The American Spectator : The Matter With Myths

Text Size

The Matter With Myths

By Philip Klein from the July 2009 - August 2009 issue

If conservatives don't counter them, government-run health care will be here to stay.

With the fight over the future of the United States health care system now upon us, conservatives find themselves at a tremendous disadvantage. The Democrats are in control of the White House and Congress and they now count as allies many of the same special interest groups, such as insurers, who opposed the push for HillaryCare in 1993 and 1994. But the biggest obstacle conservatives face is that for decades they have allowed many myths and misleading facts about health care to permeate the national consciousness and rig the debate in the favor of those who want to expand the role of government. The only hope that conservatives have of winning the debate is to challenge fundamentally some of the leading assumptions people have about health care. While there is a lot of misinformation to parse, TAS has compiled a list of some of the most pernicious myths in need of debunking.

The Myth: The United States has a free market health care system.

Why It Matters: An April CBS News/New York Times poll found that 87 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. health care system needs to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt. While such numbers may differ depending on the poll, it’s clear that an overwhelming majority of the public believes the system requires substantial reform. Because Americans are given the false impression that the current health care system that they view as flawed is a free market, they are more open to remedies that involve an expanded role for government.

The Reality: Both in terms of direct spending and regulation, government plays a dominant role in health care and impedes the formation of a marketbased system in the U.S.

In 2007, the cost of all government health care programs at the federal, state, and local level added up to more than $1 trillion, representing 46 percent of the $2.4 trillion in total U.S. health care expenditures, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That same year, an analysis of Kaiser Family Foundation data shows, 31 percent of those covered received their health insurance through the government. While the rest of the nation obtains its health care privately, government policies still distort the insurance market.

The most significant way the government meddles in the market is through the tax code, which discriminates against those who purchase insurance on their own to the benefit of those who are insured through their employers. The policy dates back to 1943, when the Internal Revenue Service ruled that workers did not have to pay taxes on health benefits purchased through their employers. With wage and price controls in place during World War II and labor scarce, many employers took advantage of the favorable tax status and offered health benefits to attract workers, and this later became enshrined in the tax code.

As a result, by 2007, 63 percent of the insured population was receiving their coverage through their employers. Having such a system restricts choice, because workers are limited to whatever health benefits are offered. It impedes mobility, because insurance cannot be taken from job to job. It compounds the problem of unemployment, because losing a job often means losing one’s health care. And ultimately, it drives up spending—since most Americans don’t have to pay the out-of-pocket costs for their medical care.

Roughly 6 percent of the covered population purchases its own insurance without the tax advantages enjoyed by those who obtain it through their employers, but even then they must navigate a highly regulated individual market that leaves them with few options. Many states impose onerous regulations on insurers requiring them to provide certain benefits. Some of the benefits insurance companies have been forced to cover include in vitro fertilization, morbid obesity treatment, and lockjaw disorders. Currently there are nearly 2,000 benefit mandates nationwide, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, driving up the cost of polices by 20 to 50 percent, depending on the nature of the mandate.

That means that even if a person who is relatively healthy wants a cheaper, basic plan that would cover him in the event of a sudden catastrophic illness or freak accident, he’s still forced either to purchase expensive comprehensive coverage or go uninsured.

However one would describe the convoluted U.S. health care system, a free market it is not.

*****

The Myth: 46 million Americans are without health care.

Why It Matters: Whether it’s in political speeches, commentary, newspaper features, or hard news stories, the statistic of 46 million uninsured is one of the most widely cited numbers in the health care debate. It promotes the idea that nearly one out of every six Americans does not have access to health care and it plays into the arguments of those calling for massive expansion of government to fix the problem.

The Reality: The ubiquitous statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007. But the problem lies in the way the statistic is commonly cited and understood.

For starters, the statistic does not mean that there are 46 million uninsured Americans. Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. Liberals can argue that we still have a moral duty to cover non-citizens, but this doesn’t change the fact that as a matter of accuracy, the Census data only tells us that 36 million Americans are uninsured.

