Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2010
In May, 2005, Howard Dean summed up, in no uncertain terms, how Democrats view Republicans – not just as people with differing values, but as morally bankrupt, heartless individuals who would sooner allow a baby to starve then have to part with their riches. On NBC’s Meet The Press, Dean infamously said, “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”
That’s quite literally how most modern libs see conservatives. They truly believe that limited-government types actually want children go to bed “hungry each night” – just as they honestly think we don’t give a damn about the environment or the homeless. (Now is probably a good time to confess that a favorite pastime of mine is swiping baby food out of the shopping carts of young mothers in the supermarket so that the child will go hungry upon returning home. I also enjoy tossing trash all over the parking lot on my way back to the car after teasing a homeless man with a Big Mac - just as all of us right-wingers like to do.)
Yesterday, the President effectively tore a page from the Book of Dean, making it clear that the worst thing for “the children” of America are Republicans.
While attacking Republicans for opposing ObamaCare, the President said:
Would you want to go back to discriminating against children with preexisting conditions? Would you want to go back to dropping coverage for people when they get sick? Would you want to reinstate lifetime limits on benefits so that mothers like Amy have to work?
We’re not going back, I refuse to go back.
There isn’t enough straw in all the barns across America to construct the man Barack Obama is parading in front of us.
For President Obama, one either supports his big-government spending initiatives or wants nothing at all. One either approves of ObamaCare or wants to see America’s streets littered with the corpses of babies.
No one – repeat no one – wants to see children with pre-existing conditions discriminated against. No one wants to see insurance coverage dropped for people when they get sick.
What Republicans are opposed to is Obama’s out-of-control government spending. They are opposed to seeing crippling tax increases imposed on Americans to help pay for Obama’s unprecedented expansion of government. They are opposed to peddling the fairy tale that health care costs will go down when they can only go up. They are against moving the American health care delivery system – the envy of the world – under the ultimate control of the federal government. They are against the inevitable transition to a single-payer system (i.e., government-run health care) as private insurance companies drop off the map due to their inability to compete with an entity that can print its own money. They are opposed to the inevitable decline in health care that will occur when demand increases exponentially without an increase in supply.
This was quite an instructive moment yesterday.
The only things missing were the President’s welled up eyes, his quivering lip, and his on-cue monogrammed White House handkerchief.
After all, he was talking about “the children.”
Posted in health care | Tagged: Obama health care, Obama's health care reform, Obamacare | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010
When ObamaCare became the law of the land in February, the majority of Americans did not approve.
Not that it mattered.
Obamacrats knew what was best for the citizenry; and if you would have asked any one of them, they’d have told you so.
While conservatives, Republicans, tea-partiers and sane-minded Democrats (few as they were) unceasingly crunched the numbers to expose a sham of a plan that would all but bankrupt the United States – and ensure mediocre health care for practically all Americans – Democrats sidestepped the land mines of reality and transformed the debate from substantive to emotional.
As Republicans were going through the two-thousand page monstrosity to illustrate how destructive the bill would be to both the economy and the medical industry, Dems were ushering out some of America’s uninsured, presenting sob-story after sob-story, sad-sack tale after sad-sack tale, woe-begotten heartstring-tugger after heartstring-tugger, in an attempt to convince the American people that government-run mandatory health care was an absolute necessity before the bodies started to pile up.
Dems were countering cold-hard facts and analysis with syrup and schmaltz.
Ultimately, thanks to major Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – and some last-minute vote-buying - two thousand pages of vastly unread government control became law, contrary to the will of the American people.
Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.
Amazingly, Democrats truly believed that once ObamaCare cleared the final hurdle and officially hit the books, the American people – those cretins, those self-involved, unrefined, God-fixated, gun-loving ninnies – would turn their thinking around, see the wisdom in President Obama’s big-government vision, accept the price tag, and move on.
More than ever, the American people are opposed to ObamaCare – as well as everything else President Obama and his out-of-touch collection of retro-revolutionaries and college campus theorists have been doing.
Let’s summarize some of the highlights from Obama’s Big Book-O-Accomplishments: A Stimulus Bill that has done absolutely nothing except guarantee that money will be taken out of the pockets of the American people; an unemployment rate hovering at near 10%; a private sector that has all but stagnated while the number of government jobs increase; nonexistent leadership in the face of mounting international challenges (e.g., Iran, North Korea); the inability to do anything except deflect blame for everything wrong to the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the dangers of espousing moral equivalency (e.g, Israel and the Palestinians); the ineptitude and lack of leadership in not having the feds take control of the Gulf oil spill efforts; the capacity to transform the mightiest nation on the face of the Earth – the protector of goodness and liberty – into a bastion of weakness and appeasement; and his refusal to hear anything other than his own out-of-touch, arrogant brand of leftist crapola have all contributed to a Presidency that almost makes Jimmy Carter’s palatable.
Not only is President Obama turning out to be a gravely ineffective and embarrassingly incohesive, Americans now feel the first “post-partisan” President is anything but.
Of course, we all knew that by the Spring of 2008.
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:
One of the 2007-08 Obama presidential campaign’s changes that Americans believed in by the many millions was his oft-repeated promise to work with all sides no matter what and change the harsh political tone of Washington.
Good luck with that tired professed aspiration. George W. Bush promised the same thing a decade ago. That worked well for several minutes.
Well, Bush is gone and the majority parties have switched places. Now Democrats run the whole D.C. show.
And after almost 17 months of Democrat Obama’s White House administration, it appears Americans have given up on his promised bipartisanship, or even on less partisanship. It’s an impressive squandering of good will from his inaugural glow.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 61% of likely voters believe the nation’s capitol will see more, not less, partisanship during the next year. Which includes, of course, the unfolding midterm election campaigns leading up to Nov. 2.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post says that O just isn’t up to the job, writing:
The high point of his presidency came the day he took office. Since then, a majority of Americans has opposed virtually all his major policies and he has prevailed on several only because of large Democratic congressional advantages.
The problems are growing, but he’s not. If he were, we’d see green shoots of improvement.
Instead, the White House is going backwards at home and abroad and shows no ability to adjust. Like a cult, it interprets every reversal as proof of its righteousness and of others’ malignancy.
What started out as a whiff of rookie incompetence has become a suffocating odor. It’s hard to find a single area where Obama’s policies are a convincing success.
To be fair, one thing most Americans will probably be able to agree on is that Barack Obama is magnificent – unbeatable – as a campaigner. Indeed, he has been in campaign mode ever since announcing his candidacy for the Presidency a million years ago.
That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.
And with few exceptions, the lamestream media are still eating it up.
But many Americans – even those who rode the original Bam-o-licious disciple train – are growing tired of his baby-carrying, whistlestop schtick. Young girls just aren’t fainting anymore at his mere presence. And with each body of water he trods upon, Obama’s ankles are growing increasingly more wet.
The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.
Still, no one – and this is hardly debatable – can bow to foreign heads of state and dignitaries like our own Bam.
Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could give him a run for his money.
Secretary of Defense Gates taking a page from the Obama Appeasement Chronicles.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: "out of touch", Barack Obama, Big Government, Economy, leftist politics, liberal politics, Obamacare, post-partisan, stimulus bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010
Liberals have no interest in what Americans really care about. Rather, they are interested in telling Americans what they should – nay, will – care about. The needs of their constituencies are irrelevant to them, because, for the most part, they don’t believe the people they are charged to represent really know what they need. It’s because buried deep within the soul of the modern-day American liberal, stuck to their DNA like Nutella to a butter knife, is that inherent tendency toward totalitarianism. Whether it’s someone in the thick of the liberal stew like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who says he actually fantasizes about what it would be like in America if we were like China for just one day, to entertainment icon Woody Allen, who says that a few years of an Obama dictatorship would be good for this country, they are liberals, and they know best.
Just ask one.
Ever since Arizona passed its illegal immigration law, a majority of Americans have been in favor of it. In fact, in some polls, support for the law has actually increased. Meanwhile, Obamacrats continue to speak out against it – including those who haven’t yet read it – demonstrating how out-of-touch with the country they really are.
The same can be said for Obamacare.
According to a new Rasmussen poll, a convincing six in ten Americans believe that Obamacare should be flat out repealed.
That’s right … repealed.
That’s the highest level ever.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.
Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.
The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.
While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.
Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.
This can be filed under “Why Elections Matter.”
We are a little over five months away from, arguably, the most critical non-Presidential election in America’s history. Key components of ObamaCare really don’t start to kick in until 2014. For a repeal to actually happen, Republicans must come away winners in November and then take back the White House from the jaws of destruction in 2012.
One step at a time.
But it isn’t that one-dimensional.
Republicans cannot just run on repealing ObamaCare. They must put together sensible reforms as part of a repeal package.
That’s how a roadmap to repeal could work … “on paper.”
Unfortunately, the fear is that once the “benefits” start flowing, only the most steadfast conservatives will not cave.
Supreme Court, anyone?
Posted in health care, Polls | Tagged: health care bill, health care debate, health care reform, Obamacare, Rasmussen poll | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 8, 2010
Who have been the stone and brick throwers? Who have been the ones chaining themselves together in circles in the street blocking traffic? Who have been the ones vandalizing businesses? Who have been hurling bottles at police? Which protestors have been regularly resorting to violence?
Tea Partiers? Or illegal immigrants and their supporters?
Who have taken to shooting up military installations and opening fire at recruiting stations on American soil? Which group of people has attempted to blow up Times Square, Los Angeles Airport, the Brooklyn Bridge and several in-flight airplanes? Which people are hell-bent on murdering innocents?
Tea Partiers? Or Islamist terrorists?
Before you venture to answer that question, you probably ought to check with Democrat Congressman Andre Carson from Indiana. In discussing Tea Partiers who had gathered in Washington to protest Obamacare, the following exchange took place with a reporter on March 20th:
REPORTER: Do you think the people outside are dangerous?
CARSON: Oh, absolutely. I worked in Homeland Security. I come from Intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security – I mean, terrorism has an Islamic face – it really comes from racial supremacist groups. This kind of animosity, it’s the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record.
REPORTER: From groups like this?
CARSON: Oh absolutely.
This is the same man who, when asked to enumerate America’s greatest threats, listed racism and terrorism … in that order.
Racism, in the world of Andre Carson, is at least as serious a threat to national security as are Islamist terrorists and illegal aliens.
And he means it.
According to Carson, the threat to this nation’s security posed by Tea Partiers cannot be overemphasized. He should know. After all, he was in Intelligence … so to speak.
This is example 12,917 of why liberals (and other children) cannot be trusted with national security.
And speaking of fear mongering … Let us not forget that President Barack Obama – the unifier, the great orator and soother – rewrote Chapters 2 through 5 in the Little Fear Mongerers Companion and Workbook when he said:
You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re gonna be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen. That’s not the right way to go.
And no one – no one – in the mainstream gerbil cage has the avocados to challenge him on such an absurd and irresponsible statement.
It’s a disgusting lie, Mr. President.
A disgusting lie, Mr. Race Baiter.
…with all due respect.
H/T to the great Say Anything blog.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, illegal immigration, national security, Tea Party | Tagged: Andrew Carson, illegal aliens, Islamo facism, national security, Obamacare, Tea Partiers, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 3, 2010
Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL)
You may recall that Phil Hare, Democrat Congressman from Illinois, recently made national news by saying he wasn’t concerned with the Constitution when it came to the health care reform debate (i.e., the implementation of Obamacare). “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest,” the dashing and well-spoken Mr. Hare said with a camera rolling, “I care more about the people that are dying everyday who don’t have health care.”
To hear it from Hare (and his single-payer-loving chums), the streets are littered with the rotting corpses of Americans who couldn’t find an emergency room compassionate enough to spare a Tylenol or band-aid. Fat cat insurance moguls, along with assorted Klansmen and Republicans, confer over charts and maps almost daily, deciding who will be lucky enough to receive the tiniest morsels of health care and who will be denied.
You’ll recall that a colleague of Mr. Hare’s from Florida – the angry and always nauseating Alan Grayson – said it was a modern day Holocaust.
Just to be clear, Mr. Hare … everyone in America has access to health care – including illegal aliens. The debate is about health insurance – but I digress.
After Hare made it perfectly clear that he was beyond worrying about such trivialities and annoyances as the United States Constitution, you may also recall that the man holding the camera – blogger Adam Sharp – followed up by asking him, “You care more about that than the US Constitution that you swore to uphold?”
Hare replied, “I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It was then pointed out to Hare that those words are not in the Constitution, but, rather, in the Declaration of Independence, to which the master parrier, Mr. Hare, retorted, “It doesn’t matter to me.”
I’ll have to confirm this, but, if I recall correctly, the “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” clause of the Constitution is right after the “Emanations and Penumbras” section – which comes right after the “Separation of Church and State” clause. (Does that mean that in Mr. Hare’s world, abortion is undeniably illegal? After all, there is right to “life” is in his version of the Constitution.)
I digress again …
Running against Phil “The Constitution Doesn’t Matter” Hare in Illinois’ 17th district is Bobby Schilling.
A billboard has gone up in East Moline, Illinois – at 19th Street & 37th Avenue, to be precise – in response to Mr. Hare’s anti-Constitution language, sponsored by veterans who support Mr. Schilling’s bid for Congress.
It is the Roman Around Picture of the Day:
The Constitution matters to a lot of us.
Thanks to Gateway Pundit, via Weasel Zippers.
Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Uncategorized | Tagged: billboard, Bobby Schilling, Constitution, health care, Obamacare, Phil hare, veterans4schilling | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2010
Congressman Steny Hoyer (the one on the left)
Incidents abound, say the mainstream media.
They have been born from the kind of hatred that leftists and other children have been warning us about for years. Since late Sunday, when America became less free thanks to the passage of Obamacare into law, it has been manifesting itself in violent outbursts that – according to the mainstreamers – are sweeping across the nation. Angry right-wingers, threatened by the civility and decency of the compassionate class (i.e., Democrats), are fighting back, selfishly desperate to hold onto their bigotries, biases and tax dollars.
From all corners of the mainstream media complex, the reports have been filling the airwaves: threats, gunshots, broken windows – all being perpetrated by furious anti-Obamacrats.
The mood in America is turning ugly, they say. It’s getting scary out there, they claim. The right-wing is becoming unhinged – and since the right is the home of the “God-and-Guns” crowd, fair-minded liberals are now understandably frightened.
That’s what they’re saying.
Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland is very concerned about the threat of reprisals from merciless ObamaCare foes who take the Constitution too literally. Congresswoman Betsy Markey of Colorado says her office received a threatening call the day before the vote from someone who said she had “better hope I don’t run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun.” A Democratic lawmaker’s brother in Virginia had a gas line cut at his house. Windows were broken at four Democrat offices in three states.
To hear it from the mainstream media, the nation may be descending into right-wing-led chaos.
Even NBC’s Ann Curry (Today Show) – a beacon of impartiality and objectivity – says that Republican lawmakers are “encouraging the violence” against Dems. Sarah Palin, for example, “posted a map highlighting weak Democratic districts…with a crosshair symbol” on her website. Words like “targeted” and “battleground” are incendiary terms, according to Curry, and can incite violence in these “very dangerous times.”
Curry’s psychiatrist was not available for comment.
It goes without saying that threats against politicians or acts of violence of any kind against any public official – Democrat or Republican – are not to be tolerated. Such behavior is repugnant and can never be acceptable.
But some of these “backlash” incidents have not even been verified; and the ones that have are isolated.
Almost immediately, as soon as the media when orgasmic reporting on this new wave of rampant conservative ugliness, Republicans took to microphones everywhere condemning such acts.
Some of the interviews that ensued were almost comical.
Reporters made sure to ask these Republicans – these monsters, these aliens – what they thought about such behavior against poor Democrats who only wanted to help Americans in need, as if there was a genuine possibility one or two of them might say, “Well, I can see their point.” Maybe – just maybe – one of them would slip up and say something that would confirm the fact that conservatives really are violence-loving, rifle-toting, enraged psychopaths.
Unfortunately, despite salivating palettes and “See, I Told You Conservatives Were Bad” demeanors on the part of the mainstream talking heads and print pimps, there simply is no story here. There is no groundswell of conservative violence across America, nor is there any kind of organized movement. A few freaks do not represent nor define how conservatives are wont to handle Obamacratic encroachments on liberty.
Sadly, threats to people in the public eye – including politicians – are made daily. It’s a fact of American life. There are nuts in all sectors of society, left and right, up and down, high and low. The difference, however, is that in the past, such threats have not followed the passage of “historically transforming” legislation enacted by Obamacrats – thus, making them unworthy of air time, bandwidth or page space.
Note that left-wingers are almost never depicted as being inciters of needless violence, nor are the terms “left-wing” or “left” ever used to describe them. Rather, they are portrayed as concerned justice-seekers, compelled to stand for a cause, sometimes forced into unpleasantness by the weight and severity of a given injustice.
That is, unless the act is so heinous, so egregious that it cannot be glossed over.
