How Will We Tell The Difference?
GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.
“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”
Shorter McCain: Get off my lawns!
How many of you would like a job where you can announce to everyone that you’re going to do nothing because you’re having a temper tantrum and continued to get paid?
Tags: Health Care Reform, John McCain
Well, I’d like to personally kick his GOP gluteus w/ my maximus, and tell him–HE BETTER GET BACK IN THERE–put his game face on, and mitigate whatever red flags this monumental piece of legislation triggers, and deal with it!!!! So me as a taxpayer and consumer won’t have to. And no, I’m not asking you to smile, but YOU ARE GOING TO SIT AT THAT TABLE and share–and help clean-up. So quit your drama, and pouting and MOVE ON.
No dessert.
The Dems ate it first 🙂 (sorry, couldn’t resist!)
It is funny. It is also a sign of how boxed in the GOP is by its “pander to the base” 24/7, unlimited war rhetoric strategy. They’ve thrown the kitchen sink. They’ve invoked the “end times” and “succession.” All future foot stomping and angry face making just looks stupid.
And so help me UI, if you dare post about Sarah Palin’s reaction to HCR passage, I will find some kind of cruelty clause under the Geneva Convention, Louisiana Purchase, or Koran to recite while waterboarding you:)!!!
McCain has to talk Tea Party because his primary opponent is a few slices short of a loaf.
LOL, Joanne. I haven’t heard anything about Palin. I’m sure she’s got something nonsensical on her Facebook page.
OH NOES, WE JUST LOST ALL THOSE REPUBLICAN VOTES WE WEREN’T GETTING!
I’m really interested to see how filibustering 100% of bills is so much more effective than filibustering 95% of bills. I’m sure all those post offices that won’t get named for people are going to suffer. And, what, I guess the official congratulations to the winners of the NBA finals is dead in the water.
Hey, McCain, if you manage give Democrats the political capital to eliminate the filibuster completely, remind me to thank you.
McCain is still working on his Reaganesque sunny optimism.
I thought McCain used to be the mavericky, bipartisan, “He’ll work with anyone” kind of guy? Or was that only when it was a Republican who beat him last and he needed to get even with?
It really is sad and stunning. This is the kind of crap that usually is implied, not stated outright. I’d send my 3 year old to her room if she copped an attitude like that. But I guess it’s OK for Senators.
Hey, the Dems just adopted a policy of “ram it though on a partisan vote over bi-partisan opposition, no matter what the people say.” Why should Republicans give them cover by cooperating? They’ve got the votes, let them do it all themselves.
When I was sort of new here, I used to argue that McCain was not as moderate or mavericky as his camouflage (The Liberal Media)let him claim. He was eccentric as heck and knew how to stoke the narrative, but moderation was not exactly his shtick.
About that ramming it through… I’ll let John Cole explain it to you:
Conservatives are very good at writing fiction. Obama and the Democrats campaigned on health care reform, and won huge majorities. The bill passed the Senate with 60 votes and the House with a majority. How is that “ramming it through?” Do we need to post the Schoolhouse Rock on how a bill becomes a law?
And we aren’t supposed to remember that most of the country actually voted for the people currently running it.
I’m drinking in the schadenfreude.
Why should Republicans give them cover by cooperating?
Um, because to grown-ups, “give them cover” is more commonly known as “legislating and doing your job”. Do we need to go over again how much this really is a Republican bill? When rational adults are in governing bodies, they try to make the best laws they can. When they’re in the minority, that means trying to make a bill they don’t like more palatable to themselves. That means negotiating, compromising, then voting for the best bill you can get. Politics might often be a zero-sum game, but legislating isn’t. When the GOP realizes that again, they can re-emerge as a legitimate governing party.
I wouldn’t say they rammed it through; I’d say they lied it through. The President campaigned on healthcare reform that included a public option, controlling drug prices, regulating the insurance monopolies, having an open process, not taxing health benefits, and repealing the Hyde amendment.
None of that happened. In fact, just the opposite happened. And the owners of healthcare companies are all happy as their stocks all were up today. Mission Accomplished.
HCR 2010 = WMD 2002.
Scott P, the repubs haven’t been a legitimate governing party since Eisenhower.
“HCR 2010 = WMD 2002” The results of A1’s 24 hour quest to think of the stupidest blog comment possible. Does he reach his goal? I say yes!
