The American Spectator

Solo| 8.15.09 @ 11:30AM

"Meanwhile, at a town hall meeting, Jack Murtha -- not a Blue Dog member -- made comments suggesting that at the minimum, he had reservations about the current bill and expected the timeline to slip further. "

Good! Maybe the "timeline" will slip far enough that some of these asshats will actually read the frickin bill!

HuckFynn| 8.15.09 @ 11:49AM

We're told that healthcare reform is needed in order that 48 or so million get healthcare. About half of that number is composed of illegals. So, form a price of at least $2-3 trillion, Obama and Pelosi want me to hand over healthcare to them so they can ration it, reduce the quality, and require months and months of waiting time for elective surgery and other healthcare.

Don't for get. medicare is costing about 8-10 times more than initially proposed by the government. So, since when will ObamaCare stick with 800 billion as Obama claims?

Just say no.

Liberal Reader| 8.15.09 @ 4:06PM

What?

No Woodstock memorials or testimonies?

palmsasys| 8.15.09 @ 6:55PM

What is finally showing is how thin, athough broad, support for Obama's election was among the right-center populus of the U. S. It was not him, so much as racial concious soothing, that elected him, along with his moderate campaign rehtoric that was neither truthful, nor honest but instead Chicago hardball deceptive politics, wrapped in fluffy soaring oratory. Now it comes to the surface, for all to see, anguish over and reject. It isn't just Obmacare's government health strait jacket, that just opened the can of worms that has beenbuilding with the stimulus (a/k/a porkulus) bill but reckless spending, on bailouts, government auto control and all the other government controls Obama has and continues to try to put in place by ramming all this down our throats as fast as possible and without reading bills or reflection by Congress and the people. Government has not proven itself in the past but instead has been the problem not the solution, so why suddenly under Obama will it do better, or for that tmatter, as well as in the past, which has seldom been good, before at all. Government is not trusted, rather it is feared as forcing itself into where it is not wanted nor ever intended to be under the law enacted.Unfair and/ or improper regulatory power is the experience of Americans, that is part of what is feared. It has all come to a head in this present debate and Obama asked for it.

Bob| 8.15.09 @ 10:05PM

Philip -- I thought you were tied into Washington and politics. All of the versions of the health care bill are dead except the one Baucus is working on. The White House has chosen that version as their version. All of the Democrats will eventually fall in line with this proposal. By concentrating on the House bill, you are being drawn away with a rope-a-dope strategy.

Concentrate on the Baucus version if you want to have any impact on the final vote. Looking at the House bill will just make Republicans look like lunatics (you know, killing grandma, socialism, Nazism, etc.).

Aaron| 8.16.09 @ 12:56PM

Bob, who in the hell do you think killed the house bill and how? Do really think that if Republicans would have stood back and not attacked and continue to attack it that it would just die a slow death on its own? No doubt you will be saying the same thing about Baucus' bill when we start pulling it apart.

And seriously, do you really think for one minute that all of the members of the House are going to just let all of their items die in favor of a exclusively Senate bill? Not a snow balls chance. If we don't continue to show what garbage is in the House bill, it will end up in the Senate version when it lands on the Prez's desk.

Keep calling us all lunatics, if thats what it takes to keep 1/6th of the economy in the private sector where it rightfully belongs.

Bob| 8.16.09 @ 4:13PM

Aaron, I am against both bills because I don't believe they will lower costs or solve the Medicare funding issues. But fighting the house bill has only hurt Republicans because of the extremists we see on the news and the stupid things like "death panels". If you've followed the politics, it has been the Blue Dogs in the house that have hurt that bill. You are too tied into Fox News and right wing blogs like this one to notice what most people see and hear on ABC, CBS, CNN and yes, MSNBC. The White House strategy was to not make the same mistakes as Clinton. To do that, they let the liberals in the House go hog wild. When they get a more moderate solution in the Senate, they will seem like centrists as opposed to the right wing extremists who carry Nazi signs at the town halls.

The winner in this strategic battle will be the side that captures independents. Remember that only 21% of voters call themselves Republicans while 38% of voters call themselves Democrats. In addition, black voters will see the Obama as Nazi/Socialist signs as racism the the Hispanics will be angry at Republicans for Sotomayor. Young voters are having problems landing jobs so they want a cheap health care option.