For instance, is Lee Harvey Oswald ever described as a “left-wing” assassin? If he had been, for instance, a commited fascist instead of a die-hard communist, the words “right-wing” would have become extensions of his name.
Just for fun, I must make it a point to go back through the archives of the major news services and revisit how the “drive-by” media, in all of their objectivity, covered the angry protests of the Left during the Bush administration.
There were probably more Hitler moustaches seen in public during the Bush years than at any time since the days of Joseph Geobbells, but I don’t recall too many stories on the outrage and instability of the “incendiary” Left.
Recall how the letter “s” was given a much-needed rest on protest sign and banner alike, thanks to swastika substitutions in the word “Bush.” Those were the days when dissent was good, remember?
Where was Ann Curry then?
Movies and books that talked about the assassination of George W. Bush must’ve gotten a wealth of coverage as well, although I don’t recall.
And the incivility of students on college campuses across the map attacking such conservative speakers as David Horowitz and Ann Coulter certainly must have had the talking heads expressing concern.
Oh wait …
Posted in health care, Media Bias | Tagged: Ann Curry, backlash against Obamacare, Betsy Markey, health care reform, leftism, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obamacare, Steny Hoyer, threats against Democrats, violent against Democrats | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 21, 2010
A few moments ago, Congressman Bart Stupak, Democrat from Michigan – the man who confirms for the thinking world that the words “pro-life Democrat” have absolutely no meaning in real life – announced he was throwing in with the rest of the Capitol Hill socialists by voting “yes” for ObamaCare.
God help us all.
Daniel Foster at National Review’s Corner writes:
The agreement comes in the form of an executive order from President Obama promising that the Hyde Amendment restrictions on the federal funding of abortion will extend to the current health-care bill.
Text of the White House executive order is here.
So, the President now has the authority to nullify legislation – or portions of it – simply by signing an Executive Order? Because he feels like it? Because it suits him? So that he can broker shady deals?
Where in the Constitution is that little nugget?
In case there was any confusion, behold the blessings of tyranny.
Posted in health care | Tagged: abortion funding, Bart Stupak, health care form, Hyde Amendment, Obamacare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010
If this wasn’t Nancy Pelosi, I might shake my head a little harder, a little faster.
It’s at the point now that Pelosi should only warrant mention on this blog if she actually does something noteworthy – like speak coherently or juggle pomegranates with one hand. Truly, if this wasn’t something coming out of the mouth of the most inept and incompetent House Speaker in my lifetime, I might actually be surprised.
Pelosi, apparently, is summoning higher authority in the hope that it will be enough to get ObamaCare passed.
From the woman whose purpose (among others) as a militant Leftocrat is to ensure that as many abortions take place as possible – in the name of “reproductive rights,” mind you – comes the revelation that Nancy Pelosi has been praying to Saint Joseph in the hope that he might sprinkle a little magic dust on the process.
On Friday, Madame Speaker said the following:
Today is the Feast of St. Joseph, the worker – particularly significant to Italian-Americans. And it’s a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America. And that’s exactly what our health care bill will do.
Along with a whole lot of blah, blah, blah about how the bill is gaining momentum and will be historic (there’s that word again), Pelosi went on to say that she has received letters representing “sixty leaders of religious orders” supporting this “life affirming legislation.”
Life affirming legislation?
It’s obviously no great analytical accomplishment on my part to showcase the absurdly obvious, but that’s still one hell of a ballsy assertion considering that the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to abortion, and the bill that would become law – the original Senate version – would allow taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of the unborn.
If by “life affirming” Pelosi means everyone except those who have yet to emerge from the womb, those who’ll be dead soon, and those considered disabled, Pelosi may be on to something.
Posted in Big Government, health care, Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: Feast of St. Joseph, health care reform, leftism, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, politics, St. Joseph | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010
New York City’s largest public employee union is DC37 – AFSCME/AFL-CIO.
On Thursday, an e-mail was sent out to city employees from the President of AFSCME International, Gerald W. McEntee.
For any of you who may still be grasping to the antediluvian fantasy that unions are all about fair and just working conditions for its members - and not about politics - a few choice lines from this mass mailer might help:
This is the week we’ve been waiting for — the week when members of the House of Representatives choose to stand with us or the insurance companies.
The insurance industry operatives and Republican talking heads you see on cable TV say we need to start over and spend another year — or another decade — before we pass reform. They twist the facts to say that the public opposes reform, but what the public really opposes are attempts to water down or kill reform to keep the insurance companies happy.
Yes, Mr. McEntee has us all pegged.
We the “public” are tired of having Obama’s reforms “watered down” and “twisted” by uncaring, profit-hungry, big-insurance fat cats.
It all makes sense now. It’s all falling into place.
It was also an eye-opener learning that “operatives” from insurance companies, along with “Republican talking heads,” are responsible for this rampant fact-twisting of Obama’s America-saving initiative.
Clever cusses, all of them.
Who, pray tell, are these “operatives” and what are they doing to “twist” things exactly? Reading the bill?
Have you seen them anywhere in the mainstream media? Are they out in the open manipulating the above-board and transparent attempts by Obamacrats to do what’s best for a deteriorating American population deprived of basic health services? Do these “operatives” have uniforms? Can they cook?
Did you also know that those who don’t vote to have their health care taken over by an entity that has been a miserable failure at running Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be “standing with the insurance companies“?
(That’s meant as a pejorative).
I’m sorry, but aren’t insurance companies part of a legitimate, free-enterprise industry entitled to make profits like any other – like “big education?” Or “big media?”
Did you know that the government turns down more claims, in terms of percentage, than every private insurance company in America?
AFSCME members like you are fighting the good fight and have been a critical voice for the past year in the health insurance reform debate. Together, we’ve made literally tens of thousands of phone calls and sent even more emails to our senators and representatives. The insurance industry has deep pockets and is doing all it can to kill reform — but we won’t let them win. This is our moment.
The bill that the House will soon vote on would end the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions — or deny coverage when you get sick. It would require insurance companies to pay for preventive care. It would also allow parents to keep their unemployed children on their policies until they turn 26. And it would end taxpayer funded subsidies to Big Insurance.
Are they out of their ever-lovin’ minds?
Why on earth would I – or anyone who wishes to use their basement or spare bedroom for anything other than supporting a child four years away from thirty years old – want my adult offspring to be on my insurance policy?
Where in hell does the government get the right to tell insurance companies how they can insure and whom they can insure?
The historic nature of this moment cannot be overstated. The opportunity to end insurance company abuses is a moment for which we have worked long and hard. It is a vote that will affect our children, and their children. Please take a moment now to contact your member of Congress. Tell him/her the time has come to stand up to the insurance companies. The time has come to pass health care reform.
The closing salutation reads: “In solidarity.”
But don’t get the idea that unions are in any way political. That’s crazy talk.
Posted in health care, politics, Unions | Tagged: AFSCME/AFL-CIO, DC37, Gerald W. McEntee, New York City Employee Union, Obamacare | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2010
This is more like it.
This is the kind of thing that gets us pro-Constitution types singing around the campfire. This is the type of thing that’ll get Obamacrats screeching about us gun-and-God-clinging bigots even more than they already have. In a sense, one could think of this as a kind of legislative tea party – a push back at the soft tyrants running the show in Washington.
Yes, the gesture is largely a symbolic one, but it does matter – except to Democrats, of course.
Thirty-seven states are in line to follow what Idaho did yesterday.
John Miller of the Associated Press writes:
Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
(Idaho Governor C. L. “Butch”) Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”
“A constitutional mass,” as Otter calls it – the overwhelming rejection by the American people of this unprecedented encroachment of the federal government on their liberties – is a very good thing, even if it is symbolic; although I’d like to believe that genuine legal action actually could be taken in some form should ObamaCare become the scourge of the land.
Still, the rejection of ObamaCare from every sector of American life is unquestionable … and fascinating to watch.
It’s as if the Body American is reacting instinctively – intuitively - dispatching antibodies to fight the infection of government-run health care. The irony, however, is that the ones reacting without thinking – the ones who are on ideological auto-pilot – are the Democrats.
They are not hearing the American people.
They don’t care what we think.
They’ve told us we will know all about the bill after its been passed. They have tried to sidestep and rework every rule, and still cannot – and will not – accept that they do not have the votes to get it done. They are even attempting a measure that would enable the Senate version of the bill to pass the House without a vote ever having to be taken there – something that would have summoned the lynch mobs had Republicans ever dreamed of doing such a thing.
When the rules get in the way, they change them.
When the people get in the way, they stomp on them.
The funny thing is, the Constititutional process is working, and it pisses off Obamacrats. Thus, they effectively urinate on the Constitution and call it Miracle-Gro.
Just as America rejects ObamaCare, Dems reject Americans, as Congressman Dennis Kucinich proved yesterday, when he admitted that he took his cues on how to vote on the bill from his wife and friends – not his constituency.
Posted in Constitution, Economy, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: Forced to buy health care, Governor Otter, health care reform, Idaho Governor, Obamacare, sue Congress, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2010
On Sunday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich had a column published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that said, in part:
Unfortunately, the president’s plan, as it currently stands, leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies. It requires all Americans to buy private health insurance policies, while failing to ensure those policies do what they are supposed to do — protect people from financial catastrophe caused by injury or illness.
But Sunday was a long long time ago, and even socialists have to deal with things as they truly are, not as they would like them to be.
After a ride onboard the big Presidential jet with Barack Obama, Kucinich is changing his ObamaCare vote from “no” to “yes.”
From Fox News:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, announced Wednesday that he would vote for the Senate health care bill, becoming the most prominent House Democrat to reverse his opposition.
With Kucinich’s switch, Democrats now have 212 votes in favor of the bill, four shy of the 216-threshold needed for passage.
“This is not the bill I wanted to support even as I continued efforts into the last minute to try and modify the bill,” he said at a news conference. “However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”
Kucinich didn’t vote for the original House version of the bill when it passed in November, and up until earlier today, was adamantly opposed to the Senate version because of its lack of a public option.
He is, however, a Democrat … so anyone surprised by Kucinich’s lip-licking after this latest serving of Payoff Pie better pull his or her head out and refocus.
The real question is … What, pray tell, was the People’s Watchdog – the unflinching, never-corruptible, always-true-to-his-principles, Dennis Kucinich - promised for his vote?
What was he given on that big ol’ jet airliner that made him switch sides on something he said he could never compromise on?
How much “courage” does it take to flip-flop votes after a ride on Air Force One and a promise of who-knows-what?
Note how Kucinich never once mentioned the people he is charged to represent.
It was only after “careful discussions” with the Messiah and the Nancy Pelosi that he decided to switch sides. It was only after he talked it over with his wife and friends that he had his change of heart.
His wife and friends?
What about his botanist?
Or Sally in Accounting?
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: "public option", D-Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, health care reform, Obamacare | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010
Too bad for the Dems.
It must truly stink when your efforts to be as underhanded as humanly possible hit a snag. It has to be heartbreaking when, despite your best efforts to bask in grand deceit, there just isn’t enough “bend” available in the process of warping the rules to get your way.
For what it’s worth, things just got a little bit tougher in the Democrat quest to pass the entirely unpopular, thoroughly unwise and profoundly misguided health care reform bill.
What some pro-health care Obamacrats wanted to do was have the House of Representatives pass the original $871 billion Senate bill – complete with all of its bribery and pro-abortion language – and then have that bill sent back to the Senate for further modifications (reconciliation) before it went to the President’s desk for his signature.
But it doesn’t work that way, according to the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office.
If the House approves the original Senate bill as is, that bill must be signed into law by the President before any reconciliation can take place. In other words, the bill that passed the Senate – the one with the abortion funding provisions; the one that included the “Louisiana Purchase”; the one that included the “Kansas Kickback” – must be okayed by the House of Representatives without any changes and sent to Barack Obama for passage before “reconciliation packages” can be crafted to modify it.
In short, it must already be law before anything else can be done to it.
David M. Drucker of Roll Call writes:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.
The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.
Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.
The problem, of course, is the House does not like the Senate version of the bill. And House Dems will have to trust that once it becomes law, the Senate would be willing to revisit it and work on those elements that dissatisfy Pelosi’s gang.
That’s alot of blind faith.
In other words, it comes down to having to trust Democrats.
I don’t think Democrats can even do that.
But fear not.
This is the Democrat Party we’re talking about. They have not yet begun to cheat.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care | Tagged: health care bill, Obamacare, reconciliation, Senate bill, Senate Parliamentarian | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010
It’s unclear whether large, dark-clad Obamacrats carrying big sticks will show up at the house of Senator Dick Durbin in the middle of the night for a “friendly visit,” but it’s obvious, he won’t be getting a whole lot of love from the White House – that is, until Durbin can come out and tell us how what he said was misquoted and taken out of context by sinister Republicans. Like most things that come out of the mouths of Democrats, “further clarification” will almost assuredly follow.
Still, Senator Durbin did tell it like it is (and how it will be) – to his credit – and is worthy of a special “quote of the day” space on this blog.
Anyone who would stand before you and say, “Well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down,” I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up. What we’re trying to do is slow the rate of increase.
Although the word “likely” is a bone for the left. There can be no doubt that premiums will go up.
Nice job, Dick.
Posted in health care | Tagged: Dick Durbin, health care debate, health care reform, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2010
As I’ve written here on several occasions, the best thing to come out of the Messianic Age is the exposing of liberalism for what it really is – the ideology of “government knows best.” Talk show host Dennis Prager coined a phrase that sums it up perfectly: “The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.”
The key here is that while America continues to reject liberalism, and while the mood and temperament of this nation continue to trend toward limited government, rugged individualism, personal accountability and liberty (i.e., conservatism), we’re not where we need to be yet. In fact, the only thing clear at this time is that America is resoundingly kicking liberalism (the Democrat Party) to the curb. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are racing over to embrace the Republican Party.
President Barack Obama has officially declared that there is nothing more to be said about the health care issue. The time for debate is over, according to his royal messiahness. He has spoken.
Of course, he hasn’t even read the 2000 page bill, evidenced by his preposterous commentary on Wednesday, surrounded by white-coated human props. And despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who don’t want this thing passed, he’s determined to move forward, because the only damn thing that matters to him is his legacy – the fact that he can say he’s done what no other president has done.
Pollster Frank Luntz – the Maharishi of focus groups – appeared on Fox News’ Hannity last evening, commenting on what American can expect if Bammy finds a way to ram this health care down our throats:
I will tell you two things will happen: Number One – is that everyone who isopposed to this will absolutely, positively come out and vote because they will feel like it is not only their right but their responsibility to send a message.
And two, you will see democrats defeated in places that haven’t elected a Republican since 1994. This will have such huge political consequences.
That’s what I don’t understand.
I see why Barack Obama might push it for ideological reasons, but why would Congress go along when their own jobs are in jeopardy, and their responsibility is to represent their own constituents?
Rolling back entitlements – and make no mistake, entitlements are precisely what ObamaCare is all about – is an extremelydifficult, if not impossible, nut to crack. (See Medicare and Medicaid). What federal government entitlement program has ever been scaled back? When has anything that has been enacted to increase government intervention in our lives been trimmed?
While I wholeheartedly concur that there is nothing that would be better for the United States of America than to see the Democrats nuked from their congressional majorities, the solution doesn’t end with just a numbers shift.
Rob at the Say Anything Blog writes:
Of course, just voting against Democrats and what they’re doing both in terms of policy and how they’re governing doesn’t mean Republicans have won back the hearts and minds of the people. If Republicans think they’re going to be swept back into office and go about business as usually they’ll be swept back out just as quickly.
No one wants to see cancer replaced by typhoid so that the black plague can move in after that.
By the way, if the President is correct in saying that there is nothing more to be said about the health care debate, why did Robert Gibbs – the greatest Press Secretary the world has ever known – say that Americans want the debate to continue?
Posted in health care, politics, Robert Gibbs | Tagged: focus group, Frank Luntz, health care debate, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2010
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Maybe the White House was thinking, “It looks so obvious, so blatant, they won’t think anyone could be that stupid. They’ll decide it’s just a coincidence.”
Maybe the White House thinks we are that stupid.
On the other hand, maybe there really is nothing to it.
Maybe it really is just a coincidence.
Either way, it’s a story that will get very little – if any – coverage by the mainstream media. All of the young “Woodward” and “Bernstein” wanna-bes out there in journalistland will be taking a convenient powder.
It’s a shame, because it’s actually an interesting story – certainly one worthy of visiting at least once. In the days when reporters actually did investigating, it might have grown legs.
What am I talking about?
Last night, the President played host to ten House Dems who voted against ObamaCare last year. Clearly, Obama was hoping to convince some of them – if not all – to flip their ticks over to the “yes” column for the good of the country.
One of those in Obama’s sights was Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.
What makes this otherwise run-of-the-mill, uninteresting political play a bona fide story is the fact that the White House issued a press release yesterday saying that President Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. – Congressman Matherson’s eldest brother – to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit … on the same day.
