President Obama is at long last the recipient of an award he actually earned:

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system. "If you like your health careplan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said -- many times -- of his landmark new law. But the promise was impossible to keep...PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice.

Richly deserved, champ. Well done. And based on what's coming, this exact same line should be a strong contender for 2014's lie of the year, too -- although 'keep your doctor' might be the early favorite. You may be wondering why 'keep your plan' didn't bring home this honor in 2010, back when it was first perpetrated upon the American people in furtherance of a political fraud. Answer: Because over the last few years, Politifact has been rating Obama's pants-on-fire claim "half true." Back in 2008, they actually gave Obama's verbatim campaign promise an unqualified "true" score. They've also been slapping Republicans for correctly identifying the very lie that they've belatedly awoken to, just in the nick of time. Thanks, Politifact:

In 2012, Leader Cantor said Obamacare would cause people to lose policies they had and liked. Politifact rated him "mostly false."

— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) December 12, 2013

So a left-leaning fact-checker has beclowned itself while dishing out a long-overdue scolding to our mendacious president. I can't really improve on this:

Even when @PolitiFact, after years of failure, picks an *actual* lie for their Lie of the Year award, they still look awful. #HangItUp

— Michael F. Cannon (@mfcannon) December 12, 2013

Flashback: We called it. All of it.

Yahoo! is spreading peace and holiday cheer with their front page hit on Megyn Kelly. The Yahoo! author seems to have gone to the Katie Couric school of journalism: the "some people are saying" or "some people feel that..." or, in this case, "a number of critics" approach that simply allows them to impose whatever they believe in the article as fact. It's a joke.

Megyn's statement during the segment is a perfect response to those who are irrationaly ruled by their fragile emotions: "Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it has to change."

The most recent ads launched by the creators of Brosurance and Hosurance showcase the joys of Christmas in a whole new light.

The holiday line-up includes "Santa Klutz," who luckily has Mrs. Claus to check his insurance list twice, and the "three wise Millennials" who cleverly signed up for their plans before heading to their Christmas keg party.

DoYouGotInsurance.com seems to be the gift that keeps on giving...

Most transparent administration evah...nobody's laughing.

UPDATE - The House has voted overwhelmingly to pass the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. The final score: 332 yeas (169 R / 163 D), and just 94 nays (62 R / 32 D). A blowout. Should conservatives be angry or at peace over this outcome? Read the background below...

Original post:

The Republican-led House of Representatives will vote this evening on a bipartisan two-year budget proposal hammered out by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) in advance of their conference committee deadline. Let's be frank: This "compromise" is a fig leaf that benefits the GOP politically more than it advances any real conservative policy goals. As such, conservatives are beating the hell out of each other over the deal -- because beating the hell out of each other seems to be the Right's raison detre these days. In one corner, you have Bill Kristol, Pete Wehner and Yuval Levin:

It seems to me that the details look a fair bit better than the general outline that had been reported in the press over the past week or so, particularly on the question of whether the entitlement cuts that would replace some discretionary sequester cuts could be expected to actually materialize. As it stands, this strikes me as more or less a very small-scale version of the sort of thing that Republicans hoped might be made possible by the sequester but Democrats insisted could not be: a trade of discretionary savings for mandatory savings without real tax increases...A deal that keeps in place 92 percent of the sequester, replaces the rest (and adds more savings) with fairly durable mandatory savings and other small reforms, and avoids the tax increases the Democrats want would, I think, advance that cause a little. There’s not much to celebrate here, and there won’t be until the Democrats no longer control the Senate and the White House, but there’s not much to bemoan either, and this deal would make it more likely that the Democrats will lose that control.

Across the ring stands our own Conn Carroll, and conservative groups from AFP, to Freedomworks, to Heritage Action, to the Club for Growth who are coming out hard against the bargain. Some critics are also pointing out that by rushing this plan to the floor for a vote, Boehner is violating one of the governing pledges he made upon ascending to the Speakership:

The "they" Boehner begins lambasting at the (0:45) mark of that video is outside conservative organizations like the ones enumerated above. While I happen to concur that some of these groups helped erect unrealistic expectations over the ill-conceived "de-fund Obamacare" shutdown melee -- perhaps, in some cases, for cynical reasons -- I'm not sure how Boehner antagonizing the grassroots helps matters. Some of his own allies seem to share that frustration:

Three responses to Boehner from staff on plan-backing side: "Thank you so much for making this harder." "PLEASE SHUT UP." and "wtf."

— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) December 12, 2013

Dan covered Paul Ryan's spat with Marco Rubio over the latter's quick critique the budget plan, and now the House Budget Committee Chairman's staff is seeking to tamp down conservative anger over a "point of order"-related provision buried within the compromise that would make it slightly easier for Harry Reid to move a tax increase out of the Senate. Team Ryan insists that the Senate GOP's ability to filibuster a tax hike remains intact. It wouldn't be Christmas in DC without a giant Republican clusterfark, would it? Over on the Democratic side, Nancy Pelosi is encouraging her members to, um, "embrace the suck" and back the plan. Most indications I've seen suggest that the budget compromise will pass with a combination of Republican and Democratic votes. Whether Boehner will need to break the so-called "Hastert Rule" to pull it over the finish line (meaning, a majority of House Republicans vote 'no') remains to be seen. A senior GOP aide with knowledge of the preliminary whip count tells me they expect "more than half" of the GOP caucus will support the measure. If Ryan-Murray indeed advances through the House, Senate sources say they expect Harry Reid will take it up next week. Stay tuned for the final tally, which will come down around 6 pm ET. In the meantime, here's Boehner's follow-up rant, laying into conservative groups. His "are you kidding me?" outburst comes roughly 90 seconds in:

Ryan-Murray takes "giant steps" in the right direction? C'mon -- even Paul Ryan isn't trying to dress this thing up as some big win. Again, being a filthy, gutless RINO, I actually sympathize with Boehner's message here -- at least as far as it pertains to the shutdown mess. But what purpose does this public statement serve?

Oops:

#GetCovered because your mom will have peace of mind (and you will as well). http://t.co/GNfbftrfo3, pic.twitter.com/AP3HLgeQBV

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 12, 2013

To be perfectly honest, I didn't get what all the fuss was about on Twitter at first. But I'm sure you guys will.

Obamacare supporters would probably dismiss this devastating story as nothing more than a mere “anecdote,” an unfortunate consequence of a law that someday, we’re told, will insure millions more American than ever before. So therefore the ends justify the means. But this is yet another example of how some Americans, all of whom were promised they could keep their health care plans, cannot and will not be able to. (By the way, despite the rosy projections, many Obamacare enrollees who think they have insurance coverage starting next year might not. If that proves true, the White House will have a great deal of explaining to do).

Anyway, meet John Gisler. He reportedly tried to sign his middle-aged son (who has a "rare degenerative condition") up for coverage at Healthcare.gov more than 50 times. Finally, he just called it quits (via WaPo):

After three months and more than 50 phone calls, John Gisler gave up on buying coverage through HealthCare.gov.

Gisler wanted to purchase a plan for his 45-year-old son, who has a rare degenerative condition affecting his coordination and speech. His current coverage through Utah’s high-risk insurance pool plan ends Dec. 31. By that time, the Obama administration expects enrollees to transition into health plans sold through the new health-care law.

But so far, Gisler hasn’t succeeded in purchasing coverage -- but not for a lack of effort.

“We’ve had three separate applications that failed to make it through,” Gisler says. “I have a notebook with all the calls I’ve made, maybe 50 or 100. It just goes on and on.”

Earlier this week, Gisler quit trying. Worried about a potential gap in coverage, he decided to forgo his son’s $3,000 tax credit and buy outside of the exchange from a local insurance broker.

The Gisler family has been hit hard: (1) They can’t keep their previous coverage, which presumably they liked; (2) they will (almost certainly) pay more for health insurance in 2014 after forgoing a substantial tax credit; and (3) they had the misfortune and bad luck of experiencing technological snags, managerial incompetence, and a non-functioning website first-hand for months. How many other families are facing similar ordeals? Thousands? Millions? We simply don’t know yet.

(H/T The Corner)

Of pressing importance for CNN's Brianna Keilar.

Although pro-choice organizations have fought to keep them off the road, as of now 29 states give drivers the option to ‘Choose Life’ on their license plates.

Russell Amerling, the National Publicity Coordinator for Choose Life America, realizes the vast potential of having pro-life license plates on our nation’s highways as an inexpensive way to promote a culture of life. He once spoke with a billboard salesman about the significance of miniature advertisements on the road, especially considering the costly expense of renting billboard space. Amerling shared some of their conversation with Townhall:

“An advertising executive told us once that the advertising value of having thousands of citizens driving around with that little 6” by 12” pro-life license plate on the back of their cars would be tremendous.”

And tremendous it has been. Drivers have ordered the pro-life specialty plates in droves, ordering nearly 900,000 and raising $19,101,157 nationwide since their inception in 2000, according to figures Amerling provided. Some of the proceeds, Amerling explains, have been distributed to pro-life organizations and crisis pregnancy centers.

