patrick.net

I see two possible scenarios:

1. Obama: "I admit I lied about keeping your plan".

OMG!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT???? HE ADMITTED HE LIED!!!!! HE'S A LYING LIAR, THAT'S WHAT HE IS. BENGHAZI!!!!!! DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!! WELFARE STATE!!!!!!!!!!111

2. Obama: "I didn't lie"

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW HE LIED ABOUT LYING!!!!!!!!!! HE'S A DOUBLE LIAR!!!!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!BENGHAZI!!!!!!!! BENGHAAAAZZZIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!

AverageBear says

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Please elaborate--you think immigration is the cause of our health care woes?

No change to my plan.

Interestingly, I've had discussions with people who say that ACA was not ambitious enough in that it did not do much to control costs.

Now, apparently there was to be a disruptive force with ACA, but there was to be no disruption?

The issue apparently, that if you wanted to keep your shitty plan, Obama should have exercised some Socialist strength and forced private insurers to keep you in them, somehow.

We should have a plan that makes everything better, inconveniences no one, costs nothing and cures the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Stupid Obama.

sbh says

Tell me, do you think Sebelius has done a good job, or should she be fired for her 'work'?

Now that we know Obama lied to us 3 years ago, would you trust him now?

This is a typical example of how the conservative brain struggles to work: I recall to you how your guys proudly stood up as deadbeats to the nation and their party.......your brain registers "Sebelius". Why didn't you say "Benghazi" or something equally unrelated. Amazing.

If I say "shoehorn" can you incisively balance a ball on your nose?

This is a typical example of how the liberal brain struggles to work: I ask a simple question, and get name-calling, playing the blame-game, and changing the subject (Benghazi). Amazing.

- sbh, do you think Sebelius did a good job of rolling out Obamacare? After all, the question does have much in common w/ the name, and creation of this topic.

- sbh, do you think Obama lied to us 3 years ago, or was at least deceitful, when he said you can keep your doctor, and healthplan?

AverageBear says

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Sweden has close to, if not the highest standard of living in the world. But no matter, I'm sure you won't agree. But either way, keep it up. Type all of the anti-liberal stuff you want all day long, each day, and every day. We don't care. Because at the end of the day, no matter what you say, Obama won the election, and he will be our President for the next three years.

AverageBear says

That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

I think you are confusing Alpine Switzerland with Nordic Sweden.
Sweden does have a massive immigrant population nearing 10% mostly from Arabic countries and southern and eastern Europe.
Many immigrants there are getting government subsidies.

AverageBear says

- sbh, do you think Obama lied to us 3 years ago, or was at least deceitful, when he said you can keep your doctor, and healthplan?

I can't believe you guys are hanging onto this so desperately. This has already been dispelled and most people have moved on. But just so we can put this thing to rest, the reason some people- and when I say some- I say a sliver of the overall populace is going to lose their current plan is because the plan they had was crap to begin with.

So in reality those who are bellowing about " obama lied Obama lied!!" are basically saying that it would have been better for those with crappy healthcare plans to keep them instead of getting a better plan in return that basically costs the same and has better benefits. What these people fail to see is that this result is the legacy of the poor healthcare system we had before. In other words the bar has been raised.

Its is not- as some people on the right are so desperately trying to frame it- a case where people are LOSING their healtcare. They are in fact getting BETTER healthcare in return.

So if that is the case... then please let us all know why keeping an inferior healthcare plan over getting a better one is such a grand thing? I am genuinely curious.

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Lots of programs work swimmingly well in Sweden because nobody wants to go to Sweden to live; or those that aren't willing to obey the law, and pay their taxes, ie become naturalized citizens. I've never been to Sweden, and I'm sure it's a fine place to visit, but none of the poor, uneducated people on this planet are saying "Hmmmmm, you know, my dream is to get my family to Sweden. That's the best place on earth. Honey, get your sweaters, we are going to sneak up the Alps and get us some free shit.".... Apples and oranges.

Please elaborate--you think immigration is the cause of our health care woes?