John McCormack at the Weekly Standard writes:
Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother’s vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress. “The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus,” Matheson’s press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. “It’s too early to know if that will occur.” Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: “I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday.”
The real question … Is this necessary now?
Inexplicably, this one seems to have slipped under the radar of the “drive-by media.”
Could this develop into an actual scandal of some kind?
It would first have to warrant a blurb somewhere.
However, one could almost bet a vital body appendage that it would have graced front pages everywhere had these group of players been Republicans.
The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.
I’m not a conspiracist.
Obviously, Court of Appeals nominations are not made on the drop of a dime. I suppose there is some chance that the choice of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit is all just a fat and happy coincidence.
But there’s no way – even if the process began before Congressman Matheson’s thumbs down vote in November – that yesterday’s announcement of the elder Matheson’s nomination just happened to fall on the same day ten Democrat “NO” votes visited the White House (including the younger Matheson) to be persuaded by Barack Obama to change sides.
No way in hell.
Somehow, I see a puffy-cheeked Marlon Brando putting his arm around Congressman Matheson in the Oval Office saying, “Congratulations on your brother’s nomination. I hope it all works out for him.”
Posted in Democrats, health care | Tagged: Barack Obama, Democrats, health care, Jim Matheson, Obamacare, politics, Scott M. Matheson, tenth Circuit Court of Appeals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 1, 2010
It’s unclear whether or not it will take a couple of hundred screeching yodelers yelling it from the mountaintops to make her see, or whether having someone beat her with a ten foot Gallup poll will finally do the trick.
Neon signs, subliminal messages and psychotropic drugs are also possibilities.
The question remains: What exactly is it going to take for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to realize that the American people do not want this health care bill passed?
What else has to happen – aside from plummeting popularity, collapsing poll numbers, the ouster of Democrats from office in key states, the tea party movement, and the fact that ObamaCare could not be passed when the Dems had super majorities in both Houses – for this women to get the hint?
Unfortunately, even if she could answer these questions, it is uncertain whether or not the public at large would be able to understand her.
No matter what she says – no matter what comes out of her mouth – she makes less sense than subtitles for an audience of blind people.
Indeed, there is an ever-growing need among Dems to somehow make ObamaCare a bipartisan animal. That way, when it crashes and burns as the utter and complete failure it will be – and the economy is all but destroyed, and more and more people are dependant on government – Dems can point fingers at the other side and accuse them of being obstructionists for not letting the bill go far enough.
It’s the same mentality that affords us such clear-minded thinking as, “The reason more kids are failing school than ever before is that we don’t spend enough on education” and “The reason poverty still exists is we haven’t spent enough on welfare programs.”
Of course, I’m not convinced that Nancy Pelosi is quite that complex. I actually think hers is more of a “Shut Up And Be Happy With What You Got” approach.
She is now peddling the idea that the health care bill is already a bipartisan venture – that the GOP has already left its mark on ObamaCare and should now agree to let the bill move forward to its inevitable passage.
Kim Hart and Jordan Fabian from The Hill write:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.
“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”
Yes, dear friends … from the party that brought you the toe-tapping, “I voted for the bill before I voted against it,” comes the latest donkey hit “Bipartisan without bipartisan votes.”
It’s got a great beat and you can definitely dance to it.
It should be noted, for the record, that the “public option” wasn’t “stripped from the bill” because of Republicans, as Pelosi contends.
That doesn’t even make sense.
The Dems have had an inescapable majority in Pelosi’s House of Crud throughout the thirteen months of the Messianic Age. What possible effect could the GOP have had on the bill or its contents?
Honestly … What part of the 2000-plus page health care bill is a Republican creation? Which sections are GOP babies? What exactly was the GOPs contribution to the bill during the ‘who-did-it-and-ran” health care “debates” late last year?
What utter nonsense.
This is all about Pelosi’s impotent leadership coupled with a very unpopular agenda.
To top it all off, Madame Speaker also said that Democrats need ‘courage” to pass health care.
If the bill is such a good idea, and if it will do much to solve America’s health care problems, and if the American people will unquestionably benefit from the bill’s passage, and if it will keep health care so affordable for everyone without compromising quality, why do the Democrats need “courage” to pass it?
Posted in Big Government, health care, Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: health care, health summit, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, reconciliation | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010
The dancing in the streets has subsided, the sun has risen on a brand new day, the reality has sunken in, and the Democrat supermajority is history. The morning after the racist, homophobe from the Bay State snagged the empty Senate seat left behind by a half-century of Teddy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – and, indeed, all of America – is poised to move into uncharted, post-Kennedy territory.
It’s a strange new world.
Regardless of what the spinsters on the Left say; despite the tripe that’ll fly from the mouths of Obamacrat and pundit alike; no matter what the apologists and disciples hawk, this most definitely was a referendum on the Obama administration. Indeed, this was a national election. This was an indictment of Obamacrat leftism. This was a huge smackback in the face of the President and his vastly unpopular, radical initiative of health care reform.
Without a heavy diet of hallucinogens, there is simply no other way to spin it.
Scott Brown, a Republican, is Massachusetts’s next Senator – only weeks removed from being down by double-digits in the polls against the contemptible Leftocrat, Martha Coakley – but he is, more importantly, this nation’s symbol of how peaceful revolutions are conducted. (What a difference one year makes). What was, by any stretch of the imagination, an impossibility, is now a shocking reality. The idea that a Republican would replace Ted Kennedy in a state where left is center, center is right, and right is Hitler, is unthinkable.
The fact is, the atrocity that is Barack Obama’s health care reform took a big hit last night.
But don’t worry. That won’t stop Dems from quickly regrouping and trying to figure out other subversive, dishonest and underhanded ways to get health care done, despite the wishes of the American people; despite the glaring message sent to Washington last night with the election of Scott Brown; despite the deposing of Democrat governors in New Jersey and Virginia; despite disastrous poll numbers.
They still know best … and they’ll tell you so.
Dems still have two words up their sleeves: Nuclear Option.
A few hours before Brown was declared the winner, Trish Turner at Fox News wrote:
A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the “nuclear option” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate election.
Calling the state’s special election “an uphill battle to put it mildly,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said “there are options to still pursue health care” should Democrat Martha Coakley lose to Brown.
Well, Coakley did lose to Brown, and don’t think for a single moment that some donkeys aren’t banging their skulls together trying to figure out a way to go nuclear.
…Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as “reconciliation,” a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.
“We could go to something called ‘reconciliation’, which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn’t require 60 votes, only a majority,” Durbin said. “So that is one possibility there.”
But other Democrats are saying it would be political suicide to move forward and not recognize that last night’s victory by Brown was, indeed, a referendum on not only ObamaCare but on how the government operates.
Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal writes:
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb is calling for a time-out on the health care overhaul until Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown is seated following his upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.
Calling the race “a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process” Webb said Democrats need to hold off on further action until Brown is formally sworn in to the chamber.
“It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated,” he said.
The chances that the House will simply go along with the Senate version of the bill is on par with wishing for world peace or a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance.
It just isn’t going to happen.
Congressman Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts said it best: “If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill.”
Last night’s stunning win for Brown will send enough Dems scrambling to the railings of the good ship ObamaCare to stop the bill in its tracks, despite the bloviations of Madame Speaker. Nancy Pelosi, of course, has pledged to move forward, no matter what – through typhoon, flood and botox – to make sure a health care bill passes as soon as humanly possible.
But even Congressman Barney Frank has caught a whiff from the political coffee pot:
“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. “
Sometimes, even Democrats can read the writing on the wall.
Some of them anyway.
It speaks volumes that Democrats consider themselves defeated, even with 59 Seante seats. The Obamacrat agenda is so radical, so out-of-touch with America, they know only a supermajority could ever push it through.
And that says it all.
Posted in Elections, health care, Uncategorized | Tagged: "conservative blog", 41 Republican Senators, health care debate, health care reform, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate seat, Nuclear Option, Obamacare, Scott Brown | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010
It was supposed to be all about doing it for “Teddy.”
“This is the way Teddy would have wanted it,” we heard.
“This is Teddy’s health care bill,” they said.
“Do It For Him!” they screamed
By virtue of the fact that Chappaquiddick Teddy passed away last year, the health care reform bill – call it ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, horse excrement, whatever – was magically supposed to be a voter favorite, a given, an automatic, “One More For Teddy!“
Unfortunately for Dems, truth has a way of creeping in and swiping the marshmallows from the Count Chocula box.
After being schooled in the cold-hard reality that the open Massachusetts Senate seat is not “Teddy’s Seat,” but rather the People’s Seat, Dems are being slapped across the chops with the latest poll numbers coming from the bluer-than-blue Bay State; and it doesn’t look too donkey-friendly right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may think that Republican momentum shifts are a bunch of hyperbole, but the poor lady’s caboose has once again gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.
Only a little better than one-third of likely Massachusetts voters say they support Obamacare. In fact, less than half say they even support the job the President is doing.
Terence P. Jeffrey, Chief Editor of CNS News writes:
Only 36 percent of the Massachusetts residents who say they are likely to vote in the special U.S. Senate election that will take place in that state on Tuesday say they support the national health-care plan being pushed by President Barack Obama and only 48 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing as president.
A 51-percent majority of those likely to vote in Tuesday’s special election say they oppose Obama’s health-care plan.
It still astounds me … What exactly were those who supported Barack Obama expecting? It isn’t as if his unabashed leftist agenda wasn’t spelled out in big bold letters and pinned to his sleeve during the nearly two years of campaigning he did prior to his anointment. It isn’t as if his big government, anti-free market approach would have been a surprise to anyone who was even casually paying attention. What is it that makes Bammy increasingly more distasteful to libs (and other children) who flipped the lever for him fourteen months ago? Is he not leftist enough? Is he too conservative? Does his shirt make him look too fat? Is his waffle-centric agenda too much for the pancake and French toast set?
The same poll said that those who said they were likely to vote in Tuesday’s election favored Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown over Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, 50 percent to 46 percent.
President Obama is scheduled to appear with Coakley today at a campaign event.
(I thought Dems wanted to win this one).
On one hand, to all of us who revere and respect the Constitution, this all sounds quite encouraging. The polls are overwhelmingly showing that Obama and his leftist game-plan is not flying with the American public. The notion that there might actually be a Republican Senator from Massachusetts in two days is about as mind-blowing as Joe Biden completing his sentences.
But in reality, it’s difficult to muster a whole lot of positivity. Keep in mind, today’s Democrat brand isn’t your typical, run-of-the-mill, big government variety. This is a new, screw-our-electorate-and-the-Constitution-at-all-costs kind-of-Democrat – a more frightening, more destructive, more power-mad hybrid than any before them.
Honestly, have Democrats given any indication whatsoever that they will, in any way, take into consideration what their consituents want? While all polls show that Americans everywhere do not want this health care bill to pass, none of that matters to the totalitarians-in-waiting.
If, for instance, polls showed that 100% of likely voters opposed health care, it still wouldn’t matter because Democrats are sure they know what’s best for you. Scott Brown could very well win that Massachusetts race on Tuesday, but so what? Will that stop Democrats from trying to finagle a way, no matter how far-reaching or outlandish, to get this monstrosity of a health care bill passed? Already anticipating Coakley’s defeat on Tuesday, they’re already threatening to follow the path of reconciliation, where a mere 51% of the vote will be sufficient to get something to President Obama’s desk.
Teddy may be rolling over in his grave, but only because Dems aren’t being slimy enough.
Posted in Democrats, health care, politics, Polls | Tagged: "conservative blog" "Roman Around", 36% support health care reform in Massachusetts, CNS News, health care debate, health care reform, Martha Coakley, Masaacgusettes Senate Race, Massachusettes, Obamacare, PelosiCare, reconciliation, RediCare, Scott Brown, Senate debate, Ted Kennedy | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 10, 2010
When conservatives lash out against the most liberal president in the history of the nation, it isn’t exactly earth-shattering. While some arguments against the unprecedented growth of government, loss of liberty, accumulating debt and weakened national security may be more cogent than others, generally speaking, it’s hard to be incoherent when writing about – and rightfully criticizing – the radical transformations taking place under the Obamacrats.
It’s elementary stuff.
However, when dissent rises from the ranks of the mainstream media – default Messianic bedfellows - it can be earth shattering. When one of their own emerges from the refuge and aegis of the leftist womb to serve up some shredded Bammy, it’s tough to ignore. The reasons for his or her anger may be very different than that coming from conservatives, but they are no less relevant.
Enter CNN’s Jack Cafferty.
This has already made the rounds across the conservative blogosphere – and also on some liberal blogs – but I had to acknowledge it. I had to take the time to tip my hat to Cafferty. (Just saying that is uncomfortable).
If you’ve heard it already, it’s worth revisiting. If you haven’t – and you’re on the right side of things, literally and figuratively – it doesn’t get old.
Here’s what he had to say:
How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.
What a far cry from the election when then-candidate Obama pledged to “broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are.”
President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.
The head of C-Span wrote a letter: “Ask Congress to open all the important negotiations, including any Conference Committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.”
When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the administration would support televising the negotiations, he refused to answer – instead mumbling something about, “I haven’t seen the letter.”
That wasn’t the question, Mr. Gibbs. You either support openness or you don’t.
The Democrats insist this is all on the up-and-up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, “There’s never been a more open process for any legislation.”
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming Speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
Here’s hoping some of the voters remember this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.
This is the same Jack Cafferty who said he will go to his grave believing that George W. Bush and Company are war criminals.
This video link from YouTube has had almost 350,000 hits in a little less than four days.
Posted in health care, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: C-Span, CNN, commentary, conference committe debates, government transparency, health care debates, health care reform, Jack cafferty, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
This is taken directly from the great Breitbart.tv website . It is the text of eight – count ‘em eight – different instances where the President of the United States said that negotiations on the health care bill would be televised for the entire nation to see. You recall, it was part of his promise of transparency, a new kind of relationahip and openness between the federal government and the citizens of the United States that would forever transform the presidency.
“..Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.” – CNN Debate, January 2008
“I would put my plan forward, and I would welcome input and say, ‘Here are my goals, reduce costs, increase quality, coverage for everybody. If you have better ideas, please present them.’ But these negotiations will be on C-Span. And so, the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” – San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2008
“I respect what the Clintons tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one really big mistake, and that is they took all their people, and all their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly. It’ll be on C-Span. It will be streaming over the Net. – Google Q and A, November 14, 2007
“We will have the negotiations televised on C-Span , so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Virginia Town Hall, August 28, 2008
“But here’s the thing … We’re going to do all these negotiations on C-Span, so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations.” – Ohio Town Hall, March 1, 2008
“Drug and insurance companies will have a seat at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every single chair. And we will have a public process for forming this plan. It’ll be televised on C-Span. I can’t guarantee it’ll be exciting, so not everybody’s going to be watching, but it will be transparent and accountable to the American people.” – Keene Sentinel, November 27, 2007
“So, the drug and the insurance companies who are still going to have a lot of power in Washington, and are still going to try and block reforms from taking place … so that’s why I’ve said, for example, I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-Span.” – St. Petersberg Times, May 2008
“So I put forward my plan, but what I’ll say is, look, if you have better ideas, I’m happy to listen to them. But all of this will be done on C-Span, in front of the public.” – Indiana Town Hall, April 25, 2008
You can see the video from which these quotes are transcribed here.
I blame George W. Bush.
One blogger at Breitbat.tv wrote the following:
“… It’s time the government tightens down on all of this “freedom” that you neocons have been screaming about and puts some money and assets in the hands of the less fortunate in this country and around the world. The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country. We need healthcare NOW and if Obama has to use a little secrecy to get us there then that’s okay. He will do what is best for us in the long run. Some may not like it now, but we will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people…”
Take a moment and re-read two of those lines. When you do, you’ll have a handle on modern liberalism:
“We will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people.”
“The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country.”
No further comment necessary.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, C-Span, eight campaign lies, health care debate, health care negotiations, health care reform, Obamacare, PelosiCare, ReidCare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009
Frum = dumb?
On Christmas Day, while most Americans were celebrating the holiday with their loved ones, columnist David Frum – so-called conservative – had an article published at The Week Online that probably would have served him better had it gone unnoticed. It was his attempt to explain why Obamacare is, in fact, constitutional, despite assertions by some Republicans (Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign, specifically) that it is not.
I derive no great pleasure in pointing out how embarrassing Frum is on this issue, or how stupid he makes himself sound. I get no kick out of saying how ill-informed and weak this article is, or how laughable he makes himself out to be in the name of “conservatism.” It doesn’t do my heart any good to highlight his intellectual vapidity.
Frankly, I happen to believe passage of this bill would be unconstitutional, but that is not my over-arching point here. Rather, this is about the carelessness of Frum’s assertions and his egregious misstating of facts. This is about an opinion piece from a so-called “conservative” perspective so badly done, it would almost have to be a parody. It’s about a poorly constructed, terribly presented, ill-conceived joke of an article coming from someone who should have stayed away from his word processor last week.
I’ll focus on two small passages.