It may make you feel good to see the right wing activists at these meetings, but in the battle of the parties and demographics, it is a loser.

What Republicans needed to do was to be the grown-ups in the room talking about costs and saving Medicare instead of backing Palin's Death Panels and killing grandma. Scaring seniors will not help the party much because, if you remember the last election, seniors were the only demographic segment the Republicans actually won.

So, what I object to is that the actions of those right wing extremists will actually hurt the Republican party in the longer run. You win elections by getting independents and moderates to vote for you -- and these actions will eventually turn those people off.

If you've seen the latest polls, Obama's approval ratings have been hurt, but Republicans ratings have not subsequently improved.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 4:14PM

Aaron --

Your figure ("1/6 of the economy") is pretty accurate. That medical costs are gobbling up that many resources -- they went up by 45% during W's term alone -- and that they can only continue to skyrocket is the result of the "private sector" having control of them.

The private sector manipulation of health costs drove the American car industry out of business, giving the federal government the choice between intervening in that sector the economy and letting millions lose their jobs in the space of a few short months.

Those health costs are stagnating middle class wages (just because you get insurance from your employer doesn't mean you don't pay for them) and strangling small businesses. They are making us less competitive in the global market.

And this is OK with you?

Maybe so. But you should know what you are advocating:

IF you happen to have private health insurance now, there's a very good chance you won't have it in 5 years. The costs are going up so fast that fewer and fewer businesses will be able to afford them, and middle class people will be priced out of the market.

In addition, the increasing costs are hampering those parts of the health care system that are "socialized": Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Unleashing the private sector on these people would be beyond cruel, since no one would insure them. So the government picks up a tab that is doubling or possibly trebling in the next decade.

ALL of these problems could be solved by certain government actions, none of which necessarily involve "socialized" medicine. But it WOULD involve strict regulation of markets and a broad, robust public option: without that, costs will continue to go up, and healthy people who are being shed from private plans will have no place else to go.

It is deranged paranoia that is keeping us from serious discussions about the health system. The notion that medical services could be just like any other commodities in a free market is illogical and bizarre.

Nobama| 8.16.09 @ 6:35PM

Too bad, Bob; you liberals lost. And the best part about it was Sarah helped beat you with her brilliant terminology: "Death Panels." Ain't that great?

Of course, you're more than welcome to hire a "Death Panel" for yourself--we won't stop you.

Now be a good sport and slink off gracefully.

SARAH!! 2012| 8.16.09 @ 6:41PM

Bob and Jeremiah--two concern trolls. Thanks for your phony advice, boys, but we're doing just fine. I don't know about you guys, though--that shellacking we Conservatives just gave you left a big ugly mark!

OUCH!! That must have hurt. Hee, hee, hee.

Patriot| 8.16.09 @ 6:48PM

Aaron, lib-ass trolls like Bob and LR/Jeremiah continuously remind me to keep my guard up and stay on the offensive against Obama's Marxist efforts to control our country. I want to chase these clowns back under the rocks from whence they came.

Right Wingers are awake!

DrTomVoter| 8.16.09 @ 6:59PM

So now the public option may be dropped. Obama had got to stop watching Fox and listening to all of those Nazis out there!

Aaron| 8.16.09 @ 7:05PM

Bob - You just can admit that it is Republicans that have beat back this health care take over so far. Dems don't need a single Republican vote to pass this thing and for that matter really don't need all that many blue dog votes. I think you need to turn off the MSM, you are being fed the same "right wing extremist" propaganda that the rest of the minority left is getting. Scaring seniors? The dems have been telling seniors for decades that Republicans want to slash Medicare and now that they want to cut it by 500 large and we sound the alarm, we are all of a sudden using scare tactics? Good God, give me a break.

