Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Polling the Town Halls



Protesters yell during a town meeting in Colorado. Photo by Rick Wilking of Reuters

The protests that have dominated town halls -- and news coverage -- for the first two weeks of this month are being closely followed by much of the country and are largely regarded as appropriate, according to several surveys on the events released in the last forty-eight hours.

A Pew poll released Thursday showed that nearly eight in ten Americans were paying either "a lot" (49 percent) or "a little" (29 percent) to the rowdy town halls while a USA Today/Gallup survey showed that 32 percent were following the town halls "very closely" while another 37 percent said they were following the events "somewhat closely."

Anything not named "American Idol" that is drawing that much attention from the public is sure to not only have an impact on the political atmosphere but also leave elected officials and would-be elected officials scrambling to know just what it all means.

The early polling returns suggests, not all that surprisingly, that the town hall rancor, which is centered on concerns over the impact of a health reform bill, is being followed closest by self-identified Republicans.

Nearly 80 percent of Republicans in the USA Today survey said they were watching the proceedings very or somewhat closely and a majority (51 percent) said the town halls have made them feel "more sympathetic" to the views being expressed by the protesters. Just 17 percent of Democrats said the same while 35 percent of independents said the town halls had made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views.

The data also provides something of a rebuke to attempts by the White House and the Democratic National Committee to paint the protests as the work of angry mobs whose main goal is to disrupt the democratic process.

Sixty-one percent of those tested in the Pew poll called the protests "appropriate" while just 34 percent said they were inappropriate. Nearly two-thirds of independents, the critical voting bloc as both parties look to the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential race, described the protests as appropriate.

In the Gallup polling, 51 percent said that "individuals making angry attacks against a health care bill and what it might do" was an example of "democracy in action" (the Republican argument) while 41 percent called it an "abuse of democracy" (the Democratic argument).

The numbers were far different when the Gallup sample was asked about the booing of members of Congress (44 percent called it democracy in action while 47 percent said it was an abuse of democracy) or the "shouting down of supporters" of the health care plan when they attempted to speak. (33 percent democracy in action/59 percent abuse of democracy).

What does this flood of poll numbers mean? That not only are people paying attention but that the frustration and downright anger being vented is seen as authentic and powerful by a majority of those watching the coverage.

That's not to say, however, that the protesters -- and the conservative groups helping to rally them -- are headed toward a political win, however. The striking numbers in the Gallup survey when it comes to certain behaviors (booing, shouting down dissenting voices) suggest the real possibility that the protesters could overplay their hand on this issue.

Friday's Fix Picks: "Low End Theory" is the best rap album of the 1990s. Discuss.

1. How North Dakota escaped the economic downturn
2. George Allen: Three years after "Macaca."
3. Mark McKinnon on the danger posed by Rick Santorum.
4. Time ranks the 10 worst dressed world leaders.
5. Jay Farrar (of Son Volt) and Ben Gibbard (of Death Cab for Cutie) do Kerouac.

Another Candidate in CT-Senate?: Linda McMahon, the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, is weighing a run as a Republican against Sen. Chris Dodd (D) in Connecticut in 2010. A source close to McMahon said that she is "seriously considering" the race and touted her as a serious candidate based on a résumé that includes leading a $1 billion publicly traded company based in Stamford, Conn. The source also noted that McMahon would be willing and able to spend significant sums on the race, an x-factor that could make her competitive in a primary against former representative Rob Simmons, former ambassador Tom Foley and state Sen. Sam Caliguri. It remains to be seen how Connecticut voters will react to a McMahon candidacy; her husband, Vince, is the public face of a massive professional wrestling empire that has drawn criticism for the violence of its action and the at times lewd nature of its content. One thing is certain: a McMahon candidacy would turn what is already a fascinating race into a contest with a huge national profile.

A Corzine Comeback?: New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) trails former U.S. attorney Chris Christie (R) by just six points in a new Democratic survey. Christie takes 43 percent to Corzine's 37 percent in the Democracy Corps poll conducted by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg insists that Corzine has moved "within striking distance" of Christie thanks in large part to the increasingly negative image of the Republican (32 favorable/31 percent unfavorable). Democrats believe revelations that Christie, while still a U.S. attorney, spoke with former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove about running for office are just what they needed to turn a race that looked all but over into a competitive contest. One thing to note in the Democracy Corps poll that still suggest Corzine is in trouble: his ballot number is in the high 30s, not exactly where an incumbent governor wants to be a few months before election day.

Click It!: Seeking to draw attention to the number of votes Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) has missed, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) has launched a Web site -- www.noshowjoe.org -- that keeps tracks of the number of roll calls the congressman has missed in 2009. The site also allows users to email Sestak's office to "do his job." Of the site, Specter campaign manager Chris Nicholas said that it aims to remind Sestak that he has been remiss in the "number one priority of a legislator, which is voting."