DeMint’s and Ensign’s argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution speaks only of a Supreme Court, Congress has no power to create lower federal courts. Since the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.
To begin with, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to create lower federal courts – in the plainest of English (Article III, Section I):
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
This is one of those “gotcha” moments that is so obvious, so conspicuous, so void of any challenge in counter-arguing his allegation, that it isn’t even fun to take the time to point it out.
Not exactly hidden in the eminations and penumbras, is it?
As far as the Constitution not mentioning a national bank, Frum is absolutely right. In fact, Thomas Jefferson took what would today be called the “strict constructionist’s” position in opposing Alexander Hamilton’s initiative of establishing the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton argued that the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution authorized the federal government to execute already existing powers enumerated in the Constitution – taxation, in this case – and thus, allowed for the establishment of the bank (later upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland -1819).
But what Constitutional passage authorizes the federal government to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance?
What already enumerated power grants the federal government such authority?
Where in the Constitution can it even be suggested that Congress shall have the power (enumerated or implied) to force citizens to purchase anything?
A fair question, no?
And as far as Frum’s “ancient theory of enumerated powers” remark is concerned, I must ask … is it possible for one person to be as blatantly wrong as he is arrogant? Does the word “stupid” fit?
Did Frum put any thought into his piece at all?
While no one can deny that a “limited powers” argument – at least in terms of the Framers’ interpretation – is a difficult one to make in today’s day and age of endless entitlements and endless bureacracy, how can he contend with a straight face that enumerated powers are an “ancient theory?”
Are there no boundaries then on what Congress may do? Is there no whim or agenda beyond restraint?
If Congress can, essentially, do whatever it damn well pleases, as Frum’s argument seems to suggest - even under the authority of the “Necessary and Proper Clause” – what would be the point of acknowledging enumerated powers to begin with?
Why recognizee them at all? Why not just make it up as they go along?
Mr. Frum seems to believe that today’s conservative should just roll over and concede that ever-expanding government is a foregone conclusion. It’s just a matter of pushing back a little every now and then to keep things honest. Those antiquated “limited government” principles are quaint and all, but they have no relevance today.
He also writes:
The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That’s what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.
This may be the most embarrassing paragraph of all.
Let’s be clear … Medicare is a tax. American citizens who earn income via wages are required to pay this tax. The money collected from this tax is intended to be returned in the form of government benefits (i.e., Medicare). That’s how it is set up to function. Simple really.
ObamaCare, by contrast, makes it illegal not to purchase a free-market good from a private entity. It literally requires one to buy something or else be punished. The fines from such a punishment would then be collected as a tax. Jail time is a possibility, too.
How in the world is that constitutional?
Congress has never mandated that its citizens purchase anything at any time.
There is no precedent.
Recall that President Franklin Roosevelt tried to initially peddle Social Security as a compulsory insurance plan. It didn’t fly. Eventually, it was sold as a mandatory tax.
But even Alexander Hamilton did not believe that Congress’ charge to “provide for the … general welfare” gave it the power to do as it saw fit. He actually sounded much like Jefferson and Madison on the matter when authoring his Federalist essays. While he believed the First Bank of the United States was a constitutional venture because it was necessary in the federal government’s function to “collect taxes” as enumerated in Article I, Section VIII, he still took a very narrow view of providing for the “general welfare” – far different than today’s big-government, liberty-crushing Obamacrats see it.
In arguing against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84, for example, Hamilton wrote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
These sound like the opinions of a man who would, today, be called a “strict constructionist” – even though he was a Federalist (the opposition party of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans).
To Frum, the thoughts and interpretations of the “ancient ones” – those who who were actually there at the Constitution’s creation – have little relevance today.
Kind of like Frum in the arena of ideas.
Posted in Constitution, health care, RINO, Taxes | Tagged: Constitution, David Frum, Enumerated Powers, health care bill, health care reform, Necessary and Proper Clause, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009
When Harry met Nancy
The function of a journalist long ago metastasized from being one that reports what is happening in as objective a manner as possible to one who fancies himself (or herself) a kind of modern day crusader, desirous of righting the wrongs around them, revealing injustices, and saving the planet from second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, God, and conservatives (quite possibly in that order).
Interesting is how the glossy veneer of the mainstream media’s troubling charade continues to remain uncompromised – amongst themselves. Their facade of impartiality is still foisted onto the American people daily, but because they exist primarily within their own forest, they almost always miss the trees. They distinguish themselves as straight down the middle, detached from affiliation, objective purveyors of whatever they deem to be news, ready to involuntary activate the “neutral” switch when the situation calls for it. (Recall the famous line attributed to theater critic Pauline Kael in 1972 after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Whether the quote is apocryphal or not is irrelevant, because the sentiment, as it pertains to the relationship between the main stream media and the rest of the country, is spot on). Media bias is not self-evident primarily because the mainstreamers find themselves in a fraternity that is overwhelmingly liberal (i.e., normal).
The concept of mainstream media objectivity is certainly pleasant enough – much like calorie-free milk chocolate or world peace – but not very realistic.
Some can adhere to it.
Think of how the mainstream media would be covering this wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am health bill that passed the Senate earlier today if Republicans were in charge. Try and imagine the level of outrage and indignation that would be leveled at GOPers had a bunch of sweetheart deals been brokered for Republican pet projects in order to get this unread, unreviewed, two-thousand page legislative atrocity passed. How many times do you think the word “tyranny” would have been tossed about by the punditocracy? How often would the American people be hearing about “the least transparent administration in history” or the “cloak and dagger” way the President is running his ship? Would the media stand for it? Or bend over for it?
Now that reconcilliation is next on the docket, how, pray tell, would the media handle a not too far-fetched scenario being suggested by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, where the tag-team tandem of Pelosi and Reid all but thumb their noses at the process of trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference, sidestepping protocol, tradition and accountability? How would the mainstream media report on GOP attempts to breach every code of conduct, foregoing the normal process of coming up with a compromise between the two houses, so that a bill could be rushed through to passage without the opportunity for the American people to know what’s in it?
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes:
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
Now that the Democrats have got their Senate bill passed, just in time for turkey and mistletoe, be prepared for a cavalcade of lies about how “the American people want this change,” and “Last November, the American people chose to move in a new direction,” and whatever else they’ll say to stir the stomach acids of a bamboozled American public. Brace yourself for a whole lot of nauseating “blah, blah, blah” and gut-churning “yada, yada, yada.” Expect to hear the word “historic” a few thousand times, and waist-deep-in-the-fertilizer deceptions about how the deficit will actually be lowered thanks to the eventual passage of this disastrous bill into law. Get ready for dancing Democrats to find their way to every camera within spitting distance, sporting that look of sweet victory, claiming that the American people are the real winners. (Barf bag manufacturers might make a killing over the next few days).
It will be as disgusting a display as one could imagine – donkey faces all aglow in the fleeting hours before Christmas as they move that much closer to grabbing 16% of the American economy and crushing our liberties.
Merry Christmas, indeed.
There isn’t a device in all the world capable of measuring how utterly unfathomable and unAmerican Congress’ actions have been up to this point in getting this bill passed.
It is stunning.
The most transparent administration in history?
Posted in Big Government, Harry Reid, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: 60-39, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, RediCare, Senate health care bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009
Senator Dodd - $100 million for a hospital
There is no question in my mind that many of the sixty Senators who will be voting to pass this monstrosity of a health care reform bill – and thus, voting to strip Americans of their liberty – genuinely do believe that what they’re doing is good for America. I have no doubt that a sizeable percentage of Senate Dems actually believe in their hearts – where all liberal policy-making emanates – that the government takeover of 16% of the American economy is a positive thing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anyone with a reasonable mind could actually look at this bill and feel good about its potential to live up to the fairy-tales Dems are peddling, but there are many who genuinely do.
Some of them get in front of cameras and burble about how critical it is to make insurance more affordable for everyone. Some truly subscribe to the notion that only government is capable of such a thing. Others cackle about the moral imperative in passing it – how it’s the right thing to do. Still others ramble on about this bill’s fiscal soundness and how deficits will actually be lowered over a period of years, blah, blah, blah.
Senator Nelson - Everyone else pays for Medicaid
Profoundly misguided as this group of Senators is – and as dangerous to this country as they are – these people are not the truly despicable ones. Indeed, there can be no doubt that passage of this who-did-it-and-ran bill would be disgraceful and immeasurably damaging to this nation. But those who really believe this unprecedented expansion of government and liberty-eroding power play will work are not nearly as contemptible as those who allowed their vote to be bought.
Two questions I used to regularly ask of man-made global warming zealots was: If the world was, in fact, warming, and it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activity had absolutely no role in it whatsoever, would it still matter to you? And if, indeed, rising temperatures are as much of a threat to the planet’s well-being as you claim, does it matter what’s causing it?
Indeed, the political game is played by brokering deals, shoveling promises, and bribing the fence-sitters. No can deny that.
Mary Landrieu from Louisiana scored $300 million for her state.
Ben Nelson from Nebraska sold out the unborn and made the other forty-nine states foot his state’s Medicaid bills.
Senator Landrieu - $300 million for Louisiana
Chris Dodd from Connecticut secured $100 million for a hospital.
But this bill is unique in that it is set to transform forever the American economy and health care delivery system on a scale no one could have imagined even one year ago. It is slated to increase government involvement in our lives in a way that has not been seen or conceived of before. It will, for the first time, mandate that Americans purchase a specific product or else be subject to penalties. It will promise fines and even jail sentences for those who do not comply. It is a bill that has been hotfooted through the Senate – a bill that wasn’t even seen by the public until Saturday of last week – so that some arbitrary Christmas deadline can be met. It is a bill that has garnered less scrutiny and discussion time than some railroad crossing bills have, yet it will seize for the federal government nearly one fifth of the American economy.
Two questions for all of those who were promised goodies in exchange for their vote: If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ObamaCare would cripple this nation financially and cause the quality of health care to decline, would you then turn down the goodies promised your state? And if, indeed, America is really suffering from a health care crisis of epic proportion as you claim, why is a sweetheart deal necessary to bring you on board to fix that crisis?
Democrats, if I may … Is doing the right thing dependant on what you can get in return?
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Ben Nelson, Chris Dodd, health care bill, health care reform, Mary Landrieu, Obamacare, ReidCare, sweetheart deals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009
Senator Lindsey Graham
Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, wrote precisely what I was thinking about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “For once I can wholeheartedly agree with Graham.”
It does sound funny to say, I admit.
To be fair, Graham was quite good – great, in fact – in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder not too long ago about President Obama’s decision (and make no mistake about it, it was Obama’s decision) to try the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in civilian court.
Obviously, it isn’t unheard of that Graham would say something that makes sense. It just doesn’t happen as often as it should.
For instance, on Sunday, he was definitely on his game when he said that the agreements reached with various Senators leading up to the passage of Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment” was the result of “seedy Chicago politics.”
Today, Graham was even better.
Earlier, Graham said that the deal given to the State of Nebraska in exchange for Ben Nelson’s support of ObamaCare (or ReidCare, if you prefer) may be Constitutionally unsound.
Susan Jones, Senior Editor at CSN News writes:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is blasting the deal Democrats made with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in exchange for Nelson’s vote to advance the health care bill.
In exchange for Nelson’s critical 60th vote to cut off debate early Monday morning, Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever.
“Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge,” Graham said in an appearance on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning.
Instead of negotiating in public, there was a back-room deal, Graham said. “It goes sort of like this,” Graham said, imitating Democratic leaders:
“What do you need, Ben, for this last vote? Well, I tell you what, Medicaid’s expanding under this bill for everybody in the country…Ben, what would happen if we let Nebraska expand their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government pay for it?’”
“Done!’” Graham said, imitating Ben Nelson.
Graham recited a list of things that are not fair about the Democrats’ health care bill – including the unfairness of giving a special deal to the people of Nebraska to get one senator’s vote “and not share that deal with the rest of the country.”
One can make the argument – and a damn good one – that Ben Nelson’s sweetheart buy-out does not pass the constitutional smell taste. The notion that one state should be singled out for non-emergency preferential treatment under a federal law (unlike disaster relief after a hurricane, for example) at the expense of other states might prompt some sort of constitutional challenge. In effect, the feds would be commanding other states to foot Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid. It might be enough to get some eagle-eyed constitutionalists wondering if such a thing doesn’t violate the tenth amendment. Maybe even the fourteenth.
Earlier today, on his talk radio program, Dennis Prager was speaking with Martin Gross, bestselling New York Times author of such books as “National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream” and “The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z”:
Gross: [The federal government is} now telling the states that they have to pay for Nebraska. All the Republicans have to do is have an emergency call of the Supreme Court and point out that it's a "crisis," and have the Court, within a week, give a decision. And the Court - unless they're illiterate in a judicial sense - they're going to say it's unconstitutional to get Nebraska off the hook when you have a health care bill.
And the Republicans should do it very rapidly, get a decision, and the bill will be dead, because it is plainly unconstitutional. It violates the federal and state compacts of the Tenth Amendment.
Prager: I will pose this question to Senator Kyle tomorrow.
Gross: Good. Good. Good.
Prager: have you posed this to any Republicans in office?
Gross: This is the first time I've mentioned it.
Prager: With all your knowledge, you do not know of a precedent of a federal bill - a congressional bill - that isolated a state?
Gross: Never before in history. They're giving [Louisiana Senator Mary] Landrieu the $300 billion because of the disaster in New Orleans. That might pass or it might not pass. But the Nebraska thing is a pure anti-Constitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment which specifies federal and state opportunities and obligations. You cannot take from New York and Connecticut and give it to Nebraska – not only for an emergency period – this is forever.
Another point of constitutionality could be in the fact that this bill requires people to purchase health insurance. Earlier today, Nevada Senator John Ensign said, “”I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”
And while there is obviously nothing in the Constitution requiring American citizens to purchase anything, ObamaCare proponents will fall back on the old stand-by of citing the Commerce Clause as its reason for annexing 16% of the American economy. (You knew that was coming).
What doesn’t the Commerce Clause cover in lib-world? It is the justification for everything leftocrats feel they need to be in control of for the betterment of the nation. It gets more of a workout than Tiger Woods’ wood. (Golf club, I mean).
And for those who like to use the requirement of automobile insurance as a means of validating mandatory health care, the comparison is painfully flawed. First, the main purpose of auto insurance is not – repeat not – to make sure drivers themselves are covered. It’s to make sure that other drivers are covered in the event of an accident. Second, auto insurance is only required if one chooses to drive. Third, auto insurance is not a federal issue. It is a state issue.
Assuming that a health care bill eventually does become law – after what will be, at the very minimum, a whole lot of screamin and yelling between House and Senate Dems – and these constitutional challenges do, indeed, make it to the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear why it is absolutely necessary to elect the right people to the Presidency (literally and figuratively).
It is the Chief Executive who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.
If, for instance, the moderate John McCain would have won the election last November, and the question of this health care law’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court with an appointee of his as David Souter’s replacement - a strict constructionist – the bill would almost certainly face the death it deserves … which it may anyway.
There is hardly a Presidential legacy more enduring than whom he appoints to the Supreme Court – except maybe that of government run health care.
Posted in Constitution, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Dennis Prager, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, John Ensign, Lindsey Graham, mandatory health care, Martin L. Gross, Obamacare, ReidCare, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009
As midnight approached last evening, reports started surfacing via the news wires that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to be very close to securing the 60 votes he needs to get radical health care reform – ObamaCare – passed in the Senate.
That means he may have found a way to win over Ben Nelson, Democrat Senator from Nebraska.
And that ain’t good.
Yesterday Reid spent most of the day meeting with Nelson - the lone Democrat holdout – trying to woo him back into the donkey fold. Apparently, the negotiations were quite successful. Nelson himself said that “real progress” was made.
It sort of gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside, doesn’t it? Like a coat hangar ripping out your gut.
Patrick Yoest with Dow Jones Newswires, via the Wall Street Journal posted this:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appeared close Friday to securing the needed votes to pass sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, as senators shuttled to his office to work out a last-minute compromise on abortion … Nelson said late Friday after a negotiating session in Reid’s office that “real progress” has been made on a compromise and indicated that the two sides are looking closely at language aimed at bridging the two sides’ differences on abortion.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that Friday was “a day of long, hard negotiations,” but that senators “made great progress and are pleased with how the discussions have proceeded.”
Democrats sought language on the abortion issue that would satisfy Nelson, who previously sought language similar to that in a House-passed version of health-care legislation that effectively bars insurance plans receiving any federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion for any of their enrollees.
WKOW-TV in Madison, Wisconsin reports:
Nelson has been seeking stricter abortion language and said new concepts he’s been offered may accomplish the goal of barring federal funding for abortion. He also reported progress on addressing his concerns over the costs to Nebraska of an expansion of Medicaid.
The talks were expected to continue Friday night and Saturday morning.
Dems want to see this monstrosity passed by Christmas Day.
In order for that to happen, a lot of things have to fall into place.
