-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
The Health Care Spectator
Not What the Doctor Ordered
Romney isn’t the only Republican who paved the way for Obamacare.
(Page 2 of 2)
President Bill Clinton signed both bipartisan measures into law. Kennedy-Kassebaum mostly expanded regulations, while SCHIP spent federal money to provide state governments with matching funds to buy health insurance for families with children who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid. A block grant rather than an open-ended entitlement, SCHIP was expanded over Republican objections—and following two Bush vetoes—by the Obama administration in 2009.
These Republican excursions into health care were at best only secondarily about improving real problems with the medical system. The main objective, it seemed, was to make the issue go away until the next election. But these cheaper knock-offs of Democratic proposals at least had the benefit of being relatively small. Not so the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
In the close 2000 presidential race, ultimately decided in Florida, both George W. Bush and Al Gore supported Medicare coverage of prescription drugs. Rising drug costs were a problem for senior citizens and the lack of a drug benefit seemed a defect in the Medicare system. The idea polled well, especially among older Americans. Bush’s version was supposed to avoid price controls and as large a government program as the Democratic alternative.
What we ended up with was the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society. To be sure, the plan Bush signed into law contained some free-market elements, like Medicare Advantage, and was projected to cost less than the Democratic bill. But Medicare Part D still added anywhere from $8 trillion to $15.5 trillion to the federal senior health program’s already substantial unfunded liabilities. Not for nothing did former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker call the bill “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”
“It’s important to remember that the congressional budget resolution capped the projected cost of the drug benefit at $400 billion over 10 years,” Bruce Bartlett later wrote in Forbes. Otherwise the bill was vulnerable to a point of order under congressional rules. But Richard Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary, believed it would cost more than $534 billion over the same period.
Foster later alleged that a Republican appointee in the Bush Health and Human Services Department had threatened to fire him if he blew the whistle on the prescription drug benefit’s cost. Foster wasn’t the only one that Republican leadership had to sway by extraordinary means. Michigan GOP Rep. Nick Smith claimed that his colleagues promised that his son would be guaranteed to succeed him in Congress if he voted for the bill. House Republican leaders had to extend the vote past the standard 15-minute window to get the legislation enacted.
Yet it is beyond dispute that the new benefit was entirely unfunded by new revenues or spending cuts. This fact later weakened Republican arguments against Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office (rather implausibly) scored as deficit-neutral. Republicans then simultaneously complained both that Obamacare increased federal expenditures and also that it cut $500 billion from Medicare (I explored the implications of the latter in detail in the November issue).
EVEN WHEN IT became clear that Paul Ryan was going to become chairman of the House Budget Committee, Republican leaders appeared reluctant to spell out specific proposals for entitlement reform or embrace the details of Ryan’s health care proposals as contained in his early budget blueprints. “Is it any surprise that most Republican politicians failed to sell the Ryan budget to the public?” Reason’s Suderman asked after the NY-26 special election, in which a Republican supporter of the Ryan plan was defeated. “It was never clear that most of them actually bought it themselves.”
An accurate appraisal of Republican Medicare failures, this is even truer when it comes to health care reform more generally. In 2008, John McCain included in his platform a fairly ambitious free-market health care plan. Its centerpiece was an insurance tax credit for individuals, to replace the untaxed health care benefits largely provided by employers. Obama relentlessly attacked it as a tax increase on employer-provided health insurance (such a tax eventually became part of Obamacare). McCain was largely silent in response and after the election consigned his proposal to the same fate as other Republican presidential candidates’ health care plans: unveiled during the campaign season and then ignored afterward, not least by the candidates’ themselves. Paul Ryan, who is trying to revive the tax credit, would later say, “He did a very, very poor job of explaining the idea.”
Ryan is very, very much an outlier in his own party. After Hillarycare was defeated, costing Democrats control of Congress in 1994, many Republicans appeared to think they would never have to tackle the health care issue again or that co-authoring small SCHIP-style programs with Kennedy would do the trick. Others ended up tinkering with health care reform ideas that ended up looking a lot like Obamacare. But that just assured that when health care returned to the political forefront, it would be when the Democrats were in power—and would be done exclusively on Democratic terms.
It is a sad irony that many ambitious Republicans wasted two decades toying with the system of exchanges, subsidies, and mandates that eventually became Obamacare. It would be even sadder if continued Republican short-sightedness contributed to making this state of affairs permanent.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 6:39AM
Stop the fighting!
IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!
Patrick| 1.26.12 @ 7:44AM
That's what primaries are for, stupid.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 11:24AM
Yep, once we are turned off by the candidates, we are just going to then turn around and cheer for the winner. You are delusional.
