Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Specter: Protesters Don't Represent America

By John Amick

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), one member of Congress that took a lot of heat last week at town halls from opponents of health-care reform, said the, at times, fiery community meetings should not control the discourse on the national health-care debate.

"I think people are very nervous because so many have lost their jobs, and I think that the uncertainty of the health care bill," Specter said on ABC's "This Week." "Remember, we don't have one in the Senate yet, and none has come to the House floor, but I think we have to bear in mind that, although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they're not really representative of America, in -- in my opinion."

Also on "This Week," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) refused to give an opinion on a major topic of misinformation in the reform discussion, the widespread rumor of end-of-life care-rationing, or "death panels," existing in potential health-care legislation.

Speculation that provisions for seniors to plan with a doctor before deteriorating health conditions obstruct sound end-of-life decisions will result in a kind of involuntary euthanasia has been repudiated by other Republicans, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

"I don't think I'm going to make that decision," Hatch said when asked if he would defend or reject the rhetoric. "You know, there are many different people who have many different opinions on what is meant by these programs."

When pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper to explain this silence compared to his vote for Medicare reform legislation in 2003, during a time of a strong Republican majority, that included end-of-life consultations, Hatch responded by suggesting any kind of government option would certainly result in rationing of care to senior citizens.

By editors  |  August 16, 2009; 11:14 AM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Conrad Sees Little Chance for Public Option
Next: McConnell Gets a Voice in Court Hearing on Campaign Finance


In 2010, he will learn the meaning of representative.

Posted by: gorak | August 16, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

We all get old and when we do we get sicker. To go down any road that assure us we will go into retirement afraid that our medical needs will not be met is inhumane.There are millions of slackers out there sucking the welfare system getting all the free stuff. These are the people Obama wants in his "army". I do not want to pay for their medical care.

Posted by: katie6 | August 16, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

'Arlene' Specter knows a true American. He's a fellow who votes for Specter and keeps his Constitutional Rights in abeyance until he votes for crooks like Specter. Then shuts up while Specter and his ilk make millions from lobbyists.
This creep will get his 'pink slip' come November 2010.

Posted by: sperrico | August 16, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

As expected, Obama and his accomplices are demonizing the opposition. It's obvious, however, that the only Americans who support Obamacare are his accomplices and those who have been dumbed down by a substandard and politicized education as per the warnings of Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov.

In 1985, Bezmenov told us that our enemies were working hard at brainwashing us (dumbing us down) and would succeed if we did not defend our principles:

The dumbed down are obviously unable to understand that Obamacare will further contribute to “the American descent into Marxism,” which “is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple…”

Fortunately, as we can see in the town halls, most Americans have NOT been dumbed down! Most Americans are NOT sheeple! Most Americans are ready to defend their FREEDOM and the freedom of their children and grandchildren from the abomination of Obamacare and socialism/Marxism.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | August 16, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) refused to give an opinion on a major topic of misinformation in the reform discussion, the widespread rumor of end-of-life care-rationing, or "death panels," existing in potential health-care legislation."

Sen. Hatch is a coward and a liar! He KNOWS the "death panel" allegations are absolutely false but refuses to say it publicly! One more example of our elected officials who lack the integrity and courage to do what is right. That would mean forfeiting huge amounts of corporate and ultra-right party support, read that as $$$$$$$, of course.

Posted by: ChoKum | August 16, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Senator Specter and others in power:

Although no one person represents the majority, it is definitely incorrect for you to state that the few protestors who were filmed do NOT represent the average American; neither do those "supporters" who appear at carefully orchestrated town hall meetings with the President.

What you label as not representative of us are simply many of us "average" folks who have worked all our lives, paid our taxes, and are now facing decisions which are forcing us towards socialism.

I am neither a radical nor am I overly conservative. I am, however, an American who doesn't want to see our personal savings dwindle, be burdened with a massive debt that will haunt our children and grandchildren, and who doesn't want to PAY for all of this. Why should those of us who work, save, pay our bills on time, and work our way up the ladder of success be penalized?

NO ONE wants children or the elderly to be underserved; but WHO is supposed to pay for all of this? WHEN do you stop all this spending? WHY do you insist on putting this on our backs? What will you do when those of us who were diligent and thrifty run out of money? Where will you go next for the money to pay for all of our so-called "reforms"?