Later today – sometime after 7:30AM (after the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill is voted on) – focus will shift back to health care. There will be three total motions filed by Harry Reid – each one requiring thirty hours of debate time before a vote can be taken.
He is expected to file what is known as a “manager’s amendment” - a version of the health care bill that is inclusive of all the changes to the original 2000-plus page bill currently in the Senate.
After Reid files the “manager’s amendment,” it will be read aloud – something that could take anywhere from 10 to 11 hours.
From the time the reading of the bill is completed, thirty hours of debate time is required before the first cloture vote on the “manager’s amendment” can take place.
So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, the “manager’s amendment” is filed at 8:00AM this morning. The bill is then read aloud for eleven hours, which takes us to 7:00PM tonight. After that, 30 hours of debate brings us to approximately 2:00AM Monday morning. That’s when the first cloture vote is taken.
Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00AM Tuesday morning – the second cloture vote takes place (the substitute amendment).
Then, thirty hours after that – approximately 2:00PM Wednesday afternoon – the shell bill or underlying bill (inclusive of all changes and amendments) will come up for what will be the third cloture vote.
Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00PM on Christmas Eve – the final vote on the whole deal will take place.
That’s the breakdown.
God help us.
Update December 19, 2009 – 9:52 AM
The Senate, as expected, approved the $636 billion Department of Defense Appropriations Bill this morning. That means the road to ObamaCare is officially open - and if there’s any truth to the reports circulating this morning, Ben Nelson has crumbled. Dems have got their sixty.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Ben Nelson, cloture, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate cloture votes | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 8, 2009
If not for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and any other “ism” or “phobia” they can exploit, exactly what points of argument would liberals ever use to defend their positions? If the issue cannot be compared to some social injustice of the past, or if the policy cannot be framed around tapping into the raw emotions of constituents, or if the opposition cannot be marginalized and characterized as the spawns of Satan, how would liberals ever be able to convince anyone of anything?
To say that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is beneath dignity is to assume he possesses any – and I’m not prepared to make that leap. The man is a veritable fountain of imbecility, never once failing to prove the point when afforded the opportunity. Even if he never spoke another foolish word, he has long since removed all doubt.
But speak he did from the Senate floor yesterday morning – with an inflection of numbskullery that would make Joe Biden proud.
With the prowess and grace of a can of mushroom soup, and a command of history rivaled by only Congressman Alan “Our Healthcare System is like a Holocaust” Grayson of Florida, Senator Reid said that Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are modern day versions of those who opposed abolishing slavery and affording women the right to vote.
He didn’t go as far as calling GOPers baby rapists, but Reid’s time on floor was limited.
From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Jordan Fabian writes:
“Folks tend to crack under pressure,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) at a press conference. “It is an indication of desperation.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he was “personally offended” by the remarks that were “beneath the dignity of the Majority Leader…and the Senate.”
Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman John Thune (S.D.) called the comments “inflammatory and irresponsible.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Reid said “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.”
He continued “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough’ … He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.”
Whether he was trying to be clever by delivering a well-cadenced, “themed” commentary about the infamous “slow downs” of history – his pitiful, weasel-like attempt at a mini “I Have A Dream” missive – or whether he was just “winging it” around some loose index card scribblings, his asininity is epic.
That he could speak as clearly as he did with both feet firmly ensconced in his mouth is the real story here.
Surely Mr. Reid is aware that more Democrats, as a percentage, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans. Surely Mr. Reid is aware that the Republican Party was the anti-slavery party. (More on this history in a moment).
But far more relevant than that is the absolute absurdity in trying to compare the concern of American citizens who oppose – or at least question – the concept of revamping the entire health care delivery system to those who enslaved other human beings. It is inconceivable that any clear thinking human being could draw such a comparison in good conscience. The notion that Americans who worry about costs, or who are concerned about the decline in quality of health care, or are wary about the government seizing far too much power, is akin to owning other human beings and denying them their basic human rights is contemptible.
According to Reid, simply by virtue of the legislation being a “health care” bill, it should be reflexively supported by the American people, no questions asked.
The irony is … health care reform, as Reid sees it, creates an unprecedented level of servitude to the federal government.
Recall the famous screeching screed of Senator Hillary Clinton exclaiming how everyone has the right to debate and disagree with any administration, regardless of who they are. (It’s a sound bite well played on talk radio, annoying as it is). That’s all well and good, of course, but when conservatives do it, it somehow harkens back to a time of lynchings and whippings.
But returning to history for a moment … Through the middle of the twentieth century, segregationists overwhelmingly voted Democratic – and that includes four election victories for the patriarch of quintessential modern liberalism, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. University types conveniently ignore this long standing “relationship” of racism and political ideology – that is, until white Southerners began voting Republican in the 1960s. Suddenly, such connections mattered. To academia, the affiliation between racism and liberalism was nothing more than sheer coincidence prior to the 1960s, but once the GOP began drawing Southern whites, the connection somehow became obvious and worthy of mentioning.
Incidentally, I happen to agree that early twentieth-century Roosevelt liberalism was not inherently or philosophically tied to the racism that permeated the Democrat Party (especially in the South).
Precisely my point.
Through the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, as the Democrat Party continued to shift more blatantly leftward, older segregationists were, in essence, forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in terms of party affiliation. Theirs was a weakening coalition anyway – certainly not strong enough to form a third party - so their leanings, in the absence of anything better, tended toward more race-neutral politics and smaller government.
The Democrat Party, meanwhile, was reinventing itself, becoming the anti-war, big government, welfare party. Liberals were, among other things, promoting abortion rights, bussing and affirmative action.
Many middle class Americans didn’t like what they were hearing from Democrats and began jumping ship – and not just in the South either.
It wasn’t until the 1980s that most white southerners actually identified themselves as Republicans. And it wasn’t until a decade later when Republicans finally held most House seats in the South.
That the decline of racism – particularly in the South – coincides with the steady rise of Republican affiliation is, to say the least, most interesting.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: civil rights, government run health care, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Racism, Senate debate on health care, Slavery, suffrage | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009
Cheaper costs or a return of the King?
You see, the question is … will Democrats, who are running the whole kit and caboodle on Capitol Hill, actually start paying attention to the electorate on health care, or will they continue to meander down the path of we-know-better-than-you elitism?
For panicky Dems still wondering where it all went wrong in ten short months, keeping a brave face and shrugging off poll results for the cameras is one thing; trying to figure out how to save their political hydes behind closed doors is another. Make no mistake, there are a whole lot of donkeys who know they must start paying attention to the poll numbers at some point.
The game of determining how much of a hit the ship can sustain before the lifeboats become necessary isn’t one for the faint-of-heart.
The real question is: How low do the numbers have to go before the rumble coming from the peasants reaches the ears of the exalted ones, Harry Reid and Company?
Rasmussen says the numbers constinue their steady saunter south:
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Only 38% say “yay” to ObamaCare.
Even registered Democrats aren’t buying into the gobbledygook that health care costs will go down if ObamaCare becomes law. Only 16% of Americans believe that fairy tale.
That’s only five points more than the percentage of Americans who believe Elvis Presley is still alive.
Posted in health care | Tagged: 56% oppose health care plan, health care reform, Obamacare, Rasmussen poll | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 22, 2009
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - the $300 million baby
A little perspective, please.
Don’t let the left’s seizure of the word “historic” after last night’s vote in the Senate convince you that it was anything more than routine. Last night’s 60-39 vote was not historic. It did not make government-run health care a reality. It was nothing more than a procedural vote allowing the matter of health care reform to be formally discussed on the floor of the Senate after Thanksgiving. I’m not even sure that there were many who actually believed that it wouldn’t muster sixty votes. ($300 million can buy alot).
Face it, last night’s vote really wasn’t one that Republicans could win anyway. Did anyone really think that any Democrat was going to deny anyone in their own party the opportunity to talk about this on the Senate floor?
It simply wasn’t as critically earth-shattering as many have made it out to be.
Certainly, I didn’t like it one bit. Indeed, it would have been a pleasant surprise had the winning side fallen short of sixty, but I didn’t expect it to.
One thing is certain: The ultimate passage of this bill would be a disaster for the United States of America. It must be stopped. There is still time. But last night’s vote, to be quite honest, was being built up far more than it needed to be.
The process has only just begun.
More disturbing, however, was some of the commentary from Democrats.
Just before the vote, Senator Chris Dodd spoke of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, saying it would pay Kennedy the highest compliment of all if they were able to fulfill “that quest of achieving the goal that all Americans aspire for, and that is a national health care plan that serves every one of our citizens.”
“Every one of our citizens?”
Hmmm … Call me unnuanced, but that smells an awful lot like government-run health care, doesn’t it?
And of course, Harry Reid himself said, ”Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced – whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.”
He’d be almost adorable if he wasn’t so frightfully irritaing.
The Senate Majority Leader obviously believes that the federal government can legislate immortality. Death can be prevented? And all it takes is a merely “decent” health care bill? That’s quite incredible. What if it were a “fantastic” health care bill? Or a “sensational” health care bill? Would they also have the power to bring back the dead and make them well again?
Or maybe Reid meant to say that the fear of illness and death can be prevented.
So, if the Senate passes this bill, and it is eventually signed into law, no one will be afraid anymore? No one will fear death? That which has plagued humanity since its inception – the fear of death – will be erradicated by passing a “decent” health care bill?
Why didn’t we elect a Messiah sooner?
And by the way … nice job, Senator Landrieu. $300 million is a nice chunk of change.
You go girl.
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 60-39, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate vote | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
Harry Reid, fudging the damn numbers
I’m not sure how many people would sign on to a program that required them to work full-time for a period of four years before being paid; or one that would require four years of insurance payments on a car before being handed the keys; or one – as Senator Mitch McConnell puts it – that required four years of mortgage payments before one can move into a house, but I’m going to venture out on a limb and say not too many.
Just as the House version of the health care bill did two weeks ago, Harry Reid’s incarnation – over two-thousand pages strong – employs that old accounting chestnut: The Ten Year Dupe.
It’s pie-in-the-sky liberal voodoo at its cooked-books best.
Recall that earlier this week, Reid assured Americans that the Senate’s version of government-run health care would be a money-saver. Like the Pelosi bill, it would be cost-effective and still be able to insure billions and billions of health-care starved people without costing Americans an extra cent. In fact, there’d actually be some money leftover to pour into other meaningful things, like doorknobs at inner-city housing projects, the study of orgasms among college girls, and the continued examination of radioactive rabbit feces.
Over ten years, according to Reid, the whole kit-n-kaboodle would cost “only” $849 billion. (In today’s trillion-happy world, that’s chump change).
But we’ve all seen this movie before … and there are too many who still don’t get it.
Although tax increases would be implemented upon the bill’s passage into law, actual spending won’t begin until the fifth year of the bill’s application, 2014; and even then, it will be relatively miniscule. For instance, only $9 billion is slated to be spent that year. However, in 2016, spending reaches $147 billion. By 2019 (the last year of Reid’s ten year projection), it’ll hit $196 billion.
Thus, actual spending of any significance would only take place during the last six years of Reid’s health care debacle.
But, if one were to look at the actual numbers over a fully implemented ten year period, which would start in 2014, the cost is more than twice the $849 billion espoused by Reid – in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The Ten Year Dupe.
As many as seventeen new taxes will be enacted to help fund everything. As much as $800 billion, according to the CBO, will be sucked from Medicare during the first decade of full implementation and put somewhere else. Plus, hefty penalties for those individuals, families and businesses who fail to comply with guidelines will be imposed.
Let freedom ring.
Seeing as there will be four years of revenue collection before spending really begins – which means four more years of our ongoing American health care holocaust – where is all of that money going to go until it is ready to be spent? Where do four years of taxes and fines get stashed until the government begins saving American lives? Will there be a health care reform fund established? Will there be a secret shoe box hidden at an undisclosed location? Will convicted Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana allow the government to borrow his freezer?
Or the do words Social Security Fund mean anything to you?
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 2074 page health care bill, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate health care bill | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009
All it takes is shining a spotlight on liberals, and affording them the opportunity to step out from the security of their abstractions, to get people to open their eyes. Once lefties are forced to go beyond bumper sticker rhymes and pretty protest signs and actually elucidate the details of their destructive plans and schemes, Americans begin to see the light.
For years, the notion of having the federal government responsible for the health care of the American people, to many, didn’t seem like such a bad idea. Inasmuch as most folks didn’t invest too much time or energy digging into the matter, on its surface, it really didn’t sound particularly offensive. As a concept, it simply didn’t trouble most to think of someone else (i.e., the federal government) footing the bill for their health care costs. In fact, since November, 2001, Gallup consistently found that a majority of Americans believed that health care was the responsibility of the federal government.
That is, until now.
For the first time since Gallup began asking the question eight years ago in an annual poll, more Americans now say that health care is not the responsibility of the federal government.
How about that?
For eight years, Gallup has been posing the following question:
Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have heath care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?
In this year’s poll, 50% said no, compared to 47% who said yes.
As recently as three years ago, nearly 7 in 10 Americans said that it was the responsibility of the federal government to provide health care coverage for all Americans.
Of course, that was prior to the Messianic Age.
According to Gallup:
The reason behind this shift is unknown. Certainly the federal government’s role in the nation’s healthcare system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the “public option.” These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans’ agreement that ensuring all Americans have healthcare coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government.
If I may be so bold …
The reason is pretty clear to me: Liberals have had ten months to yak about it – and thus expose it for unsustainable, liberty-eroding, financial disaster that it is.
To that end, I invite all ObamaCare-supporting liberals – from the garden variety, off-the-rack, big-government types to the slobbering post-Clinton, anti-Bush, transformation-happy, Marxist wanna-bes – to keep finding hot microphones to speak into. I encourage all socialized-medicine enthusiasts who have made a lifetime’s work out of repeating insipid platitudes and vapid bromides (without ever having to fully explicate their feel-good, pie-in-the-sky utopian aspirations) to continue yapping into any camera they can find.
I want all Obamacrats to keep on talking.
Let the debate go on.
We’ll all ears.
Posted in Big Government, Economy, health care, Liberalism, Polls | Tagged: Gallup Poll, government run health care, health care, Obamacare, responsibility of the federal government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 6, 2009
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi
From the “Who Didn’t See This One Coming?” file …
Like a big-government liberal salivating at the thought of siphoning more of my paycheck, or an Obamacrat pecking incessantly at my liberties, it’s been gnawing at the sensibilities of clear-thinking Americans for the better part of ten months. It is imperative, the American people have been told time and time again, that health care reform happen as soon as humanly possible. It’s something that needed to happen yesterday, so the story goes; and if not for the racists and money-hoarders on the other side who use talk radio as the vehicle to spread their vitriol, everyone would be already be covered with top-flight, inexpensive, world-class health-care.
According to Washington’s Holey Trinity - Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid - the American people cannot afford another nanosecond of having to deal with the current capitalist, greed-uber-alles health care delivery debacle that leaves millions and millions to die while fat cat insurance companies roll in the dough. Recall that the health care “crisis” was recently called a “Holocaust” by Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Recall that those who spoke out against the government takeover of health care at town-hall meetings all across America were said to be swastika-carriers by the Speaker of the House.
(You gotta love that German National Socialist imagery).
As critical as the passing of a health care reform bill is supposed to be to the welfare of the American people, none of it (oddly enough) is to actually be implemented until either 2013 or 2014, depending on the version of bill. (So much for urgency). Three years, it seems to me, is a mighty long time, especially when a “crisis” as far-reaching as this is afoot, but I’m obviously missing something. Still, considering the “seriousness” of the situation, potentially, we’re talking about alot of dead bodies littering the streets.
Proponents of Democrat health care reform have been feeding the American people the notion that all plans to completely overhaul the system are not only going to save trillions and trillions of lives, but it will be cost-effective. In fact, according to the Holey Trinity, it won’t cost Americans an extra nickel.
Senator Harry Reid
Of course, being one of the unsophisticated lock-steppers awaiting his daily marching orders from my talk radio overlords, that never made an iota’s worth of sense to me – nor did it to tens of millions of Americans who spent the better part of the summer and autumn speaking out in opposition to such a blatant erosion of liberty. It ate away at common sense. Without increasing the amount of doctors in the country while (supposedly) adding thirty million Americans to the insurance rolls, the idea that costs would not increase was about as coherent as Joe Biden sober.
Making things all the more deceptive for clarity-loving, clear thinking Americans was the fact that, according to all versions of the bill, revenues for the overhaul would begin to be collected almost immediately.
In short, taxpayers would begin footing the bill now, while the health care “Holocaust” would be allowed to fester for three years under the Pelosi version of the bill (four years under Reid’s version) until the actual rescuing of suffering Americans by the federal government could begin.
Naturally, members of the exalted Trinity (and their mouthpieces) would find every opportunity to gravitate toward hot microphones demanding that those of us in the skeptic’s camp do the math and see that over the next ten years, everything, indeed, checks out cost-wise.
“We’re telling you, it all works out,” they would say.
