The American Spectator : The Listener

Text Size

Liberal Reader| 1.31.10 @ 12:42PM

Funny. Two or the "ideas" being called to Obama are essentially the same thing: "rein in trial lawyers" and "tort reform." Obama has said, repeatedly, that he is happy to consider legislation on tort reform but that such legislation is repeatedly scored at affecting less than a few percentage points of the yearly increase of health care costs.
Removing state barriers has similar problems, as the president (finally) did a good job discussing with Republicans on Thursday. Removing state barriers could leave poorer states with ONLY the most vulnerable "paying in" to it's state's companies. This could be disastrous for state budgets as hundreds of thousands are forced into Medicaid.
This is not to say it's a stupid idea or that it shouldn't be listened to. Obama promised again to hear more SPECIFICS of such an idea, if they exist.
But what other ideas are there?
Surely tort reform and buying across state lines don't comprise ALL the ideas Republicans have.
Incidentally, "buying across state lines" is an enormous challenge to federalism, since the states have assumed the power to regulate insurance companies as they see fit. This is just another reason why the idea -- while it sounds nice -- seems difficult to impliment.

Oldefarte| 1.31.10 @ 3:19PM

Typical stupidity fro LIBERAL MORON! Tort reform would eliminate $billions from healthcare cost, from not only the costs of medical providers getting sued hourly from lawyers, but also from the indirect costs that they produce from the unnecessary multiple medical tests [in attempting to insulate themselves from lawsuits]. Individual state control of insurance results in each state's residents be barred from purchasing insurance in other states with possibly cheaper insurance rates [my state has only several insurance companies admitted that control my choices, which are expensive]. Consumers can buy other products/services in states other than their state of residency, but not insurance. LM give the Obama/Holder/D of J canned argument that the poor would be disadvantaged, when this whole Obamacare is nothing but WELFARE/WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION, since it forces taxpayers who already have health insurance to PAY FOR the indigent constituents of the Democrats. The poor are now and could be provided for by CHARITY TYPE MEDICAL FACILITIES established in enough locations necessary; and consumers should have their medical insurance premiums reduced by tort reform and the ability to buy insurance across state lines. LR, like his TINGLE DOWN THE LEG CHOSEN ONES, are simply full of EXCREMENT!!!!!

ggoblue| 1.31.10 @ 6:49PM

bought paid for and owned by the lawyers....the lyin ass john edwards party....gonna be lots of fun kicking your teeth in in november.

Floyd Looney| 1.31.10 @ 1:44PM

If the Democrats weren't so extreme they could have passed a plan that did what they said they wanted to do. This was about covering the poor with health insurance right?

They could have easily passed a plan containing portability, a national market, making many state mandates optional and then a tax on high-cost plans to fund health insurance VOUCHERS for the poor/unemployed.

I think that could have been passed ages ago, not that I would have supported it. I would not like it but they'd easily have gotten 4-5 GOP Senators on board with it.

Liberal Reader| 1.31.10 @ 2:27PM

Floyd --

It's a bit disengenuous to talk about what the Democrats "could have" done unless you at least acknowledge the political calculation the Republicans have made: they see a greater advantage in stopping the Congress from doing ANYthing than in influencing the process and compromising on policy.
For example, SIX Republican sponsors of a measure establishing a panel to make recommendations on the deficit voted AGAINST THEIR OWN bill this week. Nothing can compensate for that kind of cynical obstructionism.
And, as Obama rather smartly pointed out, Republicans have been so over the top in their criticisms of him -- calling him an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a communist, and so forth -- that they have left themselves NO GROUND upon which they can compromise with him on anything. How do you compromise with a Muslim terrorist?
It seems to me you have some good ideas, and I don't doubt that there are Republicancs of good will in Congress who do as well. Sadly, your party has made a political calculation that will result in no OPPORTUNITY for those ideas to be heard, not because Democrats don't want to hear them, but because it's better electoral politics (from the GOP's point of view) to get nothing done.
Lastly, I simply don't think there is ANY measure the Democrats could have adopted that would have a) got "4-5 GOP Senators" on board and b) met the primary goals of health care reform, which are expanding coverage and bringing down costs. The fact is, you cannot meet these two goals painlessly or without cost, and the Republicans -- as usual -- are attempting to sell the idea that you can.

Oldefarte| 1.31.10 @ 3:24PM

Oh, yea, Republicans have really painted themselves into a corner in Vaginia, NJ and Massachusetts; and their painting will continue this year beginning in November, dummie!!!!

Warrior| 1.31.10 @ 3:36PM

Simple math even for idiots. You have 60 votes right now and have had them for a good period of time. Brown has not been sworn it, or is this too difficult for you. The only thing stopping a bill from being passed is the democrat party itself. Keep trying, the more you continue with these asinine talking points, the more the American public gets fed up. I realize it difficult, but focus and try yanking on your ears until you hear a pop.