Posted by: Californian1 | August 16, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I think the people that are creating the outbursts at
the townhall meetings are not representing the "majority" opinion of the average American in terms of healthcare.

It is clear that they feel strongly about whatever they believe in.
It is important to have the discussion about healthcare and look at the reasons why everyone isn't covered.

Is there really something wrong with having universal healthcare for all citizens? Why should we even have to worry about meeting our healthcare needs. They should be paid for buy our taxes. Look at the people in Canada or France as an example. I know some people from both countries and they don't seem to have a problem getting care when they need it.

Socialism is not a bad thing. Perhaps some of the people out there that have such a problem with it or are equating it with Communism should go do a little homework and learn about it.

Then they can understand what they are actually protesting instead of creating convenient sound bites from an obviously ignorant point of reference.

Posted by: berg007 | August 16, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

There is real concern out there. Spector doesn't get it and is too old to be effective ant longer. He realized the dems were popular so he jumped parties. If these jerks want out of office then jump all over this bill and push it thru. Even these liberals want to keep their jobs. Americans have a voice and don't think for one minute you will silence them. Next on the agenda is cap and tax, then social security. Afterward will come life and car insurance. You can guarantee, you and your children will soon be hand picked to be able to chose the school they go to. Big brother is right around the corner. If private citizens get e-mails from the white house it's time for a reality check.

Posted by: MOMLEE | August 16, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me. berg007, but socialism IS a bad thing for the US. We are a REPUBLIC, not a socialistic society. To say one is ignorant because one does not feel the need to change the status quo shows a blatant disregard for the opinion of others. No one said socialism is communism. No one said it isn't a same everyone doesn't have some type of coverage.

What many have said, and I agree, is HOW are those who support this action going to PAY for this? Extra taxes when the government cannot manage the money it has already collected? Extra taxes on those who HAVE paid their dues, who HAVE saved money, who HAVE insurance?

We live in a country where one is able to go from humble beginnings to a life of affluence...why punish and take away the incentives one EARNS through work and/or thrift and wise-planning, just to give to those who don't?

Of course, there are those who have had unfortunate circtumstances beyond their control, but bringing life down to a common denominator is NOT the best way towards helping them.

My father once told me, "Teach to a higher level, don't lower your standards; make them come up to a higher standard, and we'll ALL be better for it. Don't 'dumb down.'" Can't we say the same for health care? Don't fix it on the backs of those who have already worked to get where they are...

And, don't call someone ignorant because they disagree.

Posted by: Californian1 | August 16, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to hear any reasonable argument coming from these protesters. They don't bring an informed opinion to the demonstrations. All I have heard so far in terms of arguments are the following:
1) "I want my country back!"
I am not sure what this argument is.
2) "France and Canada have people waiting in lines for care."
Not likely if the care is needed for a life-saving operation.
3)" Death Panels."
What do you think insurance companies do now when they deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or tests that are needed?

I understand your argument about not giving government more money when they can't manage what they have. I don't think we will resolve that in the near future. Look at how the defense budget is managed...

Ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing. It means" lacking knowledge or choosing to ignore information". I lump these people into this category because all of the arguments put forward so far seem to be coming from uninformed, emotional people without a grasp of what is really going on in healthcare.

I work in healthcare by the way.

Oh, to address your argument about living in a country where we can go from humble beginnings to a life of affluence.

What is wrong with "spreading the wealth" when it comes to healthcare which should be a basic right? We seem to spend so much money on ill-conceived military actions.... Those things are funded by the taxes that we all pay....