Obviously, In Jason’s world, lying is OK if you’re a Democrat.
In A1’s world,lying is OK is you are on the losing end of an argument you’ve been losing for months. Give it a rest. Just because you keep repeating the same BS over and over again doesn’t mean it ever becomes true.
cassandra_m, is this the way we’re going to spend the rest of our lives together?
for me, this bill could have used a lot less bipartisanship. But I wasn’t there when they negotiated, so I assume we got what the D’s and the President thought was possible, if not what *I* would have considered possible. When I get there, I’ll know better.
Politics is messy. People aren’t used to that, but if the process stays relatively open, they may GET used to it.
Hey, take it from a person whose father was killed by an insurance company….it’s a good start.
And if or when you or a loved one gets cancer or in a car accident, think about not having to worry about any caps on your coverage. Though personally, I’d rather have single payer for all.
And the Moose doesn’t know what the eff it’s talking about. There are plenty of things in the bill that were suggested by Rs…but what the hey, that’s the modus operendi of most conservatives these days – talking out their ass without any regard to fact.
Oh yeah, that old oscillating queen McNugget can suck it!
On Fox News Palin says that you either agree with her and Hannity or you hate “real” America. Fine. She has a product to sell to wingtards. Why Americans continue to treat Fox News as a news outlet is amazing to me.
A1, Obama lied when? When he broke his “promise” to turn shrieking Republican harpies into calm, Jeffersonian statesmen? I’ll just refresh your memory and allow the stupidity of your comment to linger in the air like the intellectual italian sub burp that it is.
“HCR 2010 = WMD 2002″
You call me a liar because you can’t refute that Obomba promised a public option in his campaign and then denied he ever did. You call me a liar because you can’t refute that Obomba promised an open process and then made back-room secret deals with pharma and insurance companies. You call me a liar because you can’t refute that Obomba promised not to tax health insurance benefits but then did exactly that. You call me a liar because you can’t refute that Obomba promised to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices but then sold out to the pharma companies, costing Americans billions of dollars in potential savings. You call me a liar because you can’t refute that Obomba promised to allow drug reimportation but then sold that out to the pharma companies, too.
You can call me a liar and try to ridicule me all you want, but you’re only doing it because you can’t face the fact that it is the guy we all supported and voted for who is the real liar. You are just like Bush supporters who continued to support him despite overwhelming evidence of his prolific lying.
So just keep telling everybody what lovely clothes your emperor has, and you’ll keep showing everybody what blind hypocrisy looks like.
HCR 2010 = WMD 2002. Both built on lies.
Shorter A1: “Bwaaa. Obama negotiates.”
I always scoffed when people claimed that people viewed Obama as the Messiah, but I’m beginning to think A1 really believed he was voting for a Messiah – capable of doing everything by himself.
Negotiation and compromise are part of our government.
Just this minute, Judd Gregg is channeling A1 on Morning Edition.
pandora, I only expected him to at least try to do what he promised, not actively do the opposite. I am hoping that he will improve after a year on the job, and then we’ll see where we are in 3 years. But if we all sit back clapping and think that because Obama is in the White House then whatever we get is the best we can do, then we’re just going to get crumbs.
I think Obama tried to do the best he could in difficult circumstances – unified Republican opposition and obstructionism. That means Obama had to have a unified Democratic caucus, which meant he had to negotiate with people like Lieberman and Nelson.
I don’t think Obama really found his groove until after the Brown Senate victory. IMO, the Republican House Caucus Q&A is where Obama really found his footing. I do with he had found it before the public option had died but I’m not sure anything would have made Lieberman or Nelson less assholish.
Obama did put his presidency on the line with health care reform. If it had failed, it would have meant a 1-term president, IMO. Now victory can pile on victory. History awards winners.
I always scoffed when people claimed that people viewed Obama as the Messiah, but I’m beginning to think A1 really believed he was voting for a Messiah – capable of doing everything by himself.
Obama showed he is perfectly capable of putting on his Messiah cape when he whipped the House to vote for the Senate HCR bill, or when he wanted to reconfirm Bernanke.
Funny how last week I missed hearing the usual voices shrugging and saying “It doesn’t have the votes – what can Obama do?”