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (90) | Leave a comment

Melvin| 7.21.09 @ 7:49AM

I had the pleasure of going to the Makati Medial Center in Manila two years ago. I had to see a Dermatologist for a skin disorder. There was no appointment process, I just sat on the bench outside the doctors office. About an hour and a half I saw the doctor, she diagnosed my problem prescribed me medicine that was produced by Pfizer, and told me to come back in two weeks or call if my condition did not improve.
I was in her nice modern office for about twenty minutes and you know what it cost me? Fourteen dollars, yep fourteen dollars, and they asked if I had insurance.
I had this stunned look on my face and the doctor asked me, "You seem like you have a question to ask me?" I replied, "Yes, the cost of the treatment, its only fourteen dollars." The doctor smiled and commented that doctors in the Philippines have to malpractice to worry about, no lengthy government regulations like Medicare and Medicaid and allowed to practice medicine with minimal governmental interferences."
I visited three different doctors where I live and they couldn't figure out what my problem was, I went to the Philippines saw a doctor for twenty minutes, paid fourteen dollars and in one week my affliction was resolved.
Bottom line, if we keep government and its troupe of special interest carpet baggers out of our medical care the cost could come down where we could pay for non-catastrophic medical care.

Commercial Painting Contractor| 7.21.09 @ 8:04AM

There is obviously a lot more than this. Would you mind telling me how long it took you to gather your content? Please come visit my site Contractor Painter Business Directory when you got time.

Roy| 7.21.09 @ 8:33AM

Same deal in India - $5 for the doctor to diagnose my stomach problem. I estimate money goes about 6-10 times as far in India - so maybe $30-$50 here - oh noes.

Mattled| 7.21.09 @ 9:03AM

This morning NBC (I rarely ever turn them on) asked a follow up question to Obama on raising taxes. He said his would go up to help cover costs for "other folks" and people making 280k+. They shouldn't mind paying "a little extra".

Huh?

He really does take liberals for idiots. They know (Meredith Viera) full well that he and his family will have permanent, FREE, healthcare in addition to SS protection for the rest of their lives. He won't be paying a freakin dime while we suffer under his "center piece" legislation.

What a bunch of lap-dog buffoons we have in media. Allowing him (and other Libs---Barney Frank comes to mind) to constantly get away with this crud, someone should file a motion to have NBC lose their broadcast license.

Aaron| 7.21.09 @ 9:18AM

Great article Mr. Klein!

The Conservative leadership needs to tackle each one of these myths individually and loudly. This subject really isn't difficult to understand once you take the emotion out of the equation. And where are the Governors on this issue? I know a couple have spoken out (barely), but damn, really? How about a few more news conferences and press releases, (with substance) and a little less chica slap and tickle.

Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 9:20AM

Understanding the myths perpetrated by government in the health care debate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

stories that make the eleven o’clock news. Enjoyable, engaging and slightly offbeat. About Understanding the myths perpetrated by government in the health care debate Posted at July 21, 2009 The Matter With Myths By Philip Klein | The American Spectator But the biggest obstacle conservatives face is that for decades they have allowed many myths and misleading facts about health care to permeate the national…

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 9:44AM

Thanks Mr. Klein

...but how in the hell do we get the MSM to simply lay these facts out?

We can't get very far informing each other???

I swear, I can't see how we are going to beat this thing, so the next question in my mind is how in hell do we repeal it when the wheels come off?

William| 7.21.09 @ 10:29AM

Melvin - thank you for that. I have a family member who is one of the expendables in Obama's Turd Reich. I didn't have a lot of options for where to go when the Bolshevik Ds and the Menshevik Rs vote to pass this totalitarian eugenics bill.

Now I have another option.

PolishKnight| 7.21.09 @ 10:36AM

It's important to emphasize, even if it's only implied by the author, that the high cost of medical care in the USA is due directly, and indirectly, to government programs such as medicaid and medicare. It's a wonderful show-stopper for leftists preaching the cheap wonders of Canadacare and NHS when I point out that it won't work in the USA because we already have half of our budget set up that way already.

Next, regarding Melvin's experience, I agree that picking the right doctor is important but I don't blame any particular system. I went to 2 doctors for my wife's condition and the third one knew what he was doing in 5 minutes. Total cost of everything, plus surgery, was about $600.