CA-Gov Polls Show Wide Open Race: New polling conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal Daily Kos blog reveals two things: the race to be the next governor of California is wide open and Californians, as a general rule, pay almost no attention to politics. On the Democratic side, state Attorney General Jerry Brown sits at 29 percent as compared to 20 percent for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom with a whopping 51 percent of the electorate undecided. (These numbers are all the more amazing given that Brown has already served as governor and has been kicking around the state's politics for three decades while Newsom has drawn national and international coverage for his strong advocacy of gay marriage.) Brown is the better known and better liked candidate in the Democratic field. Forty eight percent express a favorable opinion of Brown while 37 percent see him in n unfavorable light; forty percent are favorable to Newsom while 42 percent view him unfavorably. The Republican race is equally unformed with former eBay president Meg Whitman at 24 percent to 19 percent for former Rep. Tom Campbell and nine percent for state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. Both primaries made it onto the Fix's Line of the best intraparty contests in the country; the Republican race clocked in at number four, the Democratic primary at number three.

Chat Time: Ever wanted to ask the ole Fix a question (who hasn't)? Now's your chance. Today at 11 a.m. it's the Live Fix, that time when we chat live -- get it? -- for an hour. You can submit your questions in advance or just sign on at 11. See you there!

Say What?: "Don't let them Palinize me." -- Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R) in a fundraising appeal aimed at avoiding the negative press associated with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R).

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 14, 2009; 5:01 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: Arlen Specter and What Lebanon Meant
Next: The Live Fix!

Comments

All the arguments about Illegal aliens in the ER are moot. The Hill-Burton act of way back when but I believe the late 60's or early 70's make it illegal to turn away ANYONE requesting help at an ER. Of course there is more to it but that is the essential part of the law and I do not believe this law has ever been amended or repealed.

Posted by: Opa2 | August 18, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I'm so pleased: we agree that illegal aliens should receive treatment at emergency rooms the same as anyone else. Then we don't need any language about that at all in the reform bill and 20% of the foamers at the town halls can stay home.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 17, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

You are mistaken in your recollections because I've never asked for that documentation -- you are the only one to bring up Obama's school records from Jakarta on this thread -- you are mistaken as well as in assuming that I ever said "turn them away without treatment". Even if the Border Patrol shoots an illegal alien, they get medical treatment BEFORE being deported. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you are reading.

Posted by: JakeD | August 17, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Jake, no because I recall that you wanted to see his school records in Jakarta to see if he had ever said he was a Muslim, and I recall you wanted to see his HS and college applications to see if he had filed as a racial or religious minority for loans and scholarships. Now you say you have to have it because a family member said he was born in Kenya.

My point is that you cannot be satisfied because you will not be satisfied. A thinking person would say "Gee, unless there was some big conspiracy the day baby Barak was born, I guess the newspaper announcement of his birth along with the address of his parents should satisfy anyone." Or else you could say "I'm not an expert on these things, and I guess since the officials in Hawaii say Yes and Justice Roberts says Yes, maybe I should just accept that sometimes other people know more than I do."

And I'm not really expecting you to solve the problem about illegal aliens in ERs. That isn't your job. I'm trying to get you to see that anyone who arrives in distress at an emergency room should be treated because there is NO ethical way to turn them away.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 17, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Can you please retract your claim that I want more documents about Obama at least?

Posted by: JakeD | August 17, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 17, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

No individual databases needed -- just an Internet connection -- like I said, whatever the experts would recommend (hopefully, using what is already in place). Obviously, anyone without a valid Social Security number would have to be investigated. The potential downsides are mix-ups or TB and other breakouts from illegal aliens who don't go into the ERs anymore, but your question was simply about what to do at the ER. If I were also in charge of ICE, we could co-ordinate responses and round up aliens / fine businesses before it even impacts the ER.

Posted by: JakeD | August 17, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Jake, your solution means that every clerk in every ER has got a data base of everyone's SSN attached to their name, their birthdate and a current image of the person. That sounds like government intrusion (and another 40 pages added to the congressional bills).
If you're good with that, you should get a load of some of the registration clerks in ERs these days -- they look like they might be foreigners. Maybe they would steal all that information and give it to foreigners, or maybe just our own home-grown thugs.
And we still have to write a protocol about what to do with illegal alliens/dying citizens who don't have/forget their SSN at the ER door. "Out you go" just doesn't seem viable.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 17, 2009 6:48 AM | Report abuse

my first guess would be checking Social Security numbers (whatever the experts would recommend for employment verification). Next question?

==

Only one question .. what did those paint chips taste like?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 17, 2009 12:01 AM | Report abuse

And if the "long form" existed and was produced you'd come up with some other lame unhinged objection.

Who exactly do you think you're fooling, "JakeD?"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

No, as I've stated repeatedly (including on this very thread), I only want the long form. I did not know I was in charge of ERs, but my first guess would be checking Social Security numbers (whatever the experts would recommend for employment verification). Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | August 16, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Last I recall, all Zouk and Jake wanted were

the Long Form birth certificate (the short form and all those newspaper announcements are TOO fishy);
Obama's school records from Jakarta (suspicious about that muslim school);
gym class records (maybe they will explain the blue lip thing, which is very suspicious);
all school applications for HS and college (did he say he was a foreigner or a muslim anywhere?)
all student loan applications (might be something there);
Depositions from all of his Kenyan relations alive in 1961 (and if any one can't speak English or has died, well THAT is really suspicious).
his afterbirth (you never know, and if they don't have it THAT is suspicious);
records of his latest colonoscopy (he just wants to get the next one cheap -- that's what all this reform talk is rooted in);
a sample of his DNA (maybe it will reveal an absence of white culture.