Posted by: berg007 | August 16, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

berg007 and californian1, It might be more relevant to get your best information about government healthcare services from those who have or had it already, military personnel and their dependents. I was a dependent starting from birth until I was 18 years old. When I was born, the doctor failed to pull the umbilical cord from my neck during delivery and then had to work on me for 20 minutes to get me to breath and I had my first transfusion at the same time. According to the corp man on duty, they worked on me all night. They then failed to tell my mother I was in critical condition for three (3) days. During that time, a catholic priest visited my mother and tried to tell her I was dead. That caused them to have to tell her where I was. My father was sent a telegraph during this time to a location he was not due to being on duty aboard ship. My father was not a happy man. About three years later after my brother was born, he developed a fever of 105 degrees and we went to a base hospital in California. We were first in line (you had to take a number and we were #1). The doctors (and this will be what it will be like under government health care, due eventually having doctors salaried)came to work late, took a coffee break first, treated an officer who came in in the meantime, went back to their offices and did not come out for a while. My mother almost left before they finally came out, after a nurse we live next door to, started looking for them. I know this was in the 1940's and 1950's, but do we want to return to this type of healthcare? Do we want live virus in the polio shots again they administered? The news coverage should be interviewing current users of the government healthcare, it may not have changed much. I admit I have read portions of the H.R.3200 and the portions about the government panels making decisions about what should be provided just rubs me the wrong way. It puts too much power in the hands of just a very few people and they are appointed, not voted in.

Posted by: oldbluesmith | August 16, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

First, everyone admits there is no definite plan yet in the Senate.

Then the advocates of National Socialist Health Care say that the valid criticisms of their tentative plans offered by people who can think about the consequences of legislation are 'false,' and the media falls for this big lie theory approach and parrots it.

With end of life consultations and pressure to reduce costs - but nothing else fleshed out in the legislation - 'death panels' are a certainty. It is simply human nature that medical administrators will feel it is their duty to get doctors to counsel old people in poor health to decline expensive care so more resources are available for those who are easier to help.

It is at best naive to assume anything ELSE is going to happen unless strong protections against this dynamic are included in the bill.

Posted by: andycutler | August 16, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I am proud to be an American and thankful to those that have given their lives for my freedom. Many of us would not have the freedoms we enjoy today without the protests our predecessors took part in, so protesting is most certainly AMERICAN. I come from a low-middle class family, military if you couldn't tell from my patriotism. I appreciate our democracy, and the "American Dream" that allows each of us to become, achieve, earn whatever we choose. (BTW berg007, I have never heard anyone refer to the "Canadian Dream" or the "French Dream", nor are people seeking citizenship of those countries in the high numbers that come to the U.S. Why do you think that is, if their government is taking care of them so well?).
My husband and I married young, while working in a restaurant and putting ourselves through college. WE paid for our schooling by working toward a degree/profession that we knew would pay us better one day. WE chose to not have insurance for a few years, of course it was risky but we were young and healthy. I certainly did not think it was someone else's responsibility to pay for our insurance. Later in life, my husband, and insurance policy holder, lost his job and WE chose a COBRA coverage that WE paid for out of pocket, meaning I worked more hours and he delivered pizza (with his masters degree) to make ends meet.
Now, I work in the healthcare field and my concerns are: there are not enough providers to care for everyone (which WILL effect the level of care EVERYONE receives); will providers be forced to accept these new insur.?; how will providers be compensated?; not discriminating toward a patient based on their age (something that goes along with the hipocratic oath), and I'm very concerned how all of this may divide our country. Also, I fear that people will not choose the healthcare field as a profession, since schooling is very expensive and there is not much incentive to become that financially indebted. Especially if you know you can have everything Joe Schmoe, the guy that chose no college, and doesn't even have to work if he doesn't want to, but he's also not paying off $100K school loan,will get from our gov't. People that have spent so much of their lives working toward all that they have are NOT willingly going to give it to the government to dispurse evenly. This is an emotional topic for all of us, and needless to say, it will be a long road before it is resolved.

Posted by: lough | August 16, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't disputing the values of the "American Dream". I don't see Canadians and French sneaking into our country to work. That argument doesn't really apply to the healthcare issue.

A single payer system would allow all people to have healthcare and would be funded by tax revenue.

Currently our taxes go to many things that the majority of people don't agree with. Look at the "war in Iraq ". Imagine if that money went to providing healthcare instead of making defense contractors wealthy? The US would be a different place. When you lose a job, why should you have to worry about paying for healthcare???? It is a basic right....just like education.

It will definitely take a long time to educate people on this issue.
Right now people are scared into thinking we will become a socialist country. That is laughable...