Tatupu, I think immigration is part of the problem. But that dovetails into the bigger basic problem: Too many people (legal, US citizens who don't pay taxes) getting free/near-free care, and not enough people paying into the system. I also think some industries (drug industry) are protected, that are part of the reason is growing healthcare costs. (You can blame both sides of the isle for this one). I also thing gov't beaucracy/grift/scamming is a HUGE problem as well. Sweden may be successful in its healthcare because: 1) there are more able-bodied, tax-paying, working people paying into the system, and very little 'takers'. here is the US, we now have over 8 million people on SSD. This # has grown disproportionally since Obama came into office, and I don't think this is an anomyly (sp?) I think its by design. Same for food stamps. if the job market is slowly improving, why are food stamp participation still skyrocketing? I think it's by design. Sweden does not have these problems, and again I think is a poor analogy. If you want a glimpse of what I think the US healthcare system will be like if Obamacare continues unabated, look at Canada. If you are over 55 and get diagnosed w/ cancer, you are a 2nd class citizen in the gov't eyes, and it will take MONTHS to get a catscan. (I have friends in Canada who are experiencing this now, and have experienced this in the past, with a sad outcome). It's a race against time to get an MRI, find the cancer and treat it. Why? well, I guess the gov't run healthcare doesn't deem it necessary to have enough MRI machines, or can't pay for them. Below are is a link pointing this out. A little old, but still paints a scary picture. Liberals mock those that oppose obamacare w/ 'death panels'. Well, you get the same result when you find you have cancer, and have to wait a half year to get a scan.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/02/11/pittsburgh-has-more-mri-machines-than-canada/

So instead of heralding the greatness of tiny, northern European countries that have free healthcare, you gotta dig a little deeper, and see if there are any similarities to the US. I don't see many. However, we have waaaay more similarities to Canada than Sweden, and I'm not too thrilled at what Canada has to offer.....

edvard2 says

I say a sliver of the overall populace is going to lose their current plan is because the plan they had was crap to begin with.

Not true. People select the plans they want based on what they think fits their risk profile and their budget.

If they picked it and it was sanctioned by their state insurance commissioners AND the President said they could keep it, it is not right to turn around and say you really didn't want that plan.

It's like an arsonist who burns down your modest fixerupper and claims he did you a favor

And if Obama felt strongly about a legitimate issue of the under insured or deception in the market place-that should have been addressed head on and not glossed over 29 times with "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period."

The issue here has moved beyond the issue. Just like Nixon in watergate-it wasn't the breakin that was so bad it was the deception and coverup that did in Mr.Nixon.

AverageBear says

But that dovetails into the bigger basic problem: Too many people (legal, US citizens who don't pay taxes) getting free/near-free care, and not enough people paying into the system

Don't you understand why that is the case though? Too many people don't have any money. Because the 1% has it all. When disparity gets this extreme, there are obviously going to be lots of people that aren't paying much.

Sweden has a much lower disparity so there are many more people paying into the system. It's quite simple, really.

Here is Obama explaining why he didn't say what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/M_DR0VmHF80#t=113

He is making sense but that is how he should have sold it in the first place without the If you like your plan you can keep you plan, period. shtick.

He is now saying that he said:

"If you like your plan you can keep your plan IF it hasn't changed since the law passed"

Not what he said.

Note he also says -"what WE said was" Wrong! He should have said what I said.

He should have continued. What I said was "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and I misspoke and I am sorry for that. Then he could have explained why it was necessary for these people to lose their plans.

smaulgld says

Not true. People select the plans they want based on what they think fits their risk profile and their budget.

Yes. True. Like I said before- the plans that these people chose did not meet even the bare minimum requirements of the new ACA plan. So as such they were inferior to start with. As also mentioned, they can sign right back up and get a new plan that is actually better and in almost all cases will cost the same.

There's really not much more to say about it. So answer the question: Would it have been better for those on crappy plans to keep those plans or to get better plans while paying the same for them?

AverageBear says

Tatupu, I think immigration is part of the problem. But that dovetails into the bigger basic problem: Too many people (legal, US citizens who don't pay taxes) getting free/near-free care, and not enough people paying into the system.

I believe you just answered the question: Not enough taxes are being paid. This is the huge white elephant in the room that neither party has the balls to address: The tax system. The reality is that if you look at any number of countries that have higher standards of living its usually because they happen to have a better system of taxation.

What's missing is the conversation of the value of the quality of life. So people in Sweden pay more in taxes? Well guess what: Not only does every citizen in Sweden have social healthcare, but free college and a retirement pension among other things. What most people fail to make the connection with is that when it comes to the quality of life, stability and security are probably the highest items on that list: If you know that you will one day be able to retire and not have to worry about starving or winding up in the poor house then the costs associated with that have value.

Taxes in the US are not seen for what they are supposed to be: They are meant to provide Americans with services and infrastructure. But since the very word " taxes" has become a toxic word, we aren't properly collecting taxes in an efficient, balanced way and as a result, the overall quality of life has degraded, as our roads and schools deteriorate and the overall level of socia; security diminishes.