Jake -- I'm still waiting to hear how the staff in ERs are going to instantly recognise and eject illegal aliens. I know you've got a great plan.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 16, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

A new low

the spam presidency

perfect

from Camelot to spamalot in lib decline.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 16, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Funny most code writers move up to manegement, design or architecture by their late 20s unless of course they are incorriggibly stupid or unremorsefully antisocial. They make low six figures and actually work during the day. Then there are the shut in min wage losers who never get anywhere and can't figure out why.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 16, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Cccp. Don't fret. After you are replaced by two Indians , resulting in quadruple productivity gains, I have a job suitable to your intellect. A pile of mulch needs to move from the driveway to the bushes.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 16, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Find the red semicolon.

==

That's right, zouk, I'm a software developer. I get my hands calloused and dirty entering code, barely above a ditchdigger in esteem among manager types, among bottom-line bottom-feeders.

I'll take my plebian mediocrity over your institutionalization any day.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Rand a "successful woman?"

I count success as something more than a lifelong hysterical reaction to getting taken down a peg in one's youth.

Rand is extremely easy to deconstruct, her snobby pharmaceutical family getting sent down to the minors by the Bolsheviks.

Come on, zouk, do the "chrisuxcox" thing again so we can be rid of you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Quelle surprise. Cccp hates another succesful woman. His better.
Low bar actually. Find the red semicolon.

Seething and reeking it is.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 16, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Haha. Drivl and cccp accusing others of being hateful, childish and anti intellectual.

Good one!

Of course that type is now "leading" the country.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 16, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - I was actually referring to Broadway Joe's reply to you being pointless. It's been gone over in these forums dozens of times to no effect. I'm sure you'll keep sending out that line to get someone to respond to it.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 16, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I know this won't help since they don't really give a hoot about the birth certificate. It's just a proxy issue. Nevertheless, here's a link to a full article explaining there is no "long form" birth certificate. A true snipe hunt.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/3/761333/-Hawaii-doesnt-have-a-long-form-birth-certificate

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 16, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

He says he prays to Ronald Reagan every day that the nut jobs go back to their trailer parks, and leave real fascism to the experts (i.e., to intellectual disciples of Ayn Rand, like him).

==

I have a real hard time reconciling "intellectual" with "Ayn Rand." All she did was take Marxism and put a negative sign in front of it. And spent the remainder of her life trading on the notoriety that bought her to get young men into bed with her.

She was less of an intellectual than Norman Vincent Peale.

Your friend sounds like a real jerk.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

He's Kenyan, he's communist, he's fascist --funny how you can be both extremely rightwing and leftwing at the same time

==

These liars can't handle the cognitive dissonance of right-wing totalitarianism so they've done some revisionist doublethink in which Fascism is actually a left-wing phenomenon.

Being half- or uneducated people, they needs their messages nice and simple. Right good, left bad.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

No, FairlingtonBlade, it's not "pointless" as I said that I would gladly accept his LONG FORM birth certificate as proof. That would be at least one person switching from questioning his legitimacy to his policies.

==

You know full well there is no long form to be revealed. Not every state issues them. Yet the people whose job it is to certify the president are satisfied, the far right Supreme Court is satisfied, the state of Hawaii is satisfied.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are firing up the rubes to get attention, and you swallow it whole like a dog at the catbox and proclaim it tasty.

Saw you in the live Fix from Friday, whining that CC didn't dignify your idiotic questions about Obama's executive orders with a response.

Nobody here has any doubt that you post this stupid crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for two reasons

(1) you are a racist jerk who can't deal rationally with having a black president

(2) you'll do anything to get attention around here.

Your maturity level has been defined by your endless "you don't answer MY questions" pouts, and your intellectual level by these birther screeds. You are nothing but an irritant, and you contribute nothing here. Why don't you make another assassination joke or two so you get banned and the rest of us can have the sort of decent discussions we have when you're away?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

7000 trucks? tee hee
I meant to say, hundreds of semi trucks.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 16, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't hate Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | August 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I guess I should have made my point finer by claiming that no one who shops Wal Mart will stop shopping Wal Mart because of some political issue with a Fox cracker.

This is, of course, not true for Nike or Whole Foods.