“Here’s a calculator, do the math. It’ll cost no one a penny extra,” they would contend.
“Look at how things shape up over an entire decade! Your concerns are unfounded!” they would claim.
But here’s the reality of the situation: The only way to conduct an honest analysis of the costs of the Holey Trinity’s attempt to nationalize the American health care system is to run the numbers for a ten year period that includes both spending and revenue collection.
And when the real numbers are crunched … it is not pretty.
Benjamin E. Sasse & Jefferey H. Anderson, in comparing the House version of the bill with the Senate version of the bill, write in the New York Post:
Each bill is routinely “scored” for its 10-year costs from 2010-19. Yet this includes several years when the spending wouldn’t yet have kicked in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, fully 99.9 percent of the Pelosi bill’s costs would hit from 2013 onward. Similarly, 98.3 percent of Reid’s spending would come after 2014.
If you start the tally when the bills’ spending would actually start, then the bills’ real 10-year costs become clear — and are remarkably similar.
The CBO reports that, in their true first 10 years, the House bill would cost $1.8 trillion, and the Senate bill would cost $1.7 trillion. Pelosi would raise Americans’ taxes by $1.1 trillion over that period, while Reid would hike them by $1 trillion.
And the House bill would siphon about $800 billion from Medicare to spend it elsewhere, while the Senate bill would suck out about $900 billion.
And if we discount the bills’ claims to divert hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare (which is already on the edge of insolvency), the CBO says the House bill would raise our national debt by about $650 billion in its real first decade, while the Senate bill would up it by $740 billion.
So, the bills would either sock older Americans by taking huge sums of money from Medicare — or hit future generations with huge tax hikes to cover the shortfall.
Whether it’s our grandparents or our grandchildren, someone is going to pay.
If there aren’t alarms blaring in your head after ingesting those nuggets, it may be time to have a work crew brought in to clear away any cranial cavity blockages.
Numbers have a funny way about them.
Is there anyone who truly believes that the elderly are not going to have their health care substantially rationed under government-run health care? Or that future generation upon gfuture eneration will not be paying for this mess long after the Holey Trinity have moved on to the next world?
Count on both.
Seniors will see their health care – to the tune of $900 billion – quite literally, given to someone else. In other words, benefits will be extracted from a segment of the electorate that is not particularly smitten with President Obama – seniors – and redistributed to that portion of the electorate that still is – the young and the poor.
The only thing as certain as the astronomical costs and sub-par medical care this bill will bring is the fact that not a single member of Congress will ever trade in his or her own health care plan for anything they bestow upon the masses.
Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, Nanny State, politics | Tagged: "scored" for 10 years, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Harry Reid, health care debate, health care reform, House bill, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, PelosiCare, Senate bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 7, 2009
From the “Nothing Is Real” and “Manipulation 101” files …
Remember the Office of President-Elect? It was created by Barack Obama for the short-lived pre-Executive branch of government he established prior to his anointment on January 20, 2009. It had a sort-of Easter Bunny meets the Super Friends feel to it. It came out of nowhere - kind of like cohesive English from Joe Biden’s mouth. There was no precedent for it, no Constitutional directive, absolutely nothing that authorized such an invention – save for his ego. Yet, before anyone knew it, the Office of President-Elect had an emblem and official stationary.
Sure, it wasn’t real, but it sounded innovative and fresh – and Obama looked quite presidential reading those cue-cards from behind that cool logo.
Remember when President Obama invoked Winston Churchill while attempting to garner support for his anti-waterboarding position, supposedly quoting the great leader to the effect that “we don’t torture?” It was a pivotal moment for the young Commader-In-Chief.
Of course, Churchill never said anything of the sort, particularly in reference to fighting the Nazis during World War II, but it didn’t keep Bam from saying he did.
After all, if Churchill, a hero to the war-happy right, is against torture …
Churchill did, in fact, comment on how he was opposed to torturing civilian prison inmates, but there is not a word Churchill ever spoke or wrote that came close to suggesting he was against doing whatever was necessary to secure victory during war – including torture (which British interrogators did, thank goodness).
Sure, it wasn’t real, but out-of-context quotes from dead white guys are always effective against close-minded, short-sighted, right wing gun nuts.
Had Obama been anyone else but Obama – and particularly if he were a Republican - the unbiased, always-objective, straight-down-the-middle mainstream media might have actually tapped the President’s brain on these little ditties, as well as a myriad of other messianic manipulations and Obamacratic fairy tales.
It actually took a comedy sketch on Saturday Night Live to get the “drive-by media” to actually do a little work – but not because they attempted to pick apart and dissect Obama and his assertions, as they did regularly with George W. Bush. Rather, they attempted to defend the President, lest they lose their spot in Obama’s bed.
Face it, when CNN takes the time to fact-check an SNL bit highlighting Obama’s ineffectiveness, there’s a whole lot of trouble in River City.
So, what then would the cackling masses have been saying if a Republican President of the United States had gathered a group of professionals together from across the country for a White House photo-op and handed out costumes to help reinforce a policy position?
A fair question, I believe.
On Monday, as has been widely written and talked about, in his ongoing crusade to peddle his health care reform initiatives, i.e. government-run health care, President Obama invited physicians from “all fifty states” to the White House for a pep-rally and photo shoot.
What could be more of a boost to a President trying to keep his socialist health care agenda afloat than to have a small army of supportive contributors – er, professionals – by his side, on the lawn of the People’s House, singing the praises of rationed, aspiring-to-be-mediocre medical care?
Nothing … in theory.
However, as it turned out, some of the doctors who came to the event were not properly attired – not in the way prescribed by their Obamcratic hosts.
You see, this White House Rose Garden event had a motif.
It was to be a White Coat Extravaganza (stethoscope and headgear optional).
Luckily, the White House was more than happy to accommodate the physicians who came in ordinary, every day clothes. (Taxpayer bucks hard at work).
Charles Hurt from the New York Post writes:
President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet — and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message.
In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.
A sea of 150 white-coated doctors, all enthusiastically supportive of the president and representing all 50 states, looked as if they were at a costume party as they posed in the Rose Garden before hearing Obama’s pitch for the Democratic overhaul bills moving through Congress.
The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.
But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.
So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.
All this to provide a visual counter to complaints from other doctors that pending legislation is bad news for the medical profession.
“Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do,” Obama told his guests.
Yes, Mr. President.
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
No one has more credibility with the gullible, easily manipulated, visually-hypnotized American people on the issue of health care reform than a small group of Obama supporting doctors who were asked to show up in stereotypical, archaic white lab coats for a cheesy photo op.
Indeed, these are precisely the people I want (and expect to be) endorsing a government-run health care plan – physicians who let the White House dress them up.
Incidentally, do doctors actually wear white lab coats anymore? My doctor comes into the examination room with his Yankees shirt on – which frightens me a bit as a Met fan.
Just think for a moment if George W. Bush (or any Republican), in attempting to sell a military operation to the American people, invited a group of service personnel – both active and retired – to the White House to show support. Then imagine staffers at the Bush White House handing out military uniforms to those who may have shown up in civilian clothes so that TV cameras could “capture the image.”
Think it might have made the news … times ten?
The only question would have been whether or not enough black magic markers were available to the general public for the purposes of drawing black Hitler moustaches on the face of the President; or whether or not there were enough swastikas in all the world to use on all the anti-Republican protest posters that would pop up across the map.
(Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi best knows the answer to that one).
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: 150 Doctors at the White House, health care reform, Obamacare, white lab coats | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 1, 2009
Congressman Alan Grayson
Congressman Joe Wilson blurted out the infamous words, “You lie!” during President Obama’s address before a joint session of Congress not too long ago. Because of it, for a time, Wilson was ranked – along with typhoid and severe intestinal cramps – on the list of most hated things in American life.
After all, he had the nerve to speak out against the Messiah-In-Chief. It probably had to do with his distaste in having a black man in the White House, blah, blah …
(Columnist Maureen Dowd actually heard Wilson use the word “boy” – in her mind.)
The fact is, it was an emotional outburst that was wholly inappropriate, and he immediately apologized for it.
Yet, he was raked over the coals.
What Wilson was reacting to was the assertion by the President that illegal aliens would not be covered under ObamaCare.
One thing President Obama neglected during his speech, however, was the pesky little fact that anyone seeking health care would not – repeat would not - be required to prove their legal right to be in this country. That simple truth effectively made the President’s contention untrue.
Wilson knew this.
Indeed, he may have been wrong in what he did, but he was substantively correct.
Compare and contrast that situation to that of Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, who helped to reaffirm that first-class bone-headedness is not only a spontaneous phenomenon, but it can be premeditated and well-scripted.
From the House Floor, in a prepared presentation, complete with visual aids, Grayson contended that the Republican’s idea of health care reform consists of an easy-to-follow plan: Don’t Get sick. But if you do, die quickly.
It was almost certainly a big hit among those who live on the hard left – which really means mainstream liberalism.
Does it get any cleverer that that?
It’s catchy; and true to form, it fits nicely on a bumper sticker. It can even be squeezed onto a liberal talking points sheet without having to kill additional trees.
Keep in mind, this exercise in cerebral vapidity was no emotional outburst like Wilson’s. This was a contrived and calculated speech.
He went on to say, “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”
Yes, he really said that.
A Holocaust in America. (I’ll get to that in a moment).
Let’s think about his first point - his interpretation of the Republican Health Care Plan. According to Grayson, Republicans – who simply do not want the finest health care delivery system in the world to be transformed into one of government-run rationed mediocrity – not only want people to get sick quickly (if they must), they wish to see them die as soon as conceivably possible afterward.
In other words, as a conservative (and also a registered Republican) I am one of those who want people to get sick and drop dead post haste. So does my wife, apparently. And my kids. Mom, too.
We all want people to become ill and die quickly.
It sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?
Remember, to Grayson and his comrades, conservatives aren’t just on the other side of the debate. They don’t just have an opposing view from theirs. They are bad. They have ulterior motives. They are sinister. They want people to die.
This is the depth of liberal thought in modern America.
This is why libs should never be in charge of things that require adult thinking.
Now, onto Grayson’s second point – a Holocaust in America.
I’m willing to wager a vital body appendage that most of you had no idea that there was a bona fide, honest-to-goodness Holocaust ongoing in the United States of America today.
Mr. Grayson, you DOPE, THIS is the human atrocity that was The Holocaust.
Does Mr. Grayson understand what the Holocaust actually was? Does he have any conception of the unspeakable horrors that are associated with the Holocaust? Does he not understand how he cheapens the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust with his mindless, childish, asinine show-and-tell speech about the supposed health care “crisis” in this country ? Has he no respect for the millions and millions of murdered innocents, their families, and survivors of the death camps?
How ironic it is that liberals, the ones who are constantly pushing to make sure no one in any segment of the population – save for conservative white males – are ever offended for any reason whatsoever, are conspicuously silent here. Grayson – a liberal’s liberal if ever such a thing existed – has drawn from the blob of intellectual excrement that lives between his ears to compare the uninsured status of a very small percentage of Americans to the brutality and horror that was the Holocaust – and no one on that side of the aisle seems to be bothered too much. Does Grayson believe that there is a single Holocaust survivor who will say, “Right you are, Mr. Grayson. It feels like Nazi Germany around here!”
In Grayson’s mind, the uninsured of America are comperable to the slaughtered Jews of the Holocaust.
On his radio program today, talk show host Dennis Prager wondered where the Anti-Defamation league was on this issue? After all, making light of the Holocaust is one of things the ADL is most vocal about.
Grayson is a liberal, however. Perhaps different rules apply.
As Prager said, “He owes history an apology. He owes moral clarity an apology.”
What is it with lefties who reflexively pull out the Hitler card when they’re on the ropes or lack the substance to defend their arguments?
If America had a dollar for every swastika that had been used as a substitute for the letter “s” on anti-Bush protest signs, everyone in the country would have their health care paid for two-fold with enough left over for a pack of Manhattan-bought cigarettes.
Meanwhile, like the media assault on Congressman Joe Wilson a couple of weeks ago, I’ll patiently wait on the outrage against Alan Grayson to bubble up.
I’ve got nowhere to go.
Posted in Democrats, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: Alan Grayson, Florida Congressman, health care debate, Holocaust in America, Joe Wilson, Obamacare | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 23, 2009
When leftists take to the streets to protest, it is not only newsworthy, it is also (we are told) noble, meritorious and rooted in genuine concern for some great issue affecting humanity.
When conscientious young skulls of leftist mush demonstrated against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, convinced he would lead the world into World War III and foreordained nuclear devastation, they did so with the world’s media gazing upon them in awe. Protestors were showered with accolades, praised not only for their highborn cause, but their willingness to get involved and stand up for their beliefs.
Protests – even riots – against George W. Bush (complete with calls for his impeachment, routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, and publications hopeful for his eventual assassination) were met with reckonable commentary focusing on the deep concerns of the American citizenry, the anxiousness of a troubled electorate, and the blessings of a society that affords its people the opportunity to redress their grievances.
By contrast, when liberals are in power, protests against them are never based on the genuine concerns of the public. Those who speak out against leftists at the helm are never noble or admirable. The beauty of a society where the citizens can redress their grievances suddenly becomes irrelevant. Whatever anxiousness there may be among those protesting liberal power is rooted in selfishness and even bigotry. Thus the motivations of those who oppose liberal policies are engrained not in presenting a viable alternative, but in achieving a diabolical and sinister goal – whatever that might be.
It seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?
Remember, whereas conservative bigotry divides, liberal bigotry fosters unity.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can accuse those who oppose ObamaCare of being swastika carriers, and no one is particularly outraged. She can tearfully warn against conservative protestors potentially resorting to the kind of violence that took the lives of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978, and no one blinks an eye. Corrupt Congressman Charles Rangel of New York can say that racism is behind the widespread opposition to Obama’s leftist policies, and it all seems to make sense. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call Town-Hall protesters “evil mongers,” and his words are taken seriously. Reid can also call President Bush a liar, and no one as much as lifts an eyebrow; but when Congressman Joe Wilson accuses President Obama of lying, America pauses in gapped-mouthed amazement at the lack of civility. Dissenters to the Obamacratic vision for America can be called kooks, fringies, right-wing nutcases, gun-happy bigots, Kool-Aid drinkers, racists, or whatever pejorative fits the bill for the moment, and never are the validities of their dissent analyzed the same way “Bush=Hitler” protestors were.
Liberal anger is patriotic.
Conservative anger is dangerous.
On yesterday’s edition of Hardball on sparsely viewed MSNBC, the ever-vexatious and never-delightful Chris Matthews said the following:
“ … the activists on radio are not afraid because they’re not afraid of anything. But at some point if we have violence in this country against our president of any form or attempt, people are gonna pay for it, the people who have encouraged the craziness. And I get the feeling, at some point, the responsible grown ups like people who have [been] elected 20 or 30 years, who know what it means to be responsible officeholders, must be saying to themselves, ‘I don’t want to be one of the people responsible if one of these Looney Tunes gets a gun and does something.’ “
“People are gonna pay for it?”
Civility, thy name is Matthews.
What exactly is he talking about? Angry, sign-waving, expletive-shouting, rock-throwing, anti-war, Amerika-with-a-k, Bush-lied-people-died fanatics were nothing to concern ourselves with, but conservative dissent somehow translates into the frightening prospect of violence?
Funny how that works.
Matthews also said that all of the “anti-government” talk wasn’t improving anyone’s life and that the “clown show” was over. (Of course, Obama has at least three more years to serve, so the “clown show” regrettably goes on).
Note how Matthews unabashedly reveals the core belief of his political creed: that only government can improve anyone’s life.
It goes without saying (or it should) that anyone with any sense of what this country has always been about understands that one’s liberty is directly proportional to the amount of power the government has over its citizens. As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”
This kind of thinking, of course, creates ulcers in the collective colon of liberal America. To them, it’s only about government.
The so-called “lack of civility” on the right – fuelled by talk radio haters and angry cable news channel gabbers, they say – has become all the rage in trying to explain why there is so much opposition to the Obamacratic transformation of America. It isn’t possible in Liberal-Land to legitimately oppose an expansion of government, or speak out against it, because in the world of Chris Matthews (and his fun-loving leftist brethren), only government can make the boo-boo all better. Thus, the motive for the dissent must rest elsewhere – perhaps in racist inclinations, deep-rooted anger in the multiculturalization of the country, greed, selfishness, sexism, whatever. There is no genuine compassion on the right – only self-centeredness. There is no tolerance on the right – only bitterness. There is no civility on the right – only anger.
Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood – a Republican – broke out his own slice of civility by lashing out against conservative talk show radio hosts and cable new network talking heads, saying “they have eroded civility and impeded the nation’s ability to solve big problems.”
Joe Hallett of the Columbus Dispatch writes:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Dispatch that the level of “harsh discourse in Washington has probably reached an all-time high,” and he partly blamed it on “all of this trash talk about the process and about politicians 24/7″ on cable television and talk radio.