Finally, it's worth emphasizing the impact of the John Edwards ambulance chaser lawsuits on medical costs both directly, in the form of liability insurance and for defensive medicine. Knowing this, I know to remind a doctor that I won't hold him responsible if he doesn't overtest and order him to not do so. Nobody told me that but I figured it out.

Marc Jeric| 7.21.09 @ 10:49AM

A few observations;
1) the article is very good but consists only of incidents, not philosopphy;
2) a trial lawyer sues a doctor and, if he loses, just walks away; in the rest of civilized world the loser must automatically pay the defendant's costs. A suitable tort reform would knock off about one trillion dollars/year in costs of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine;
3) Medicare and Medicaid recipients abuse doctor services (I calculated that an average older person with Medicare makes 33 doctor's visits per year - well, it costs them nothing, so why not?
4) Fraud by many doctors and hospitals in bills to Medicare and Medicaid - nobody is checking those bills, maybe once in a thousand bills.
5) Government health care in other developed countries is tolerated by the educated (what they call "cadres" in France) because there is a two-tier system there, one for the populace and one for the intelligentsia. I know that from personal experience - I was "cadre" in France and in England.
6) There is the County General Hospital in Los Angeles where Mexican mothers routinely come to give birth - tens of thousands every year. It costs them nothing and they have a baby that is a US citizen.
Enough for now - somebody should do a real investigation. Why should I pay for bureaucrats' decisions on what should be covered?

Bob| 7.21.09 @ 10:55AM

Excellent article, Klein. I enjoy articles based on fact. There are some minor points of disagreement, but you are absolutely correct that we would be much better off discussing health care based on a factual, not political, view of the problem.

Now, for the minor points of disagreement. First of all, most of the government coverage is for Medicare and Medicaid. Somehow making it seem like the government coverage is just like regular insurance coverage is a bit misleading. Half of all Medicare expenditures are for people in their last year of life. If you ration care for older people (like me), then you lower the cost dramatically.

The other major issue you didn't mention is pre-existing conditions. If you require insurance companies to include pre-existing conditions (which is needed for portability), then you will double the cost of insurance for everyone. (In insurance we call that adverse selection.) Is that what people actually want?

The reason people have a problem with healthcare is not related to their current coverage, but the ballooning costs. This is especially severe during the deep recession we have right now. People fear their ability to pay for health care in the future.

Lowering costs, then, is not magic. "Free market" solutions will raise the costs significantly because of the need for pre-existing conditions. The only real way of lowering costs is rationing. That will happen whether the solution is "free market" or government.

The other "fact" that is somewhat misleading is that a large proportion of those making $75K who don't have insurance is based on pre-existing conditions which raise the price of insurance to extremely high levels -- if they can get it at all.

Again, Philip, my points do not negate the thrust of your post. You are on target with your attempt to base our decisions on fact, not ideology. I love it....

Bob| 7.21.09 @ 11:00AM

Marc -- great points and on target. I'm actually in favor of not providing any free health care to illegals.

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 11:04AM

Bob you still can't get your arms around truths and fact can you?

Adverse selection only occurs if the coverage between different insurance companies varies.

If the risks are spread uniformly, the price would not vary much for people (families) during their productive years.

Too, a very large percentage of Americans during their working years are ALREADY covered for pre-existing conditions...under group insurance policies with no health questionaires.

Your premises are false.

Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 12:05PM

Philip Klein, great info, thanks.
#1 Myths (today)
#2 Flaws (tommorow?)
# 3 Solutions (Wed?)
How about it?

I'm one of those people who is burned by not getting my health insurance thru my employer. I pay the full amount, don't get a tax deduction and don't get the cost benefit of a group plan.

But, I choose my doctor and plan, and it's portable with no connection to employment or location.

My insurer just sent me a renewal offer which raised my premiums 36% to $315/mn ($4ooo total out-of-pocket). It's gone up 129% in 3 years -- with no health problems. I am subsidizing the sick, the poor, people who don't pay, and yes, people who get employer provided insurance. It's not fair. It's wrong.

We negogiated a new plan with a much higher deductible for $214/mn.