As for Wal Mart going green, or leading the pack any way other than to Hell, you make me laugh chris. They own 7000 semi-trucks, this because cheap oil still allows for nothing to be able to be grown/created and sold locally. The average Wal Mart shopper drives 24 miles to get to the store and back. Saving money on lights has nothing to do with global warming, that is called self-serving spin, kind of like a hybrid SUV. Any progress they have made with their work force is as a result of dozens of class action lawsuits, many now settled for millions. This is no place to debate Wal Mart I guess, but they suck. Point is there are so many reasons to avoid them, not just Fox race baiting.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

BB, we tole ya. They just hate Obama, it has nothing to do with his birth certificate. It's all part of the paint-him-as-an alien because they can't admit to themselves that a black man is president of the United States.

He's Kenyan, he's communist, he's fascist --funny how you can be both extremely rightwing and leftwing at the same time--but apparently these folks are so ignorant they don't know the difference.

It's all a pattern of distortion and delegitimization and the birthers and teabaggers and other assorted screamers are all part of the same violent, delusional mob. If you knew how many racist statements that particular bozo has made, you'd see.

Posted by: drindl | August 16, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

And there was something about Reagan being the return of baby Jesus; not my mythology.

Posted by: matthewjblack | August 16, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Actually, in 1975 I called him a fascist, and he said "thank you." We've found it impossible to insult the other for over thirty years.

Posted by: matthewjblack | August 16, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Your grad school "friend" prays to a dead President and calls himself a fascist?

Posted by: JakeD | August 16, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I keep thinking that the John Birch Society was right, the Commies were putting flouride in America's water to rot the brains of Americans, and the result was modern Republicans.

Then I hear from a genuine right-winger from grad school days who seems to be almost as annoyed with the birthers, screamers and Klansmen as me. He says he prays to Ronald Reagan every day that the nut jobs go back to their trailer parks, and leave real fascism to the experts (i.e., to intellectual disciples of Ayn Rand, like him). This unreformed Reagan worshipper insists that the riotous freaks are not Republicans, but racists.

And how uneducated must one be to label Obama a Nazi when he is the ultimate anti-Nazi? How unaware must one be not to have noticed that George W. Bush was the first true Nazi to ever sit in the White House? Why were they silent?

These are the same whackjobs who earlier called Obama a Communist. These fools don't have a clue that one accusation subverts the other. And they seem blissfully unaware that they practice what Hitler preached.

The Klan should take note: just because you now go out without your white sheets and pointy hats, you can't help but reveal yourselves for what you are.

Posted by: matthewjblack | August 16, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

No, FairlingtonBlade, it's not "pointless" as I said that I would gladly accept his LONG FORM birth certificate as proof. That would be at least one person switching from questioning his legitimacy to his policies.

Posted by: JakeD | August 16, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe - You're right, it's pointless.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 16, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

It is not a "lie" that Obama's paternal grandmother stated that he was born in Kenya. If anyone else wants to discuss the "seemingly" incontrovertible proof, please let me know. I, for one, would gladly accept the birth certificate (LONG FORM) signed by the doctor in Hawaii. Some reports indeed state that is no longer in existence. Unfortunately, without that, Hawaiian law at the time allowed out-of-State births to be registered in Honolulu, which would have also produced the certification of birth (SHORT FORM seen over and over and over).

Posted by: JakeD | August 16, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Obimbo surrenders again

public option off the table

making progress.

Lib fortitude And leadership on display.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 16, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I know this is pointless but here goes--

Numerous journalists have pointed out that the birthers have no real interest in any birth certificate but want to delegitimize the African American president that they cannot and will not accept. But it is important to not let lies just hang out there so...

1. BHO's birth certificate is on the internet.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

2. Two Hawaiian papers published his birth announcement.

3. Factcheck.org personally saw and verified the birth certificate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

4. The Hawaiian registrar has personally certified the BHO birth certificate, multiple times.

5. There is no "long form" birth certificate--that is a birther urban myth.

Great take on this "proxy" issue from Glenn Thrush, politico.com

"A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was.

That means a majority of Republicans polled either don't know about -- or don't believe the seemingly incontrovertible evidence Obama's camp has presented over and over and over that he was born in Hawaii in '61.

It also explains why Republicans, including Roy Blunt, are playing footsie with the Birther fringe.

Surprise, surprise: Birther sentiment was strongest in the South and among the 60-plus crowd - presumably because seniors can't log on to the Internet and rely on rumor, word of mouth and right-wing talk radio.

When do we start a serious dialog about the Birther movement being a proxy for racism that is unacceptable to articulate in more direct terms?"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/58_of_GOP_not_suredont_beleive_Obama_born_in_US.html#comments

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 16, 2009 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Is Robert Zimmerman "Only a Pawn in Their Game"?

• "Must bust anyway, orders from the DA"?

• A celebrity variation on Prof. Gates -- this time, detention for "Walking Without 'Papers'?

LOCAL JERSEY SHORE COPS DETAINED BOB DYLAN FOR WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITHOUT ID...

But, the young female cop (conveniently made available for interviews) told reporters, he wasn't "delusional" but was acting "very suspicious."

Is this "neurolinguistic programming?" Are we supposed to now wonder what Bob Dylan was doing, walking alone in a "predominantly black" neighborhood (to quote one mainstream media outlet)?

Is it "Show Me Your Papers!" time in America?