The irony here is that somehow taxes are seen as this great evil thing yet some people almost seem to allude that paying out the nose for things like private healthcare and college is more preferential over paying higher taxes instead to receive the same service and probably for a lot less.

edvard2 says

There's really not much more to say about it. So answer the question: Would it have been better for those on crappy plans to keep those plans or to get better plans while paying the same for them?

I think the issue is no longer substance any more. What is happening is happening because the country is divided on the issue of Obama care. This type of situation requires non partisan leadership by the President even if he is facing a highly partisan Republican party.

Since the roll out has been a disaster many on the fence are having misgivings about the program and then there has been the repeating of Obama's lie if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

At this stage instead of pretending all is well, the president should come clean and lead. Apologize for the poor roll out, fire some people, admit he misspoke and then explain why the program can work and what its intentions are.

The problem from the beginning is this has been a dem/rep redstate/blue state issue with the president acting more like Harry Reid should be acting than the President.

This issue requires strong leadership and Obama is providing strong partisanship by digging his heels in. If he keeps this strategy his polls will continue to drop and he'll end his 2nd in the same disregard as GW did his.

elvis says

The 1% ha$ it all" Another liberal crock of $hit.

Its not "Liberal". Its mathematics. Take a look at any chart showing the concentration of wealth and you'll see that not only does the upper 1% own an astronomically large chunk of the wealth, but beyond that, the upper 1% of the 1% own the lion's share of even that amount.

Now think about that and wonder why middle class incomes have been stagnate since the mid 70's...

edvard2 says

Not only does every citizen in Sweden have social healthcare, but free college and a retirement pension among other things. What most people fail to make the connection with is that when it comes to the quality of life, stability and security are probably the highest items on that list: If you know that you will one day be able to retire and not have to worry about starving or winding up in the poor house then the costs associated with that have value.

Sweden is able to do this because of one huge difference (besides cultural) and it has NOTHING to do with its size. Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

smaulgld says

At this stage instead of pretending all is well, the president should come clean and lead. Apologize for the poor roll out, fire some people, admit he misspoke and then explain why the program can work and what its intentions are.

The President already very clearly said that this was his responsibility. He said that well over a week ago. What's happened here is that its simply another case of the GOP having lost big time over the shutdown and immediately moving onto something else they think they can wring something out of. Almost immediately after the GOP admitted defeat a right-leaning think tank came out with the whole " Millions of people are losing their insurance" as if people were losing it period versus getting a new plan in its place. All made to intentionally mislead and get the base back on track. People are so focused on this one small thing versus looking at the bigger picture.

The one thing I will agree with is that the President needs to put a lid on this thing and nip it in the bud and move on. Otherwise the GOP is going to stick to this thing for all its worth because that's the only thing they've got going for them at the moment.

smaulgld says

Sweden is able to do this because of one huge difference (besides cultural) and it has NOTHING to do with its size. Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

What is this huge difference? Care to let us all know?

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Sweden is able to do this because of one huge difference (besides cultural) and it has NOTHING to do with its size. Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

What is this huge difference? Care to let us all know?

I dare say CL knows. Let's give him time or others to weigh in

smaulgld says

edvard2 says

smaulgld says

Sweden is able to do this because of one huge difference (besides cultural) and it has NOTHING to do with its size. Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

What is this huge difference? Care to let us all know?

I dare say CL knows. Let's give him time or others to weigh in

Here is the answer:
http://patrick.net/?p=1231429&c=1021520#comment-1021520

edvard2 says

Its not "Liberal". Its mathematics. Take a look at any chart showing the
concentration of wealth and you'll see that not only does the upper 1% own an
astronomically large chunk of the wealth, but beyond that, the upper 1% of the
1% own the lion's share of even that amount.

Who cares how much wealth rich dudes in America have or even the income disparity provided the poor in America are doing OK?

America's poor have a better quality of life (based on the OECD's measure of well being) than virtually all other OECD countries.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex

America simply has the planet's largest population of uber-rich dudes. Why is this a bad thing?

socal2 says

Who cares how much wealth rich dudes in America have or even the income disparity provided the poor in America are doing OK?

Income disparity should not be viewed in a vacumn. If there is a wide gulf in a prosperous society where the poorest have as much as the average person does in a society where wealth is more even distributed which society has more prosperity? which is better?