Yesterday, after talking to a 'health insurance broker', I found an equivalent plan for $143/mn and that price is locked in for 2 years. I'm going to call him this afternoon to make it final. If the gov't let me design a plan with the coverage I want, like auto insurance, I'll bet it would cost me half that amount. Reform malpractice abuses, fraud, get rid of illegal immigrants, and I'll bet it would be still much cheaper.

ObamaCare will not make our healthcare cheaper, faster, better, with higher quality and with more choices. It will be the opposite: more expensive, slower, rationed, lower quality, fewer choices.

As long as people can get free health care, we will continue to have a massive redistribution system to cover those who don't pay.

ObamaCare is 3 things:
1) redistribution of wealth
2) gov't control over citizens
3) benefit for Democrat special interests

Bob| 7.21.09 @ 12:11PM

Texican -- your "facts" about insurance are false. I actually worked in group insurance. First, adverse selection not only occurs between different insurance companies, but it also affects the population as a whole. Pre-existing conditions add to the actuarial cost of a policy. This occurs because those with pre-existing conditions who don't get company insurance, currently have limited policies or no insurance at all. Increasingly, small businesses and large businesses, like retailing, are NOT providing health insurance for "part-time" employees. As that trend continues, it has a dramatic affect on the cost of individual insurance. When I was in the business (and we sold our policies primarily to companies), pre-existing conditions were a very costly option. When you create a group policy, you do a company census to determine factors like average age, turnover, sex, etc. The cost of that group policy was actuarially determined by taking those things into account before a quote was given. This is not like individual insurance. If turnover was high, then we added a significant cost for hiring those with pre-existing conditions as those people were more likely to base their job choice on the availability of health coverage (i.e., adverse selection).

Your assumption that price would not vary much is not actuarially sound. I've been through the calculations -- have you? That's the problem with assumptions not based in fact.

However, I must say your issues are good ones if you haven't been through the calculations and actually sold group health insurance. Had I not been in the business and priced policies, I would have assumed exactly what you have. I've been out of the business for 5 years now, but when I was in an increase of 1% in those with pre-existing conditions raised the cost of group health to a company of about 20% since those with pre-existing conditions have almost 40 times the average expense of the people without them. That's why virtually all individual policies exclude these people.

Now, if you want to move to portable policies, that means people will be covered by individual policies which will be far more expensive because you cannot control that "census". Furthermore, given that a company census is fairly predictable and the group health insurance market is highly competitive already, pricing is aggressive and margins are slim. Individual policies carry far more company risk and far higher margins to account for that risk.

If you know a group health actuary, let him show you how the prices change. You will be very surprised.

But that said, that was a very good response -- one I would have made myself had I not had inside experience.

Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 12:18PM

The real reason behind the economic meltdown – government (particularly Democrats) « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…– using the weight of the State to force out private competition. Do we want the same folks who blew up the housing market do the same thing to our personal health care? More Articles The Matter With Myths By Philip Klein Another suspect singing in earmark probe by Ed Morrissey Nice work if you can get it By Michelle Malkin A Reckless Congress – WSJ Dead Cows and Other Biden Health Care Whoppers By…

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 1:13PM

Bob
you are wrong again. I spent five years writing health, GROUP, and life insurance with New York
Life. Yes, they sold their health division to Aetna, but with many of the same splendid people.

Yes
Our insurance industry needs some parity regulation to AVOID adverse selection.
BUT
right here in Texas...It is illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions in most cases.

Tony in Central PA| 7.21.09 @ 1:26PM

We already have socialized medicine to a significant degree, but if we accept what this Administration wants and go 100%, the ranks of competent physicians will be seriously depleted. This is already a trend. My sister - in - law is an attending MD in a residency program and she has repeatedly stressed over the past ten years how the intelligence and motivation of the applicants to her program have steadily declined. Either medicine is no longer attracting the Best and Brightest, or there aren't as many as there used to be. Socializing the system isn't going to reverse this problem.