Liberal Reader| 1.31.10 @ 3:49PM

Warrior --

In fact, "simple math" doesn't help you with political science.

In the 80s Reagan worked well with a Democratic Congress. In the 90s Clinton worked well with a Republican Congress.

The reason is that the CONGRESS will be held accountable for doing nothing regardless of party.

In 2010 voters will probably punish sitting Democrats for their inaction; next time around, Republicans will "own" more of the problems, so they'll have to work with Obama.

"Simple math" won't explain it all.

Patriot| 1.31.10 @ 6:09PM

You've got super-majorities in both houses and the presidency--republicans can't obstruct, moron.

Democrats can't govern because you're incompetent. That's your problem.

Warrior| 1.31.10 @ 8:05PM

You are dumber than what I first thought. Reagan forced the democrats to the table. That didn't stop them from kicking and screaming about every inch they were forced to give.

Clinton moved to the middle after having his ass handed to him on health care and in mid term elections. He was given no choice and chose to govern from the center so he would have a second term and additional years away from the hildebeast.

You and all your liberal friends who keep spinning every nuance of every story are pitiful. I love you useless idiots, when simple math is pointed out, you change the subject to political science. Maybe someday you will learn enough to sit down at the adult table and have a meaningful discussion.

Eric Cartman| 1.31.10 @ 4:21PM

Hey, LR. Name 5 Republicans in Congress that has called Obama Money an illegal alien. And if you hire and surround yourself with self-proclaimed Communists and people who praise Mao as there political idol, then what are you? Do you hang around skinheads? KKK? Any NAZI buddies you wish to tell us about?

Also, when you are more interested in giving a guy who has exploding underwear Miranda rights instead of a military interrogation, you must be classified as a weak-kneed, limp-d*ck, Milquetoast or a terrorist sympathizer.

Eric Cartman| 1.31.10 @ 4:10PM

Since when is it my responsibility to pay for the poor? And what is "poor", anyway? I worked door to door over the summer (in grad school) for a telecommunication company. One product was the $1 (home) phone for local calls. Many people didn't want a land-line even after I explained that it would help them control their cell-phone costs when calling from home (I would estimate that over 90% said they mainly called from home using their cell phones and they called locally most of the time). To qualify, you had to be on state aide or an American Indian. These "poor" all had cell phones, cable, computers, two or three cars, homes that were payed for by the state and -as far as I could tell - the latest fashions.

The majority turned down the "land-line" because, well, I guess is wasn't cool. Some saw the value and took advantage of the offer. These were usually the people who where trying to get their lives together and were looking for every advantage to do so. But many just were there with their hands out wanting more Obama money.

There was a 10-year period that I didn't have health insurance and guess what I did? This may sound radical but I PAID FOR MY DOCTOR"S VISITS! I also didn't go when I or my kids had a cold - colds are viral, doctors can't help a cold. Stay in bed, drink plenty of fluids, use Nitequill!

Also, if illegals are using the ERs for their doctors because they know the law says they must treat everyone regardless (as liberals will always say), then guess what? CHANGE THE FRICKIN LAW, NUMBNUTS!

Healthcare is expensive because government (read Liberal aholes) have forced it to be. There are ways of making health care more affordable without trying to cover every druggie, drunkard, delusional "gangster", scumbag, ex-con, lazy ass and illegal alien (lets start charging Mexico, et al for their citizens like sane people would do).

Stop the stupidity and lets see what happens before we try another stupid Liberal gubmint scheme.

Liberal Reader| 1.31.10 @ 4:53PM

Eric --

You illustrate my point. I'm not going to debate you on WHETHER Obama is a terrorist or a communist. It's a free country and you can think what you want.

The Republicans, however, are vociferously complaining that they've been "left out" of negotiations with the White House on important legislation.

Well, the president answered NOT by saying he was offended by all their bullshit, but by pointing out that they'd left themselves precious little grounds on which to work with him.

THEY (the Republicans) in effect are freezing themselves out of the process.

You can go home and tell your constituents that the president is too liberal and you're going to fight like hell to bring him back towards the political center.

But if you tell them the president is a communist Muslim and that anyone who works with him is a traitor, then on what grounds do you expect to find conciliatory gestures?

I guess my sense is that if Republicans want to go to the people next fall and say, "We hate this man; we think he's going to destroy America and that he's a communist," then fine. But they shouldn't complain when there's no basis upon which to have a discussion with the White House on policy.

Patriot| 1.31.10 @ 6:11PM

You fools are gonna get your backsides handed to you in November--and well you should.

Your arrogance will not go unanswered.