Elias| 1.26.12 @ 2:54PM
"I was for the individual mandate before I was against it.."
Seems both GOP frontrunners are so tarred with heathcare baggage they will never be able to win this argument against obama.
Does Santorum have any of this democrat-lite baggage?
If not, vote Santorum. Problem solved.
Jack in Wi.| 1.26.12 @ 7:49AM
Oblabla=Mutt and Nutt. They are all peas in the same pod. They are just a bunch of chicken hawk warmongers who love big government solutions. After Florida 95% of the delegates still have to be chosen. It is still Ron Paul or ruin. Newt isn't even on the ballot in many states. He is only in this to shill for an attack on Iran for his extreme Zionist backers. It has always been between the old guard's Romney and the young insurgents and Ron Paul. They are the only ones who can beat Obama as has been shown by numerous polls.
Clint| 1.26.12 @ 7:09AM
Stupid Is As Stupid Does.
Life Is Like A Box Of Chocolates.
And Chocolate Is Runnin' Again.
c.j. acworth| 1.26.12 @ 7:11AM
This article just highlights the broader reason that Tea Party types are disgusted with the Republican party. They so often have no desire to deliver a real alternative to the Democrats meme of ever-larger and more powerful government. Their usual response is generally along the lines of "We want it too, just not so expensive." As a result, the liberals are always advancing the ball down the field. This is why I've given up caring who gets the R nomination. We have to accept that there will not be a conservative in the White House no matter who wins the election. Time to focus on the House and Senate.
Nancy in NC| 1.26.12 @ 8:03AM
I agree. It's quite apparent that we have elected individuals for years that neither know or care about the Constitution and Conservative principles. A lot of this is due to the fact that the citizens know very little about the Constitution, and only pull out a few principles like freedom of speech when it's convenient. But what can one expect from a Federal government ran education system. The dumbing down of Americans is no accident, and the rest of us are paying a huge price as we lose our freedom.
I, too, will focus on the House and the Senate. None of the people running are principled enough for me to even care any longer.
R Martin| 1.26.12 @ 8:41AM
What will your focus be? Mr. Antle’s article clearly indicates the utter incompetence of legislators who piled unsustainable entitlements on the country without regard to the fiscal consequences. Many of those legislators are still in Congress, are running for re-election and most of them will be re-elected.
Now we face not only a critical fiscal crisis but a weak economy, high unemployment, appalling education, violent, radical enemies and formidable international business competitors. And who is going to address those issues? That’s right, the same legislators who got us into this mess in the first place.
No, I can’t agree the focus must be solely on Congress. The presidency is equally important, and we need the right guy in there. Who that might be is not yet apparent.
VonMisesJr| 1.26.12 @ 10:02AM
C.J. and Nancy,
Giving up on the Presidential race is exactly what the GOP wishes for. They want to pick the Nominee, and that would be Mitt Romney. Their standard bearer is often a loser (Dole & McCain) or a disaster (Bush 41 & 43).
Newt is flawed, but his ego is actually a positive in my opinion. He aspires to be a historical figure like Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan. He can only achieve that by toppling the Establishment and the Leviathan.
Mitt Romney just seems committed to get the "Romney" name on the list of POTUS, after his father's failure to do so. He makes no heart-felt commitments, but only keeps repeating his so-called qualifications.
BTW, Romney was not Bain Capital, but simply the CEO who oversaw many brilliant hedge fund profiteers. It is like giving Joe Walsh all the credit for the great 49ers teams. He could not have won without Montana, Rice, and about 50 other mostly exceptional players.
c.j. acworth| 1.26.12 @ 4:29PM
VonMisesJr;
To clarify my position a bit, I intend to pull the lever for whoever has an "R" next to his name in Nov. Here in NH I voted for Perry. Now that he is out, I see nothing to get exited about for any of the remainders, tho whoever wins will be better than you-know-who. Weneed to get as many real conservatives into Congress as possible, because we will NOT have a conservative President in 2013 no matter what.
TW in SC| 1.26.12 @ 10:20PM
Agreed. Seems the corral started with no real potential ribbon-winners and went downhill from there.
We can't get another Reagan, but to be fair, he was still an unknown quantity for president at this same time in 1980, and given his democrat roots, seemed suspect to some.
History has been good to Mr Reagan and I was a fan, but not his biggest fan. He was imperfect but he knew it.
I, too, will pull the lever next to the R candidate if only to slow down the train heading for socialism. Admittedly, that is a frustrating place to be as a conservative but it has to start somehow. Problem is, by the time conservatism gets its shoes on, liberalism has already been out partying all night and is ready for round two.