Al Adab| 7.21.09 @ 1:53PM

Facts are stubborn things , but oviously they must not be allowed to interfere with ideology. Health care, hate crimes, Cap and Trade, Sotomayor, et al all demonstrate the fact.
Here lies the problem, our government now is driven by those whose view of the world is distorted by preconcieved notions of "truth". Not only are the "problems" preselected but so are the "answers/solutions"
That is why these bills, like the stimulus, pass without reading. What a mad rush to judgement. Our old friend Thomas Paine was right, "These are the times that try mens' souls."

ben| 7.21.09 @ 2:00PM

Let the insurance companies insure whoever they want, pre-existing conditions or not. Let the insured pick who they get insurance from - by price and coverage. Some insurance companies will exclude those with pre-existing conditions some won't. This will create a new market for high risk people. Those people will pay higher costs because there will be higher costs for their care. This is the same as auto insurance where many companies exclude high risk drivers to keep their costs down for the rest of us. High risk drivers can still get insurance, it just costs them more which is reasonable as they will cost the insurance company more. Insurance companies like all companies are in business to make money. I say let them all compete for it.

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 2:09PM

ben

Hey dude! You are making too much sense here. That will never fly. (grin)

I wouldn't even mind giving folks with pre-existing conditions a subsidy. (yeah yeah I am a closet compassionate conservative.)

Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 2:37PM

ben| 7.21.09 @ 2:00PM,

Yes!, unleash the insurance companies and they'll supply the market with what people demand.

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 3:02PM

Hey Paul...does that SA stand for San Antone?

Bob| 7.21.09 @ 3:21PM

Texican -- I guess our experiences were different. I was responsible for both product development and sales of both group and individual products. Group products varied some, but individual products varied a great deal. We had companies with high turnover whose rates were twice that of companies with low turnover. Part of the difference was pre-existing conditions and the other part based on actuarial experience. We sold primarily to small and medium sized businesses. If you are talking about large businesses, I would agree with you. However, we never covered pre-existing conditions unless the state required it or the company paid a premium for it. We sold in all 50 states.

Perhaps our differences come from our individual experiences. It would be nice to get some real facts on the table so that good policy can be set.

Pete| 7.21.09 @ 4:16PM

Bob,

Can you lay out your entire career path for us? Already, from your posts, you were an executive who oversaw mortgage underwriting (and could therefore unquestionably assert that CRA had nothing to do with the financial crisis) and now a Healthcare exec with inside insight into what will and won't work. I just want to know which subjects to avoid.

Thanks,
Pete

Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 4:55PM

Old Texican,

Howdy. Yep, San Antonio.

Ed Wallis| 7.21.09 @ 5:14PM

A fine video to go with a fine article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqMKK8AoLCw&feature=player_embedded

Len| 7.21.09 @ 6:10PM

THE BIGGEST MYTH: Government involvement in health is legal/allowed by the US constitution.

Why it matters: Our money is being taken for the PRIVATE good of specific peoples, and creates extra burdens for people without their consent. It also drains wealth from this country by giving free health care to people who turn around and with the money saved through this, send money to people in other countries. For example, 40 BILLION sent to Mexico by individuals, not the government.

The reality:
There are three purposes in Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution for which powers are delegated. Let me say that again before getting to the substance of my comment, there are three purposes, these in of themselves are not powers, but powers are delegated for them. One is Common Defense, which is not particularly germane here, another is to pay the debt(WHOA!!!!!really missing the boat there), and the third is the general welfare of WHAT?? the UNITED STATES, not the people, the states.
Anyone who actually chooses to read the US constitution can plainly see that the powers are for the states. Common coinage "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" This produces confidence and enables commerce by having sound money that is good in all the states.
Interstate commerce, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This enables the states to trade goods with others without being overly taxed by those states which had the advantage of not needing to go through a state with goods.
Interstate travel and shipping, "To establish Post Offices and post Roads". This benefits the states by growing the means of intercourse between them, promoting trade and general common interaction.
There is also full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, but one can see that this all meant to enable the states to have commercial intercourse with other to promote the GENERAL WELFARE. NO OTHER POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED! The US constitution, that LEGALLY BINDING document shows that congress and the president are not to dictate to the states or the people how to conduct business, or take over businesses, and certainly not to take away peoples fruit of labor to benefit others. So again both parties by continually assuming powers never granted have contributed to the ruin of this country by continually expanding the role of "government" to reach into all areas of life.

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 6:42PM

NewsMax editorial today...critical reading!!!!!!!

Phil Brennan writes the best article I have seen on where we are as a country.....
IN CIVIL WAR!