Is this incident really "local" -- or is there more to it than just a case of a young cop who refused to believe that Bob Dylan might look his age?

Is Dylan getting the John Lennon treatment?

Discuss -- after you read THIS:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR:

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 16, 2009 1:57 AM | Report abuse

"Give them the idea that Beck is bad for biz and they'll pull their ads."

This is true for all the sponsors that have pulled their ads.

Incidentally, a lot of people are saying they are going to boycott Whole Foods because of the CEO's statements on healthcare reform.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 16, 2009 1:04 AM | Report abuse

Wal-Mart looks at numbers, at sales, no matter what.

If people cared about something other than cheap stuff, no matter what, wouldn't that be great.

==

I won't shop there but I feel compelled to come modestly to their defense. Under public pressure Wal*Mart has improved its labor practices. They're still far from exemplary but they're better, and the reason is as you say: the bean counters said that their image problem was costing them business.

And on another front, going green, they're actually leading the pack. The CEO read about global warming and decided it was the real deal. But he didn't do anything for idealistic reasons .. on the contrary, by getting its energy bills down with higher efficiency and green technology, Wal*Mart has saved a whole Scheiße load of money.

Give them the idea that Beck is bad for biz and they'll pull their ads.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 16, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

Hopefully we've reached a turning point, and Obama is not re-elected.

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2009 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Another day. Another long boring empty TelePrompTer speech from pres empty suit.

Libs are getting desperate. Problem is. The truth came out.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama's paternal grandmother's statement that he was born in Kenya = supportive evidence (trust me, I graduated from Stanford Law School ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2009 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I don't see anything about Beck taking a vacation in any news links

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether any Supreme Court Justice believes, I'm not the one who claimed there's no supportive evidence.

==

No, that was me. Because there is no supportive evidence. And there are a number of things wrong with the claim anyway. Not that you care, you only post this crap to be an irritant.

And it defines you as a complete kook.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

"So you think you can Zouk?

ROFL!!!

BB"

The line at the end was best. About the geriatric Neilsen rating.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether any Supreme Court Justice believes, I'm not the one who claimed there's no supportive evidence.

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2009 11:23 PM | Report abuse

So you think you can Zouk?

ROFL!!!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 15, 2009 11:17 PM | Report abuse

We have five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. If there was anything more than paranoid fairy dust to this birther crap you can bet they'd be on it like white on rice.

You just post this crap to be a pest.

As for the rest, who exactly do you think you're fooling?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Some "supportive" evidence includes statements by his own relatives that Obama was born in Kenya and the fact he won't simply release his LONG FORM birth certificate -- that doesn't mean I've ever joked about his assassination -- I've specifically stated that I do not want to kill him and don't hate him. I cannot hate anyone Jesus Christ died for. I couldn't care less, though, if you don't believe me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

yarmulke? Like the Jewish cap?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

"Sites like that are a good way to find out how to get yourself a(nother) new email address in record time.

Wal-Mart looks at numbers, at sales, no matter what.

If people cared about something other than cheap stuff, no matter what, wouldn't that be great.

Posted by: shrink2"

Well, the implied threat is that the people who sign the petition need to stop shopping at Wal-Mart either now or if the chain hasn't complied within a certain amount of time. Who knows whether enough people will actually follow through with this. For the other companies, just the complaint was enough for them to drop sponsorship.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 10:44 PM | Report abuse

CF8, my husband wears his beard everywhere, so I guess I would be worried if he only wore it to work. And whats a yarmuncle? Put that likker down, boy.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 15, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

There's a guy in my workplace who wants everyone to know everything about him. He has a full sized American flag draped over the outside of his cubicle. I kid you not. He wears a beard and a yarmuncle to work. Pictures of his wife and kids face the hallway, rather than being where he can see them while he works.

And, in case his politics aren't evident enough, his trash can is full of aluminum cans, at a place where every cubicle has a recycle box.

Right-wingers are swine. I'm glad I don't work with this guy. I mean, how much work is it to toss the cans a few inches further?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"Perlstein’s analysis of why the media has allowed itself to become a tool of the right-wing crazy—it’s largely because they’re afraid of being labeled liberal, cosmopolitan elites. But I think careerism is at work here too. Murdoch media gigs and affirmative action for wingnuts on editorial pages incentivize craven sucking up to the lunatic fringe."

No.

It is just money, nothing more nothing less.

People like you and me bought Obama's election. Lots of us. We paid for it.

If there were a buck to be made pandering to leftists on cable TV, maybe we would get past the Comedy Station.

Money, money, money.
Spent any lately?

Walk the walk people,
the rightists are ready
with all the money they have.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 15, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Sites like that are a good way to find out how to get yourself a(nother) new email address in record time.

Wal-Mart looks at numbers, at sales, no matter what.

If people cared about something other than cheap stuff, no matter what, wouldn't that be great.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 15, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

We voted for Alan Keyes. I'm sure there are some racists still out there, but 65% seems unlikely.