This one step forward, two steps back has been going on since at least the 1960's. The explosion of government-run agencies, regulations, fees, taxes etc., etc. are mind-numbingly immense. It has to stop. It's not a revenue problem...it's a spending problem.
How do we get elected representatives who don't first set forth an agenda that their primary, no. 1 goal is to get re-elected? One term ONLY. For all of them. Gone are the altruistic dreams that if a senator or congressman "does a good job" they can be re-elected. Term limits.
Seems though that given the current state of affairs, this administration will just ignore any law that they don't like or doesn't suit their agenda. It's doubly criminal that the set-in-place check for that (are you reading this, congress?) fails to hold them accountable. There can be but a few reasons for this:
1) that the republicans themselves are fearful of getting the spotlight of wrath shone upon them and they just-as-soon would not like that kind of attention
2) the republicans in the House are fearful of being run over by the media and, NOT being run over is currently the same as being liked as far ad their concerned.
3) The republicans themselves are complicit in much of the shenanigans that go on behind closed doors and they suck up to the "cool kids" in the government just so they can be allowed to sit in their general vicinity.
It's high-school. Always was, always will be. Therefore, elected officials on the republican side need to be as darn near inscrutable as possible. Clean credit reports, no history of bad relationships, no hanky-panky, etc.
Heh...now THAT's altruistic. In fact it's downright delusional. Newt's imperfect but he'll fight Obama and Reid and even Pelosi if the reward is high enough.
Romney is smart, generally conservative but...still one to "reach across the aisle" which gets the republicans hog-tied every time. I liked Reagan's idea of "compromise" better. "We win, they lose". For too long the left has bastardized the definition of compromise to mean "do it our way" or we'll, oh...I dunno, leave the floor of the capital and go hide out in some unnamed hotel, or...call you racist....or....dig up dirt on all your past relationships....or....call you a "Wall Street fat cat".....or.....camp out next door and photograph your every move until you get caught throwing recyclable plastic in the aluminum bin or with the regular trash.
As a voter, I'm pretty sick of it. It's all high-school. It's what seems to engage us when the real danger is to the nation itself. And, the left prefers the people to be focused on how many wives Gingrich has had or where Romny keeps his *gasp* millions because then you aren't watching the pea anymore. And the pea is that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Dodd, et al are doing their gol-durnedest to steal as much money as they can so they can get re-elected.
They are so shallow that they believe it's the ONLY way to get re-elected. And they LOVE their limos and big offices and soirees paid for by the taxpayers. It's a big high-school shindig to them. And we're the suckers.
So...sending anyone to DC to protect our interests is like, how did one person put it? Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Of course they have their best interests at heart. Always have, always will. So the PEOPLE have to figure out a way to make that stop. Term limits is one way. No insider-trading is another. Denial of increasing one's net worth while in elected office is another. Your transportation for personal business comes out of YOUR pocket...just like in the military. Staff limits on salary and number. Etc, etc. It's really quite easy.
The American people will continue to lose as long as elected officials see their government job as one big expense-account.
russel| 1.26.12 @ 11:13AM
Hatch has been elected for seven terms and is trying for another . I think Utah is about tired of him - there are two Reps. running against him this next round . His voting record is a mixed bag , he comes off as a strong conservative when it suits him . I'd put him in the McCain car . Time to get rid of him . Our Founders never intended this careerism .
Shamus| 1.26.12 @ 7:13AM
Obamacare actually is what the doctor ordered. The AMA backed Obama's health bill precisely because it took a tax and spend approach while doing nothing to reduce the costs of health care. Doctors and hospitals were free to rake in more revenues every year without making any effort to become more efficient or productive.
squalis| 1.26.12 @ 9:04AM
The AMA does not represent the majority of MD's. The majority of MD's were, and continue to be, against Obamacare. The AMA was political in its backing (I don't believe the word endorsement was ever used), trying to make a deal with Obama and Dems to fix the long running problems by new legislation of the SGR, the formula by which MD's get paid through Medicare. So, Obama and Dems got their promotional PR, they renegged on the SGR deal, and the AMA, after the legislation passed and was signed into law, withdrew their support.
Shamus| 1.26.12 @ 10:36AM
Doctors are corporate lackeys these days. The majority will soon be on the payrolls of the large organizations who backed Obamacare. They will not be allowed to have individual opinions which conflict with their employers.
squalis| 1.26.12 @ 11:27AM
You may be right (BTW, I am an MD). I can tell you that if Obamacare is not repealed or struck down that there will be an extreme dumbing down of medicine, severely restricted access, or both. It will not be the docs alone that are impacted. But, don't think a majority of docs were in favor of this atrocity, we weren't. AMA membership for years has been below 50% of practicing physicians in this country. AMA leadership has been populated by medical academia for some time as well, and they, in a political sense, are no different than academia in general. After passage and signing of Obamacare, there were massive defections from those that were still members of the AMA. Their credibility among physicians is minimal.