Obama should have put the cape on, and put the full-court press on the Senate to vote for the House HCR bill last fall. He didn’t, and Democrats wandered off into the swamp.
Now, Obama owes his Presidency to Pelosi.
We’ll see, U.I., and I really hope that you’re right. The fact is that the public overwhelmingly supports a public option, Reid has said that he wants to vote on it, and there are at least 51 Senators that would be expected to vote for it. If you want to see which side Obama is truly on, that is a key issue. So far, where the really big dollars are involved, he has sided strictly with the corporate interests over the public interest and lied about it continuously.
I’ve only heard of 42 Senators signing the public option pledge. Yes, I’m hoping that the public option will be passed soon. There’s several bills and amendments to that effect out there.
The optimistic count for the public option is 51. 42 is probably more realistic.
Starting with 42 is very, very good. That makes 51 or maybe even 60 very realistic if an aggressive push by Senate leadership and the White House were begun.
And that is where the real lack of support for the public option lies, not among the Senators and not among the public, but with a lack of leadership.
I actually believe the HCR bill breathed new life into the Public Option. The PO is the fix to what ails the bill. Now that this bill has passed no one will want to go back to pre-existing conditions, etc. What they’ll want is a fix to the mandate – an option… a public option.
Exactly right, anon. And I would also add political will.
I really like how Chomsky put it:
It didn’t have ‘political support,’ just the support of the majority of the population,” Chomsky quipped, “which apparently is not political support in our dysfunctional democracy.”
The provision has consistently polled well, garnering the support of sixty percent of Americans across the nation in a CBS/New York Times poll released in December, days after it was eliminated from the reform package. Democratic leaders deemed it politically untenable.
“There should be headlines explaining why, for decades, what’s been called politically impossible is what most of the public has wanted,” Chomsky said. “There should be headlines explaining what that means about the political system and the media.”
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/noam-chomsky-health-bill/
Exactly, pandora. Adding a public option will kill those court challenges.
So far, where the really big dollars are involved, he has sided strictly with the corporate interests over the public interest and lied about it continuously.
Whatever you think about A1’s style, he has a good point here. Obama actually did campaign for the public option and against individual mandates. Now we have the opposite (and we LIKE it!)
It isn’t just Obama; ever since Medicare Part D, or even HillaryCare, Democrats have become unable to help anybody without cutting the corporations in on the deal. It seems to be part of Democratic DNA now, unfortunately.
If this is acceptable to you, then your DLC/Third Way membership card will be arriving shortly.
I get the vibe from Obama, which I actually am buying into, that “Gee, I’d really like to complete the New Deal, but for now we just have to compromise with the corporations.” Now I am questioning why I am buying into this. I believe it with my heart, but my head and the evidence is telling me to be skeptical.
I would say though that ending the bank subsidies for student loans is a step in the right direction.
I think this HCR bill makes a public option an even more remote possibility.
Now that this bill has passed no one will want to go back to pre-existing conditions, etc. What they’ll want is a fix to the mandate – an option… a public option.
It is true that the way it went down puts the right in a box, politically.
First of all, nothing will be done until the imminent individual mandates start making the news cycle, 2012 will probably be too early to capture voter attention. In 2014 they will already be in effect. So the timing is clever.
Once the mandates are about to take effect, people will be freaking out. The teaparty types will demand repeal of the mandates, and that won’t happen without also repealing the pre-existing/caps/recission.
There really is no good way to fix the individual mandate from the right – not even by repealing them.
So the individual mandate is like a Chinese finger trap for the right.
On the other hand, what are the odds voters will let us fix the mandates from the left with a public option? Very very slim.
First of all, we’d have to retain the White House and both houses of Congress.
Secondly, we’d have to get Senate leadership and the White House behind the public option. So far the lack of leadership from those quarters has been the insurmountable obstacle for the public option. That will have to change.
Thirdly, a public option would be opposed ferociously by the insurance industry, this time armed with floods of taxpayer money, which they may now legally spend on campaigns.
So, the most likely outcome is HCR will stay exactly the way it is until 2014 and beyond.
The only thing that can get voters and leadership off the dime for the public option is if the individual mandate system is a disaster. And we won’t know that for a while.