Eric Cartman| 1.31.10 @ 5:18PM

Really? He wasn't offended? I would be. And Obama Money doesn't have to be a full-fledged, dues paying CPUSA member to have leanings toward that philosophy. He has surrounded himself with radicals all his life and even said he chose communist professors during college. Now, either he did so because he feels comfy with communist dogma, or he figured the class was an easy A because all he had to do was spout ridiculous nonsense back at them and they would have tingles running up their legs.

And then there is his biggest backer, Andy Stern, writing an opinion piece for the Daily Worker - the CPUSA mouth organ! LOL! It can't get any easier for the Right, can it?

And again, name 5 Republicans in the House of Senate that have said Obama Money is a Communist Muslim. I say five because there is always an outlier. So name two.

And the idiot Republicans can't "freeze themselves" out of what they are not invited to in the first place. Nancy and Pals didn't want to hear from them in the first place.

The Liberals OWN all the crappy ideas coming out of Washington - the stupid thing for Republicans to do would be to try to find "common ground" with them (look for them to, anyway). So, LR, nice try. You guys will go down in flames and if they were smart - which they aren't - the Republicans would salt the ashes so your ideas can never grow again.

Liberal Reader| 1.31.10 @ 8:38PM

Surrounded himself with radicals?

Are you kidding me?

Eric, I hate to tell you, but Glenn Beck may not be the MOST reliable source of news. You need a more balanced diet, bud.

Listen:

Larry Summers and the Gang ARE capitalists, through and through. Obama spent 10 years at the U of Chicago -- not the most radical campus on earth.

I know he's had some associations with lefties and radicals, but his temperament is clearly NOT radical or all that leftist. He's a liberal, true. But that is NOT the same thing as being a radical.

The only thing radical about Obama -- when compared to all the other presidents we've had -- is that he's black.

Patriot| 1.31.10 @ 11:14PM

Glenn Beck is absolutely trustworthy!! He has to be or leftists like Lib Reader would bleat and bray so loudly they'd run him off the air.

NOT ONCE have liberals refuted Glenn Beck's statements. How can you refute the truth

Heck, Glenn has even bagged one of Obama's czars.

Barack Obama's parents were Marxists, he grew up under the tutelage Of Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed communist, and hung around with violent Marxist terrorists like Bill Ayers.

Obama's cabinet has included Marxists, Communists and Maoists--no other president in our history has been so compromised by political extremists.

Of course Obama's a radical!! DUH!!!

Eric Cartman| 2.1.10 @ 8:36AM

Glenn Beck is indeed trustworthy - and accurate much of the time. He tries to be as accurate ass possible and is better at it than "real" journalists. But lets leave Mr. Beck aside. Just use Obama Money's own words, or that of his pastor for 20 years, or his pal and Green Job Tsar, Van Jones, or Willie "Boom Boom" Ailes (sp?) , or uber supporter Andy Stern, ACORN, and the list goes on. You don't need Glenn Beck's observations, but they are accurate and entertaining Obama Money may not be a full fledged Communist, but he leans way over in that area. He is not just your typical, everyday,
tofu munching, VW Van driving (grease powered), Peace Dude! hippy - which is bad enough.

Obama Money is a radical that follows Saul Alinski's ideas and strategies to accomplish his stated policies - which are radical for a capitalist system. His minions have stated the wnt to replace capitalism. Ok, then - with what?

Eric Cartman| 2.1.10 @ 8:41AM

WOW! I need to put my eyeballs on in the morning before typing LOL. Sorry about the annoying typos. "accurate ass possible?" LOL Um, guess I meant Glen Beck is one accurate ass dude! Yo, yo, G-Dogg! Sup?

Eric CArtman| 2.1.10 @ 8:42AM

See what I mean?!

Patriot| 2.1.10 @ 2:54PM

Bill Ayers is the domestic terrorist in the Weather Underground Organization befriended by Obama. Ayers is a violent Commie from way back and should be in prison for his crimes in the sixties.

Now he's an 'educator' creating children's textbooks that subvert and lie about our country's traditions.

The guy's a real threat.

Kini| 1.31.10 @ 5:53PM

Obama is not and will not listen to free market principals. Obama has only proposed a Progressive Socialist Government Run Health Care agenda. Like we really need another failed government run program. Funny how other government run programs like Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, and you name the Govmint program that's making a profit.

Oh, that would be congressional salaries, wouldn't it.

Yosemeti Sam| 2.1.10 @ 12:18AM

Yo, Progressives:

Illustrate, please, occasions where Rham, Rahm,
Ram - whatever - at the behest of BHO, consulted
pastorally with the Republicans for their input on virtually any matter of dire significance to Americas' future?

Can you smell the stinking fish heads the BHO
administration has thrown the GOPs' way?