Marcell| 7.21.09 @ 7:07PM

Lewis Black destroys GOP talking points on health care
by BruinKid

Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:55:39 PM PDT

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=233178

You Repubs are about to lose the healthcare debate.

More Repug Bologna | 7.21.09 @ 7:14PM

Obama’s Health Plan Akin to Civil War

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:40 PM

By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size

"There is no substitute for victory."

Douglas MacArthur

If anybody out there doubts that this nation is involved in a new civil war they had better take a careful look at President Barack Obama's legislative agenda and the weapons he's deploying to ram it through. That agenda is a poorly disguised attempt to destroy the United States as we know it and convert it into an authoritarian, socialist regime with all power centered in Washington D.C. And in the sainted United Nations.

If we are to survive this full-press onslaught against our constitutional republic and our God-given rights as a free people living under the rule of law, it is essential that the handful of Republicans in the House and Senate understand that in a civil war all the rules of civilized discourse and legislative courtesy must be suspended, to be replaced by unrelenting resistance on the part of those under attack.

Since taking office, Obama has rammed through the House two major pieces of legislation that are right out of Karl Marx's socialist playbook, the ill-titled cap-and-trade bill and his plan for socialized medicine. If the Senate acquiesces, both of these measures will become law and the U.S. will have taken major steps on Obama's march toward converting this republic into an authoritarian socialist state under the thumb of an all-powerful U.N.

Comrade Gore made no bones about the cap-and-trade measure. Citing the bill, Gore announced that while it would cause utility bills to, in Obama's words, "skyrocket," he said, "Those taxes are good, but it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements.”

Get that? Global government!

In 1997, in my study "The Iceman Cometh," I wrote that "behind all the rhetoric about global warming and mankind's culpability for this [allegedly] impending disaster is a shrewdly planned campaign to inflict a lot of socialistic restrictions on our cherished freedoms."

Environmentalism, I explained, "is the last refuge of socialism," and noted that "it was no accident that one of those in the forefront of the global warming alarmism is one Mikhail Gorbachev, an unrepentant socialist who appears to believe if you can't lick 'em one way, find another."

Under the guise of saving the planet from a kind of self-inflicted incineration Comrade Gore and company sought to impose some of the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties ever contemplated.

I warned that the debate over global warming is the most crucial Americans have faced since the Cold War ended with the demise of what now appears to have been the first phase in the ongoing attempt to build a world socialist order. That attempt was brutal and overt — the communists made no secret about their plans to bury us, by force if necessary but the latest power grab by the left is far more subtle — and covert.

Obama is halfway there with cap-and-trade and his plan for socialized medicine. Only the Senate stands in the way of these Draconian measures becoming the law of the land. They must be stopped there or we're well on the way to a Marxist future and the loss of individual freedom that will entail.

I believe that the real battleground in the war will be the floor of the House, now firmly in the hands of the ultra-left wing of the Democratic party. If freedom is to survive, it must be defended there.

Granted that the Republican minority is vastly outnumbered, but they must wage a rear-guard action, using every parliamentary trick in the book to grind the legislative wheels to a halt. Back when the GOP was a mere corporal's guard in the ’60s the late Rep. H.R. Gross stood like Horatius at the bridge, challenging every spendthrift measure under debate. In his lonely battle he saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the course of his House career.

He should stand as an example to the House Republicans, who if the nation is to survive Obama's efforts to remake America into a version of European socialist governments must dig in their heels and bring the Democrat-controlled House to a grinding halt.

That's right. A grinding halt where nothing — and I mean nothing — gets done until the 2010 congressional elections are over and the voters have sent the socialists packing.

You ask if the nation survive if the lower House of Congress ceases to legislate. Of course we can - remember Will Rogers' sage comment that "this country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."

We need to take that hammer away from them. America breathes a sigh of relief when Congress is not in session and their lives and fortunes and liberties are no longer threatened.

I remind the embattled Republicans and those few level-headed conservative Democrats who should be their natural allies in the battle against making America a socialist state that the only alternative to victory is defeat. That's what's at stake here and they had better recognize it and do what they can to save us all.

Faugh 'a ballagh!