Shamus| 1.26.12 @ 1:01PM
Most of the doctors who have written about Obamacare do seem to be opposed. Hopefully it will be struck down by the Court.
It seems to me like the role of the physician has been hijacked by large organizations who are less concerned about individual outcomes than they are about system metrics.
Three trends appear to counter the current move of physicians from individual practice to employment by hospitals or care organizations.
Some doctors offer a subscription type plan where there is a yearly charge for access in addition to a charge for specific services. This can work for people who have enough resources to support it.
Medical tourism allows people to go travel to places like Singapore or Thailand for services that are less expensive than those in the US (even after paying travel expenses).
And finally, there is some chance that improved technology may be beneficial.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 11:28AM
ObamaCare forces the move to large corporations. It makes running a private office too expensive. The result will actually be more useless test and expensive procedures as doctors are told to feed the pipeline.
squalis| 1.26.12 @ 9:13AM
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.c.....urvey.aspx
Med Student| 1.29.12 @ 10:35PM
The free market determines a doctor's pay. Why don't you call your congressional delegation and ask them to stop cutting education funding?
You tea party people think that I should go to school (under grad, med school, residency, fellowship) for 10-12 years....incur substantial debt, then give you medical care for free?
qrstuv| 1.30.12 @ 9:40PM
No.
Tea party people, as you put it, do not believe in slavery.
DP| 1.26.12 @ 7:14AM
Assuming the article is factually correct, it chronicles how utterly uncommitted several generations of Republican leadership are to the concept of personal & collective responsibility, but rather are more focused on party political power. This should be a reminder of all of us that one must study who & what a politician is, across a long time frame, to really understand the person, before providing your support. This is a tragedy.
Clint| 1.26.12 @ 7:17AM
Rush Limbaugh,
" I guarantee you they are thinking, "With the wrong presidential candidate we could lose the House, not to mention lose the White House race." Well, they don't want to lose the House. They want to win the Senate. They think Obama's gonna get reelected and that's the best way to stop him is to have both houses: House and Senate."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Headed To A Brokered Convention.
JmsA| 1.26.12 @ 10:52AM
Stop dreaming, it aint' gonna happen!
martin j smith| 1.26.12 @ 7:52AM
Enough smearing. Enough garbage. Prove you want to defeat Obama or shut up.
Clint| 1.26.12 @ 8:02AM
Now, Why Don't You Try And Make Me Shut Up Israel Firster Dweeb.
We Are Being Set Up By You Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.
You're The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Headed For A Brokered Convention.
Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 8:16AM
You know Clint, I think you are right about a brokered convention. And I don't think many of us, including you, are going to be happy with what comes out of it.
David W| 1.26.12 @ 8:50AM
Why the Israel-firster stuff? Are you an anti-Semite? You hate Jews? Did your mother eat a bad bagel when before you were born? Given your comments and name calling perhaps you were dropped on your head when you were young.
Dick Nome| 1.26.12 @ 10:05AM
That's the Paulbot talking points/ vernacular. Yes, they are anti-Semites.
POST American| 1.26.12 @ 8:12AM
---Great piece!
And speaking of the capstone EUGENICS
agenda ---and putting aside that latest item
of the dental work from burning corpses
now responsible for 16% of the the mercury
in Britain's air ---
Interesting item from the ACLU detailing
moves NOW afoot to BAN the King James
Bible in some states across America
---this as the EUGENICS borg UN's now
out with their long term 'social engineering'
agendas for introducing, even encouraging,
intergenerational sex ---on top of preferred
status for institutionalized sod-dummy
-and elsewhere, further moves to 'expand'
the definitions of mental illness ---with the
stated long term aim of 'medicalizing normality'
-further, latest capstone funded 'studies' from
Britain state that 'Having a baby is an illness
and more dangerous than having an abortion'
(for the mother ONLY surely). This is part
of a move to 'equalize' genders via their
newest 'fave' ---echto-genesis -or having
the womb ---externally, in a laboratory.
Just some of what Gobalism, unaccountable
capstone USURY, operating TAX FREE,
are up to in this, the 11th hour of the
RED CHina sellout and TREASON OP.
"Understand folks, the BIG BANKERS
---were and ARE the commies."
---------------------'MARKS-ism'------------------------
------------------'CALM--YOU---nism'------------------
---------------'SO--SHALL--ALL--ism'------------------
comprise the 'ISM PRISON' for your mind,
body, heart and soul.