I just want to clear one thing up — it’s not very accurate to say that “Obama campaigned on the public option”. Yes, it was in his platform, but no, he didn’t “campaign on it” in any real sense. I seems hard to believe now, but the public option was hardly mentioned in the campaign. So certainly, anyone who implies that the public option was a major part of Obama’s campaign is incorrect.
Scott P, you forgot about YouTube…
I agree the public option wasn’t a memorable part of his campaign, but it was there. And it was there when it counted, like in the debates with Hillary.
Of course Obama wasn’t going to stress his support for a public option when running against a Republican.
Also it rankled, in the midst of the Senate fight, when Obama pointed his finger at us progressives and said:
“I did not have campaign relations with that public option!”
The next day the bloggers found the blue dress. They went crazy and built numerous factcheck sites with voluminous proof he did campaign on the public option, including video. You can find them yourself.
During the primary debates, Hillary and Obama both agreed on the public option, but he took shots at Hillary specifically against the individual mandate in her plan.
And let’s close the public option circle by a link to Obomba flat-out lying about it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-smacked-for-telling-the-washington-post-i-didnt-campaign-on-the-public-option.html
When a president lies about something that important, he can’t be trusted about anything.
HCR 2010 = WMD 2002. Both built on lies.
During the primary debates, Hillary and Obama both agreed on the public option, but he took shots at Hillary specifically against the individual mandate in her plan.
I’d also like to point out that when this happened, during the South Carolina debate, Hillary was ahead in the polls.
Obama tacked to the left to win the primary, then back to the right in the general, and then further right once in office.
Can anybody here explain how this bill prevents rescission by insurance companies? For example, say you have a diagnoses of cancer and chances of surviving past 6 months are 50% and treatment costs $250,000. What prevents the insurance company from refusing to pay for your treatment?
What prevents the insurance company from refusing to pay for your treatment?
A1 makes a good point, which everyone should pay attention to. I didn’t think to check this before.
The anti-rescission language in the bill DOES NOT PREVENT RESCISSION. It contains the same loophole that has always allowed rescission and is in every health care contract today:
…except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan…
If you have been using rescission as an argument for why this bill is better than nothing, you just lost the argument.
“Fraud” of course is defined by the insurance company… as soon as they start paying out for your health care, they go over your original enrollment form with a fine-tooth comb to see if they can construe that you made some mistake or left out anything.
From the Senate bill as found today on whitehouse.gov:
More importantly, what prevents them from dramatically raising the premiums they charge to your employer, making you a target to lose both your job and your insurance?
“It didn’t have ‘political support,’ just the support of the majority of the population,” Chomsky quipped, “which apparently is not political support in our dysfunctional democracy.” ”
With due respect to Mr. Chomsky, when Bluewater Wind got 90% public approval in a public-opinion poll, I said its chances of passage were no better than 50-50. And it will always be that way when it’s people vs. corporate interests, unless and until we legislate stricter limits on the rights of corporations as “artificial persons.”
I’ve never claimed the bill was perfect, I just didn’t say it was a total piece of sh*t. There is something in between.
As far as rescission and rate hikes… isn’t this where being able to participate in the Exchanges comes into play? (serious question) And maybe I misunderstood, but I thought insurance companies continuing bad behavior would be denied access to the Exchanges.
I was hoping that you’d comment on that quote, Geezer.
And maybe I misunderstood, but I thought insurance companies continuing bad behavior would be denied access to the Exchanges.
What bad behavior? Recissions are perfectly legal under this bill as long as the insurance company asserts fraud.
If you don’t think your enrollment was fraudulent, you can drag your cancer-riddled self to court and try to get them to pay.
I wonder what the fine is for an illegal rescission. Cost of doing business.
As far as rescission and rate hikes… isn’t this where being able to participate in the Exchanges comes into play?
Good point. That might be the answer.
But if you were flaunting the ban on rescissions as part of your argument for this bill, you need to rethink.
We might see mass rescissions driving sick people to the exchanges.
Or we might just see insurance companies not even bother with rescissions, but raising the sick employee’s premiums until they get fired.
Then I guess it’s Medicaid for that person.
Cancer-riddled self? Some of us are dealing with that exact situation. Perhaps there’s a less caustic way of expressing yourself, anon? I know I’d really appreciate it.
OK, I was thinking of a generic person. I don’t know anybody’s health status here. Sorry.
In general, if a comment contains the word “you” it is a good idea to try to rewrite it.