==

You post racist swill on here every day, all day. Claiming you voted for Keyes, almost certainly a lie but irrelevant should it be true, holds not a penny-candle of light next to the glare of your birther screeds and your "jokes" about the President being assassinated.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

More people watch beck than all your lefty shows combined.

==

Uh, that's because you "conservatives" (1) don't have jobs and (2) watch television.

Most of we liberals have better things to do than tune in some nutbar to validate our prejudices.

Since you're institutionalized in a mental hospital you can watch TV all day, once you're done with the morning meds.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

I don’t know why the right-wing crazy is so strong in the United States.

==

It's not only here. Germany has seen a steady rise in hate crimes; an Egyptian woman who was verbally savaged at a playground in Saxony was killed in the courtroom where the defiler was on trial. Israel's government has been moving steadily to the right and the settler movement now all but dictates policy.

And wherever they are, the right is red-faced angry and violent. In America it's really become quite the phenomenon as completely absurd notions take firm root and people are reduced to screaming paranoid fury. Sixty percent of Republican claim to doubt that Obama is a citizen; 28% are certain, with no supportive evidence and ample contrary, that he isn't.

Someone as completely nutty as JakeD with the birther/deather beliefs is all but mainstream among what passes for "conservatives" these days.

On the one hand we're seeing the racist backlash of a black president winning election (and stomping the conservative opposition flat, the most decisive election since Clinton-Dole) .. on the other hand we're seeing what could be the beginning of serious social collapse.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't hate Obama.

==

I'd hate to see how you post about someone you do then.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

1. America's Got Talent" (Tuesday) NBC
2. America's Got Talent" (Wednesday) NBC
3. NCIS CBS
4. So You Think You Can Zouk" (Thursday) FOX
5. 60 Minutes CBS
6. Two and a Half Men CBS
7. The Big Bang Theory CBS
8. Wipeout ABC
9. CSI: NY CBS
10. NFL Exhibition Football: Buffalo vs. Tennessee NBC
11. CSI: Miami CBS
12. So You Think You Can Zouk" (Wednesday) FOX
13. The Mentalist CBS
14. Big Brother 11" (Sunday) CBS
15. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation CBS
16. Dateline NBC" (Monday) NBC
17. Who Wants to be a Millionaire ABC
18. America's Got Talent" (Tuesday NBC
19. Zouk's Kitchen FOX
20. Big Brother 11" (Thursday) CBS

I'm not seeing Hannity or Beck or the others. Was that some sort of *geriatric* Neilsen rating?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 15, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Wal-Mart may be a holdout in the effort to have companies pull their sponsorship of Beck.

It appears there is a Wal-Mart-specific site for contacting them, with a draft letter demanding they dump Beck and his hate programming already prepared.

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/stop-supporting-hate-speech/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"The Fairness Doctrine was working well years ago until Reagan's FCC got rid of it, leading the way to the birth of hate broadcasting, Rush, Hannity, and the rest. Now of course broadcasters can say any untrue bigoted thing they want without challenge."

I know what you mean, but a free and independent media is something that should never be violated, no matter what. This would ACTUALLY be a precursor to the crumbling of a democracy. (as opposed to, say, taking care of sick people)

Besides, I think the blogosphere has been doing a great job of countering the lies. You think all these people who are boycotting Glen Beck's advertisers watch the show? No, it's all about independent outlets reporting it and organizing it. That's why the secret Muslim/socialist/terrorist/non flag saluting nonsense never took hold.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"It's not about healthcare or health insurance. It's the growing public mis-trust in the federal and state governments. Look at the record. So far the federal government has handled-out trillion to the elite without so much as a cursory discussion on how its to be paid back. The net result: TARP HASN'T WORKED! The Affordable home mortgage program HASN'T WORKED!. The limitation on big bonus's for CEO, CFO's and the rest of the leaches who got in line for easy money at the bailed-out companies HASN'T WORKED! And now we are supposed to believe a group of varied and hazy healthcare initiatives is going to work.Posted by: Vunderlutz "

Except that the programs you are most unhappy about are from Georgie's administration. It might be reasonable that that bunch of incompetents screwed things up as usual.

And, even then, at least some TARP and associated money is getting paid back because owing it stands in the way of some of those companies paying their execs those big bucks. Some toxic assets are now being hoarded by the companies that own them because they might not turn out to be quite so toxic, they can't tell.

Us liberals, by the way, the ones who elected Obama and expect to hold him to account aren't all that happy about how sloppy george and his ilk were in constructing his responses to economic melt down. WE aren't quite so accommodating to the wealthy, and haven't finished trying to get over paid execs back into reasonable compensation. For instance, when it turns out that the courts won't let us arbitrarily take back those undeserved bonuses, we may just have to tax hell out of them instead. Say 95%. Pay me now or pay me later.

As tyo "varied and hazy health care proposals" they get more concrete and more recognizable every day. Half of the dissatisfaction found in the polls is from those of us who want more Government in health Care, not less. Those who really and truly want single payer, or at least a robust public option.