----------------------EUGENICS--------------------------
-is the cost efficient management OF that prison.
"Seems everything old is
NEW-remberg AGAIN!"
--------------------------------------SO IT DOES
Tim the Enchanter| 1.26.12 @ 3:08PM
Huh?
Tanguera| 1.26.12 @ 8:25AM
All the more reason why Paul Ryan was the only answer. That he "declined" says to me that either the GOP doesn't want to let him be mortally wounded by the lying, vicious media protecting Obama this Fall -- or the GOP doesn't want serious ($$$) changes to be made.
There was one (IMHO) obvious ticket for which Dems, Indies, and Republicans would have crawled over broken glass to vote: Ryan/Rubio. That they are not running at this perilous time means the GOP leadership is not trying to save the country. Ryan and Rubio's charisma would have also trumped Obama's (snake-oil) charisma.
Very depressing, indeed. I don't think the country will be saved afterall.
kerry| 1.26.12 @ 4:08PM
One of Rubio's parents was not an American citizen at the time of his birth, so I think that he is not eligible to run. Also, Rubio has very minimal experience in my opinion.
Dick Nome| 1.26.12 @ 9:47PM
Rubio's parents were both legal residents. Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen per US Code 8 Sec 1401 and the Constitution. Marco Rubio isn't about to end his career by running as anyone's VP. He wants to be a Senator from FL as he was elected to be and I hope Senate Majority Leader.
Mike Rogers | 1.26.12 @ 8:43AM
Meanwhile, James continues to stump for Romney over Newt, even in the face of evidence that Newt recognizes the monster which must be pulled out by the roots, and Mitt's campaign aides are admitting that he probably won't repeal Obamacare. Hello???
squalis| 1.26.12 @ 9:13AM
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.c.....urvey.aspx
Anommynous| 1.26.12 @ 10:05AM
But Rick Santorum didn't support the individual mandate. Unfortunately, it looks like we're back to the point where the press (even the conservative press) just ignores him.
Old Soldier| 1.26.12 @ 2:12PM
He liked the hell out of the Medicare Prescription Drugs.
David| 1.26.12 @ 10:36AM
When are you folks going to wake up to the fact that Newt and Mitt are similar to Bam Bam in several ways:
They all support individual mandates to buy health insurance.
They all supported the Wall Street bailout.
They all have bought into global warming baloney.
Newt and Mitt have so much baggage for the various issues they supported over the years. And in Newt's case for the primary repub candidates he has supported over the years such as Dede (the democrat) Scozoffava.
Newt has so much personal baggage (the ethics charges, almost all of which were bogus) and his personal failings.
Santorum is the clear contrast with Bam Bam. Aside from his support of Specter (which he adequately explained) and his vote againt a National Right to Work Act (17 YEARS AGO), there is not much bad to say about Santorum. He has also said that if prez he would be representing the entire nation and not just PA and will support a National RIght to Work Act.
Santorum has been the adult in this race. When going on offense about the other candiates' records, he does not misrepresent, tell lies and half-truths like the others are all doing to each other. He has not personally attacked Romney like Perry and Gingrich have. He has not personally attacked Gingrich like Romney , Perry, and Paul have.
Wake up. Listen to Santorum. If you are one of Newt's supporters, then on most issues Santorum is saying the same as Gingrich - JUST NOT AS LOUD as Gingrich does.
Mitt and Newt simply have too much political, and in Newt's case, personal baggage to credibly go against the Boy.
Tanguera| 1.26.12 @ 1:04PM
I appreciate your reasonable, dispassionate post. Santorum for me. If what people seem to think is the answer -- that being conservatism -- Santorum is credibly conservative. He is also courageous (think Iran) and conducts himself with dignity. He is clearly the answer, short of Paul Ryan. That he is being marginalized makes no sense. So why is he being marginalized?
I trust Santorum. How does Santorum/Rubio sound?
How on earth could the GOP punditry herd us towards Romney given his association with Romneycare. Would love to know the answer to that question in my lifetime.
Note that while Coulter insulted South Carolina voters on F&F last Sunday, she never did (or does?) launch a credible case for why Romney can be trusted. Like the MSM pimping for Obama, Coulter stands to lose credible stumping for Romney. C'est dommage, Ann.
David| 1.26.12 @ 10:39AM
Oh yea, and one more thing:
Newt and Romney (and Bam Bam) are critical of Paul Ryan's plan while Santorum wholeheartedly endorses it.