Liberal Reader, "The notion that medical services could be just like any other commodities in a free market is illogical and bizarre."
It has been for centuries, I agree with you that changes are needed and so do almost all conservatives. What we don't agree with is a public option. Why not start with tort reform, quicker drugs-to-market, stop drug manufacturers from extending their drug patents to allow quicker generics, put medicaid under state control much like we did with ADC, give more incentive to student loan repayment for doctors who choose to go into general practice instead of specialty and those who go into poorer / needer areas. Why not start there? If those ideas don't work what have we lost? No one has suffered, no new social programs have been added that w0uld be impossible to shut down. The truth is both of our parties and almost all politicians have the lawyers, drug companies and the AMA pulling their strings. If Americans could all come to those terms together, maybe the real solution would be to put a full congress of doctors in office.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 8:12PM

Aaron --

Frankly, every policy proposal you suggest sounds great to me, and I could live without the public option the first time around. So, at least to some extent, we agree.

A few things.

Basing a health care system on how it's been for "centuries" doesn't hold water: go back a century and a half, and barbers had about the same level of training as the "doctors" from whom most people received medical care. (As a matter of fact, barbers were trained as "surgeons" and often performed services now done by doctors.)

In the modern era, it is simply a fact that NO free market solution has been found for health care.

Unless you want to count countries where people simply die if they can't afford treatment. I'm just going to go ahead and assume that wouldn't be acceptable to you.

If I decide I want a BMW, the free market system allows me a number of choices. I can save up; I can work harder or longer hours; I can sacrifice other goods that are less important to me. I can study hard at school and get a better job. The desire for the BMW leads to Good Things, both for me and for others. Capitalism has it's beauties, and such a situation illustrates one of them.

However, medical costs come fast and furious; a person, strictly speaking, has little choice in the matter. I can wait for my BMW and get to work by bus; but, if I'm diagnosed with cancer, I can't settle for the bottle of aspirin I can afford.

In the end, there is always going to be a third payer.

If the third payer is working primarily for profit, he will always view health costs as cutting into his profit. Frankly, I don't see how it can work. I think single payer would be infinitely better.

But that's just not the world we live in. Your proposals would be fine with me, provided the government more tightly regulated the industry and prevented them from dropping people when they become ill or denying people with preexisting conditions. If the Republicans would make a compromise like that, I'd live with it.

But the Republicans are too busy trying to scare the be-Jesus out of grandma, and they are acting in bad faith. We'll see if they come around to some kind of proposal; if they'd take your advice, we'd all be better off I'm sure.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 8:17PM

By the way, let's not forget. The Republicans have controlled Washington DC for most of the last decade.

Where were all their great ideas for health care reform then?

Where is the Golden Age we were promised?

Aaron| 8.16.09 @ 8:53PM

Thats one of the biggest problems that conservatives have with the Republican party, they wont tackle tort reform when they have control. Part of that reason is when they do try to bring up the subject, the Democrats will start in with the same fear mongering that we have right now with the Repubs against the Dems. Killing grandma, nazis, yadda, yadda, yadda... The conservative right has had this same plan for health care/insurance reform for years, the big question or conundrum is how to get it passed? If the cards are played right like they were with ADC, the Republican congress gets the program passed, the Dem prez (Clinton) gets the credit and everyone wins. The best part about the states having control of the program, is that the states have all tinkered with it and found best practices to share and make it better. Plus, there is an incentive to save money, (imagine that) and the program never grows, (except for the 2009 stimulus). Oh, and Clinton comes out smelling like a rose.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 9:29PM

Aaron --

In theory, I agree. I'd love there to be 50 health care reforms carried out in the several states. Let Montana try a Wild West Free Market Approach; let California or Rhode Island opt for a Socialist Workers' Paradise of Free Care. And then let's see what happens.

But if the world's economy is knitted together inextricably, the states' several economies are no longer separable. We need to compete as a country with the rest of the world; we can't afford whole states sliding into some third world health care system.

Remember, we're suffering economically in part because of health care costs. They're really putting a squeeze on middle class wages; they're breaking the entitlement programs; they're driving business into the ground. I don't see how you stop that without government intervention.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 9:35PM

I'm also a little suspicious when people look at the failures of Republican governance and say that trouble is their conservatism wasn't pure enough.

The Republicans are conservative as they can be. But when you get to Washington, it's not enough to rattle off principles you learned reading Courage of a Conservative. You have to govern, which means you have to compromise and make deals.