Claiming fraud is certainly one loophole, but I am seriously asking if anybody knows definitively what the penalties for rescission are?
I think it’s not as bad as I made it out to be, since the fraud claims tended to rely on failure to disclose pre-existing conditions, and that is taken care of elsewhere in the bill. Now I guess I have to go check that section too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702455.html
Hmmm… it turns out one still has to disclose one’s pre-existing conditions, so they can charge more. There is still the basis for rescission based on fraud assertions of not disclosing pre-existing conditions. And the underlying condition may be open to interpretation, so disputes would still end up in court. It is a narrower loophole though.
It’s okay, anon. I’m a little sensitive at the moment.
I can’t find anything in the bill that would prevent this, from the Sept. 2009 WaPo story linked above:
The best I can tell is that it has been up to the states to determine what exactly constitutes fraud. Laws and enforcement likely vary from state to state. (For instance, DE seems to have very similar wording to the federal standard.) Now, I believe, the federal government will have oversight as well. In theory, “fraud or intentional misrepresentation” means exactly that. Did the person intentionally lie to the insurance company? This makes that the law and, in theory, the insurance company would have to prove that. Just forgetting to put a minor thing from decades ago would not be valid grounds. If anyone has actual legal expertise and knowledge to add, I’d love to hear it.
What I am hearing so far is that nobody here can definitively say what the penalties are for rescission, and yet I am told that this is such a great HCR bill because it will prevent it.
How?
You aren’t hearing any such thing, because you’ve been largely ignored on that question.
You should go read the bill and figure it out and stop asking other people to do your work.
This makes that the law and, in theory, the insurance company would have to prove that.
I believe the burden is on the (former) policy holder to prove the rescission was improper. Differences are settled in court, subject to defense delay tactics.
Just forgetting to put a minor thing from decades ago would not be valid grounds.
In the current bill, people still have to list their pre-existing conditions so they can be assigned to the high-risk pool (which costs more). I strongly suspect if the insurance company asserts you didn’t disclose a high-risk condition, when it comes time to pay for it they will either terminate legally for fraud, or present you with a demand for lump sum repayment of back premiums, and then terminate you for failing to pay that.
I would love for a real lawyer to come along and tell me everything’s OK and I am all wrong.
It is people like you, cm, who don’t know and yet at the same are claiming that there is some magic in this bill that will prevent rescission.
I am not the one making those claims and I don’t think that it will prevent rescission.
If you need expensive cancer treatments and you have six months to live, it will be cheaper for the insurance companies to let you die waiting for your court date than pay for your treatments. There is nothing that I have heard so far that would penalize them enough to prevent that from happening. That is why I am asking the question.
You are full of shit again, A1 — I’m not claiming any magic for rescission, you need go to where ever it is that people are claiming some magic for it.
If an insurance company establishes a pattern of rescissions and denying claims, eventually a DA might take them down, depending on who is in control of the Justice Department at the time (or maybe a state AG) .
Unless there is some kind of certification and review process in the bill; I didn’t check yet. That would be cool, and if it’s not there, would be a good candidate for “fix it later.”
The victims of rescission are by definition sick and broke, and unable to mount a legal effort. And yes, the insurance companies will use this fact to full advantage.
Will it or won’t it, cm, and if you think it will, then how?
I think it’s an important point to put some teeth in the regulation. Hypothetically, denial for pre-existing conditions and recission are supposed to go away but how will that be enforced. I think ideal would be that pending an appeal process the insurance companies would have to pay the bills in the patient’s favor and perhaps sue to get those payments returned. You’re all right about this, the details are important and we need to pay attention to them.
The bill’s number is HR 3590. Do your own homework, A1. I’m done with your total dishonesty with anyone who stupidly engages your questions seriously. Any work trying to talk about this with you is a complete waste of time. You only want to hear what you want to hear and you’ll lie about the rest.
Get yourself a pdf reader with a search capability and have this discussion with yourself.
Thank you, UI. It is an important question, particularly at the end of life. For example. should insurance companies be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the last few weeks of life support for an elderly person with a clearly terminal prognosis? Or a million dollars for a risky operation with a low probability of success? Is that rescission if they refuse to pay?
Right now Medicare is paying a significant portion of end-of-life care.