This and the other issues in my previous are not MINOR differences. They are huge differences that Santorum can cite against Bam Bam. Newt and Mitt will have to be silent on those issues.
wodiej| 1.26.12 @ 11:24AM
you sound like a Ron Paul supporter. No wonder Santorum is polling so low.
David| 1.26.12 @ 10:44AM
And one more:
Newt has an ego at least the size of Bam Bam's.
His wife said that he told her: "People don't care what I do. They only care what I say. And I can things better than anyone else can say them".
Then, in his scribbling, which Glenn Beck has seen or has, he wrote things like: "I am the definer of a civilized society." "I am the one who makes the rules for a civilized society."
Scary huh? Sound a lot like our current planet healer and ocean receder, doesn't it???!!!
wodiej| 1.26.12 @ 11:23AM
no your post is scary especially since you get your talking points from Beck. How do you know what his bitter Ex from 12 years ago had to say or if it's true? You don't.
Quartermaster| 1.26.12 @ 6:03PM
The fact the man was a serial adulterer and is actually a liberal is enough. Both Mittens and the Newt will lose against the Obamunist. To liberal, and too much political freight ot be able to hold their own against the twit in the WH.
martin j smith| 1.26.12 @ 10:58AM
Vonmisesjr--Youy are right on--I to0tally agree with your view and have been saying so myself. Now that the gaunlet has been laid down thru SOTUS it is now time for thgose who actually want to defeat Obama to start focusing on Obama and his polices.
Antlee--Do want to defeat Obama or just defeat Newt and make Romney another loser--yes I believe he is a loser--not standing enough up to our Dear Leader--not enough for me. Romnee is just like the kiss of death John McCain. It is because of this I can support Gingrich or Santorum.. Not that fool Ron Paul and his band dof idiots who post.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 11:33AM
Gingrich or Santorum for me also. It is amazing how many GOP insiders are agreeing with Nancy Pelosi.
"In the close 2000 presidential race, ultimately decided in Florida, both George W. Bush and Al Gore supported Medicare coverage of prescription drugs. Rising drug costs were a problem for senior citizens and the lack of a drug benefit seemed a defect in the Medicare system."
This benefit was actually a gift to Big Pharm, cronies of both political parties. People were starting to realize that they could order drugs in Canada or India for far cheaper costs than the US. Funny how free trade does not become important if it HURTS large multi-national corporations.
We should be able to get drugs we need from where-ever we wish and without the FDA telling us what we can and can not have.
wodiej| 1.26.12 @ 11:21AM
Don't care. I want Obama out and Gingrich is the fighter to do it. He's got plenty to go after him on besides Obamacare.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 11:38AM
It is not the Individual Mandate that we hate. Most of us HAVE health insurance. It is just that the IM is the part of ObamaCare that can get the whole socialized program expunged.
So this debate about the Individual Mandate is off track.
What we hate is the government getting in the middle of the doctor/patient relationship. What we hate is being told what we can and can not do?
What we hate is paying into medicare for 40 years to find out that by age 70 most medical treatment will be denied to us, so that it can be given to illegal aliens.
kerry| 1.26.12 @ 4:12PM
what I hate is the goverment forcing me to purchase a product (any product from broccoli to solar panels to Chevy volts), and if I do not, and I refuse to pay the *fine* whoops I mean *tax* oh I mean *fine* (can't seem to make up their mind what it is, depends on the federal court they are in), then the government can SEND ME TO JAIL.
Sooooo....I do HATE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. Because I want to be a free person.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 4:56PM
Seriously you don't mind the government telling the Doctor what treatments he can provide you? You honestly think the only way you are free is if you don't have to buy insurance? If you take out the mandate I assure you ObamaCare is still taking away your freedoms and your doctors freedoms. In fact I have just as much problem with ObamaCare restricting the freedoms of insurance companies. Why should they have to pay for your 25 year old "children"? Its all one big pile of crap.
David| 1.26.12 @ 11:54AM
wodiej, I don't get my talking points from Beck. In fact, never listen to him. Just happened to leave work to run an errand yesterday and his radio program happened to be on. That said, if he has copies of the notes or has seen the notes, it does NOT make what Beck says is FALSE.
Don't let the messenger destroy the message.
Next, I heard his 2nd wife say that on the tube (not YouTube). Words out of her mouth. She said it right after she said that Newt asked her for an open marriage. Newt said he didn't....so what....I am not even bringing up his marital infedelities and 3 marriages...........until now.
The point I am trying to make is that Newt has an ego at least as big as Bam Bam and Clinton. They all feel they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
Now, do you find anything else that is scary in my posts?
Or, you may just want to check the claims I cited for yourself.
