Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: GlennKesslerWP  |  Contact: factchecker@washpost.com  |  RSS
Posted at 7:40 PM ET, 02/ 2/2011

McConnell's claims of wide backing for health-care repeal

By Glenn Kessler

"The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea. That it should be repealed and replaced. The courts say so. The American people say so. Job creators say so."
--Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Feb. 2, 2011

The Republican leader in the Senate on Wednesday pressed his party's case for repeal of the new health-care law, arguing that the courts, "the American people," and "job creators" are demanding repeal. His cadence is excellent. How valid are his claims?

The Facts

Let's take each of these assertions in order.

There have been four lower-court rulings on the health-care law. Two courts upheld it, saying it was constitutional. One court in Virginia said the individual mandate was unconstitutional but did not strike down the rest of the law. And finally, a court in Florida this week said the entire law was unconstitutional. Since McConnell is asking for a repeal of the entire bill, that would mean only one court out of four supports his position.

In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless. (For the record, there are nearly 700 U.S. district court judges.) Not a single appeals court has ruled on the issue. The only ruling that matters in the end will be the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is noteworthy that on the same day McConnell claimed backing by the "courts," elsewhere on Capitol Hill a distinguished Republican attorney--Charles Fried, solicitor general for Ronald Reagan--said the individual mandate in the health care law was constitutional.

As for the American people, polls show a decided mixed verdict on the law -- and an equally mixed verdict on repeal. The latest Washington Post-ABC poll shows that 45 percent of those polled support the law and 50 percent oppose it, numbers that have been largely unchanged since August 2009.

Depending on how the question is asked, support is actually low for a full repeal of the law. While McConnell could claim that a slim majority does not like the law, he cannot assert he has much backing for a full repeal, according to the Post-ABC poll. Only 18 percent of those polled supported full repeal; another 19 percent would back a partial repeal. That means 62 percent prefer to keep the law in place and see how it turns out.

In fact, even among Republicans -- who overwhelmingly oppose the law -- only 34 percent want to see a full repeal. These results were echoed by a recent Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey, which found that "28 percent want to expand the law, 19 percent leave it as is, 23 percent repeal it and replace it with a Republican-sponsored alternative, and 20 percent repeal it and not replace it."

A McConnell spokesman discounted the Post's poll as convoluted because it asked opponents whether they want to repeal all or some of the law. He pointed to several other reputable polls, which he said asked more straightforward questions: CNN (50-46 in favor of repeal), Quinnipiac (48-43 percent in favor of repeal), Gallup (46 percent to 40 percent.)

Washington Post poll guru Jon Cohen says that there is "no one way to ask the question" but that "a straight question on health care -- whether it's about the bill or repeal -- gets a roughly divided response" and thus there is "little room to claim mandate on either side." McConnell clearly can cite poll data indicating a slim margin in favor of repeal, but the fine-grained polls suggest the picture is not as clear-cut as Republicans claim.

Regarding "job creators," the McConnell spokesman said McConnell was referring to these organizations: the Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc., International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is worth noting that none of these organizations supported the legislation in the first place and all actively fought against it. Still, McConnell can claim they back repeal.

Factcheck.org last month wrote a lengthy analysis dissecting the various GOP claims that the health care legislation kills jobs. They concluded Republicans misrepresent the studies they claim as the source for their charge that the law will cost jobs. No one knows for sure, of course, but most nonpartisan experts surveyed think the gain in health care and insurance industries would make up any decline elsewhere.

The Pinocchio Test

McConnell can certainly make a case for his statement, but some of his arguments are debatable. The line on "the courts" is a clear stretch: The score, at best, is 2-2, and none of these rulings mean very much at this point in the process. The line on "the American people" is pushing it as well, since even the polls cited by McConnell's spokesman do not show a clear majority in favor of repeal. More nuanced polls, meanwhile, indicate support for full repeal is limited to a relatively small core of opponents. McConnell can certainly cite a long list of business organizations supporting repeal. The overall effect of his statement suggests greater support for repeal than the data shows, so it just qualifies for one Pinocchio, which, according to our rating scale, constitutes "some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods."

(About our rating scale).

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter @GlennKesslerWP

By Glenn Kessler  | February 2, 2011; 7:40 PM ET
Categories:  1 Pinocchio, Health, Mitch McConnell  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Decoding Obama's statement on Egypt and Mubarak
Next: Three scenarios for the Egyptian end game

Comments

Glanced at the screen and saw the words "McConnell" and "wide" in the same headline. No need for further exploration.

Posted by: SaffronLove | February 2, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

mr. magoo only gets one pinocchio but he lost by a simple majority in the senate -- the only poll that counts. thanks for playing.

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 2, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

mr. magoo only gets one pinocchio but he lost by a simple majority in the senate -- the only poll that counts. thanks for playing.

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 2, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Maybe now McConnell will actually start telling the truth to the American Public instead of making up his own versions of things just to get more campaign money from Special Interests. He is past his prime and should step aside for someone else to Represent us.

Posted by: sumo1 | February 2, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

An old saying but true for McConnell,"We can tell he is lying because his lips are moving."

Posted by: SpotlessCrab | February 2, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

McConnell does not know the difference between his opinion and public opinion. It's not so much that he lies, as that he does not the difference between the truth and his opinion, or even give thought to the concept the two might not coincide. He lives, in other words, in a world of his own imagining. I do not think he lies deliberately; he is merely not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Posted by: samsara15 | February 2, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless."

As soon as you say this, your bias shows.

The rulings are not definitive and they are not final. But, they are very far from being meaningless. Your description of them as meaningless undermines your credibility.

Posted by: rjpal | February 2, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Great article, but alas, rather pointless. Anyone with a brain can read and discover the benefits of the health care bill, while rightwingers don't read, don't wish to be informed of anything but a confirmation of their own prejudices, and squirm like a bug on a pin when confronted with facts.

Posted by: info53 | February 2, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

The real litmus test is for Senators and Reps to deny their own Federal Health Care which allows most of provisions offered under the Healthcare Law. They should deny or give up their coverage and go out into the market place and purchase coverage based upon their existing medical conditions, or their children. For those other Lemmings who parrot the opinions of Rush Limbaugh and company....Do the same, give up your government coverage, or sign a consent to your existing employer that it will be OK to drop your coverage if you become ill....This is the real test....and I betcha none of you will do it, betcha!

Posted by: october30 | February 2, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

rj, pal, what are you taking issue with?

________________________________

"In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless."

As soon as you say this, your bias shows.

The rulings are not definitive and they are not final. But, they are very far from being meaningless. Your description of them as meaningless undermines your credibility.

_________________

actually, rj, pal, the rulings are definitive and are final orders, but appealable. and i think the person meant that their virtual meaninglessness was because they are being appealed and will be superceded. get over yourself.

Posted by: joeblow111 | February 2, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Two federal judges out of 700 or so overturned part or all of the law; two other federal judges (out of the same 700 or so) upheld it in its entirety. The decisions are "final," pending appeal; but certainly not the final word.

"Virtually meaningless" is a good way to summarize it.

Posted by: thrh | February 2, 2011 9:16 PM | Report abuse

The fundamental assumption of your article is flawed. It assumes that McConnell or the GOP are interested in facts. Obviously they are not. But thanks for the clarification. A more interesting piece, perhaps better suited to say, The WP Magazine, would be an indepth interview with McConnell where these facts were presented and then the rube from Kentucky given as much time as needed to elucidate what a fool he is.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | February 2, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

When you state, "The American people [say ObamaCare should be repealed]" one would expect you are talking about at least 70-80% of the people saying that. That's clearly not true, only about 50% - at the most! - want it repealed.

However, I'm sure McConnell fully believes all Americans want it repealed because the right today doesn't acknowledge that people who disagree with them are even Americans. We're anti-American, enemies. And that's why so many of us despise them.

Posted by: Trakker | February 2, 2011 10:23 PM | Report abuse

The right wing blogs rub themselves (and their rabid readers) silly with the false chant that "the American people are against this law". What they never do - because they know the answer - is speak deeper into that data. The majority of the public either likes the law as is, or wanted the government to go FURTHER into taking over health care.

The bad news is against the GOP. And it's bound to get more fun when their "hair apparent" Mitt Romney starts his run for president on his MassCare record.

Posted by: B2O2 | February 2, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Facts?
Obama care was thrown together by partisan leftists. Democrats then had to go behind Locked doors with bribes, sweetheart deals, unconstitutional stuff and corruption to pass a 2000 page plus monstrosity that these crooks didn't ever bother to read before they put their X on it.
NOW, half the states are suing the government over it, the unions who were crying for it, don't want it and at last count there were droves of businesses looking for exemptions from this piece of crap. These are the Facts. F--k Fact Checks and the propagandist WP...

Posted by: thejames1225 | February 2, 2011 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Bundling the cost of health insurance along with the cost of health care and calling it "the cost of healthcare" is a fantastic pitch by those who wish to hide the real cost drivers. As long as they two are lumped together, it will be impossible to determine which one is driving the aggregate.