Some people are ideologically fixed on the principle that no one should have so much more than any one else and they will make it a goal of theirs to try and take it away and redistribute it- even if it makes the entire society poorer. Others think its not their place to interfere in that way.

Obama is on record as saying he thinks taxes should be higher on the principle of "fairness' EVEN IF the higher taxes result in less tax revenue overall.

socal2 says

Who cares how much wealth rich dudes in America have or even the income disparity provided the poor in America are doing OK?

The problem isn't that the very poor are worse than in India--the problem is that there are way too many poor.

There is a finite amount of wealth--when it is concentrated in a few hands, then there is nothing left for the majority.

smaulgld says

Some people are ideologically fixed on the principle that no one should have so much more than any one else and they will make it a goal of theirs to try and take it away and redistribute it- even if it makes the entire society poorer

Nobody thinks that way.

smaulgld says

Here is the answer:

http://patrick.net/?p=1231429&c=1021520#comment-1021520

Sweden has no public radio!!!! Voila!

CL says

Sweden has no public radio!!!! Voila!

That's it!

smaulgld says

Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

zzyzzx says

smaulgld says

Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

But, as Smaulgld said above, they import their brown people to do their shit work. We have a semi-permanent semi-aristocracy too, it's called "white".

It's like a great-big Country club!

CL says

zzyzzx says

smaulgld says

Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

But, as Smaulgld said above, they import their brown people to do their shit work. We have a semi-permanent semi-aristocracy too, it's called "white".

It's like a great-big Country club!

Sweden like other Western European nations allowed immigration for guest workers in the 60 and 70s
Sweden's more recent immigrants are asylum seekers from Iraq Iran Syria and other Arab nations - not necessarily in Sweden as guest workers

smaulgld says

Sweden's more recent immigrants are asylum seekers from Iraq Iran Syria and other Arab nations - not necessarily in Sweden as guest workers

In America, we make you work for your gruel. Arbeit Macht Frei!

Make those asylum seekers work, Sweden, or we'll liberate you next!

Aetna gave me the boot cause they're leaving the individual market in CA. now the "bronze" plan is over $120 more a month but more importantly, my deductible would be raised from $3000 to $5000. Not sure where I "benefit" under this system.

smaulgld says

He should have continued. What I said was "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and I misspoke and I am sorry for that. Then he could have explained why it was necessary for these people to lose their plans.

Wouldn't have mattered. The right would have latched on to that and made just as big a deal about it. Their government shutdown stunt backfired on them and now they're going to grasp whatever straws they can.

Facebooksux says

Not sure where I "benefit" under this system.

These new exchanges themselves, a needed reform that makes it easier to comparison shop for similar products.

No lifetime limits under this new system.

No preexisting condition screening.

If you're a woman, or married to one, no extra premium for gender-based costs.

If you have a family -- say 4 people -- and make under $94,000 -- you qualify for subsidies that knock the silver premium down from $13,000 to $9000.

Kaiser link

But yeah, if you're a rich single healthy male who already had good coverage, of course PPACA is not all that great a reform.

Guess what, you didn't need it, and the world does not revolve around you!

zzyzzx says

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

aka the new majority later this century. Conservatives are going to have to learn how to suck their cocks like the Dems do (they throw in the gays and cripples for free!) or forever be out of power at the national level.

Your choice, since there's a lot more brown people than glibertarians, theocrats, and plutocrats -- the current conservative power bloc.

Bellingham Bill says

But yeah, if you're a rich single healthy male who already had good coverage, of course PPACA is not all that great a reform.

When he's an old sick male, he'll be glad his insurance can't be taken away from him. But when you're young and rich, you are the center of the universe, and it's impossible to imagine things being any different than they are at this exact moment.

Facebooksux says

Aetna gave me the boot cause they're leaving the individual market in CA. now the "bronze" plan is over $120 more a month but more importantly, my deductible would be raised from $3000 to $5000. Not sure where I "benefit" under this system.

I think Blue cross also is leaving the Individual market

sbh says

AverageBear says

....Just like Greece, and some of the other deadbeat southern European nations. Now that's a model to emulate..... yay.

It's just so hard for you to stay on topic. You started with "6", but you just had to bring up deadbeats. Thank you, so much! Remember how hard it is for you to swallow the fiscal immaturity of your party? You so want to be like Greece and default on your bills! Back up just a bit: You ran with redistribution and we liberals owned it. So you criticize it by comparing it to what YOUR PARTY has already so proudly done: ADVOCATE DEFAULT! BRILLIANT!. When you take off your dunce cap and come back to sit down with the big boys you can restart the discussion, but make sure to be distracted by shiny objects and.....SQUIRREL!........SQUIRREL!.....there goes a......