LaHood referred to criticism Obama received for appearing Sunday on five television news shows to promote his health-care overhaul. The secretary also indicated that even the president’s bully pulpit is no match for the cacophony over the airwaves from the political right.
“He can’t even compete with all this stuff that people are saying about him, so the idea that he did five interviews on Sunday, that’s just minuscule compared to the kind of trash talk that goes on all week prior to that,” LaHood said.
“All of this background, all of this trash talk in the background, it does not contribute to civil discourse, and it does not contribute to the government or the country’s ability to solve big issues.”
What Mr. Hallett really means is that conservative talk-show hosts and cable news channel kibbitzers are helping to make it impossible for the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants without a meddling constituency sticking their noses in things. What Mr. Hallett is bothered by is the fact that Americans are not just rolling over and taking whatever they’re told to take by the big boys in charge. What disturbs the Transportation Secretary is the reality that taxpayers will not accept that their elected officials can be trusted.
It is precisely conservative talk-radio, right-leaning cable news channel pundits, and the explosion of coast-to-coast Tea Parties – in conjunction with a very well-informed electorate – that have enabled the current debate on health care reform to flourish and continue.
It is not trash talk, despite what Hallett the Rino says.
As I have alluded to before – and still worth repeating – it makes one wonder exactly what acceptable discourse and dissent actually sounds like in the eyes of panicked leftists.
Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, politics | Tagged: "lack of civility", Harry Reid "evil mongers", health care reform, leftism, leftists, Nancy Pelosi swastikas, Obamacare, protestors, Town-Hall protestors | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 16, 2009
In the event you missed it, a little more than half of the United States is officially racist.
That little morsel comes from the folks at Rasmussen, who reported yesterday that 55% of Americans oppose President Obama’s health care reform plans – a new high (or low, depending on your perspective). And since opposing Barack Obama’s hard left policies, according to the likes former President Jimmy Carter, is based on the fact that Americans cannot accept a black man occupying in the Oval Office, there is no other conclusion to draw.
A week ago, 44% supported the proposal and 53% were opposed. Following the speech last Wednesday night intended to relaunch the health care initiative, support for the president’s effort bounced as high as 51% (see day-by-day numbers). But the new numbers suggest that support for health care reform is now about the same as it was in August.
And just think … if these free-market-killing, big-government proposals had only come from a white man, health care reform might have already passed both houses of Congress and tens of millions of neglected people would now be able to get rationed, mediocre health care.
I can only imagine how many swatiska-brandishing, negro-hating Americans are sitting around their dinner tables discussing the matter, saying, “I could really go for this big-government, expanding bureaucracy approach if only the guy pushing it wasn’t so dark.”
Posted in Big Government, health care, Polls | Tagged: 55% disaproval of ObamaCare, government run healthcare, health care, Obamacare, Rasmussen, shrinking support | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 15, 2009
What is wrong with these people?
It makes no sense.
It’s almost as if those who oppose Him don’t wish to be saved. Can’t these contrarians and malcontents understand that when they cry afoul and moan about the erosions of personal liberty, they are helping to extinguish moral and economic imperatives being proposed for their own good? Can’t these rabble-rousing, tea-party drones cool it with their tiresome talk-radio inspired “personal responsibility” chatter and all that “liberty” rhetoric?
Clear-thinking reasonable citizens of the world would never oppose such a battery of forward thinking policies as we are now seeing nine months into the Messianic Age. It thus stands to reason that to be against Him is to be mired in timeworn obsoleteness. To oppose Him is to oppose all that would unify. It cannot possibly be the substance of an Obamacratic policy that causes people to take an opposing position; not when the policy in question is cut from messianic cloth. It can only be the myopic citizenry wallowing in their antiquated prejudices and bigotry, hell-bent on stifling an uppity black man with vision. And since asking the question, “What is wrong with these people?” will never bring an answer that satisfies the disciples, there can only be one reason why there still exist those who won’t board the Obama transformation train.
His skin color.
That’s what we’re told by the most serious thinkers on the left.
Those who postulate and predicate modern liberalism are doing all they can to create new conventional wisdom – namely, that what sits at the core of the uproarious opposition to Barack Obama’s push to drop the health care delivery system on the lap of the federal government is the darkness of his skin.
It has to be, they say.
What else could it be?
Fair and open-minded people would never argue that there will be a major problem in adding thirty million people (formerly forty-seven million) to the nation’s insurance rolls while the number of physicians and nurses remains stagnant. No way. That’s race-based gobbledygook.
Rational thinkers would never question how such an expansive plan could possibly save money, as He suggests it would, even though demand would explode to astronomical proportions. No chance. To do so would be engaging in masked racism.
Level-headed policy wonks would never question Him when He says that illegal aliens would not be covered with taxpayer dollars, even though there is no provision that allows for the citizenship status of potential patients to be verified. No sir. To suggest He is being dishonest about this, as Congressman Joe Wilson did last week, is akin to burning a cross, or using the “n” word.
In short, those who stand up against the policies of Barack Obama do so because he is black.
And they hate having a black President.
So we’re told.
If it were Joe Biden (God forbid) making the same speech last Wednesday, Joe Wilson would have said nothing.
The ever-effervescent Maureen Dowd in her most recent column writes:
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
Dowd goes on to point out that Wilson, at one time, belonged to the Sons of the Confederacy - an offense so hanus, its equal has yet to be realized. I’m not sure exactly how much weight Ms. Dowd really puts in the past associations of elected officials, but the names Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. The organization ACORN also rings a bell.
Nowhere did the magnificent Ms. Dowd bother to mention that Mr. Wilson is also a colonel in the National Guard.
She’s silly that way.
Sports-scribbler-turned-incoherent-leftocrat Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote:
This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.
Wilson really did sound like somebody who had been on hold for an hour, waiting to scream about socialism to Rush.
But why wouldn’t Wilson scream out the way he did? This is a time when a radio host like Mark Levin routinely refers to President Obama as “that jerk,” all in the name of liberty, of course, and the fight against tyranny. Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren’t enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.
Such is the intellectual left.
Note that race magically becomes a negligible component when the likes of Ms. Dowd and Mr. Lupica, i.e., white liberals, speak out in opposition against powerful black conservatives, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (black). Does Thomas’ “blackness” – or lack thereof as some have suggested – suddenly become irrelevant when lefties espouse criticisms of his positions? Why does no one accuse Dowd of harboring deep-seated racist inclinations when she criticizes a black who happens to be conservative? Or Lupica? Or any white on that side of the garden? Surely, they have no great love for the positions and philosophies of people like Larry Elder, J C Watts and Walter Williams. So then, when white libs criticize black conservatives, where are the “You’re not black enough, boy!” accusations?
Because race is an issue only to conservatives, even though liberals are the ones who keep bringing it up. Even the ever-affable and lovable Bill Cosby referred to Clarence Thomas as a “brother lite” not too long ago.
I suppose that when “one of them” criticizes “one of their own,” there is truth in it.
So, when columnist extraordinaire Paul Krugman takes the opposing view of conservative thinker Thomas Sowell, is it because of Sowell’s race? Shouldn’t Krugman be branded a racist by default?
How about columnist Frank Rich? Safe to say, he’s no supporter of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. If he lambastes the Republican Party in his columns (which is like saying, “if he breathes”), should those of us on the right now fit him for a white sheet and hood?
As long as guilt-ridden white people can point out how awful other white people are, with a whole lot of black people looking on, modern liberalism will never run out of nourishment.
Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: "You lie", health care reform, Joe Wilson, Maureen Dowd, Mike Lupica, Obamacare, Racism, racists | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 10, 2009
"You lie!" he yelled.
As the House of Representiatives’ teleprompter continues to get accolades the morning after the President’s fifteen-thousandth speech on health care, consider a hypothetical scenario.
Imagine for a moment the federal government setting up a McDonalds type restaurant where the cost of hamburgers was only eight cents. Imagine the same restaurant offering large icy cold sodas for only fourteen cents, and a ten piece chicken nugget pack for a quarter. Then, imagine a string of these government-run restaurants being built in communities all across the country, serving the very same neighborhoods that the real free-market McDonalds does. Imagine such a place being subsidized in large part by tax payers. Imagine food being considered a right.
Here are some obvious questions … Where do you suppose cash-strapped teenagers and low-income families will go to eat? Do you think they’re more likely to patronize the place where five people can eat a whole lot of food for $3.00? Or the place where four small value meals can run over $20.00?
And what do you suppose will happen to the real McDonalds when it finds itself in direct competition with an entity that can print its own money to pay suppliers, never worry about answering to anyone, and offer the public up to 90% discounts on food? How long will it be able to survive?
Keep in mind, no one from the government has actually legislated the end of the real McDonalds. There is no language to be found anywhere to that effect. There doesn’t have to be an explicit law, or statute, or directive stating that it be officially be dissolved. There doesn’t have to be a provision, or clause, or reference in the original bill saying, “All privately owned McDonalds will hereby be abolished upon the passage of this bill into law.”
It will simply happen as a result of the law’s existence.
That’s because there is no way the real McDonalds can compete.
Thus, when proponents for a government-run McDonalds step up to the podium and look the American people in the eye and say, “It is simply untrue that the law says private enterprise in this area is to be eliminated,” they technically aren’t lying. There is literally nothing in the law that expresses it, explicitly or implicitly.
Now, with that in mind, think of what President Obama said last evening, when he assured the American people that illegals would not be covered by the government-run health care plan he is pushing – which prompted South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson to openly call the President a liar during his speech.
(You must’ve heard about it. It made all the papers).
What Wilson understands is that because there is no real checks-and-balance of any kind to keep illegals from being covered (and that the so-called “40 million uninsured” Obama has all along been peddling actually includes illegals) there ultimately can be no other result. Backdoor triggers and endless amendments will ensure that illegals eventually get the coverage Democrats wish they could just offer them outright. It doesn’t have to be spelled out in black-and-white because it is an inevitability, much like the death of the privately owned McDonalds in our hypothetical scenario.
As Gabriel Malor at the Ace of Spades blog writes:
Although (the House version of the bill) does not provide subsidies for illegal aliens, it does allow them to participate in the “healthcare exchanges.” It also contains a provision which prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare.
You do the math.
President Obama is well aware of all this.
Think for a moment about the so-called “death panels” that opponents to ObamaCare – like myself – say will become a reality if passed into law. Indeed, there is no proposal anywhere that uses those very words, but what else can happen if there are suddenly “forty million” newly insured people in the system without an increase in the number of physicians to serve them?
Flat out rationing.
What other result can there be when severely limited resources meet up with skyrocketing demand?
And although I do believe that cat-calling the President of the United States while he is addressing a joint session of congress is wholly inappropriate, frankly I was not terribly offended by Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst – not like I was when Senator Dick Durbin equated our military to the Nazis on the Senate floor; or when the late Senator Kennedy announced that the Iraqi torture chambers were being re-opened under new American management under George W. Bush.
Those were unsubstantiated, contemptible claims made by shallow men with the inability to argue a point with anything other than emotionally-charged prattle.
Yes, that sound you hear is the collective orgasm of lib bloggers, commentators, reporters and professional spinsters across the map equating Joe Wilson with whatever their lastest benchmark of evil is. And while Wilson’s emotional outburst may have been wrong, he was thoroughly correct in understanding what will ultimately happen if (and when) ObamaCare kicks in.
Oh, and by the way … anyone who has the nerve to claim that Republicans are the ones who are wont to dip into their scare tactics bag to push their agendas, consider this passage from the President’s speech last evening:
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.
Add that one to the long, ever-growing list of “liberal hysterias to feed” that include such chart-topping catastrophes-in-waiting as global warming, overpopulation, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic, and bird flu.
Posted in Economy, health care, politics | Tagged: "You lie", health care debate, Joe Wilson, Joint Session of Congress, Obamacare, President Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 3, 2009
New York Congressman, Charles Rangel - the Ethical One
I’m convinced; it is hard wired into the liberal brain. It is an automatic – like seeing someone talk to himself on a subway train, or that smell you get at your grandmother’s house. The reflex in libs to demonize and marginalize those with whom they disagree is involuntary. It’s like a back spasm or a reality television program - you can’t control it and it just won’t go away. As one reader of my blog noted, to even bother mentioning this phenonmena anymore is akin to breaking the news that grass is still green.
Yet, I admit to being captivated by it. It fascinates me – like an overturned truck on the side of the highway or an ever-expanding blood blister.
To the liberal mind, opposing a leftist positions can only be attributed to that which is unsavory - such as greed, prejudice or lack of compassion. There can be no other reason to want to see liberal policies fail, according to liberals. That’s because the conservative is not merely a bearer of a contrasting view; he or she is driven by sinister motives. And because only liberals really care about people, those motives must be exposed to a nation in desparate need of some good old fashioned big government healing.
Nothing soothes the boo-boo like a little liberty-raping liberalism.
Thus, if something is repeated often enough, regardless of how farcical it is, it will just blend into the nooks and crannies of conventional wisdom.
Recently, New York Governor David Paterson blamed a racist media for his failures and unpopularity. The fact that he governs – using the term loosely – a state so prevailingly blue doesn’t seem to matter. It just isn’t possible that he is inadequate. After all, he’s black. It has to be racism.
Last week Congresswoman Diane Watson – a black woman – said that those opposed to ObamaCare wanted to see a President that looked like her fail. It just isn’t possible that the idea of universal health care is a bane to Americans who are paying attention. After all, the President is black. It has to be racism.
And now, added to the simmering bouillabaisse of race-card playing intellectual lightweights is everyone’s favorite corrupt politician – a man whose integrity and ethical standing can be placed on the surface of a diminutive electron with room to spare – Congressman Charles Rangel of New York.
Carl Campanile from the New York Post writes:
Rep. Charles Rangel said Tuesday that “bias” and “prejudice” toward Obama are fueling opposition to health-care reform.
“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’ ” Rangel (D-Manhattan) said Tuesday.
Speaking at a health-care forum in Washington Heights, Rangel said that when critics complain that Obama is “trying to interfere” with their lives by pushing for health-care reform, “then you know there’s just a misunderstanding, a bias, a prejudice, an emotional feeling.”
“We’re going to have to move forward notwithstanding that,” said Rangel, the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a chief health-care negotiator.
Rangel then likened the battle over health-care expansion for the uninsured to the fight for civil rights.
For all the nuance and astuteness that liberals are supposed to possess, they regularly expose themselves as nothing more than emotionally-driven wells of featherbrained fribble.
Unquestionably there is bias in the health care debate.
Shouldn’t there be?
Liberals are biased in thinking the government can ride in on a white horse and save the masses from impending doom. Conservatives are biased in thinking that decisions are best made by individuals.
Aren’t leftists, by definition, biased against conservative positions? And vice versa?
What point is supposedly being made here?
Frankly, Charles Rangel is an elitist ass.
He cannot muddle reality or redefine the terms of the game simply because he doesn’t want to accept the fact that Americans are exceedingly well-informed on the subject of ObamaCare and don’t like the idea of a government run system. Rangel and his ilk are in sheer denial that opposition to universal health care is really about defending liberty and preserving the power of the individual. His elitist instincts tell him that people really cannot be opposed to the messianic visions of health care coverage for all. Rather, it must hinge on racial prejudice – it has to.
Yes, Mr. Rangel is correct in saying that many Americans haven’t gotten over the fact that Obama won the White House – but it is not based on his blackness. (It isn’t even based on his half-whiteness). Conservatives marvel at the fact that last November nearly 53% of Americans decided on a leftist candidate with a conspicuous history of Marxist sympathies.
Do liberals ever respond to criticisms of their precious government-expanding agenda with anything that does not involve knee-jerking idiocy?
And what better way of overloading the aforementioned cultural nooks and crannies of conventional wisdom with emotional twaddle then to tie the health care debate in with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? After all, once you do that, how can any self-respecting, decent human being argue against Obamacare?
Critics of ObamaCare blasted Rangel for taking the low road.
“Charlie Rangel knows that race has nothing to do with the health-care debate. He should not be implying that race has anything to do with it,” said Rep. Peter King (R-LI).
State Conservative Party leader Mike Long called Rangel’s comment “outrageous and outlandish” — and suggested the congressman might be trying to deflect attention from his ethics woes.
“Rangel is playing the race card. It’s clear that the congressman is trying to galvanize the minority community that this is ‘us against them.’ It’s going to backfire. A majority of people will see through this,” Long said.
Taking a page from the Paterson, Watson and Rangel Handbook of Politics, Logic and Foot Stamping, I cannot help but ask: Since President Obama is half-white, shouldn’t half of his plan be deemed acceptable?
I suppose the IRS is racist too, demanding all those back taxes from the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commitee, Charlie Rangel.
Posted in health care, Racism | Tagged: Charles Rangel, David Paterson, Diane Watson, government run health care, health care, Obamacare, race card, Racism, universal health care | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 30, 2009
Serving California’s 33rd Congressional District is Los Angeles native, Congresswoman Diane Watson. Among her other laudable attributes is not only her titillating support of Fidel Castro and his country’s exemplary health care delivery system, but her capacity to deal cards from the race deck effortlessly.