But with the closing of hospitals and the reduction of reimbursement rates along with the obscene bonuses of health insurance CEOs and the equally obscene profits of the health insurance companies, one might get a good idea of which one is really driving the cost of care.

Also, it is interesting that the ACA says nothing about care - only about insurance. How about some truth in advertising?

Posted by: mberke | February 2, 2011 10:47 PM | Report abuse

McConnel is a skilled liar. Being a long time Republican Senator, that should be self-evident. You just know that he would have been all for this bill had Bush proposed it, just like he was all for the Medicare bill that Bush passed, and passed with absolutely no funding mechanism whatsoever.

Posted by: kamdog | February 2, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Mitch is playing "kiss-up" to the "tea party". He has a lot of ground to make up with them.

The guy he backed for the other Senate Seat from Kentucky got beat by Rand Paul, the "Tea partys' poster, in the GOP primary.

Paul will be the biggest "screw ball" to ever make it to the United States Senate bar none (and there have been a lot of "screw balls" in the United States Senate)

Posted by: WESHS49 | February 2, 2011 10:56 PM | Report abuse

perhaps folks can have some factual basis for their statements before disregarding the tone and content of the article, either calling the Post a propaganda machine or by calling McConnell a blatant liar on this count?

Neither of those statements are supported by the information or tone of the article. Unless most of you folks haven't bothered to read it.

Posted by: j762 | February 2, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"It is worth noting that none of these organizations [The Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc., International Foodservice Distributors Association, International nchise Association, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce] supported the legislation in the first place and actively fought against it."

In life, fights that are lost are lost; no one gets to re-fight those. Ask almost any gambler who leaves a casino or any politician after an election defeat. [You may go back to the casino with new money or to the electorate in the next election, but what you lost remains lost.]

The organizations cited above and their lobbyists are so used to bulldozing their way past ordinary people and their representatives that they feel entitled to the special privilege of re-fighting battles lost.

Posted by: hollywoodog | February 2, 2011 11:56 PM | Report abuse

@ rjpal

how does the comment about the court decisions being meaningless show bias?

2 went one way, 2 went the other... 2 unconstitutional, 2 constitutions.

Fundamentally, that shows absolutely 0 bias.

Posted by: mjterp | February 3, 2011 12:09 AM | Report abuse

"In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless."

Rather more accurate would be to state that the rulings appear to cancel each other out, even apart from the fact that one of judges declaring part unconstitutional has a financial interest in a pro-Republican organization.

On a side note, OpenSecrets.org reports that Senator McConnell's household has a net worth of up to $32,756,000 and that he is the 12th richest Senator.

According to the Census Bureau, the 2008 median household income for Kentucky was $41,489, about $10K less than the median income of the country as a whole, and 17.3% of the population, or about 1/3 more than for America as a whole, lived below the poverty level. There are about 874,000 Kentuckians over age 5 with a disability.

I can't speak for the whole country, of course (though of course neither can Mitch McConnell). But I don't know why he is so convinced that his notional constituents in Kentucky, as opposed to his actual constituents in big business, really feel that people of modest or negligible means and people with pre-existing conditions don't want to have meaningful access to health care.

Posted by: edallan | February 3, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Hey McConnell! ...Sooo ....Where's the replacement bill you and Boehner promised??

Posted by: knjincvc | February 3, 2011 12:31 AM | Report abuse

The polls are phony. None of them really poll opinion accurately because the questions are based on misleading assumptions. For example, how many of those polled know what is in the bill? What the polls do is measure the effectiveness of propaganda.

Here's what they don't ask: Are you in favor of health care for all Americans? Do you understand what "single payer" health care is?" Do you favor single payer health care? Are you in favor of insurance companies extracting huge profits from health care insurance while contributing nothing to the over all health care of the country?

Its all in the question.

Posted by: boog1 | February 3, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

You report Republican leader McConnell's claim of wide support for repeal of the AACA rates One (1) Pinocchio, and, significantly, that Democratic leader Harry Reid's story about the AACA having saved $4 Billion rates three (3) Pinocchio’s. That’s a pretty good “do it yourself editorial” on the lack of veracity of the statements made about the AACA, the merits of the debate over its passage and the efforts to repeal it, and politics under both political parties and their leadership.
Then people wonder why we citizens don’t believe much, if anything, that practically all politicians of either party tell us about the AACA, the content of which most of Congress and everybody else were intentionally concealed and we were told that we had to pass the law so we could find out what was in it, or anything else.
The unpleasant fact cited by a prior poster is that, even before the AACA, "Obamacare," really gets going, there has been at least $50 Billion a year in fraud and gross waste in federal Medicare, SSI, and federal-state Medicaid since they started in 1965, under administrations of both parties. Now even the supporters say they have to cut huge chunks out of Medicare, particularly to be taken from those of us who live outside the big cities that went heavily for Obama, to make this work.
I grew up around dealings with various federal agencies and programs back to the old War Assets Administration and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, etc., as a child. In my law practice, I worked for and later represented one of the bag-men first for a Democratic and hen for a Republican Presidential candidate, who then ran himself. After I found out he lied to and stole from me, too, and dropped him, and after he was no longer useful to either party or their respective crooks, he was convicted of money laundering for another client. About the same time, I represented a Congressional aide in a staff salary kickback case, one of the noteworthy features of which was that the Administrative Assistant had conned the entire staff he hired, some of whom had worked for the Congressman’s predecessor from the other party and others of both parties, that it was standard procedure for the district staff to kick back half their substantial salaries to provide funds to run the office. Now think. Where else could you sell that story. One doesn’t have to look beyond the liberal Washington Post to read about how the supposedly blind trusts of Members of Congress consistently out-perform the job the best money managers do for other clients. That practically screams of misuse of inside information, bribery, and corruption.


Posted by: peterschamberlain | February 3, 2011 1:38 AM | Report abuse

If the Senate minority leader's doughy cheeks and thin lips are moving, he is telling a lie. Republicans have spent two full years obstructing and misrepresenting President Obama's modest and reasonable agenda--and not in health care reform alone.
In all likelihood, their souls have been removed in order to create more space in their zombie bodies for venality and mendacity--not to mention stupidity.

Posted by: woodmack | February 3, 2011 3:14 AM | Report abuse

from tp: the government requiring people to make a purchase:

Congress passed and Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792, which provided for universal military training to be conducted at the state level.

Some key provisions:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

...

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

Posted by: scientist1 | February 3, 2011 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone seem a Republican alternative to the healthcare problem? They could not find a solution in the twelve years since the Clinton Plan. They do not have one today. They just opppose hardworking people. Sadistic people,the Republicans. The enjoy seeing the sick suffer. Let's say they give up their healthcare. That would cut government spending, too.

Posted by: imaldridge | February 3, 2011 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Judge ruling against health law, cites Obama’s own words:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”

Posted by: fury60 | February 3, 2011 5:37 AM | Report abuse

What many are neglecting to consider is the psychotic break most conservatives are suffering from that has them convinced that the only Americans are conservatives Americans. Everyone else is an illegal of some flavor.

Posted by: washpost18 | February 3, 2011 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Judge ruling against health law, cites Obama’s own words:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”

Posted by: fury60

Interesting. So the judge is claiming that Obama's statment in 2008 has some Constitutional relevance? Very interesting.

It's even irrelevant in the crafting of the law. Obama was pretty much hands off with the drafting of the law. [And I say that as a criticism of the White House.] It was Reid that should get the credit for writing this Bill.

Obama, like most Americans wanted a single payer system. But there weren't enough votes to get past a filibuster. [Note that the GOP departed from their notion of an up or down vote on legislation]. Sen Lieberman was the obstacle on that, ignoring the will of the people in CT who clearly wanted a single payer system. From the playbook of Ronald Reagan.

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it. - Ronald Reagan


Posted by: James10 | February 3, 2011 6:31 AM | Report abuse

fury60 wrote: Judge ruling against health law, cites Obama’s own words:
_______________________

Obama's words reflect what he supported during the campaign. They have nothing to do with whether or not something is or is not constitutional. Interestingly enough when Hillary was standing strong on mandating coverage, no one claimed it was unconstitutional. The fact that he compromised to get health insurance coverage for many more Americans, has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the act. Citing those words only makes the judge look stupid. He should be citing the constitution and previous cases to justify his opinion.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | February 3, 2011 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Two federal judges out of 700 or so overturned part or all of the law; two other federal judges (out of the same 700 or so) upheld it in its entirety. The decisions are "final," pending appeal; but certainly not the final word.

"Virtually meaningless" is a good way to summarize it.

Posted by: thrh | February 3, 2011 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics.

republicons HAVE to lie because reality has a well known liberal bias.

Posted by: John1263 | February 3, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Enter “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. 1798

I encourage you to read the law as, in those days, legislation was short, to the point and fairly easy to understand.

The law did a number of fascinating things.

First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

This is pretty much how it works today in the European nations that conduct socialized medical programs for its citizens – although 1% of wages doesn’t quite cut it any longer.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services. Upon passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the first payroll tax in our nation’s history.

The precendent has been set, GOP read it and weep

Posted by: tommic856 | February 3, 2011 7:21 AM | Report abuse

As usual, our passions inflame our rhetoric. That will always be true. Even so, it seems clear enough that there is genuine ambivalence among the electorate about the merits of the law. I wonder whether substantive discussion could turn up some broadly acceptable modifications of the law, which we all know is larded with perspectives of legislators who held the whole process hostage to getting what they individually wanted. There's a lot of good stuff here, and a lot of dreck. Can we clean out some of the dreck without losing the good stuff?

Posted by: frodot | February 3, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Only one Pinocchio when not one part of McConnell's statement is verifiably true? Three Pinocchios on this analysis.

Posted by: Jayne | February 3, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

America's November Revolution proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the PEOPLE are demanding an end to Obamacare and the stranglehold the Obamacrats have on their government.

With too many Obamacrats still entrenched in the Senate, it will be necessary to wait until more can be removed before repeal can become reality. 2012 is just around the corner.

Maybe we, the people, will depose Mubarack Hosni Obama at that time too.

America yearns for it's lost freedom just as Egyptians long for freedom they never had.

Posted by: battleground51 | February 3, 2011 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Has the truth ever been relevant within the Republican party? So long as the Republicans can win the daily sound bite game that is what is important to them.

Posted by: GBED989 | February 3, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Republicans play fast and loose with the facts? No! Come on! Really?

Posted by: Lefty_ | February 3, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Most Republicans, all Tea Partiers, and likewise the Fundamentalist Christian Sect of the Party tend to generalize in such polls and statements when the state that all Americans disapprove of the health care bill - which is not true. While my wife and I are more moderate Democrats, professional occupation wise, and middle class Americans if that category still exists, wholeheartedly support the entire Healthcare Bill. It is long overdue - since the late 40's I believe when Truman and then Eisenhower tried to bring about such a bill. But no then as now the big health care companies, medical insurers, etc. stepped in and said no as this would reduce their profit margins and thus lower the amounts paid either to stockholders or owners. All the while Americans of all ages went w/o healthcare coverage, meds and treatments, when denied coverage. We are a greedy population when we can turn our heads becoming oblivious of a suffering cancer victim, or one with Alzheimer's, or one in need of a heart surgery to ensure that a stockholder gets his or her profit, or a profit margin is high. Is all it takes is to lose the job as millions have done these past few years when Bush/Cheney started their war and allowed wall street to make their billions, when w/o the job their is no health insurance for any family member and thus no way to pay for tx, procedures, meds, or care - so then we just sit back and either make our monies or die! No, we vote for the health care bill in it's entirety!

Posted by: davidmswyahoocom | February 3, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

The bill is not constitutional period.
I don't care what argument you use it just isn't. The problems with this bill are abundant. I. E. all the waivers prove that point.
Guess you want to force us to by Chevy Volts or pay a tax?
I need affordable health care and our Government does everything it possibly can do to raise costs and people here blame an industry that profits about 2%.
No inter state competition amongst insurance companies.
No boutique policies like catastrophic care insurance that is affordable.
Also, have you seen the wild claims about the number of uninsured? 20 mill, 30 mill, 40 mill or is the 70 mill figure. People are lying to you.
Most uninsured are 18-30 and feel no need for insurance at the moment, illegals because the know our ER's will treat them for free and people like me. Can't afford it because I am self employed and by the time I pay taxes and my State and local fees and every other charge I pay to these good intentioned fools I can't afford it.
Yea guys it's the evil doctors and nurses that want their yearly raises. and those evil insurance companies whose business is regulated and run by our Government that are the bad guys, right?
People will die under Government run health care. Because the Government will have to lower Doctor's earnings and nurses earnings and building services earnings to get the cost down.
You Post bloggers can't steal enough from rich people to pay for this gigantic expenditure.
But yet you fools don't read the article and just slam McConnell cause OMG he's a Repub. Sad state of affairs and most of you Post bloggers are college graduates.

Posted by: joeortega4 | February 3, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Your a few Pinocchios short.

The only necessary statistic is that only about a third of McConnell's own Republicans back full repeal.

That figure destroys McConnell's outlandishly inflated claims of backing.

Repealers don't even make up a plurality of his own party.

Add to that the fact that just one judge out of four has ruled for full repeal.

With that, it is clear McConnell's quote (apparently on worthy of one Pinnochio) is a Potemkin Village of exaggeration and distortion.

Three Pinocchio's at least.

Posted by: EgoNemo | February 3, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

McConnell is a republican, so of course he lies and misrepresents the truth. It is what they do and who they are.

Posted by: jmellis1 | February 3, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Mitchell's sole agenda is to give the Koch Machine what it wants.

David H. and Charles de Ganahl Koch have strayed of the reservation, and Mitch needs to suck up to them by accommodating them in any way possible. Otherswise, more rational "R" Senators will be replaced by the loons they tried to elect last November.

Posted by: fsmith3 | February 3, 2011 8:52 AM | Report abuse

It appears that McConnell got it right.

Most Americans don't like major portions of Obamacare.

What we needed was someone to look at the cost structure. The biggest problem with health care in the U.S. is the cost.

Fix the costs, take out the excessive profits in all sections of health care, and access will be improved.

Failure to address the cost issue, and simple redistribution of health insurance does not provide the fix that we need.

Posted by: postfan1 | February 3, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

You should know that Republicans don't do nuance. Rather they love to find the bluntest instrument possible and beat the opposition over the head.

Posted by: dre7861 | February 3, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

The people that support this health care bill are true lemmings running for the cliff. The bill is designed in such a way that companies will be dumping their employees into the exchanges because the fines are cheaper than the health care costs. Those of you who like your plan now better get sick now, in a few years when the whole thing kicks in there will be rationing, long waits and poor quality care. This is what the left wants, more control over another portion of your life because you really don't know how to take care of yourself in their opinion. The left touts a few good things now but does not tell you about the impacts of the rest of the law. They are the true liars. But when you have a country that is fast approaching 50% not paying taxes and expecting to bilk the other 50% for their "free" benefits it is understandable when the pied piper Obama starts playing his pipe they just follow him along without thinking.

In the end instead of addressing the issues for the 10% who do not have insurance the left has screwed the entire population. But this is always what they do, of course for our own good.

Posted by: Pilot1 | February 3, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

This is all about politics and "beating" Obama. This has nothing to do with anything else. And anyone saying that government is the problem is delusional. Human greed knows no boundaries, and to think that "Wall Street" is going to provide better alternatives to you without some government intervention is absurd. Healthcare prices have gone through roof over the last 15 years and through no fault of the government. People can say what they want, but I'll trust the government any day over some Wall Street mega-corporation.

Posted by: nsu1203 | February 3, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

When will mcconnell's body join his corpse-like face. The man is so stupid but smarter than the fools who vote for it.

Posted by: letemhaveit | February 3, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

A fine subject and attempt at fairness with the final score, but I will nitpick below.

"It is noteworthy that...a distinguished Republican attorney...said the individual mandate in the health care law was constitutional." (ellipses added)

I don't agree that that is noteworthy. The paragraph attempted to refute McConnell's claim about "the courts" and thus should involve a judge, not a lawyer.

"Only 18 percent of those polled supported full repeal; another 19 percent would back a partial repeal. That means 62 percent prefer to keep the law in place and see how it turns out."

The logic for that conclusion is WEAK. A nit on math, 100 minus 18 minus 19 is 63, not 62. But it's unfair to assume, as that math inherently does, that the respondents all had decided opinions. There's always a "not sure/other/undecided" group who could not be fairly characterized as wanting "to keep the law in place."

And the focus on polls was narrow, tilting to the left as I often see in this column.

In polls, consistently fewer people are "for repeal" than "oppose the law". Which set is relevant? I'd say both, but the article focused on the narrow "repeal" bunch, as though to make the sentiment against the law look smaller.

You get the same deal with many other polls. Obama's personal approval rating is generally higher than his overall job approval rating, which is higher than the polled support for his particular position on a key issue of the day. In short, more people have general feelings about a person or an issue than a particular implementation. Fact Checker should know that.

Fact Checker also should have found polls that show the disparity in poll results. For one, Rassmussen recently reported that 58% support repeal and 38% oppose it. That's a solid majority in its own right, saying one in five Americans support repeal IN EXCESS of those who oppose it. It's fair to say that Rasmussen used wording designed to get people off the undecided fence by including lukewarm categories like 'somewhat' supporting/opposing repeal. The fact that 96% of respondents appear decided on the issue implies the undecideds were nudged, as though to goose up the pro-repeal number above 50%. But that poll adds something to the debate that Fact Checker's attempt at breadth overlooked.

Posted by: angrydoug1 | February 3, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

People are attacking the insurance companies which is the only group that is controlling costs in this country. The Obamacare does nothing to control costs and will in the end cost those of us with health insurance even more. People cry about the proffits health insurance companies make but at 4% proffit they are not making the killing you think. I saw this with the price of Gasoline, people screaming about the proffits that Exxon made at $0.05 a gallon completely forgetting that the government(s) are making $0.40 a gallon eight times as much! I would wager that a great deal of the cost of health care is taxes and regulations, at least 30% of it or more. No one is saying anything about that. Government is making more than the anyone else off of healthcare. But no we have to demonize companies that provide a service and put millions out of work so the leeches can have thier so called free health care.

Posted by: Pilot1 | February 3, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Geez, I am shocked that orgs. like Assoc. Builders and Contractors are for the appeal of the health care law. They are the reason we need it since for years they have made their money from paying (often illegal) workers under the table and not having health insurance on none of the workers on their projects. Guess where these workers go for health care for their families-the emergency room where we all end up paying. Absolutely shameless

Posted by: barboak | February 3, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Of course the truth cannot, and will not, stand in the way of the right-wing propaganda. Rupert Murdoch is rubbing his hands as more money fills his pockets and he can give more to the GOP which (0ne happy family).
Of course if you measure he IQ of teabaggers and followers of Trash Limbaugh, or the The Three Stooges of False News, you barely reach the level of a chimp.

Posted by: analyst72 | February 3, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Healthcare costs cannot be contained. You people never address the hundreds of thousands of healthcare professionals that want raises yearly. The support staffs that want raises. Landlords of medical offices that up rental rates 5 % a year. More taxes fees and regulations to comply with. New equipment that saves lives. Cost will go up no matter what you do.
You supposed educated Post readers should be able to figure this out.
Every large Government program is bankrupt. That is the fact check reality.
Read people,there is not enough money in the entire world to cover our debt. If the Government is telling you this won't cost us they are lying.

Posted by: joeortega4 | February 3, 2011 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post / ABC News poll? So now who's going to check the fact checker?

Posted by: hammeresq | February 3, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Every time a Republican pol refers to the rich as "job creators," his nose should grow by about a foot. I'm sure they hire a few gardeners, chauffeurs, and caddies, but those are not the kind of jobs we need.

Posted by: fishellb | February 3, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Whats funny is when someone describes another poster as 'partisan', 'liberal' or 'leftist'.

Look in the mirror, if you are calling some 'leftist' or liberal; you are yourself partisan. And using 'partisan' to describe someone in a negative context while being a partisan yourself is called hypocracy.

Look up the meaning of words, don't just parrot them.

Posted by: priceisright | February 3, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

This is the problem with America, too many parrots not enough independant thinkers.... If we're not careful we will stubble down the road to being an Idiocracy.

Posted by: priceisright | February 3, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

If a person can make a good faith claim to his facts, that is the end of the "fact check." That you think it is a strech is an opinion check. If you want to do an opinion check, do one - but don't call it a fact check. Too often, as in this case, the facts are supportable but the "fact checker" just disagrees because he thinks it is a stretch.

Posted by: Ashland | February 3, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless."

As soon as you say this, your bias shows.

The rulings are not definitive and they are not final. But, they are very far from being meaningless. Your description of them as meaningless undermines your credibility.

_____________
I disagree. They make a statement, and in this case a political one, but they are meaningless in the long run as 4 states have now ruled in varying measure and the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter over its constitutionality.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 3, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Facts?
Obama care was thrown together by partisan leftists. Democrats then had to go behind Locked doors with bribes, sweetheart deals, unconstitutional stuff and corruption to pass a 2000 page plus monstrosity that these crooks didn't ever bother to read before they put their X on it.
NOW, half the states are suing the government over it, the unions who were crying for it, don't want it and at last count there were droves of businesses looking for exemptions from this piece of crap. These are the Facts. F--k Fact Checks and the propagandist WP...

________________
Assuming that everything you say is true, your statement behaves as though this is the sole purview of Democrats. It is not. Perhaps you should check your facts before you make such sweeping and self righteous statements.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 3, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse

McConnell is meaningless. I don't want the law repealed. I want a public option added. And let the politicians then have to choose their own care.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | February 3, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Glenn---I guess you missed the election last fall. The American people voted against this bill.

Posted by: sportsfan2 | February 3, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Whats funny is when someone describes another poster as 'partisan', 'liberal' or 'leftist'.
Look in the mirror, if you are calling some 'leftist' or liberal; you are yourself partisan. And using 'partisan' to describe someone in a negative context while being a partisan yourself is called hypocracy.
Look up the meaning of words, don't just parrot them.
Posted by: priceisright
---------------------------

PriceisRight: You are quite mistaken.
I freely admit to being "partisan" -- that is, I wholly associate myself to people of like mind and belief. When I call you partisan, I am not being hypocritical. When I call you a Leftist, it is an accurate description of your political partisan view (based solely on the comments I have read about you).

Concerning looking up words in the dictionary, let me save you some time: it's hypocrisy, not "hypocracy".

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

the worst thing about this story is the over reliance on polls. one poster said, using a poll, that 1 in 5 Americans want repeal. No, one in 1,008 Americans, or whatever the number is of poll respondents want this repealled. and how do these respondents identify themselves politically? a great example of this was a poll on Good Friday last year that wapo reported on. at the end of the story was the breakdown. Of 1,008 respondents on the poll about HCR, 93% were white, and 74% were conservative. Hardly a valid representation of the 132,000,000 voters. How ridiculous was it when that poll of 554 people about whether Obama is a Muslim came out and went global? 1 in 5 Americans donot think Obama is a Muslim, 1 in 5 of 554 Americans think that. But didn't you all look ridiculous and bigoted in the World's view because of the exaggeration of the poll results. Like Howie Kurtz and Matt Lauer saying 70% of Arizonians support the anti-immigration law. No, it was 70% of the 1,244 respondents felt that way. It is astounding to me how some of you people use polls like they are written in stone. FACT: Gallup used the same sample size in 1936, when there were millions upon millions of less voters. State all the supposed " science" of polling that you want, for me logic dictates that 554 people do not accurately reflect the views of 132,000,000 voters.

Posted by: katem1 | February 3, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Ao a couple of notoriously incompetent Bush appointees as judges voted against the health care bill. The problem is that he also appointed some of those incompetents to the Supreme Court and one or two who are competent but just evil.

Posted by: withersb | February 3, 2011 10:27 AM | Report abuse

sassafrasnewport: If you have to use foul language to make you point, then either your argument is weak or you are insecure in making it. Sound logic and argumentation does not require epithets or crudity.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Just a gentle reminder that all the major elements of the healthcare bill were originally suggestd by Republicans.

Posted by: Jihm | February 3, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Ao a couple of notoriously incompetent Bush appointees as judges voted against the health care bill. The problem is that he also appointed some of those incompetents to the Supreme Court and one or two who are competent but just evil.
Posted by: withersb
-----------------------------------

Do you have evidence of their incompetance, or is it merely that they came to decisions that your little pin head disagrees with?

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Can you imagine living in a state where people are so ignorant that Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul are the senators?,if I wasn't so old I'd move.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | February 3, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Hmph!

Not only are the businesses mentioned not even businesses, but Associations, and also they MIGHT hire 2-3 people a year.

Big whoopety-doo-dah!

McConnell is a LIAR.

Posted by: taroya | February 3, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Just a gentle reminder that all the major elements of the healthcare bill were originally suggestd by Republicans.
Posted by: Jihm
-----------------------------------

And Dynamite was originally invented by Nobel for industrial and peaceful purposes.

What's your point?

The Leftists took a few good ideas and turned them into a 2000 page weapon of mass economic destruction. It was unconstitutional then; it's unconstitutional now; it was undemocratic in the way it was passed.

It needs to be scrapped, and means created from scratch to amend the original healthcare process, starting with cutting out the lawyer vultures with tort reform.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

McConnell hasn't a clue what the little guy in his home state wants. McConnell is all about McConnell.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 3, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Can you imagine living in a state where people are so ignorant that Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul are the senators?,if I wasn't so old I'd move.
Posted by: LDTRPT25
--------------------------------

It's almost as amazing as living in places that vote for people like Nazi Pelosi, Madame Barney Frank and "Swiftboat" Kerry (the traitor). And let's not even get started with Marion "Crackhead" Barry.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The Frogface Senator from Kentucky would not know a fact if he tripped over it.

Posted by: wrw01011 | February 3, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

McConnell is correct:
If a majority of Americans want it repealed, then Americans want it repealed.

The last elections were all about the ObamaCare power grab; the people have spoken loudly and clearly.

Business associations represent (duh) businesses.

The only place where anyone could take issue is with the court findings; but that can be read either way. It is nothing for a court to uphold a law; that happens all the time. But if even one court strikes a law, that is significant.

Therefore, this whole article is a partisan comPost pile.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Once again, the party that gains power in the last election misunderstands the meaning of that election. I personally believe that most voters really want our elected officials to work together and actually provide solutions to the problems we face - solutions that make the bases of both parties fume, but work for the majority of us.

Posted by: damascuspride04 | February 3, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Whats funny is when someone describes another poster as 'partisan', 'liberal' or 'leftist'.
Look in the mirror, if you are calling some 'leftist' or liberal; you are yourself partisan. And using 'partisan' to describe someone in a negative context while being a partisan yourself is called hypocracy.
Look up the meaning of words, don't just parrot them.
Posted by: priceisright
---------------------------

PriceisRight: You are quite mistaken.
I freely admit to being "partisan" -- that is, I wholly associate myself to people of like mind and belief. When I call you partisan, I am not being hypocritical. When I call you a Leftist, it is an accurate description of your political partisan view (based solely on the comments I have read about you).

Concerning looking up words in the dictionary, let me save you some time: it's hypocrisy, not "hypocracy".

Posted by: ScottinVA
=========================================
Hey you are not describing me chief. I'm not a leftist nor a liberal. I don't 'wholly' associate myself with like minded people, I associate with people. Different opinions and experiences enhance life and experiences.

If you don't deny being partisan, why do you speak as if being a partisan is a bad thing? Or is it that if you have a 'left leaning' position then partisan has negative connotation?
It was a general observation that seemed to irrate you like sand in your vagina.
You might say 'I don't have a vagina' to which I would reply, based solely on the comments I have read about you, you do...

Posted by: priceisright | February 3, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

McConnell is correct:
If a majority of Americans want it repealed, then Americans want it repealed.

The last elections were all about the ObamaCare power grab; the people have spoken loudly and clearly.

Business associations represent (duh) businesses.

The only place where anyone could take issue is with the court findings; but that can be read either way. It is nothing for a court to uphold a law; that happens all the time. But if even one court strikes a law, that is significant.

Therefore, this whole article is a partisan comPost pile.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM
_______________
Wrong again. Last year's elections was about J-O-B-S.

And there is no clear majority if the polls are to be believed. Depending on the question asked, it would seem that most want further debate and clarification. Only 18% of the same poll numbers want full repeal. That is by no means a majority.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 3, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

sassafrasnewport: If you have to use foul language to make you point, then either your argument is weak or you are insecure in making it. Sound logic and argumentation does not require epithets or crudity.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:28 AM | Report abuse

_______________
And what foul language did I use?

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 3, 2011 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Honestly- can we stick to the facts and be very clear - there is NO right or WRONG on predictions... they are just that PREDICTIONS!

Ok so how good is the "crystal ball" the person who is making the prediction, meaning - credibility. That would pretty out take out all politicians and the CBO (who has failed miserably at budgeting)

SO until we recognize the facts, the possiblities and are clear which is which... we do not even have a discussion.

So this entire article is AN OPINION - a very slighted, misguided and uninformed OPINION... with opinions you have to consider the source... and you can always tell by how one "defends" oneself on how knowledgeable one is.. as soon as you have to put down the opposing view FIRST... you no longer have a case....

Garbage in - garbage out... just like the CBO....

Posted by: suze1014 | February 3, 2011 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Where are the facts? I thought this was a fact checker??? still trying to verify opinions with opinions...

Want hard data, you need some better resources Mr Kessler.

Posted by: suze1014 | February 3, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The fact checking results are about as expected. The issue as I see it is that for legislation as far reaching and with the social impact of the health care law, there should be a consensus, not a bare majority and sometimes if looks as if there is not even that. I have thought from the start that there are significant actions needed to improve the health care conditions and reduce costs, but I support repeal because we need something better than what we got.

Posted by: BobThompson | February 3, 2011 11:12 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that the four United States district judges who have ruled on the new law would find Kessler's "objectivity" as "totally meaningless" as he finds their opinions. what an arrogant twit!

Posted by: miglefitz | February 3, 2011 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The fact checking results are about as expected. The issue as I see it is that for legislation as far reaching and with the social impact of the health care law, there should be a consensus, not a bare majority and sometimes if looks as if there is not even that. I have thought from the start that there are significant actions needed to improve the health care conditions and reduce costs, but I support repeal because we need something better than what we got.

Posted by: BobThompson | February 3, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I am dismayed that fear tactics are still being used to inveigh against legislation that still has not been fully implemented. The "Job creators" who support full repeal of the Health Care Act are doing so because it is a huge uncertainty for their constituents. The insurance companies are against it because it tries to ensure accountability in their plans and practices - no more denial of coverage once a "pre-existing condition" is discovered. All of this fear is based on lack of knowledge, which is expressed in the form of opinion by those who fear change in any form. Personally, as one who benefits from the insurance coverage that I have (GEHA) I am concerned about the changes - particularly cost - that may affect me. BUT, I am more concerned with the huge social cost of covering people invisibly, usually at emergency room cost, because they have no insurance. Everybody pays more because so many are not covered. That is something that really costs jobs. Let's let the Health Care Act have a chance to deal with that, before we condemn it out of hand.

Posted by: PLMAnnapolis | February 3, 2011 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The fact checking results are about as expected. The issue as I see it is that for legislation as far reaching and with the social impact of the health care law, there should be a consensus, not a bare majority and sometimes if looks as if there is not even that. I have thought from the start that there are significant actions needed to improve the health care conditions and reduce costs, but I support repeal because we need something better than what we got.

Posted by: BobThompson | February 3, 2011 11:12 AM
_______________
Most folks would probably agree with the latter part of your last statement. However, until we had this bill on the table, there was nothing to debate at all. At least now, there is something from which to base a conversation. Do you just throw the baby out with the bathwater because you see need for improvement in some aspect? I would think not.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 3, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Too bad this wasn't non-biased.

Posted by: hebe1 | February 3, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Like the good Senator from NY once stated, "Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but "not" his own facts".

Posted by: WhitneyDavid | February 3, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

McConnell holds his office at the behest of the Koch Machine that paid for those Tea Party rallies. He is doing his job, seeing that they pay little or no estate taxes and that their pollution and monopolization can go unchecked.

David H. and Charles de Ganahl Koch claim to be libertarians, but they support for-profit prison corporations that have helped to incarcerate over a million Americans for drug offenses and tens of thousands of harmless immigrants. These cost the taxpayer almost $100 per day.

Posted by: fsmith3 | February 3, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that the four United States district judges who have ruled on the new law would find Kessler's "objectivity" as "totally meaningless" as he finds their opinions. what an arrogant twit!

Posted by: miglefitz | February 3, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I appreciate your unbiased point of view, Fact Checker. Yesterday you quite rightfully got on Harry Reid for totally misrepresenting statistics. Good job.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | February 3, 2011 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts! I would say the best way to mitigate the exaggerations of Mitch McConnell is to stop giving him media coverage. Out of site, out of mind!

Posted by: sunrise2 | February 3, 2011 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"Entrepreneurship Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is worth noting that none of these organizations supported the legislation in the first place and actively fought against it. "
-----------------------------------
Hmmm.

If some organization supported the law and actively fought against it, you'd have to wonder about their sanity, or at least about their command of grammar.

Don't you mean "none of these organizations supported the legislation in the first place and all (or most)actively fought against it."


Posted by: msh41 | February 3, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

You lie!
--
What should have been shouted at McConnell instead of Obama.

Posted by: cmsatown | February 3, 2011 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Republicans live in this bizarro fantasy world in which the majority of people did not vote for Obama, and his election was some sort of trick by illegal aliens, of which Obama is one. They really think that doing things that the majority does not want them to do will get them elected. Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

Posted by: DaveHarris | February 3, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Thanks as always for your efforts to hold politicians accountable for misleading statements. But there seems to be a major disconnect between your analysis and the number of Pinocchios you award McConnell.

Going by your own criteria, which specify that factual errors are not necessary for an award of two Pinocchios, McConnell should have received at least that many. As you document, nearly every one of his claims is either false or highly misleading. Nor is this a slip of the lip, for McConnell has repeatedly made these tendentious claims.

Please don't pull your punches just to avoid GOP criticism that you're harder on Republicans than Democrats!

Posted by: DCSteve1 | February 3, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Here's the REAL bottom line anyway: ASSUMING that McConnell is telling the truth about the "will of the people" in regard to this legislation (perhaps such an assumption forces you to suppress your gag reflex, but suck it up: after all, a stopped clock is right at least twice a day)--he and the GOP have NO INTENTION of offering anything of a real replacement which even comes within light years of insuring tens of millions now uninsured. We all know this because many on the right say so explicitly. They don't think it's either necessary or even desirable. Ask them--they've been screaming this since the HCR debate began months and months ago.

If McConnell is serious about advancing real health care reform, he will show us the replacement legislation (at least in sufficient detail for us to assess it). Don't hold your breath. This ISN'T and HASN'T BEEN about health care reform--it's about preserving the status quo (how is that a good idea?) and protecting the interests of his party and their paymasters.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 3, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

An unsupported assertion does NOT have to be true. The GOP wants the Health Insurance Reform Law repealed (to be replaced with nothing) because and solely because their client, the Health Insurance Industry, otherwise stands to lose significant money. The Law is complicated because the GOP would not agree to implement a National Health Service that is supported by taxes, exceptionally well-managed, and scientifically driven to deliver high quality yet reasonably priced health services to every citizen. Health Insurance Companies could liquidate as far as most Americans are concerned. The Health Insurance Industry's money first, health second attitude is morally corrupt.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | February 3, 2011 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Read your own poll, Mr. Kessler.
From: http://bit.ly/hhvO59

Another factor in the debate is that a quarter of those who oppose the health-care law say the legislation is faulty because it did not go far enough, not because it pushed change too far.

So if you add the number together from The Post’s poll, 45% support the bill, and about 25% of those who opposed it wish it went further, meaning 58%, a sizable majority (a landslide in electoral politics), either like the current healthcare overhaul or wish it would go further, and in all likelihood that means arguably not in the direction the GOP would take it.

Posted by: bob16 | February 3, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Glenn you keep making the same mistake when citing poll opposition to the health care law; which is that of the 50% who are against it there are roughly 35% of that 50% want it to go farther with a public option, not because they are for its repeal. When you account for that only about 1/3 is actually against the health care law's existence.

Posted by: alanwrobel | February 3, 2011 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Mr. kesseler wondering why my fact checked and non name calling post was held up for review? No profanity or libel issues in my post. But many of the others on here.

Posted by: joeortega4 | February 3, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

OWE-BAMA WINS

Glenn, you've been giving more gold-stars to OWEbama's liars for being better LIARS.

That's not being civil or non-partisan, is it?

Life is so unfair ..

/sarcasm off/

Posted by: BHO_ONE_TERM | February 3, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless."

As soon as you say this, your bias shows.

The rulings are not definitive and they are not final. But, they are very far from being meaningless. Your description of them as meaningless undermines your credibility.

Posted by: rjpal
-------
Actually if you bother to deal how lawyers view the lower court ruling, it is by far meaningless because the losing side can always appeal the ruling to the next court which is the appellate court all the way to the final decider which is the Supreme Court. When the SCOTUS make a ruling, it applicable to the rest of the courts.

To give you an example, when Guilani, while as mayor of NYC, took on a photographer who was filming group nudes in the streets of NY argued that the courts backs him up only to have the entire courts, including Justice Scalia who is in charge of the appeals in NY area, ruled against him saying the photographer has that right under the 1st amendment to do this.

Posted by: beeker25 | February 3, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

bye bye Obamacare

Posted by: dummypants | February 3, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Tired of being referred to as "The American people." I'm a US citizen voter, and I certainly don't count myself among the "American people" who oppose universal access to unbiased health care. A healthy citizenry promotes a level playing field for the individual pursuit of happiness.

Posted by: AnnArborGuy | February 3, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Not enough Pinocchios

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | February 3, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

McConnell is correct:
If a majority of Americans want it repealed, then Americans want it repealed.

The last elections were all about the ObamaCare power grab; the people have spoken loudly and clearly.

Business associations represent (duh) businesses.

The only place where anyone could take issue is with the court findings; but that can be read either way. It is nothing for a court to uphold a law; that happens all the time. But if even one court strikes a law, that is significant.

Therefore, this whole article is a partisan comPost pile.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 10:44 AM
_______________
Wrong again. Last year's elections was about J-O-B-S.
And there is no clear majority if the polls are to be believed. Depending on the question asked, it would seem that most want further debate and clarification. Only 18% of the same poll numbers want full repeal. That is by no means a majority.
Posted by: sassafrasnewport
-------------------------------------------

You would like to think so; but nearly every Republican ran on repeal of the ObamaCare power grab.

Yes, they also ran on the LACK of jobs promised by the Community Organizer in Chief.

They promised deficit reduction and limits on bureaucratic oversight, which will spur the economy and create actual jobs -- not the "shovel-ready" fantasy jobs of the previous Congress.

It must be nice to live in whatever drug-induced fantasy you seem to be in.

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Tired of being referred to as "The American people." I'm a US citizen voter, and I certainly don't count myself among the "American people" who oppose universal access to unbiased health care. A healthy citizenry promotes a level playing field for the individual pursuit of happiness.
Posted by: AnnArborGuy
-------------------------------------

Unless you are afraid to be confused with Canadians (a likely scenario for Micheganers), your post is nonsense.

"US citizen voters = American people"

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Oops; type in "Michiganers"

Posted by: ScottinVA | February 3, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

postfan1 wrote:

It appears that McConnell got it right.

Most Americans don't like major portions of Obamacare.

What we needed was someone to look at the cost structure. The biggest problem with health care in the U.S. is the cost.

Fix the costs, take out the excessive profits in all sections of health care, and access will be improved.

Failure to address the cost issue, and simple redistribution of health insurance does not provide the fix that we need.
************************************

Who then, will fix those costs? Isn't that government regulation? Republicans would never consider taking out excessive profits. It would be an anathema.

For that reason, I'd rather have what we have now than nothing. Reforms can always be enacted, but we can't start all over again.

What I can't figure out is why big businesses don't want to pass healthcare onto someone else. Wages have stagnated (or even declined) due to this. Any raise a person gets is generally eaten by increases in health care premiums. HR departments wouldn't have to spend time negotiating contracts. Individuals would do this. (So much for the "personal responsibility" mantra - it suits the GOP to use it part of the time, but not ALL of the time.)

Posted by: MichelleKinPA | February 3, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

You would have more credibility as a fact checker if your had gotten all of your facts correct. Judge Vinson only found the "Individual Mandate" unconstitutional and voided the whole law, because there was no severability clause.

Posted by: slowtriathlete-washingtonpost | February 3, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Since the lower courts have split 2 for, 2 against there is nothing to take from their rulings. In addition, the two rulings against the bill are so different, its hard to combine them. The latest ruling was so clearly political in the extreme, there is no chance it will stand. Its hard to tell how requiring kids up to 24 be covered under their parents insurance is related to the mandate.
Note there have been far more rulings roughly for the Health Care Law, but they were of the form of saying that whoever brought the case had not right to. That is effectively the court equivalent of a punt on 1st down.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | February 3, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats and supporters of the health care act point to the CBO numbers as fact that this will lower health care cost overall. Many years ago, I learned one of the first rules of accounting - garbage in, garbage out. In other words, if the data use to compute the numbers were flaw using assumptions that will happen, the end result will be greatly flawed thereby creating your garbage in, garbage out effects.

Posted by: sales7 | February 3, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I really am tired of hearing McConnell claiming he has exclusive rights to speak for "the American people".

Since when did "the American people" begin lining his pockets with bribes.

And in case he didn't notice, he's not the majority leader of the Senate, either.

And in case Boehner hasn't learned anything since he finally figured out how to distingush the constitution from the declaration of independence (which was only just recently - check out the youtube video from a year ago where he confused the two), Federal election turnouts are a lot bigger than mid-terms. The John Birch Society lunatics and batchit Bachmans might have managed to get their foot in the door with the help of Roger ailes, but their days are, predictably, numbered.

Posted by: jKO2010 | February 3, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse

In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless. (For the record, there are nearly 700 U.S. district court judges.) Not a single appeals court has ruled on the issue. The only ruling that matters in the end will be the judgment of the Supreme Court.

If that's the case ...WHY, is this administration afraid to so straight to the SCOTUS? Could it be that they KNOW they will lose.

Or, is it that they need to drag this out so their trial lawyer buddies can reap as much from the taxpayers as they can?

Posted by: frankn1 | February 3, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse


Notice that the business organizations listed are those that need cheap labor and, in another context, are major employers of illegal aliens. Which is why the US has so many illegal aliens.

Posted by: TexLex | February 3, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Yet it only takes one court to throw a monkey wrench into Obamacare which has now happened. Until it hits SCOTUS everything else is meaningless.

Saying that why not junk Obamacare and make half the voters in this country happy? Election day 2012 is coming and many Democrats will be up for re-election.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | February 3, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The problem is not whether politicians think their opinions are the law, the problem is whether the two liberal spinsters and personal friends of the President who have recently
been appointed to the court by him, think their opinion should be the law!

Posted by: PhillupSpace1 | February 3, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

While no single poll shows a simple majority of the poll respondents want a repeal (51% or more), all three polls show that of the respondents who voiced an opinion, more want repeal than do not. If this is truly a country where majority rules, this law should be repealed. In addition, the appeals of the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement will show that you can not force people to buy health insurance simply because you want them too. Requiring insurance of motor vehicle drivers is different because driving is a privilege, not a right. Living (or life as listed in the constitution) is a right under the constitution - that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness line gets people every time.

Posted by: scott16 | February 3, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

It all about politics. What a waste of time to appeal to the tea party nuts.

Posted by: sherardg | February 3, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Finally, note that McConnell stated that this law should be repealed and replaced. Not just repealed. This law was a mishmash of ideas thrown together in a hurry so that Democrats could say they accomplished a national health bill. However, a national bill that the courts throw out does not really count. Members of Congress have a lot of time to do these laws, and have a lot of assistance on them. It is nearly total bull*^%$ that they cannot get it right within reason the first time around. Ask all of your constituants what they want using surveys. Attempt compromise so that the laws are not partisan. Work to pass intelligent nonpartisan bills so that they work, rather than shoddy legislation that the courts throw out and people do every thing they can to avoid following. Members of Congress, if you do not, you can be kicked out of Congress by your voters just as happened the last two elections by voters who are sick of the status quo. Fix the system and start creating jobs or at least assisting people who are creating them. Finally, if you cannot assist, just stay out of the way of those who are creating jobs.

Posted by: scott16 | February 3, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

McConnell and his crowd of Republicons need to solely focus on job creation or we may have an Egyptian style uprising in the US against Mubarak type Republicons.

These jokers have been in control of the House for almost a month and have made zero progress on anything. Boener Head getting off the booze may help.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 3, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

If only the WaPo had focused on this abortion of a bill while it was being passed.

It was not popular when it was passed, it remains deeply unpopular, and it is nothing more than a transfer of money from our pockets directly to the insurance companies.

The fact that people think this helps the little guy is more of a reflection of how far self-delusion will go.

Posted by: Skeptic1 | February 3, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

This is what would happen if Republiturd had their way; helath care would be repealed and replaced with something that benefits the insurance companies. That's not the American way, it's the Republiturd way.

Republicans hate America and Americans. What a bunch of scumbags

Posted by: camera_eye_11 | February 3, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

‘ It is noteworthy that on the same day McConnell claimed backing by the "courts," elsewhere on Capitol Hill a distinguished Republican attorney--Charles Fried, solicitor general for Ronald Reagan--said the individual mandate in the health care law was constitutional. ’


Interesting, but so what if Fried was Reagan’s solicitor general. Does that mean that people that don’t believe the mandate is constitutional should drop their lawsuit?

The mandate is controversial because NEVER BEFORE has the Government used the commerce clause to force individuals to participate in an economic activity.

Many believe the Federal power to regulate ONLY gives it the power to set the RULES for those that want to participate but people ALWAYS have the right NOT to participate.

In ObamaCare the rules are set and you are told you are now participating whether you want to or not.

THAT IS UNPRECIDENTED and should be reviewed by the Federal Courts!

AND…..now we find two Judges that find this is a legitimate question and concern.

Posted by: bcarte1 | February 3, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

This health care reform bill is all Republicons ideas. Now they want to repeal themselves!

Republicons are dysfunctional and need to lay off the booze and marijuana.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 3, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The Republic Party always does what's best for corporations and rich people, but NEVER does what's best for regular Americans.

Posted by: mongolovesheriff | February 3, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"The line on "the courts" is a clear stretch: The score, at best, is 2-2, and none of these rulings mean very much at this point in the process."

I suspect you will see the feds go to the judge, and the appellate court, and ask for a stay of implementing his decision. That action will prove your fact check is itself biased as that will show his decision is far more meaningful than you want to state.

Posted by: Marin823 | February 3, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"In any case, the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless."

As soon as you say this, your bias shows.


Splitting hairs are we? Support your assertions with facts or details. You choose. Ultimately the Supreme Court will decide this and it will take 2-3 years for the case to be heard. Americans already like it that their kids can stay on until after college. Takes care of grad school and job searching. Everyone LOVES the idea of a sick child not being denied because they were sick before their parents found a job with benefits. Your Humanity is in the Sewer with Sarah Palin!

Posted by: minco_007 | February 3, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Instead of devoting their time to problems and issues vexing most Americans today, the GOP burns daylight with their equivalent of trivial suits.

It would be funny. You know, the anti-government party not actually doing anything resembling government...

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | February 3, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

McConnell is doing an excellent job in the U.S. Senate representing the American people. The repeal vote of 47-51 shows the strong support for repeal. The Senate vote to repeal Obama’s national health law missed by only a few votes. Democrats were afraid to vote for repeal because the White House will not support or finance their 2012 re-election.

Democrat Harry Reid said to Democrat Senators warning them, don’t vote for repeal or the Democrat Party will withdraw their support for your re-election. Charlotte, N.C. has been selected by Obama Democrats to host the 2012 Democrat convention. We will see the Chicago group of left-wing Democrats show there stuff in Charlotte. Axelrod will try to revive the John Edwards Democrat groups, big labor unions vote for Democrats and remember Democrat Andrew Young election campaign efforts.

Michelle Obama, First Lady will be working the DNC to get votes for her “hubby” Barack. Some Democrats suggest that the Frist Lady should make the announcement that she will take her next vacation in Haiti. Michelle could win American voters support by showing her concern for the people of Haiti and lecture on nutrition even though most Haitians do not have an obesity problem.

Michelle Obama could tell the Haiti people in person that the U.S. will help them even though the U.S. is struggling to survive with massive debt and global economy threats by Muslim nations around the world.

Michelle could suggest that the Haitian government may want to invite the Islamic Republic of Iran to their nation to help the Haitian people and the Muslim Brotherhood who can sympathize with the Haitian plight of poverty and human destitution of spirit and wisdom to solve their own problems.

Posted by: klausdmk | February 3, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Asked when he is going to opt out of his lifetime gov. run health care program. He responds with silence. When asked why the insured should pay $60 billion last year to cover the uninsured. He responds with silence. When it is pointed out the G.O.P. plan will cost more and cover fewer he responds with silence.

Come on Mr. McConnell. Answer these questions.

Posted by: thomgr | February 3, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Better late than never, I guess. the Post should have launched this fact checking feature a couple years ago. The Post, itself, has never been particularly good at communicating what was in the health care bill. Just the usual horse race nonsense, as if nothing was at stake for your readers.

Posted by: thebuckguy | February 3, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Updating their budget estimates, House Republicans conceded Thursday that their best hope is to cut current appropriations by $32 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year, once new spending for defense and other security needs are added to the equation.

In other words, they've proposed a budget which would decrease the federal budget deficit by just 2%.

Two percent? Bwaahaha! How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for ya, teabaggers?

Teabaggers… use them once, then throw them away!

Posted by: losthorizon10 | February 3, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Fact checking the Republicans is a great idea. They're the only group of politicians that must be held accountable.

Posted by: JAH3 | February 3, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

How many republicans have declined their own government run/provided health care insurance?

Posted by: lip111 | February 3, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

thomgr: Asked when he is going to opt out of his lifetime gov. run health care program. He responds with silence. When asked why the insured should pay $60 billion last year to cover the uninsured. He responds with silence. When it is pointed out the G.O.P. plan will cost more and cover fewer he responds with silence.

Come on Mr. McConnell. Answer these questions.
___________________________________________
Why don't you ask the more important questions. For example, when the democrats had the supermajority and could have passed whatever they wanted, why didn't they just pass a law that said everyone can buy into the federal program? That would have been both constitutional and relatively simple to impelement? But they chose not to do that, why?

As fare as the 60 billion, how does providing these individuals insurance, which they previously either didn't buy, couldn't afford to buy, or couldn't buy, somehow remove the 60 billion cost? Isn't that cost now just going to be factored into my insurance premium rather than the cost of medical care? Either way, we're still paying for it.

Finally, what GOP are you referring to? The democrats have spent the last couple of years saying the GOP had no plan, now you seem to admit they do have a plan. I'm confused.

Posted by: Marin823 | February 3, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

How many republicans have declined their own government run/provided health care insurance?

Posted by: lip111 | February 3, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I see this question asked a lot and I don't think it's relevant. Since congresspeople make 100K+/year, does that mean the government should make sure we all have that too?

Posted by: mikem1 | February 3, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

House Republicans:
32 days in office
25 bills proposed
0 jobs bills proposed

They are, however, very good at screaming and crying about nonexistent conspiracies, trying to repeal the ACA (which has benefitted many millions of Americans) and holding middle-class tax cuts hostage so that they could force Americans to borrow $700 billion from China to give the top two percent an extra tax cut ...one that won't create any jobs.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | February 3, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Why check facts when the people who are not stating the facts correctly could care less that their facts are incorrect? McConnell only cares that his "constituents", which in his mind means the people who vote for him, not the people of the state he is suppose to represent, will accept misrepresentations of the facts. Pointing out facts to those who play fast and loose with them is pointless unless you are asking them directly.

Stop debating the facts in the newspaper and have someone go to McConnell and ask him face to face, with cameras running, what he thinks about the actual facts. Anything else is a worthless effort. The King was only exposed when a child stated that he had no clothes. Maybe the Post should hire children to do the work of those who call themselves journalists.

Posted by: Fate1 | February 3, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The GOP isn't going do have to save the country all by themselves. The courts are goin to overturn this abortion that is Obozo's crowning achievement. It's a great thing he wasted all his political capital on this evil, futile power grab. Only two more years of his stupidity.

Posted by: carlbatey | February 3, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

It's a great thing he wasted all his political capital on this evil, futile power grab. Only two more years of his stupidity.

Posted by: carlbatey | February 3, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Attempting to provide health care access for all citizens is "evil"? And unless the Republicans come up with a good centrist candidate, (which hasn't happened yet), I don't think Mr. Obama will be out in 2.

Posted by: mikem1 | February 3, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Isn't McConnell one of the loudmouths who screamed about the non-existant "death panels"? Yep, that's the GOP, just make up facts and repeat loudly. If you can't tell the truth, you can try to drown it out.

Posted by: fluxgirl | February 3, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Well if you're fact-checking the polls then the vast majority (almost 90% of them) opposed the health care law in the first place. So how is this WaPo analysis truth-seeking? More like spinning.

Posted by: h20andoil | February 3, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

The better poll is obviously the one that tries to ascertain what the people really like and dislike about the new health care law. Even everyday Republicans have found parts of the new law that they like, which is contrary to the Republican contrarians who are in DC. One begins to wonder what base the Republicans are courting.

Posted by: EarlC | February 3, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

This is standard and typical Glenn Keesler commentary and follows his Code of Armor: Defend the Liberal Democrats and the stalwart Liberal health bill they have been trying to pass for generations.

Glenn's liberal crap comes out on both sides. Nothing, and I mean nothing he states has any objectivity and is clearly skewed towards liberal bias journalism meant to push an agenda.

He clearly was smoking the wacky-tobaccy when they taught 'objective, non-bias journalism' in college. He is talented but honestly should be writing for Move-on.org and not a newspaper like the Washington Post.

Frankly, on this subject matter, if the newspaper didn't have a date, you really couldn't read anything new that Glenn is writing about - it is all so skewed, so consistently and so well predictable.

Tomorrow. Another post against Republicans and the repeal effort - Yawn and Sigh. What is Charlie Sheen doing today?

Posted by: gtsecret | February 3, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey Washington Post! Why didn't you "fact check" Barrack Obama when he said we would be able to stay on our current plans?

This is a truly disgusting newspaper.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | February 3, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

For those complaining about the fact checker bias, perhaps you missed the post from YESTERDAY!!!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/harry_reids_imaginary_4_billio.html#more

Posted by: mikem1 | February 3, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing surprising here. The Republicans have been more truth-challenged than the Democrats for some time now. It's gotten to the point where you just have to check to see if Mitch McConnell's lips are moving, and it's pretty much the same for his colleagues. This is unfortunate, because the Democrats are not right about everything, and the country would be better off they had a non-lying opposition.

Posted by: Bob999 | February 3, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Healthcare is easy. Provide the exact same coverage as all members of congress and their families receive at taxpayer expense. The framework already exists in the form of Medicare. Copy it, expand it on it and your sorta there.

The fundamental problem with the current Bill is that as soon as the Government granted over 200 (+) comporate exemptions basically it undermined it's own program and no one knows or understands who is or is not covered. Once one is exempted then it follows that al others should be given the same opportunity.
As far 'forcing' anyone into a health program the precedent already exists in Social Security and Medicare so the concept that the Government cannot 'force' this is mute. However the point remains that once anyone was permitted to be exempted from any part of the Bill the basis for the program goes away.

Posted by: KBlit | February 3, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Republicans hold a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. Therefore, millions of
Americans will not have health insurance. What more is there to discuss?

Posted by: motorfriend | February 3, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Did you vet Obama? NO. You people do not vet any of your leftest buddies.

When you do "vet" Republicans you twist and spin. You people will never quit. There is no objectivity at the Washington Compost. Just a bunch of left wing loons advancing their left wing causes while lying and doing hit pieces on Republicans.

Posted by: onealethia | February 3, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"the lower court rulings are virtually meaningless"

HA! This statement would be equally true if all four rulings had unequivocally supported the individual mandate. However in that case I doubt you would have considered them meaningless.

The lower court rulings obviously do have meaning. Taken as a whole, the four rulings mean that the individual mandate faces a significant legal hurdle.

Posted by: mad_tiger | February 3, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

You're too kind to Mr. McConnell. If only a small hardcore of opponents of the health care law are in support of full repeal, then his statements are GREATLY exagerated. McConnell is at least 3 Pinocchios.

Posted by: gparker1 | February 3, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Kentucky, that beautiful state full of poor people, toothless people, poverty, meth addiction, and a few rich people like Mitch.
How is the trickle down theory working for you Kentucky?.

Posted by: JillCalifornia | February 3, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

What we need are more articles that point out how misleading Mcconnell is. We need more people to spend a few minutes actually learning a few details rather than always looking for the "big picture." And then, commenting with details to support their arguments, rather than sling more mud.

The Kentucky Wonder gets away with it because not enough people call him on it.

Posted by: amelia45 | February 3, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The really sad and pathetic thing about this is that McConnell (and lots of others) are willing to twist and torture truth and facts to make support their contentions.

Doesn't it bother these people at all that they are fighting and arguing for points that aren't true?

Posted by: egc52556 | February 3, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

One???
My, aren't we a generous grader.

Apparently, grade inflation has seeped out of academia into journalism.

Posted by: 3stooges | February 3, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The really sad and pathetic thing about this is that McConnell (and lots of others) are willing to twist and torture truth and facts to make support their contentions.

Doesn't it bother these people at all that they are fighting and arguing for points that aren't true?


Posted by: egc52556


Can you show me ONE government program that has done a more efficient and cheaper job than the private sector? Good luck, I'll be waiting for your answer!

Posted by: LibsRidiots | February 3, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

There are lies.
Damned lies.
And Statistics.
Then there are polls.
All I know is what people to whom I speak say: Not one, so far, is against the ehiongs that are already in place; keeping your children on your health plan until age 26; requiring that insurance carriers cannot just arbitrarily drop you, etc.
Sen McConnell is a politition and everything he says is pure "politics". And, always negative about everything that Pres Obama trys to do for all the people of the US. Why is McConnell entitled to good coverage and we're not? Are the senators and congressman going to see that we all have the same coverage that tey have? Or, will they give up their coverage and have no coverage, which McConnell ("The Generous") wants to give to all Americans; "NOTHING", while he keeps his super coverage and we all work and pay his salary. Selfish, stingy rightwingers. You never hear any of them say anything positive. They are like movie and art critics. No talent - just criticize others, who do have talent and new ideas. Did you ever see a monument erected to a critic?

Posted by: 6157 | February 3, 2011 6:18 PM | Report abuse

The Post really needs to rename this column. I never see much "fact checking" in it; I see a lot of partisan rhetoric. Time to admit that this is just another opinion column.

FactCheck.org, the source Kessler relies upon for "studies" supporting his view, is itself a notoriously biased organization which no one takes seriously as a neutral fact-checker.

Posted by: S8thRd | February 3, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

McConnell has the art of sloganeering down pat. "Job killing", "American People" are two misused terms with which he hopes to gain general agreement from all listeners. As it is, he gains only the firm backing of the hard core right. There are too many voters and non-voters, who parrot conservative propaganda strictly because they have committed their opinions to them. They no longer think for themselves, and many of them do not even vote. They are Glen Beck listeners.
McConnell is well remembered for being behind the suit to overturn the legislation that gave Bill Clinton the right to Blue Pencil appropriation bills. Earmarks were holy to him.
Even the "mandate"s widely misrepresented.
Every person who own a car is already obeying a mandate: BUY LIABILITY INSURANCE or leave your car at home. Health care liability insurance protects the taxpayers from having to pick up the tab for the uninsured, just as auto insurance assures that the careless driver is responsible for his actions and costs.
McConnell has been the most negative and disruptive person in the Senate. He seems to live on hate for Obama.

Posted by: beagun27 | February 3, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse


Well heck, if Mitch McConnell gets only 1 Pinocchio, I'm sure John Kyl and Jeff Sessions are worthy of at least 2 Pinocchio a piece. So you could easily say among the GOP ranking members, Pinocchio is easily falling over from the shear weight of his proboscis.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | February 3, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse


Well heck, if Mitch McConnell gets only 1 Pinocchio, I'm sure John Kyl and Jeff Sessions are worthy of at least 2 Pinocchio a piece. So you could easily say among the GOP ranking members, Pinocchio is easily falling over from the shear weight of his proboscis.

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | February 3, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

what a stupid article

Posted by: jimsr121 | February 3, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse


The Right Prescription
The Legal Future of Obamacare

02/02/11


Officially, it is no longer the law of the land. That means more than anyone is letting on.

As of this moment Obamacare is officially not the law of the land. As Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled on Monday in Florida, "[T]here is a long standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." That law as declared by the Federal District Court in Florida is now that Obamacare is unconstitutional.


As a result, Judge Vinson concluded:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting…that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce…it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.

Then in words that will be memorialized, Vinson wrote:

"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

Judge Vinson consequently ruled, "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power."

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/02/the-legal-future-of-obamacare

Posted by: AJAX2 | February 3, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

When ever Mitch McConnell, or any politician for that matter, begins a justification for a particular policy with "the American people" -- they're lying.

Posted by: russellglee | February 3, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Right...would anyone expect anything different from a LibRat there Kessler? Liberal talking heads mean nothing these days. You're a dime a dozen. You are the political minority when it comes to health care. Pay attention. Denial will get you nowhere!!

Posted by: jeepmanjr | February 3, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Health care "repeal" is DOA in Congress, and in no time, in the courts. Good. The last thing our country needs is rightwing libertarian/conservative Republicans bringing back the worst of the past. God forbid the country ends up like Arizona, where everybody wears a gun to bed.

Posted by: dudh | February 3, 2011 10:25 PM | Report abuse

If a tree falls in the forest does it really make a sound?

If a person has no lips can he really tell the truth?

As long as he McConnell can pop his lipless lies and the stupid sheep will believe him and the press will give him a platform, there is little hope for any real reform. They care only for their corporate masters and that means you sheep are last on the list. So don't get sick, and please die as soon as you can you don't cost the corporate masters money.

Posted by: jacquie1 | February 3, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company