And you ought to consider this: You just flat don't want Public health care of any kind. That puts you in a distinct minority. When the distinct MAJORITY gets some of its way, the radicals will have a fulcrum to leverage more and more public a Health Care System..And throughout that process, because your minority will keep yelling NO!, it will never get any say in the engineering of the system because while it is busy saying NO! it can't simultaneously be saying, "But let's add this and this and modify this..." and will be left lying on the rug saying "I don't wanna" and kicking and beating the floor.


Guess what? The adults went in the other room and closed the door some time ago, sonny!

Posted by: ceflynline | August 15, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, but unfortunately you get no points for shoutouts to Keyes, or for that matter, Michelle Maglagang, Piyush Jindal, Juan Williams, Dinesh DeSouza, or...well, you get the idea. Clinically observable self hate in anyone (not singling anyone out) is not a political stance but a serious medical issue requiring aggressive long term treatment.

BTW, I was happy to hear Sonia Maria Sotomayor's young female supporters have elected to own and embrace what was intended by bigots as a snarky slur against Justice Sonia: "Wise Latina." Young women now wear T-shirts that say, "I am a Wise Latina, y que?"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

There is still the possibility the FCC may bring back the Fairness Doctrine, pure kryptonite to the broadcast bigots."

I'm actually against this. It's dangerous for the government to be dictating what can or can't be aired on TV.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 3:53 PM
____________
Understood. But desperate times, sometimes call for desperate measures.

I caught only the tail end of Beck's sad weepy Friday sign-off but he seemed to be personally attacking by name some FCC staffer whom he believed was pushing for "diversity." So something MAY be afoot at the Commission.

The Fairness Doctrine was working well years ago until Reagan's FCC got rid of it, leading the way to the birth of hate broadcasting, Rush, Hannity, and the rest. Now of course broadcasters can say any untrue bigoted thing they want without challenge.

Outside the major cities, sometimes the only radio station you can receive is some AM station playing Rush sewage for three hours ago (often followed by Hannity) because it gets the show (as I understand it) for free...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

We voted for Alan Keyes. I'm sure there are some racists still out there, but 65% seems unlikely.

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"There is still the possibility the FCC may bring back the Fairness Doctrine, pure kryptonite to the broadcast bigots."

I'm actually against this. It's dangerous for the government to be dictating what can or can't be aired on TV.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Here the link to colorofchange.org which has successfully fought to have mainstraem sponsors (e.g., State Farm, GEICO) pull ther ads from the Glenn Beck show. Please sign the petition when you get a chance.

http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/

With a slew of major companies pulling their ads from his show over the course of a week, a tearful Beck announced on Friday he was going, er, "on vacation."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"So I agree. The free market is definately sending a message. It is tell the truth and stop cheerleading for socialism. "

Actually, the message is for pandering and sensationalism.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Agreed, DD: My take, based on review of videos of these hooligans and their antics (e.g., tearing up Rosa Parks signs and holding up signs threatening BHO and his family), is -- 87.8%, if not higher.

The MSM is just starting to pushback on the bigots. Bill Moyers did a whole show criticizing the 24/7 coverage the MSM has afforded these domestic terrorists and mentals. Also Katie Couric, of all people, I am told, pushed back hard the other day against these thugs. Of course, Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow has been all over this from the get-go.

If People Power is able to push Beck off the air, we may see the beginning of the end for hate broadcasting, which helps mainstream this craziness (birthers, teabaggers, Palin "rallies," Hannity "freedom concerts," etc.). There is still the possibility the FCC may bring back the Fairness Doctrine, pure kryptonite to the broadcast bigots.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"So I agree. The free market is definately sending a message. It is tell the truth and stop cheerleading for socialism."

Cool, then let the boycotts continue.

Besides, if Beck gets pulled, it will be FOX News who is doing it, not any liberal saboteurs. There's no law that says a show needs advertisers. And if people decide that they don't want to support advertisers that sponsor Beck, that's their choice. And of course, just because a company is boycotted, that doesn't mean they are forced to pull their ad dollars.

To me it looks like a bunch of financially motivated decisions. You know...free market economics.

But hey, it sounds so much cooler to call it sabotage.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Cynthia sounds just like Barry.

"I don't have any facts but I would guess that all whites are racist"

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

So now you socialists are all about the free market?

Let me remind you

top show: o Reilly
next : beck
next: hannity
in fact all top ten are on fox.

So I agree. The free market is definately sending a message. It is tell the truth and stop cheerleading for socialism.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama gave another great speech this morning about health care reform. I wish that besides talking about the success of medicare he would talk about how successful the Federal Employee Health Benefits program is. It's a good program that provides solid, well-defined medical coverage to Federal employees (including Congress) through the same private insurance companies everyone else uses AND

It pays for itself the same way these programs pay for themselves in private industry,
No socialised medicine,
No invasion of my private medical records,
No fiendish access to my banking (my portion comes right out of my paycheck the same way it does in private industry),
No mandatory government health ID,
No Death Panels.

Just good health coverage at a very reasonable price. My family benefits from it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 15, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.""