One thing that is becoming more and more clear is that Newt's supporters are beginning to sound a lot like the rabid supporters of Ron Paul. Like Paul there is a lot to criticize Newt for, but you guys just don't want to consider those matters in your decision-making.
I suggest that you do consider Newt's faults........and reconsider Santorum.......or you are going to hand Bam Bam another 4 years. If Romney and Paul could destroy Newt in Iowa, just what the F_CK do you think Bam Bam and liberal media are going to do to him nationwide.
Please...........pay attention!!!
David| 1.26.12 @ 12:06PM
wodiej, I just saw your other post. "I sound like a Ron Paul supporter." WHAT???!!!
My fellow poster, you are arguing like a moron (dictionary definition: someone with mental capability of a 12 year old).
You have not responded to one f_cking thing I said other than to dismiss things that I said that I heard.
Fair enough, wodiej.
Now, leaving aside what COULD be inaccurate statements by me, how about responding to my reasons for supporting Santorum over Newt or Mitt? You know, challenge what I said about their records instead of coming back with silly 12 year old arguments like "just because" or "because I said so" or "because that's just what I believe" responses.
George S| 1.26.12 @ 1:00PM
No. You are wrong; the time line and history has nothing to do with ObamaCare. When Obama and the Democrats got total control in 2009, they immediately put forth ObamaCare. Where was the debate, the hearings, the testimony, the studies? There were none.
Where were the analyses examining the shortcomings and horrors of the British model? What provisions were made to avoid them? None.
The legislation was drafted from socialist blueprint, slapped together so quickly they forgot the severance clause.
This was not a thought-out plan to FIX a problem, instead it was a reactionary power grab. The stars aligned and the conditions were right, so they took that abomination from the dust bin of failed statist policies and deem-crammed it down our throats. Just so we can learn what was in it.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 4:58PM
And a few republicans helped that process along. The Dems cherry-picked as they went along.
George| 1.26.12 @ 2:43PM
There should be no individual mandate. However, if you are irresponsible enough not to have insurance, any Emergency Room should be allowed to turn you away if you cannot pay. If you then bleed out on the steps, that's tough. Why should the emergency rooms of the country be forced to subsidize those who are not organized enough or smart enough to buy insurance?
Seriously, to those here who oppose the individual mandate, do you support a mandate on emergency rooms to stitch people back up or stop their heart attacks if they can't pay?
kerry| 1.26.12 @ 4:14PM
This would be fine, if we had a truely free market, where doctors and insurance companies had to compete for consumer dollars. It would be fine if there was something done for those who cannot get health insurance, perhaps some type of state level insurance pool?
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 4:57PM
If it were a free market, there would be no FDA.
Seek| 1.26.12 @ 3:29PM
So here's the $64,000 question: How did Orrin Hatch get a reputation as being a hardcore conservative?
Quartermaster| 1.26.12 @ 6:06PM
The left said he was, so he is. Why is that so hard to understand?
All of us here know that Hatch is at best a squish. Usually he's just a liberal.
Phil| 1.26.12 @ 3:40PM
Consumer Reports had an article naming Massachusetts as the best state for healthcare and in particular named Harvard Pilgrim the best insurer. Former Governor Romney should run with that. Conservatives are very ideological and are obtuse to the concept of the "common good." I am 100% for the common good as represented by a notion that healthcare is a right.
kerry| 1.26.12 @ 4:22PM
Consumer Reports must be another progressive agenda RAG. It is my understanding from researching Mass health care that the waiting times for doctor appointments has increased to over 2 months, people cannot FIND doctors to go to that are accepting new patients.... that the hospitals are suing the state for low medicaid payment/reimbursement. Insurance premiums have jumped up sky high. Many people abuse such a system, signing up only when they have an illness or emergency, then dropping it again so they don't have to pay. Within 2 or 3 years of initiating Mass care, the state is already considering rationing health services and is looking for more federal dollars/bail out from taxpayers because they have over run costs.
Finally, you believe that healthcare is a "right" which shows your complete ignorance in what is a constitutional right. If health care is a right, then you must believe in slave labor? Because health care is the PRODUCT of someone's hard work, education, committment, intelligence and passion. Socialized medicine always drives doctors and nurses (especially the best ones) out of health care.
qrstuv| 1.30.12 @ 9:44PM
CR ran a piece in the 90s that was pro-single payer so yeah, they're socialists.
Clive | 1.26.12 @ 5:57PM
It is so sad that the richest country in the world is not able to care for those in need of treatment. Across your northern and southern borders, citizens get proper health care without being financially raped. I know; I'm an example. The doctors in Mexico diagnosed my heart condition before I had a heart attack and I came out of my heart bypass operation in great condition.