Phil Brennan writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web and was Washington columnist (Cato) for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He is a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com.

ds80| 7.21.09 @ 7:42PM

Marcell: "... destroys GOP talking points on health care ... by BruinKid"

... on www.comedycentral.com

That's as funny (and credible) as:

"Repubs are about to lose the healthcare debate"

Alan Brooks| 7.21.09 @ 8:23PM

PLEASE don't run a RINO in '12 with the slogan "compassionate healthcare".

Jeb is doing 'research' (figures lie and liars figure) right now.

Alan Brooks| 7.21.09 @ 8:25PM

Jeb hears 'Hail To The Chief' playing in his head.

Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 8:36PM

Shouting from the Rooftops to be Heard in the Debate over Health Care « Beagle Scout links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…go over these serious problems one at a time. 1. The number of uninsured Americans is growing Yes, every time Obanomics drives another person into unemployment the number of uninsured Americans rises. Fact is, the 47 million unemployed Americans so frequently ciited consist of 10 million non-Americans, 14 million people who are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but never enrolled, and 17.6 million of those who…

Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 9:05PM

Shouting from the Rooftops to be Heard in the Debate over Health Care - LJMiller96’s links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…funny how that works, isnt’ it? The same gang of hacks that creates a problem wants to be given extraordinary powers to get rid of the same problem they have been so busy creating in the first place! Fact is, the 47 million uninsured Americans so frequently ciited consist of 10 million non-Americans, 14 million people who are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but never enrolled, and 17.6 million of those who make…

Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 10:35PM

Repug.....

Thank you for the paste. I was not sure copyrights would allow it the same day.

If you folks out there don't quite understand yet that we are at war...get over it.

Our President is committing TREASON every single day.
What do we do now?

GG| 7.21.09 @ 11:48PM

Al Adab| 7.22.09 @ 11:31AM

GG,

Thanks for the compliment. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And it is true, the facts will out and ultimately win.

kat| 7.22.09 @ 1:38PM

so insurance is too expensive because insurers are required to cover Lockjaw?
Lockjaw is caused by tetanus, which seems to fall pretty squarely under the list of legitimate ailments.

Rod Davis| 7.22.09 @ 1:59PM

Please explain the difference between 46 million without insurance and 36 million without insurance.

Classic Republican tactic... comment in such as away as to detract from the truth by saying that something is a distortion of the truth and therefore is not true.

Health care unlike the Iraqi War is a real crisis in America. It is just another part of the economy that has been exploited by greed at the expense of the American public.

The Republican Party is good at running up the debt, evidenced by Bush's economic negligence, but when it comes to remedying the situation under a Democratic effort, you want to fight ever effort as if doing so is against your morals.

All of you need to grow up and consider the good of America first and foremost with your patriotic BS.

Elizabeth| 7.22.09 @ 2:41PM

Has this country's governmental body lost all of their senses.......How dare they impose such a restrictive "tax" in the name of global warming, perpetuating this hoax to the point of the downfall of American life as we have known it.....It seems to me that we went through this several years ago with a BTU tax that you tried to pass, and that one was shot down. Are they in congress giving any consideration to the many lives it will destroy with this. We will lose more of our industry to overseas where they will not impose this on their citizens. (China and India for example). I think it time that our legislative body remembers who they represent and considers the impact such a bill will have on us. How can you even consider this knowing that it will only lower the temperature by 0.1 celcius, over a period of many years. I live in Michigan and let me tell you, that from where we stand it isn't warmer, it is getting colder......Can you explain this.
You need to stop this ridiculous nonsense and start working on issues that are destroying our country now. Unemployment, Our economy, loss of our dollar value, which declines each time you run the printer. Loss of Our business's, that can't handle the restrictions and regulations and high taxes imposed on them..How do you propose we as Americans earn a living so that we may pay "your" salaries and keep you in the style you have all become accustomed to. Its time you paid attention to the "People", who work hard each day, are "honest", pay their taxes and are "law" abiding citizens, rather than the special interests you all seem to be so entangled with. It is time that we americans are heard and not just as a means to support all of the whims of a few......This is a great country and we as citizens of a free society intend to keep it that way.
You shouldn't get too complacent about your positions in our government body as 2010 is approaching and we will show our power at the ballot box.
I implore you to do the right thing for America and stop destroying any chance we have of pulling out of this devastation.......