Posted by: berg007 | August 16, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

berg007, I find your response very interesting. The "American Dream" means that one has control of one's outcome, 'Be all that you can be', if you will. And you are right, French and Canadians aren't sneaking into our country, but my point was- what they it all that desirable? You should question the motives of our gov't and not let them brainwash you.
I too, agree that the money spent on the "war in Iraq" was/is a mistake, but what happened to all of the campaign promises re:pulling troops and reducing costs, instead we've added. That is a perfect example of not being confident in what this administration is selling us. So, we should all question, protest, discuss, etc. until it is spelled out for us. Or, just continue insulting one that is laughable.

I believe each of us should reach out to help our fellow Americans, however WE want to...charitable donations, volunteering, etc. In the afterlife, when I am at the judgement table, I doubt my creator will spread out any extra 'good deeds' I have accumulated to my brethren just to make it "fair". I earned them. My brethren have the opportunity to earn theirs as well. There are enough handouts in this country, healthcare should be provided to everyone, but for a price. And that may not be a monetary price, but "nothing in life is free". For example, maybe those able-bodied citizens in need of healthcare should have to maintain certain # of hours community service(like we require of our high schoolers to graduate), or set up the system like a be paid back once the citizen is back on their feet. Certainly, it should not be offered for an indefinate period of time, that would give people less incentive to actually have to take care of themselves.
I mean, what's next? Rewriting the Constitution?

Posted by: lough | August 16, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

US Senate Candidate for New York

Let’s stay with facts, not subjective information
1) The current health care care system in the US (Public option, single payer)
2) What US Senators are #1 and #6 recipients of Insurance Lobby money for the entire US Senate
3) What NY US Senate Candidate advocates an immediate Federal mandatory cap on health insurance premiums, no pre-existing condition clauses allowed, all wellness and preventative visits covered without co-pays, federal cap on deductibles, and absolute portability (insurance not tied to jobs). Also, this candidate advocates liability insurance caps for providers and tort reform

4) What 2 US Senators will not have any Health Care Town Halls

5) Who said, “the public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” “this is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”

6) What US Senate Democratic candidate wants immediate reform of the Insurance Industry and an aggressive move to public financing of Congressional elections (House and Senate).

1) Neither 2) Schumer and Gillibrand 3) Dr. Noren 4) Schumer and Gillibrand
5) President Obama 6) Dr. Noren for Senate

Posted by: norenforsenate | August 17, 2009 12:47 AM | Report abuse

When Specter says the protesters don't represent America, he means the majority of Americans, and he is correct. He never said they didn't have a right to protest or make their views known.

Hatch, on the other hand, was being deliberately obtuse. "You know, there are many different people who have many different opinions on what is meant by these programs." No sh!t, Senator--we want YOUR opinion. It's just like congressmen who say "*I* haven't seen his birth certificate." OK, fine, but what do you *believe*?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 17, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Tell you what Specter, opponents of this fraud aren't being bussed in and paid in response to a Criagslist ad. We are Americans using our 1st amendment rights to be heard. We come on our time and at our expense.
You, on the other hand, think it's OK to stack the deck in order for you to dictate to us.
Your political future is on its last legs so do us a favor and for once in your life, REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU!

Posted by: TexRancher | August 17, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Read the headline... then ask... What part of the U S does Specter represent?

Let us review.

We will create a permanent underclass of cheap labor with government mandated and controlled inferior health care, education and incredible public dept for the benefit of the worlds wealthy and well connected at the expense of the productive and post productive middle class U S citizens.

Gosh, golly what happened to the idea behind Democracy, Meritocracy.

It's 2009... Congress and administration do you know where your morals are??

Posted by: DrMysterious | August 17, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Hatch must be suffering from the beginnings of dementia. Senior citizens are covered by Medicare, a government run health care plan. Under Health Care Reform, they'll still be covered by Medicare. Medicare doesn't "ration" health care for senior citizens now ... what on earth would make him think this government-run program would "ration" it after health care reform is passed? There must be something goofy in the koolaid the GOP has been drinking.

Posted by: Rockblot | August 17, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I think maybe Sen Specter is splitting metaphorical hairs... yet can't be sure.

".....but I think we have to bear in mind that, although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they're not really representative of America."

