The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Boxer Struggles With Basic Facts About Health Care Bill

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Boxer Struggles With Basic Facts About Health Care Bill

By Philip Klein on 12.2.09 @ 9:38PM

Sen. Barbara Boxer appeared on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show earlier, and her performance was a pretty stunning demonstration of how little clue she has about what's actually in the health care legislation she was on air to promote. A frustrated Boxer appeared on the show to defend the bill against attacks from the liberal Schultz, who began the segment by hammering Democrats for caving into moderates and watering down the government-run plan.

In the clip below, Boxer tried to reassure Schultz by touting all of the government programs that are expanded by the bill. But she stumbled when trying to say how many new Medicaid beneficiaries would be added, said she needed to fact check it, looked off camera as if for guidance, and ended up asserting that the Medicaid expansion alone would cover 30 million more people. Yet anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that. I may sound like I'm nitpicking, but this is not some obscure provision of the bill or esoteric statistic. The coverage provisions account for the bulk of the overall cost of the legislation. It's alarming that a sitting Senator would be this utterly clueless on the most sweeping domestic policy initiative since Medicare was created in 1965.

You can watch the full segment here.

View all comments (12) | Leave a comment

Richard Baker| 12.3.09 @ 4:55AM

She is typical of so many of the female Senators. Clueless beyond belief and arrogant, to boot. Snowe, Collins, Stabenow, Feinstein, and Boxer, to name a few, are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Doesn't say much for their respective state electorates.

politicaljules| 12.3.09 @ 8:18AM

I am sorry Mr Richard Baker, but you should clarify that statement. That would be 'liberal' female senators you are referring to. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Be sure to add Landeiu (sp) to that list as well. Just trying to keep you from sounding too sexist. ;-)

Thomas| 12.3.09 @ 7:57AM

Their electorates, Richard? Do you mean actual voters or the ones ACORN made up?

Thomas| 12.3.09 @ 7:58AM

By the way, these pingbacks are as annoying as spam.

politicaljules| 12.3.09 @ 8:21AM

You speak the truth sir! They are VERY irritating to say the least. Not to mention, they make adding a comment very difficult. I would think that would worry the author a bit, but maybe they can't do anything about it. Oh well, at least we can commiserate.

Nolann Ryann| 12.3.09 @ 9:33AM

Boxer is a monumental leftist dunce. The fact that she is clueless on this particular bill is the norm rather than the exception. She's more worried about a General addressing her as Senator. California deserves their place in the ditch. Look at who they put in office.

Sir| 12.3.09 @ 11:51AM

I'll fix the headline:

"Boxer Struggles with Synapse Firing"

There. That's more accurate. Don't forget, people, that modern liberalism/leftism is a mental disorder.

tj| 12.3.09 @ 11:55AM

http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/ read all the way to the bottom. VOTE EM OUT 2010/2012

We have to organize now for 2010... Lets Roll

Neo| 12.4.09 @ 12:26PM

The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be swept "under the carpet". I guess you can’t subvert the investigation from the outside.

Richard Baker| 12.4.09 @ 7:13PM

politicaljules:
You are correct. I should have clarified. However, since most of the women in the Senate are liberals, wouldn't that be redundant? Oh, for a Margaret Chase Smith, instead.