At a town-hall meeting on Thursday, Watson declared that those who oppose ObamaCare do so because they wish to see the President destroyed. As sure as there are pungent armpits in a summertime New York subway tunnel, it is no surprise to learn that the President’s skin color is the real reason. Indeed, according to Watson, the desire to see Bracak Obama’s initiatives defeated – and thus, his presidency branded a failure – comes down to good old-fashioned, let’s-break-out-the-hoods-and-matchstick racism.
From the well of incisive thought and seasoned analysis that is Diane Watson, there are two comments she made during that meeting that I’d like to dissect.
First, said Watson:
“You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. (She pronounced it Lim-BO). And he said early on, “I hope that he fails.” Do you know what that means? If the President – your Commander-In-Chief – fails, America fails.”
To begin with, the term “philosophical leader” is about as meaningless as the words that roll off an Obama teleprompter, or a New York Mets baseball game. However, seeing as I’m in a particularly festive mood this morning, I’ll roll with it.
Rush is certainly one of conservatism’s finest “spokesmen” (for the want of a preferable phrase), but he didn’t invent conservatism. To the great dismay of liberals, leftists and other children, he happens to articulate it exceedingly well – almost as well as the “drive-by” media misinterpret, misquote and misunderstand almost everything he says. And while there is definitely a profusion of weak-kneed, mushy-in-the-middle, pseudo-conservatives who attempt to redefine conservatism by abandoning its principles for more leftward ideals, Rush does no such thing.
His “philosophy” has remained steadfast since his Sacramento radio debut in 1984. That fact alone is enough to send the undergarments of liberals into vexatious knots.
Again, assuming the “philosophical leader” tag is applicable, the most entertaining part of Watson’s statement is when she says she “thinks” his name is Rush Limbaugh – as if trying to decide whether or not she’s heard of him.
There isn’t a single self-respecting, self-serving, big-government liberal taking in oxygen today who has not heard of Rush Limbaugh.
He haunts their dreams.
Additionally, Limbaugh’s “I hope Obama fails” remark has been so well explained, so painstakingly explicated and so remarkably misunderstood by the saliva-danglers who spend countless hours frantically collecting fractured phrases and out-of-context hateful commentary from him, that Watson – like all Democrat notions – comes across as weak, tired and pedestrian. However, for those who came in after the credits, read my articles The Limbaugh Fetsih – The Democrats Are Obsessed and My Two Cents On Whether You Can Support The President While Not Supporting His Policies.
In short, if the Commander-In-Chief fails to apologize on foreign soil for his own country; and fails to expand the deficit to unsustainable record-breaking levels; and fails in his quest to nationalize the greatest health care delivery system in the world; and fails in his attempts to have the government take over automobile companies and financial institutions; and fails to weaken the defenses of the country he is charged to protect by keeping agencies like the CIA from doing their job; and fails to recognize the ongoing battle against murderous Islamo-fascists as a genuine war; and fails to understand that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are not to be afforded the same rights as American citizens; and fails in adopting industry-killing, job-killing “global warming” legislation … then America wins.
It’s pretty simple, really.
“Now when a Senator says that this will be his Waterloo – and we all know what happened at Waterloo – then we have him, and he fails. Do we want a failed state called the ‘United States?’ So remember, they are spreading fear, and they’re trying to see that the first President who looks like me fails.”
Regarding fear … it was not a conservative who scared America into believing that the nation would be ravaged by heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was not a conservative who promised that food supplies would run out by the year 2000. It was not a conservative who warned that natural resources would be depleted by 1990 due to human over consumption. It was not a conservative who foresaw a world in peril due to global cooling. It was not a conservative who promised a planet devastated by overpopulation by 1996. It was not a conservative who said the bird flu would wipe out countless numbers of humans. It was not a conservative who promulgated the impending Y2K disaster and set up numerous agencies, websites, roundtables, taskforces and contingency plans to save the world from it. It was not a conservative who predicted widespread catastrophe due to mad cow disease.
And as far as the “first President who looks like me” remark … is there any group of people more intolerant, more race-consumed, more fixated on the skin color of people than leftists? Time after time, these sorry excuses for thinkers hurl their character-assassinating bombs into the public square, accusing conservatives of harboring animosity toward President Obama due to his race, never once realizing that everything they project is a direct reflection of how they think. To leftists, everything that carries even the slightest negative connotation regarding Barack Obama can only be about his color. It must be about his color. It simply isn’t possible for anyone to legitimately disagree with President Obama policy-wise and not be bad; it has to be because they hate blacks or resent the fact that America would put a black man in the White House.
Frankly, people like Watson need to get their antiquated behinds out of the 1960s and enter the real world. If Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a nation where character previals over color is at all being asphyxiated, it is happening because of the likes of Watson and her race-obsessed ilk.
To people like me, President Obama needs to fail because of his desire (and promise) to transform America into something the country has never been – a nation where the State is more important than the individual.
Obama’s failures assure that such a transformation cannot – and will not – take place.
Watson also threw in these gushing words about Cuba’s world-class health care:
Let me tell you, before you say, ‘Oh, it’s communist,’ you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. And you know, the Cuban Revolution that kicked out the wealthy – Che Guevara did that – and after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation and they found … well, just leave it there … an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro.
Perhaps Ms. Watson could use a paper towel or a sedative … or a cigarette.
As Jay Ambrose wrote in October, 2007, outside of Guevara’s reckless extermination of “people proven guilty of absolutely nothing,” his desire to use Soviet missiles against America, and the fact that he “ran a Havana prison in which he killed, killed and then killed some more, and later helped start the labor camp system in which homosexuals and others considered undesirable were to be confined as nothing more than slaves,” what’s not to love?
Does anyone love a war criminal more than a leftist? Or a t-shirt manufacturer?
And as for Cuba’s health care system … until Congresswoman Watson ditches her inferior Capitol Hill health plan for CastroCare, the discussion is closed.
Diane Watson is a first-class farce and a genuine disgrace.
The great Breitbart.com website has the audio.
Posted in American culture, health care, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: "I want Obama to fail", Diane Watson, health care debate, Liberalism, Los Angeles, Obamacare, politics, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, town-hall meeting | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 28, 2009
Democrat Arlen Specter says, "I will consider it."
Following his diagnosis of brain cancer, would Senator Edward Kennedy have ever considered entrusting his life to the type of health care that would have been available to him via a “public option” delivery system?
While Obamacare proponents religiously espouse the necessity of implementing government-run health care, assuring the masses with phantom logic that the quality of care will not suffer, the question remains: Exactly how many of those on Capitol Hill who support it – and will surely vote for its passage – will be willing to dive right in and secure their own chunk of the public option?
What better way to amass support from the electorate than to stand up and proclaim that what is good enough for “the people” is damn well good enough for those elected to serve the people?
Imagine the likes of Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer slinking up to a battery of microphones somewhere, cameras rolling, shutters a-clickin’, declaring incontrovertibly that they have such unflagging faith in the success of Obamacare that they pledge to sign up upon the bill’s passage.
True, many of these pro-Obamacare lip flappers can more than afford to pay for their own healthcare outright, but if they are honestly intent on convincing the public at large that the quality of care available through a government-run system will be just as good – something beneficial for all Americans – a little signature on the dotted line could go a long way.
However, I’d be willing to bet a vital body appendage that not one socialized-medicine supporting Senator on the Hill would dare give up the coverage he or she has now for what would be offered to the uninsured in America through such a plan. (What is that total up to now? A hundred million now?)
Recall this exchange between Fox News’ Chris Wallace and newest donkey Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania:
WALLACE: Senator Specter, as you well know from your town halls, this is one of the issues a lot of doubters are asking, so let me put it directly to you. You support the public option. If it passes, will you, Arlen Specter, go on it?
SPECTER: I will consider it. I think members of the House and Senate ought to have exactly the same plans, the same options, as any citizen.
Bear in mind, Chris, the public option is an option. It is one choice you can make. And I think my situation ought to be the same as any other citizen.
Note Specter’s clever political latchhooking: “I think members of the House and Senate ought to have exactly the same plans, the same options, as any citizen.”
It’s interesting (and no accident) – that it wasn’t worded the other way around – that “citizens out to have the same plans, same options as members of the House and Senate.”
Isn’t the point of a “public option” to accommodate those who “cannot afford” to purchase health insurance? If one is to believe Democrat portrayals of the American health care system as one in peril, with bodies of medically deprived citizens potentially littering the streets of America, what other “options” do these people really have? They certainly haven’t the means of some of America’s more affluent public servants.
Sure, Specter may eventually have the “public option” available to him in a technical sense should the bill ever become law, but that doesn’t mean he would ever take it.
If, God forbid, Senator Specter is afflicted with a life threatening illness, is there anyone alive who believes that he will see the “public option” as good an alternative as his current one?
By the way, if you turn to page 109 of your Democrat/English dictionary, you will see that the phrase, “I will consider it” translates to “Not a chance in hell.”
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: "public option", Arlen Specter, Chris Wallace, government run health care, Obamacare, Senator Kennedy | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 20, 2009
And so it is that in the United States of America – where the health care delivery system is so deficient, so defective, so in need of a thorough reconditioning – the life expectancy of Americans has reached its highest level ever, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In fact, there has been a ten year upward trend..
From the CDC website:
U.S. life expectancy reached nearly 78 years (77.9), and the age-adjusted death rate dropped to 760.3 deaths per 100,000 population, both records, according to the latest mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The report, “Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2007,” was issued today by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. The data are based on nearly 90 percent of death certificates in the United States.
The 2007 increase in life expectancy – up from 77.7 in 2006 — represents a continuation of a trend. Over a decade, life expectancy has increased 1.4 years from 76.5 years in 1997 to 77.9 in 2007.
While heart disease and cancer remain the two leading causes of death in the United States (nearly half of all), both saw declines in their mortality rates in 2007. In fact, death rates have gone down for eight of the top fifteen causes of death – including influenza, pneumonia, diabetes and stroke.
It is important to note that two of the top fifteen leading causes of death – number five (accidents) and number 15 (homicide) – are not health related at all; and while both of those rates declined in 2007, number 11 (suicide) did not.
With all of this in mind, recall an article published by the New York Times two years ago in which they referenced an oft-quoted 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) report ranking the United States health care system 37th out of 191 nations surveyed:
There is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.
Of course, just a little bit of digging into the WHO report – and a subsequent report put out by the Commonwealth Fund that actually ranked the United States health care system at or near the bottom – shows that the rankings are based heavily on equity not quality. Such an approach assumes that providing health care to its citizens is the responsibility of government.
ABC’s John Stossel, in a response to the New York Times piece, wrote:
The WHO judged a country’s quality of health on life expectancy. But that’s a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That’s not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these “fatal injury” rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
The lines aren’t exactly extending around the country with people waiting to leave the United States for countries like Andorra and Columbia – both of whom ranked higher than the United States.
Posted in health care | Tagged: American Life Expectancy, Barack Obama, CDC, Center for Disease Control, Commonwealth Fund, Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2007, health care reform, Obamacare, World Health Organization | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 17, 2009
Last week, in front a Hillsboro, Missouri crowd, Senator Clair McCaskill asked the fateful question, “Don’t you trust me?”
The crowd answered with a resounding, “No!”
Keep that sentiment in mind while this story develops.
In a blog from earlier this morning, commenting on reports that the White House may be “backing away” from the “public option” in the ObamaCare debacle, I began one of the paragraphs, “Still, if there is any truth to the reports that Obama is slinking away from his unapologetic desire to have the federal government takeover the healthcare system …”
Note the degree of confidence I place in anything that comes from this White House or anyone affiliated with this administration.
I am simply not convinced that the “public option” is off the table – or that it ever will be.
Neither are Democrats (as I will get to in a moment).
“Public option” or not, this debate is far from over. And if there will not be a “public option,” then what? Once the government finds its way into the kitchen, does anyone truly believe they will not eventually slither their way to the stove and poison the stew anyway?
There is simply no telling what the Democrats are thinking or what any of this really means. The party’s liberal base obviously wants this health care overhaul to happen, and as I alluded to in my earlier piece, Dems may be more than willing to take some minor to moderate hits in order to bring this victory home for Obama, as long as the power ultimately remains theirs.
Yet, as things continue to develop, the Dems seem a tad confused.
Yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius did an about-face on a long-time hallmark of the Obama health care vision, saying that government-run health care wasn’t “the essential element” of reform. (Since when?) She started talking about “insurance cooperatives” (Co-Ops) – a phrase that is sure to find its way into the American lexicon post haste.
But hold on.
In response to Sebelius, an administration official (anonymously) came forward and said that Sebelius actually misspoke.
Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic writes:
This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president’s view, the most important element of the reform package.
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
“Nothing has changed.,” she said. “The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals.”
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, on the other hand, says that the “public option” is all but dead.
Carrie Budoff Brown at Politico writes:
“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option,” said Conrad, who has pushed an alternative proposal to create a network of consumer cooperatives, on Fox News Sunday. “There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”
Not to confuse things any further, just this morning, former Democratic Party Chairman Howlin’ Howard Dean said that meaningful health care reform just cannot happen without a direct government role.
Philip Elliot of the Associated Press writes:
Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change, saying that Medicare and the Veterans Administration are “two very good programs that have been around for a long time.”
Dean argued that a public option is fair and said there must be such a choice in any genuine shake up of the existing system.
“You can’t really do health reform without it,” he said. Dean maintained that the health insurance industry has “put enormous pressure on patients and doctors” in recent years.
He called a direct government role “the entirety of health care reform. It isn’t the entirety of insurance reform … We shouldn’t spend $60 billion a year subsidizing the insurance industry.”
The President himself has started suggesting that the “public option” isn’t essential to his plan.
Oh, those wacky Dems.
The real shame is that while the mainstream media continues to obsess over so-called splits in the Republican Party, there is actually a much better – and far more interesting – story to cover over on the donkey’s side – if they’d only crawl out of the tank long enough to take a look.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "public option", government run health care, health care overhaul, health care refor, health care reform, Howard Dean, Kathleen Sebelius, Kent Conrad, Obamacare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 17, 2009
In case you missed it …
On Saturday, Rasmussen reported that 54% of registered voters believe that no health care reform is a better option than ObamaCare.
That number will only rise as Dems continue to try and shift focus from their failing aspirations of socialized medicine to what the eternally-cloddish Senator Harry Reid called the “evil mongers” who pervade town-hall meetings with their hate-filled fist pumping. Unfortunately for the whiners and fabricators who comprise the modern left, most Americans are simply not buying the “angry right-wing” ishkabibble. And as encouraging as that majority number is, 54% percent has got to turn into 60% … and then start ballooning towards 70% for any of this to really matter.
Remember which side runs Capitol Hill.
Democrat majorities could certainly survive some damage, as long as it is modest.
Many Dems, indeed, are aware that now may be their very best, if not their last, opportunity to rework, e.g., kill the current health care delivery system (that, as of today, is still the envy of the world). Rising opposition simply may not matter unless that number is considerable – into super majority territory. Otherwise, the donkeys will be more than willing to take small congressional hits to see America’s healthcare system socialized.
This is a victory Obama must have in some form or another.
“One reason that the President has been careful to distinguish between his idea of health care reform and a single payer system is that just 32% favor Single-Payer health care while 57% are opposed.”
Again, those numbers certainly lean in the right direction, but President Obama’s support of a single-payer system cannot exactly be questioned, can it?
In 2003, he was perfectly lucid on the matter, saying, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody … And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Many who defend the President on this matter will attempt to “clarify” what he meant by quoting him from one of the sixteen-thousand Democrat presidential debates that took place during 2007 and 2008 when he explained, “I never said that we should try and go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch – if we didn’t have a system in which employers have typically provided healthcare – I would probably go with a single-payer system.”
That, of course, was not what he said – or meant – in 2003. There was no “what if” scenario. There was no “let’s say I was starting from scratch” disclaimer. The future President was clear in questioning why a single-payer system could not be implemented in a country as wealthy as the United States.
Tape recorders are pesky things.
Still, if there is any truth to the reports that Obama is slinking away from his unapologetic desire to have the federal government takeover the healthcare system, how much of it can be attributed to those town-hall disrupting “evil mongers” and “swastika carriers?”
Perhaps the better question is … who among the Dems will admit that the protestors have played an enormous role in the administration’s sudden shift?
And speaking of those town-hall protests that have so dominated ObamaCare coverage in recent weeks, Rasmussen writes:
As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists. One surprising by-product of the debate over changing the system is that confidence in the U.S. health care system has grown over the past few months. That may be because when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than they fear private insurance companies. Forty-one percent (41%) hold the opposite view.
Those numbers, too, will continue to swing away from the pro-ObamaCare camp.
The question is … will it matter to a party hell bent on putting one in the “win column” for The One?
Posted in Big Government, health care | Tagged: health care poll numbers, Obamacare, Rasmussen, single payer system | Leave a Comment »