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by borrowing more money!

It's foolish to think that one party is more responsible than the other for this situation- both advocate spending money in excess of revenues

Not paying would be a disaster, borrowing more to pay is also a disaster - just postpones the disaster

http://smaulgld.com/u-s-department-of-the-treasury-warns-value-of-dollar-at-risk/

sbh says

AverageBear says

....Just like Greece, and some of the other deadbeat southern European nations. Now that's a model to emulate..... yay.

It's just so hard for you to stay on topic. You started with "6", but you just had to bring up deadbeats. Thank you, so much! Remember how hard it is for you to swallow the fiscal immaturity of your party? You so want to be like Greece and default on your bills! Back up just a bit: You ran with redistribution and we liberals owned it. So you criticize it by comparing it to what YOUR PARTY has already so proudly done: ADVOCATE DEFAULT! BRILLIANT!. When you take off your dunce cap and come back to sit down with the big boys you can restart the discussion, but make sure to be distracted by shiny objects and.....SQUIRREL!........SQUIRREL!.....there goes a......

^^^ = Unhinged. sbh, I was simply answering a question. Relax sbh, time to take the shaking hand off the CAP Locks. lol.. First off, where did I say I wanted (or 'my party') wanted to be like Greece? Bush may have been fiscally irresponsible, but it's clear that Obama 'double-downed' on Bush's irresponsibility. Please read the thread thoroughly before the name calling. Thanks...

Aside from educating the 'independent voters' that they were knowingly lied to by dear leader Obama 3 years ago, lets not pass up on these little gems that Obama's administration spun, only to be proven false.

---------------------------------
Here’s the thing. This Alinsky-steeped administration has relied on an endless stream of sensationalized, phony personal dramas to sell Obamacare. Last month, Organizing for Action (previously Obama for America) promoted the “success story” of Chad Henderson, a supposedly random young person who miraculously enrolled in Obamacare while everyone else in America experienced major tech meltdowns and sticker shock.

Turned out Lying Chad was actually an OFA volunteer who hadn’t really enrolled in Obamacare yet because he was “joking.” No matter. Yesterday, Obama appeared before OFA to solicit even more stories from the group to help propagandize Obamacare. A refresher course on the White House Fable Factory’s greatest hits:

–Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama cited his mom’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support the Obamacare ban on pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. During a 2008 debate, he shared her plight: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” But New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

–Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

–Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton, a breast cancer patient, lost her insurance after “she forgot to declare a case of acne.” In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

–John Brodniak. A 23-year-old unemployed Oregon sawmill worker, Brodniak’s health woes were spotlighted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as a textbook argument for Obamacare. Brodniak reportedly was diagnosed with cavernous hemangioma, a neurological condition, and was allegedly turned away by emergency room doctors. Kristof called the case “monstrous” and decried opponents of the Democrats’ health care proposals as heartless murderers. The truth? Brodniak not only had coverage through Oregon’s Medicaid program, but was also a neurology patient at the prestigious Oregon Health and Science University in Portland (a safety-net institution that accepts all Medicaid patients). Kristof never retracted the legend.

–Marcelas Owens. An 11-year-old boy from Seattle, Owens took a coveted spot next to the president in March 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law. Marcelas’ 27-year-old mother, Tiffany Owens, died of pulmonary hypertension. The family said the single mother of three lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She died in 2007 after receiving emergency care and treatment throughout her illness. Progressive groups (for whom Marcelas’ relatives worked) dubbed Marcelas an “insurance abuse survivor.” But there wasn’t a shred of evidence that any insurer had “abused” the boy or his mom. Further, Washington State already offered a plethora of existing government assistance programs to laid-off and unemployed workers like Marcelas’ mom. The family and its public relations agents never explained why she didn’t enroll.

–Natoma Canfield. The White House made the Ohio cancer patient a poster child for Obamacare in 2010 after she wrote a letter complaining about skyrocketing premiums and the prospect of losing her home. After Obama gave Canfield a shout-out at a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio, and promised to control costs, officials at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, which is treating her, made clear that they would “not put a lien on her home” and that she was eligible for a wide variety of state aid and private charity care.

Phony manufactured tales built Obamacare. Real stories of Obamacare wreckage will bring it down.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/11/06/the-white-house-fable-factory/