One of the pro-life organizations benefiting from the ‘Choose Life’ program is Heartbeat International. Debora Myles, who works in communications for Heartbeat, shared some encouraging figures with Townhall in regards to the funds they’ve already received from Virginia’s ‘Choose Life’ program:

“Heartbeat continues to be grateful for all contributions over the past few years. Naturally, the program began with great enthusiasm and the interest in the program has continued to grow. The fund experienced a 27 percent increase in contributions in 2012 over the previous year and in 2013, the increase was a 13 percent increase over 2012.”

But, it’s been a bumpy road. In ten states that were approved for the plates, pro-abortion organizations such as NARAL or NOW have filed lawsuits to have the pro-life option removed. Some of these activists claim states should not inject themselves into the abortion debate. Yet, what they fail to realize is a little item called “free speech” and they are more than welcome to introduce their own specialty license plates. But who wants to drive around with an “I Love Abortion” sign?

Despite the pro-choice activists’ efforts, drivers have continued to order these specialty plates in droves. I’m sure I’m not the only one encouraged to see so many Americans displaying their pro-life views in such a public way. The prolific presence of the “Choose Life” plates just reaffirms that America is a pro-life nation.

It’s good news for babies that drivers can stop and consider what exactly ‘Choose Life’ really means and perhaps experience changes of heart while sitting in traffic jams.

When the Obama administration declared Healthcare.gov "fixed" earlier this month, the announcement spawned a flurry of media reports about Congressional Democrats' fears being allayed by the news. As an aside, the website's technical troubles are hardly a thing of the past, for reasons we'll discuss below -- but the front end experience has been substantially improved. Ron Fournier wondered just how long jittery Democrats would be appeased. The detente appears to have lasted less than one week:

Senate Democrats facing tough reelections say President Obama has not done enough to fix the botched rollout of his healthcare law and are vowing to repair it themselves. The Senate Democratic leadership is not on board with lawmaker plans to begin rewriting ObamaCare and have urged for more time to assess the changes made by Obama and his team, lawmakers say...Shaheen wants to extend the enrollment period for the ACA; Landrieu wants to mandate that insurance companies continue to offer plans that people like, even if they don’t meet the law’s requirements; and Udall wants to expand the pool of people included in the individual insurance marketplace. “I’m not satisfied yet,” said Shaheen. “I’m still talking to people in New Hampshire to see what challenges we’re facing.” “We have had a conversation about possibly introducing a package of fixes at the appropriate time,” she added in a later conversation.

Shaheen and Landrieu have been discussing their supposed improvements for some time, evidently unaware that both ideas would further cripple the law they've supported at every turn. An extended enrollment period would deepen Obamacare's adverse selection problem, which would negatively impact 2015 premiums. Landrieu's proposal would take a huge bite out of Obamacare's funding mechanism, which relies on millions of people being forced to pay more for mandate-heavy plans. This would also impact risk pools and premiums in an unsustainable way. But Landrieu isn't interested in sound policy; she's interested in saving her ass. Meanwhile, in addition to large portions of the website's back end still being constructed, and the ongoing 834 error nightmare, here's another problematic bug hitting consumers on Healthcare.gov -- the site that's supposedly working:

The federal health care exchange is incorrectly determining that some people are eligible for Medicaid when they clearly are not, leaving them with little chance to get the subsidized insurance they are entitled to as the Dec. 23 deadline for enrollment approaches...Here's what happens: When consumers applying for insurance put their income information into subsidy calculators on HealthCare.gov — the exchange handling insurance sales for 36 states — it tells them how much financial assistance they qualify for or that they are eligible for Medicaid...Brokers are reporting that some of their clients are in insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states so they can reapply. Jessica Waltman, top lobbyist for the National Association of Health Underwriters, says she's heard a number of reports from around the country of people making as much as $80,000 a year being told they qualify for Medicaid on HealthCare.gov.

Individuals making $80k aren't eligible for subsidies, let alone Medicaid, under Obamacare. And as Ezekiel Emanuel's dissembling helped remind us on Sunday, the law's fundamental problems have nothing to do with the horrendous roll-out. The New York Times reports on unhappy customers discovering that the more "affordable" premium price points on Obamacare's exchanges entail major new out-of-pocket expenses, not the least of which are spiking deductibles. USA Today writes that small businesses are discovering that Obamacare is unaffordable and confusing. The Washington Post piles on with tales of compliance "nightmares" that will slam businesses under the new law. These unpleasant realizations will undoubtedly contribute to the coming second wave of insurance cancellations in 2014, as business owners will see little choice but to throw up their hands and dump their employees into the exchanges rather than confront the sticker shock and compliance migranes. I'll leave you with Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) -- a medical doctor -- taking a wrecking ball to the left-wing myth that Republicans have no alternatives or solutions on healthcare: