America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

The brazenness of the Obama administration never ceases to amaze. Try typing "Obamacare" into Google, and you'll find that the first entry is now the Obama administration's www.healthcare.gov. If you don't particularly like that result, you'll probably hate the fact that you're paying for it.

You'll get the same paid-for result if you type in "Obamacare facts," "Obamacare summary," "Obamacare info," "Obamacare overview," "Obamacare questions," "Obamacare explanation," "Obamacare basics," "Obamacare pros and cons," "Obamacare and elderly," and even "Obamacare and abortion." For each of these search terms, and many others, the Obama administration's site comes up first, as a paid entry. But it doesn't come up if you type in "ObamaCare repeal."




Welcome to the Borg,,,

wheel,

On one hand, I can see why the white house would want people to find official links, but on the other hand it feels like big brother is pushing his will down our throats.

But best of all, when I googled "obamacare", one of the (unpaid) search results was for www.obamacaretruth.org

This is a great site with links to many instances where the supporters of obamacare show thier true colors.
Check out the video on the homepage about Phil Hare (D-IL) who clearly states "I don't care about the Constitution", and then gets flustered because he is called to task and callled a liar when it is pointed out that there is no way he could have read the bill 3 times (as he has claimed).

But more to the point, here's a quote from Nancy Pelosi from back in May 2010:

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

To paraphrase: "Musicians and artists can quit their jobs because the taxpayers will cover their medical expenses".


And the sad thing?
Pelosi was in a frighteningly high position of power for a long time, but all the liberals could complain about (and still do) is Sarah Palin.
Shows how smart the pseudo-intelligent left really is.

A: I googled them. Where did you get accurate information about them paying google directly to be listed?
B: their listing is not identified as a paid for advertisement. Those listings get put on the right side column and/or above the "organic" results. Hence my logical assumption that their ranked listing was "unpaid". Ad sites like tax payer funded ones are MUCH more expensive.
C: Even if what you say is true, it doesn't really matter. They don't usurp tax dollars and the two stories I cited were not even slanted opinion pieces. They were direct quotes with video to support the information.

Next time I need to know who created a web site, however, I know who to contact.
Thanks.

LOL

spend a little time looking at that group. they are interesting.

ya.... poor God...

Paying for Google placement is not slippery or sleazy. Most every company does it. Most all celebrities do it as well.

It is fairly easy to bury negative stuff several pages deep on Google through tags in the web pages. If they were clever, they could put Obamacare tags in every federal web page and it would friggin bury anything else.

I don't see anything that worrying that they want the opportunity to put their position up front for people to see.

Heck, if you do type in Obamacare repeal into a google search you find... a paid advertisement about repealing it... why is one thing ok, and the exact same thing from the other side not?

PS - Google adwords are pretty cheap. They only pay if someone clicks on the lilnk.

Thanks Fencepost! I just got paid for you hitting that link!

Well, the only possible hole in that is that we do not know the source of the funding for the purchase. We _suspect_ HHS paid for it. Do we know for certain that it wasn't, say, The DNC or George Soros? Or for that matter, the lobbyists whose benefactors will benefit from the new legislation?

That's a different discussion.
The original post clearly states that we ARE paying for it, and that's the basis of my disgust.

You can't change the critical components of the discussion in order to make a point seem valid.

If a private entity wants to pay for marketing a website, then all the power to them.
Except in this instance, the website is government property and therefore should be verboden from being manipulated in any manner.
Otherwise, someone could easily redirect a valid search in a number of unscrupulous ways.

I could. I make my own facts.


The Federal government spends lots of money on advertising. This is no different.

um,
It is possibble violation of the "Hatch Act",as we know the Dems ignore.Remeber " No controlling Legal Authority" from VP Algore...

In this instance, yes.