I’ll take that as an “I don’t know.” cassandra_m. BTW, continuing to call me a liar and dishonest while at the same time not bring any refuting facts to the table is pretty lame.
You can take that any way you like, but there are a billion posts of you being completely dishonest with people here, so why should you stop now?
The point here, A1, is that there is a bill now and it will answer your questions for you. All you want to do here is to engage in more dishonest misrepresentations of other people’s views — other people who granted you an assumption of honesty that you’ve demonstrated over and over that you never deserved.
You have questions about the bill and how it works? Go read it for a start and for a change.
We’ve worked out a lot of the facts here just today. Some of the questions we are asking aren’t in the bill.
I know these threads are tiresome for the hard-working DL contributors, and for my part I apologize. But we all need devil’s advocates. If it were that easy to get the truth, everybody would have it.
We have been hearing for months that the bill bans rescissions. Now it turns out, after a little bill-reading, it doesn’t.
So – it is time for a reality check on who is reading the bill and who is not, who is honest and who is not.
The question of how much the fines are for rescission doesn’t appear to be easily available in the bill. There are civil rights issues, there are state regulations, there are threads pointing back to the SSA – It looks like there would be a legal fight just to determine where to file the suit. So I wouldn’t expect to get an answer here.
A1 is over the top about half the time, but the other half needs to be dealt with.
“A1 is over the top about half the time…” You’re killing me, anon! 🙂
Devil’s advocates is not a problem.
It is when you need to misrepresent or simply never pay attention to what people here say that we get into the dishonest territory and territory that I no longer have time for with A1. Because no matter what I say here, he’ll be back in a few weeks accusing me of claiming some magic for rescissions.
Unfortunately, cassandra_m, you should perhaps read your own posts in the past accusing me forever more of looking for “ponies.” For example, in a thread today, you claimed that the secret deals at the White House with pharma and insurance companies for HCR were all part of a “visible” process:
“Now you can insist on the “secret” and insist that they were “side deals” but at the end of the day this was all part of the visible strategy to get this done.”
and
“Some of those details have been discussed on other useless conversations I’ve had with you and all of them are out on the web.”
Yet when I showed links that the White House is, in fact, keeping them secret, you don’t respond. Even Waxman is thinking about holding hearings to find out what went on.
And that is your typical modus operandi: when people disagree with you or point out Obomba’s lies you call them liars or fact-free or worse. And when people bring the facts, you leave. Too bad.
Look over there, A1! Howard Dean is still telling you he wants to kill the bill!
But this is still true:
It is when you need to misrepresent or simply never pay attention to what people
Well, saying that the bill bans rescissions is one whopper of a misrepresentation. And the correct answer was right there in the bill all along. Not pointing fingers; everybody made the same mistake.
Look over there, cassandra_m! Obomba is still telling you he wants a public option!
But this is still true:
And that is your typical modus operandi: when people disagree with you or point out Obomba’s lies you call them liars or fact-free or worse. And when people bring the facts, you leave.
I guess I was lying about your own words when I copied them back in quotes verbatim.
And just claiming you have facts doesn’t make it true. You’ve pointed to nothing, you’ve linked to nothing that actually disproves anything I’ve said here. But that would be consistent with your usually lying MO.
Just for the record too — I understood the Public Option was probably gone in August. But I point that out to show you how lame your comeback really was here.
So go back to talking with the Howard Dean voices in your head and leave the rest of us alone.
Really, you have descended into idiocy. You wrote that all the details are out on the web, when the White House has released none of them and Waxman is considering holding hearings to find out what the deals were. You’re so delusional that it is really beyond belief.
BTW, if the public option was now “probably gone in August,” then why did Obomba mention it in his speech to Congress in the fall? Because it is he who is a liar and you can’t bring yourself to admit that.
If you can’t be bothered to look at what is right in front of your face, then it is you who is the idiot. Which isn’t much of a surprise to anyone here.
Stop getting your news from FDL and you might have some of the info the rest of us have.
And in the time it took you to write all of today’s lies and stupidity, you could have pretty easily searched around and actually found this info. But, of course, that would mean that you’d have to confront one more thing that doesn’t comport with your POV.
How can I find it when the White House hasn’t released it, even to Congress? But you claim all the details are out on the web without a shred of proof. Sheesh.
Google is your friend.