Then there's my friend Perry in Houston, a Vietnam War Veteran, a true American hero. A patient with the V.A., which failed to diagnose his condition early enough; he had a heart attack and the V.A. was too far away, so they took him to the nearest hospital where he too, had a heart bypass.
Post operative, there is one huge difference between us: my diagnosis, operation, and after-care cost me nothing - it was covered by the mandatory health insurance we have here - you know, what YOU like to call "socialized medicine". Perhaps I should repeat the word: FREE.
My friend Perry has been left with an unpayable debt of $300,000. That's how you treat your heroes in the USA, it seems. People who vote against a proper national health system are turkeys voting for Christmas.
Quartermaster| 1.26.12 @ 6:09PM
Such things are never free. Some one has to pay the freight, and if you didn't do it then you are nothing more than a freeloader.
Rich Birkett | 1.27.12 @ 2:37AM
Mexico's health insurance is not mandatory, and without the $400/year government health insurance, patients must pay for their care out-of-pocket. I'll take Mexico's health care policy over Obamacare any day.
Quartermaster| 1.26.12 @ 6:09PM
Expecting the Reps to do the proper thing a conservative would expect is to expect the impossible. The Rs have never been a conservative party and they never will be.
David| 1.26.12 @ 6:41PM
Yea Clive, do you really believe all your medical care cost NOTHING. It didn't cost you anything, but you can bet people who pay fed income taxes and pay health insurance premiums are paying for your (and other millions) care in the form of higher medical cost.
Get a clue, Clive. Clive The Clueless.
Clive | 1.30.12 @ 11:17AM
Yes, I paid for it through the health insurance I paid from my salary every month. The point is, without it I would have died, because I could not obtain private insurance anyway due to a pre-existing condition. Many people are in the same position. Everyone should have access to health care and it should be on a national basis provided by government and deducted from salary as a tax, as in Europe, Australia, Mexico, Canada ... the US is very, very backward.
Thom| 1.26.12 @ 7:07PM
This is what happens when you abandon principles of good governance. Once you throw out “principle” all you have left is one flavor or the other of the same emotional argument. Neither Party has any credibility left with such matters as a result. Speaking the truth will get most unelected in the next election.
Any credible Economists will tell you that when you subsidize something you bid up demand which bids up “price” thus everything that government has subsidized or outright controls (healthcare, education, housing, retirement, wages,.etc) has run away and unsustainable cost. You can’t have a free market based enterprise economy with government in effect setting “prices” through its manipulation of supply and demand.
Honesty and integrity to Founding principles were abandoned starting in 1913 and you now have half the population dependent on that which government has made unaffordable. A wise man once said something to the effect that if you think Healthcare is expensive now wait till it is “free”……
POST American| 1.26.12 @ 10:09PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
Putting aside this chicken feed sideshow
of a topic----and
CUTTING TO THE CHASE:
----ROMNEY's a full-blown Globalist
and warm advocate for capstone EUGENICS.
Even with all the 'CON-serving' bravado
of the campaign ---he displays NO repentance
for any of this ---and is UTTER SILENT on the
undeniably unfolding Globalist REDChina
--------------------TREASON OP.--------------------
---------------------ALL WE NEED TO KNOW
----------------------------------------------EVER!
Rich Birkett | 1.27.12 @ 2:32AM
American Spectator doesn't seem interested in pointing out Ron Paul never has, and never will, support any health insurance mandate. AS thinks Paul is unqualified to be President because Paul suggested a border fence could be used to keep Americans in. I can't understand AS's and many conservatives' tendency to focus on the irrelevant and ignore the obvious.
POST American| 1.27.12 @ 8:31AM
--------------------------BTW-----------------------------
Those STILL unconvinced on the matter
of stealth EUGENICS and the aggressive,
decades on, weaponization of shots and meds
CHECK OUT
DR. Mayer Eisinstein interview
on yesterday's ALEX JONES
(Jan 26th)
You too will be calling for the FINAL,
definitive criminalization of ALLLLLL
stealth bio-engineering for everything
from dumb-down --to sterilization --organ
failure and slow kill cancer viruses
(as in the SALK POLIO shots).
---10 years without parole for the operatives,
and for the 'Big Boys' behind this unfolding
nightmare ---LIFE sentence ---or the DEATH PENALTY.
-----------------Likewise for the GMO boys.
CHECK OT OUT ---YOU'LL SEE
------------------WE GUARANTEE IT-----------------
graco snugride flint | 2.1.12 @ 2:35AM
Good opinion
buy rocky mountain radar | 2.1.12 @ 2:39AM
No comment