I've grown deeply skeptical of the ability of a party that claims government "is the problem" to govern well.

It wasn't always like this. Republicans used to be very invested in this country's institutions; in fact, they used to be the guardians of ALL its institutions. Now, they've grown so anti-establishmentarian, they sound more like Abbe Hoffman than Barry Goldwater. I just don't think they have the principles or sense of responsibility to the country anymore.

NOBAMA!| 8.16.09 @ 10:08PM

Forget it, Aaron; the Axelrod troll is a true believer. Government is the be-all, end-all for this Marxist tool.

Don't let the liberals consolidate any more power before they have a chance to utilize the billions they put in the budget for ACORN and their Civil Security Force (leftist paramilitary force).

We've got them on the run now, keep shining the light on these libs--they're scattering like cock roaches!

Just watch: This fall liberals are going to hype the swine flu as an emergency epidemic to get votes for the ObamaCare abomination! (Rahm Emanuel's "don't waste a crisis").

We all know who the REAL SWINE are.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 10:16PM

Nobama --

The flu season this year could hardly be over-hyped. Ever hear of the Spanish flu? It killed 50-100 million people inside six months. The swine flu you scoff and chortle at is genetically similar to that virus; in Mexico last spring, it had 3x the fatality rates as the Spanish flu.

Not that any of this matters to you. Science and all that stuff. Facts, history, reason, reality: all those things the perturb the membranes of the ideological bubble in which you dwell.

And I'm no Marxist, you supercilious ass, not that you even know what Marxism is. As for your goose-brained and mackerel-mouthed theories about ACORN and Civil Forces and concentration camps and all the other zany, kooky things you learn all about from Glenn Beck, they are only phantasms to keep the foolish, tin-foil-hat-wearing crowd of nitwits quiet in their TV rooms.

NOBAMA!!| 8.16.09 @ 10:37PM

Dick Armey is on Drudge calling you morons out on the coming swine flu faux crisis. We know you stinking b@stards will try anything to take control of this country.

Only a nitwit would say Conservatives have been quiet in their TV rooms lately, idiot. Haven't you noticed?

You're probably a truther, dork.

NOBAMA!!!| 8.16.09 @ 10:53PM

Yeah, ACORN is all in my imagination--no, couldn't be with all those 400 pounders I've seen wearing their red ACORN T-shirts and getting off their busses at the town-hall meetings.

Obama's Paramilitary Security Force ? He talked about funding it so generously that it would rival our real military in size and budget, remember?

C'mon, Jeremiah, we know you know; just ask your boss, Axelrod.

NOBAMA!!!!| 8.16.09 @ 10:56PM

I didn't say anything about concentration camps, but I find it interesting that you did, troll.

Liberal Reader| 8.16.09 @ 11:26PM

Nobama --

A cantaloupe, drooping on its sappy vine, has in a summer's day more intellect and wisdom than you: show me a dozen or so monkeys near abouts, and, comparing them to you, I'll find 12 philosophers, brimming with knowledge.

Dick Armey is on Drudge! Oh, sound the village bells, for now we are to be enlightened.

I'd as soon listen to my dog on health care as Dick Armey, and I'd as soon listen to my dog's mother as you on any topic.

ACORN! What a fool you are. Oh yes, there coming to get you. Better hide under the porch with your shot-gun! They'll drag you off to be reeducated!

What sort of a dip shit are you, anyway? Tell me, do you drink heavily before sending in these posts? That, I'm told by them that know, is a good man's failing, and might excuse you. Otherwise, all I can say is, you need to learn more about the world you live in than you know now.

Death Panel| 8.16.09 @ 11:37PM

The liberal reader must go. After all his reading he is not as smart as his dog. Lets face it the dog is not that smart even for a dog. Otherwise it would bolt out the door and try to get itself run over. It would be torture worse than water boarding to have to put up with the santimonious Jeremiah every day.

Sally Forth!| 8.17.09 @ 12:02AM

Funny Death Panel. LOL!

Such wit, such merriment!

See, Jeremiah, the Death Panels aren't so bad after all. They'll crack a joke as they dispatch you to hell.