Had Enough| 7.22.09 @ 8:31PM

Moral obligation my A**. The only moral obligation I have is to my family. Not some illegal or free loader.

Had Enough| 7.22.09 @ 8:35PM

Obama is on tv lying as I type.You can always tell when he is lying to the American people, His lips are moving.

Pingback| 7.23.09 @ 9:21PM

46 Million and 8.2 Million Uninsured Myths Busted « The Western Experience links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…other items they view as necessities. The other argument often cited is that of millions of illegal immigrants are being counted within the number of uninsured. Let’s start off with a recent American Spectator article which states, In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. Factually this is true as a whole. However once you look at…

in_awe| 7.24.09 @ 1:44PM

on 7-21-09 Bob said:
"The other major issue you didn't mention is pre-existing conditions. If you require insurance companies to include pre-existing conditions (which is needed for portability), then you will double the cost of insurance for everyone. (In insurance we call that adverse selection.) Is that what people actually want?"

I'm not sure how providing coverage for pre-existing conditions will double the cost for everyone. Presumably, most people with pre-existing conditions currently are covered under either employer provided plans or Medicare/Medicaid. If that is is the case then the cost of covering them is already embedded in existing premiums or program costs. Where it becomes an issue is when someone with a pre-existing condition loses their employer plan and don't qualify for an existing government plan. They are left out of the healthcare system entirely - or admitted only if they are able to pay truly sky-high premiums. A risk pool approach or subsidized premiums would address this problem without overturning the apple cart of our existing healthcare system.

As to whether people want to pay to provide coverage for others with pre-existing conditions, the same could be asked about a myriad of conditions that are covered under any plan. Does everyone want to pay the extra premium dollars to cover pregnancies, abortions, rehab costs, mental health counseling, etc. for others?

Is your solution to kick to the curb anyone with a pre-existing solution and let them fend for themselves? Sounds disturbingly like the eugenics movement's answer practiced in the US in the early 20th century and worrisomely still advocated by Obama's recently appointed chief science advisor.

Hardius| 7.24.09 @ 6:09PM

I believe that there are only two things wrong with
the United States, they are the Democrats and the
Republicans. Until this issue is resolved nothing
wholesome is going to happen in this nation.
For me the downside of Obama-care is that it puts
the FDA and health care under the same roof, with
the greedy pharmaceutical cartels on one side and a corrupt Congress on the other side.
How terrified should I be with these groups choosing my health care and life span?
Are we asking several packs of wolves to guard the hen house?

Pingback| 7.30.09 @ 1:16PM

Errors of Enchantment » Debunking Some Health Care Myths links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Errors of Enchantment » Debunking Some Health Care Myths Debunking Some Health Care Myths An excellent article appeared recently in the American Spectator. Rather than directly targeting what we know — Obama’s plan will dramatically increase federal control over Americans’ health care…

Pingback| 8.19.09 @ 10:13AM

Healthcare links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Townhall Activists By Dave Nalle Republican Liberty Caucus http://www.rlc.org/2009/08/05/advice-to-townhall-activists/ The Matter with Myths By Philip Klein American Spectator http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/21/the-matter-with-myths/ Deadly Doctors By Betsy McCaughey New York Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=0 Health Freedom vs.…

gfbvx| 8.24.09 @ 10:05PM

drink drink

Pingback| 12.22.09 @ 10:16AM

HI, MY NAME IS ‘HEALTH CARE,’ DO YOU WANT SOME CANDY? – suzyrice.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…statistics, but remember, these are not the concern of “health care reform,” but used in inflated, exaggerated numbers as the grift pitch: Let’s start off with a recent American Spectator article which states, In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. Factually this is true as a whole. However once you look…

poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 9:23PM

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica

guo| 7.1.10 @ 5:14AM

www.wmvconverterformac.com

http://www.ekopibrand.com | 1.4.11 @ 9:42PM

http://www.ekopibrand.com

modern| 1.4.11 @ 9:43PM

http://modern-bags.com

コピーブランド| 1.5.11 @ 2:06AM

http://www.brandyisin.com

ブランド財布| 1.5.11 @ 2:51AM