple endeavor, requiring people to keep their zippers in the up position. Yet now he’s lecturing someone who’s tried to undertake the fundamental transformation of an entire economy and society?
Oh, Mandy….you are -at times- the “wo-man!”
*curtsey*
I could not care less about the Monica thing anymore–I say let them fight. That is what the Republicans are doing apparently.
And, some do still care about the kind of character that would put up with repeated betrayals in order to gain more and more power.
That to me is the least of her drawbacks. Plenty of women hitched their wagons to male stars. Unfortunately, for me, it was the other way around, but you get my pt. Sure, she’s expedient, was and is in a business marriage etc. This all is not news. But I guess it just can’t be rehashed enough. I am more interested what I posted the other day–that a top Dem strategist could not name one policy she had championed.
Character counts. It’s not that she hitched her wagon to Bill, it’s that she is an enabler. I think that trait helped lead to what happened in Benghazi.
I agree character counts. It’s one thing for a person to have screwed up once, and recovered to go on to live a more or less virtuous life. Who hasn’t done that? But with Billy, his general all around moral depravity is so deeply set and habitual that it colors everything he is and does. And Hillary is cut from the very same cloth.
I’ve moved off of Bill and am thinking of Hillary. I think she’s much more ruthless and dangerous because in her mind, she’s put up with decades of humiliating behavior, and by golly, nothing will stand in her way now.
I just got a shiver down my spine.
How can anyone forget Hillary’s role in being directly responsible, along with Dictator Obama, in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, and then brazenly lying to the faces of the grieving parents. Talk about having no conscience! She and her sleezy husband can make all of the rest of their many crimes disappear down the propaganda media hole but she will always be the Butcher of Benghazi.
America cannot afford to have any more Clintons in public officel.
Spot on, Junius. Hillary is an Alinskyite – the end justifies the means. She’s nothing more than Obama in a pantsuit.
Hillary Clinton is more like that fake Indian woman with the way they also lie and hate America. They both feed on anti-Americanism because they can’t forget the romantic 60’s where it was all the fashion to storm trouper around America shouting and burning their bras and they are still doing it! They should be ashamed of their lies and treason too! I can’t get over Benghazi either and those guys waiting for help which never came and then they were MURDERED! thanks to her and Obama.
Not that it’s not true, but geez, cigar aficionado Bill “Depends on the meaning of the word “is” Clinton, talking about “honor”?
Obama’s REALLY sunk low if he can be lectured on “honor” by such a one as THIS…
Spot on Cinci !
Don’t these people come with an expiration date? I mean, what OTHER ’70s leftovers do we keep serving up OUTSIDE of Democrat Politics? It’s always the same tired boomers with the same tired command-and-control theories of governance. Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now, won’t work tomorrow, please go away I’m shutting the door now…
“Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty – their power and privilege – to State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by . . . politicians.”
― P.J. O’Rourke
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/25107.P_J_O_Rourke?page=2
Oh God, I love your post! Why can’t we get rid of these people? The same tired stuff all the time and it doesn’t work! I repeat, I love your post.
Hillary’s internal #’s
“I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor his commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.”
A little late to the party aren’t you, Bill? If my memory is correct the Republicans presented a bill to do exactly that in 2010. Where was your precious party? Oh yeah, voting “no”.
Hillary’s goose is cooked! Bubba was out stumping for Obamacare even after the disastrous rollout – maintaining that the wegsite will eventually be fixed and the overall plan was a good thing. Guess he never read the Federal Register.
HillaryCare at least acknowledged that everyone might not be able tp their plan and doctors. That was all it took to slam the door shut on HillaryCare. It was over and done with post haste.
These ruling class elites have no sense of shame. Bill Clinton, the same guy who surrendered his Arkansas law license for five years in exchange for escaping prosecution for perjury (aka lying under oath), is giving advice about HONOR? Disgusting hypocritical creep.
There is no honor among thieves.
That’s why to have to get rid of as many thieves as we can.
Simple right ?
That’s why WE have to get,…..
Pingback: Red Storm Warnings For Hillary Clinton 2016, Part I — Hillary Is 44
I agree with you guys about how slimy Hillary is. after the “what difference does it make?” moment she lost me forever as even a potential voter (let’s say if the Repubs lose their minds and nominate Ron Paul or someone), even tho’ as a woman I would love to see a female president. just not her.
but let’s hope we don’t have to run against any sort of “Clinton.” as many of you have noted, the Clinton years were pretty palmy. I personally would love to go back to them. let’s not remind people of those days.
and I’m really not bothered by Clinton’s serial philandering. it’s absolutely not true that if you’re a faithful husband you’ll be a better president. judging by the faithful Carter and Nixon and the playahs Clinton and JFK, it might almost be the other way around!
Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found a sea
shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She placed
the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.
She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off
topic but I had to tell someone!
Comments are closed.