Patriot| 8.17.09 @ 12:04AM

Water Boarding ISN'T torture; reading Jeremiah's Marxist drivel IS!

Liberal Reader| 8.17.09 @ 12:20AM

Death Panel, Sally Forth, Patriot, Nobama --

It's really been great hearing your ideas on the topic at hand. What a seminar it's been.

Still, I'm due back on the planet Earth.

PALIN 2012| 8.17.09 @ 12:40AM

Jeremiah, it doesn't matter what planet you're on: Your head is so far up your @ss you can't see the truth anyway.

Night, troll.

Gil| 8.17.09 @ 11:18PM

It would appear that, once again, there is a whole lot more money available to sponsor pro-Obama healthcare reform ads as compared with the funds available for anti-Obama healthcare reform ads. The same problem existed during the
2008 presidential campaign. Of course, the state-run media didn't help either.
It would be in the interests of all of us, who oppose the socialistic policies of the Obama administration, especially the so-called, single-payer, all-government healthcare program, to begin donating as much as you possibly can to those organizations which will pay for ads that are against the Obama healthcare plan.
My information about the availability of funds is derived from Dick Morris and his statements as heard on Fox News on August 17, 2009. Political advertising is handled by firms which are paid well to appeal to people's emotions while sometimes deliberately distorting the facts, logic, and outcome in order to hoodwink the people.

It is imperative that the American people are not mislead by the current administration and Democratic Congress. There is absolutely no doubt that President Obama, his staff, and certain Democrat members of the House and Senate are seeking centralized, federal control over just about every aspect of our lives--taking us down the socialistic path.
I would caution people to be certain that any donations to an anti-Obama healthcare reform group be verified. I realize that some, all too many, are unemployed right now or retired and living on a limited income. I would ask those folks to do whatever they can. If you are within the Medicare age group, you are, to the best of my knowledge, being targeted for delayed treatment, no treatment, inferior treatment as c0ncerns healthcare.
Though it looks as if Obama's so-called healthcare reform bill is, at least for now, going down in flames, we simply cannot risk the passage of this socialistic healthcare legislation. In other words, let's not take it for granted, that we've already won the battle. I believe those behind the single-payer, healthcare program may have to delay their efforts to pass the Obama-proposed legislation; however, they will continue in their efforts when they believe the time is right.
I am currently soliciting no funds for anything, nor do I represent anyone who is soliciting funds. I am asking those who can help financially to defeat President Obama's healthcare proposals to make contributions to those legitimate organizations that will promote the kind of advertising needed to combat the socialization of the United States, especially as related to healthcare. By the way, I am not a racist and would respond in the same way to President Bush or President Reagan if they were proposing President Obama's healthcare reform legislation.
All one need do is examine the results of socialistic healthcare programs currently being used in the United Kingdom, Canada, and France.
There are many private enterprise alternatives to the Obama healthcare reform ideas.

It is self-evident that President Obama, his staff, and certain House and Senate members do not care about the benefits of our capitalistic, corporate, and small-business economy. In almost every recession, taxes on coporations, businesses (small and large), and on individuals have been lowered--so that confidence in the economy would increase substantially, businesses would expand, and new jobs would be created. Even China and Ireland follow the policy of lower taxes. Revenue(tax) is generated by private enterprise and individual employees. Our country already has a public debt that will not quit. It's over a trillion dollars now. We, as a people, simply cannot afford the single-payer, government controlled, healthcare program being proposed by the Obama Administration. According to the last information available, when I checked, about 47 million Americans are uninsured, and about half of that 47 million make over 70k/year. Why would it be necessary to nationalize our entire healthcare delivery system?If this socialistic legislation is passed, we can count on rationed care or no care, especially for the elderly.
Please do not sit on the fence or discard this serious and dangerous issue; yes, one has to make an effort to be a responsible American citizen.
It's worth it. How would you feel if your 65 year old mom or dad were denied treatment for cancer or heart surgery so an illegal immigrant could be
given the treatment you need?
I would not like to have to choose either. Yet, countries have boundaries for reasons, and it is my understanding that Mexico makes a concerted and effective effort to keep people, living south of Mexico, from entering their country illegally.