For, as I read the Preamble to the Constitution of the US,
it is written that it is 'We The 'People', in order to form a more perfect Union'......
Not 'Us The Federal Govt' in order to form a more perfect Union.....

So my question is;
If an American citizen speaks out in a public forum in difference to an American political issue, then by the logic of our Founding Fathers, Constitution, and Republic, aren't they, the individual, representing America?

Posted by: icono1 | August 17, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

To oldbluesmith and anyone else who wants the truth -- it is not the SALK vaccine (shots) that has live, attenuated polio virus in it. It is the oral SABIN vaccine that does. Salk vaccine uses virus particles that have been killed. Sabin was older, more established in the medical community, and because Salk was younger and unknown, Sanin's vaccine was the one most of us took (in sugar cubes distributed in a campaign called "Sabin on Sundays") during the late 50's and early 60's. Kids can get polio from live virus - especially if their immune systems are poor. It has happened recently in Africa, much to the dismay of those who would like to wipe the scourge of polio off the map.
And, one other thing - if there had been the kind of evidence-based data available that has been proposed as part of current healthcare reform - the info folks are screaming bloody murder about, claiming it will reduce medical options - Salk's vaccine would have been the ONLY one offered, as it is safer.

Posted by: lynncjaeger1 | August 17, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Comments in this site represents the dumbing down of America's educational systems.

I/we did the right things, worked hard, paid taxes etc. etc. etc.

What is not stated is that YOU HAD A RUNNING START!!! Mechanism of farms sent millions of illiterate people to urban areas where they did domestic and menial work at near slave wages, no insurance paid for or by their employers. dilapidated one room schools, used books from the white school across town, Jim Crow Laws to perpetuate supremacy, good paying jobs denied Blacks, still no insurance, unions denied membership to Blacks, no work, no good paying jobs to pay taxes!

It took a Civil Right's Protest to right education and jobs to the poor.

Then there are the screams about adherence to the constitution!!! The Constitution was written by slave owners could not see the wrong in using humans to build this country with free labor and you want to use them as proxy without change inorder to remain in a time frame of your comfort with state's rights.

The loud din is from selfish screams wanting to maintain the status quo while 45,000,000 Americans are in need of seeing a doctor to diagnose their health. They have paid their medical bills and congress should help them based on their previous work.

Many of these people will have grieving families because there was no early diagnosis, and you don't give a damn.

Posted by: 1strombone | August 17, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

1765 T. HUTCHINSON 'Hist. Mass.' I. iii. 381 A long declaration was read from the balcony..of the town-house.

Posted by: edtroyhampton | August 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has this drill down cold: use apocalyptic rhetoric that inspires fear, bigotry and extremism among the uneducated and intolerant. Keep turning up the heat and act surprised when somebody finally heeds your calls for extreme action. Be sure to say you were only speaking figuratively and you are being unfairly blamed when violence occurs. Keep your celebrations behind closed doors.

Posted by: bpai_99 | August 17, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

When the opposition are demons, it's difficult not to demonize them. Obama's mistake is that he refuses to call demons out, but I will.

Posted by: matthewjblack | August 17, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The America's Affordable Health Care Choices act of 2009, HR3200, will pass in the Senate by a vote of something like 55 - 43. (Unless Kennedy and Byrd are able to vote). No more than 2 or 3 Republican senators will vote for the bill. At this point, the White House and Democratic leaders are negotiating against themselves.
The public option will be in the final bill, and any Repbulican senator that votes for the bill will be targeted by GOP for a contested primary election.

Posted by: sweil1 | August 17, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

The working Americans in this country just recently raised there heads up from their tasks during the last election and looked around to find their leaders had been endorsing fools, liars and puppets as heads of state to be voted into office, assigned idiots, greedy accountants and general morons for running the corporations, assigned thieves, crooks and criminals in charge of the banks and financial institutions.

The true Americans just want to know who they are paying to watch out for their well being in Congress? When their answer was, “nobody, because we were taking care of our self”, you may just say the citizens went berserk. And what you are now hearing is just a loud “WHY?” And it is just started.

The liberal Congress has only one chance to set things straight and it needs to be done very quickly to avoid more severe protest and demonstrations. The “Spectors of the Senate” have yet to hear the roar from the people and it will be deafening!

I have also been reading a great deal lately on the evils of the Federal Reserve System and the problems with allowing private banks the opportunity to continue to print money at will when the U.S, Congress is granted the authority not only to issue money but providing interest free loans to the citizens of the United States.

Who are the corrupt members of Congress, Judges and Senators really working for?

Posted by: longbow65 | August 17, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

As I understand it, Obama promised us a way forward to insure "pre-existing condition" folks, and advocated people all having to have insurance to get treated for medical conditions or emergencies, much like you have to have auto-liability insurance to drive a car. He said he thought the public option was the best way to insure that the insurance industry could survive and prosper (including the public funded sector.) I think he's on schedule, pretty much. One more thing....Anybody who thinks care is not rationed now is either brain-dead or has no experience as the responsible party for a person in declining years of their life. For that matter, they probably have no extensive experience with using health-care insurance at all, at any age. Care is rationed every time a insurer pre-approves (or doesn't pre-approve) a surgery. Whew! Reading all these comments, I just had to say all that. I am for this reform business because in two years I am faced with having to find health care with lousy options available to me. It isn't part of my retirement package. I'm responsible for my own retirement, health care and all. I've saved money like nobody's business. Problem is, I have asthma, and have had a heart attack. I exercise, eat a low-fat diet, and just have bad genes. I'm looking into spiritual healing right now, What do you think - good idea? Actually, I will probably go to the ER on your dollar if I ever have another heart attack, and the Obama plan doesn't happen. Does that sound like a good plan???

Posted by: olmamma | August 17, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Senator Spector is correct: The primary ignorance of these people is in their perception of the government being an amorphous something other than them. We The People is not part of their perception and then the idea that if the people, through their representatives choose something it becomes Socialistic. Not so and perhaps they would not find support in the meaning of Republic. A public Option for health care would not change the definition. From Merriam Webster on line.
"Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

Posted by: MIMPOSSIBL | August 18, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

We The People endure this more and more, legislators catering to the special interests with money to spend on them instead of representing We The People. I would like to think that if I was elected to his office I would NEVER EVER hold a confidential meeting. If you gotta tell a secret, you shouldn't be.

I think the answer is make it a misdameanor not to vote. But then what that heck, the Republicans and the Democrats even control who we vote for. They will do as they always have, give us two evils to pick from!!!!

Posted by: flylow95 | August 18, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I would call Hatch a salamander, but that would be denigrating lizards.

Posted by: marytru | August 18, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Those who scream "who's going to pay for this?' either conveniently forget, or are ill-informed. You are already paying for this to the tune of 16% of GDP, and rising at double the rate of inlfation. How can you not understand that Americans are already spending twice as much as countries with universal care and getting far less for their money? Your heads are so far buried in the sand you're about to reach Shanghai. Stop taking your nasty pills for a few days and try to look objectively at a very serious problem that MUST be addressed before it bankrupts the economy. What is most disturbing about the "antis" is their venomous, nasty, mean-spirited attitude. How can you harbor so much hatred for people you don't even know? How can you be so sure that people caught in the health care bind are fat, lazy, stupid, parasitic, non-contributors to the welfare of society? And what will be your cry if you should suddenly contract a disease that will take you beyond the limits of your coverage, and the insurance company will no longer pay?

Posted by: RYBice | August 18, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Hatch and Specter.. Two good ones together. America didn't get so screwed up because these two were doing their jobs. Instead we have big business tycoons and quick tongues like Gingrich and Delay running the show. while all the so called experience is fraternizing with big business and lobbyist letting corporate America go wild. The reason Specter was taking so much heat was because his brain doesn't work at a quarterbacks speed. Barney Frank laid it out on the Tom Hartman show yesterday. Medicare is run by the government right now. It is a single payer plan. Its going to run out of money in the next 7 or 8 years if the out of control cost aren't confined. The V.A. is already a socialist health care system which treats the veterans. Obama on C-Span explained how the government option would regulate cost. This is all Specter needed to say to get the discussion rolling. There's a new democrat on the ballet in Pa. I would like to be the first to say thank you and good bye to Specter.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | August 21, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company