Seems kind of low to me.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"I suggest you libs do whatever you have to in order to silence the truth including trying to sabotage the leading cable shows. It is clear the more we know, the less we care for socialism."

Teeheehee, since when did free market economics become sabotage???

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Here was the take of award winning Atlanta Constitution journalist Cynthia Tucker on the principal motivation of the health care town hall hoodlums and disrupters:

"CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/08/07/cynthia-tucker-45-65-townhall-protesters-are-racists

Nuff said...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I suggest you libs do whatever you have to in order to silence the truth including trying to sabotage the leading cable shows. It is clear the more we know, the less we care for socialism.

Actually engaging in debate offers no promise or hope for you do the insults, slander and obfuscation is your only path.
More people watch beck than all your lefty shows combined.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Joe -- did you sign the petition to WalMart? They'll be next to go.

We have to stop Beck's blatant racism, and it will happen. We can't let the KKK lead the public discourse.

Posted by: drindl | August 15, 2009 10:41 AM
___________
d: I signed that general "ColorofChange" petition the boycott leader posted. I didn't email Wal-Mart directly, but I should have done so. Beck is clearly on the run and on the way out, his weepy performance on Friday spoke volumes. Management no doubt had a heart to heart with him.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"President Obama would be well-advised to do a little deep-thinking and earnest introspection about what the PUBLIC IS REALLY OBJECTING TO in the healthcare debate"
______
Our 44th President would be well advised not to waste his valuable time. Fact check time:

When the health care town hall meeting disrupters have been interviewed, they have voiced no substance, fact-based objection to any health care reform bill.

When these hooligans recited their lobbyist- and Pharma-provided talking points about the dangers of Big Government, they were quickly rendered silent after the interviewer would ask them if they wanted to abolish medicare, medicaid, and social security.

On the other hand, these thugs had a lot to say about how they hated BHO, his family, and _________s. And they took delight in jacking up an elderly black woman at one rally and trashing her Rosa Parks sign. Let's not confuse this thuggery with a legitimate debate about health care.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where the rightwing elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.

Posted by: drindl | August 15, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Before the “black helicopters” of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a “civil rights movement” had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would “enslave” whites. And back before there were Bolsheviks to blame, paranoids didn’t lack for subversives—anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists even had their own powerful political party in the 1840s and ‘50s.

[.....]

Liberals are right to be vigilant about manufactured outrage, and particularly about how the mainstream media can too easily become that outrage’s entry into the political debate. For the tactic represented by those fake Nixon letters was a long-term success. Conservatives have become adept at playing the media for suckers, getting inside the heads of editors and reporters, haunting them with the thought that maybe they are out-of-touch cosmopolitans and that their duty as tribunes of the people’s voices means they should treat Obama’s creation of “death panels” as just another justiciable political claim. If 1963 were 2009, the woman who assaulted Adlai Stevenson would be getting time on cable news to explain herself. That, not the paranoia itself, makes our present moment uniquely disturbing.


I don’t know why the right-wing crazy is so strong in the United States. Maybe it’s because we haven’t gone through the cleansing fire of out-and-out fascism, maybe it’s because ethnic diversity produces paranoia in a certain segment of the population (even as it produces tolerance in much of the rest).

Perlstein’s analysis of why the media has allowed itself to become a tool of the right-wing crazy—it’s largely because they’re afraid of being labeled liberal, cosmopolitan elites. But I think careerism is at work here too. Murdoch media gigs and affirmative action for wingnuts on editorial pages incentivize craven sucking up to the lunatic fringe.

Posted by: drindl | August 15, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I think everyone should report the mindless drivl for it's use of vulger speech.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

So according to libs:

the polls are wrong
the people are wrong
the facts are wrong
the numbers are wrong
the rationing is wrong
the quality is wrong
the cuts are wrong
capitalism is wrong
pediatricians are wrong
cops are wrong
soldiers are wrong
companies are wrong
profit is wrong
fishy comments are wrong
free speech is wrong
affordable energy is wrong

but if you just trust them completely they will make it all right. I mean left.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't hate Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | August 15, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

underlutz -- you're full of sh*t. These nutbags at the town halls just hate obama -- a bunch of sorry racist losers.

Posted by: drindl | August 15, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

President Obama would be well-advised to do a little deep-thinking and earnest introspection about what the PUBLIC IS REALLY OBJECTING TO in the healthcare debate.

It's not about healthcare or health insurance. It's the growing public mis-trust in the federal and state governments.

Look at the record. So far the federal government has handled-out trillion to the elite without so much as a cursory discussion on how its to be paid back.

The net result: TARP HASN'T WORKED! The Affordable home mortgage program HASN'T WORKED!. The limitation on big bonus's for CEO, CFO's and the rest of the leaches who got in line for easy money at the bailed-out companies HASN'T WORKED!

And now we are supposed to believe a group of varied and hazy healthcare initiatives is going to work.

Fellas, you got another think coming - so far you have done it to yourselves - people want to believe, but they don't.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | August 15, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"We can't let the KKK lead the public discourse."

How about the paid blog-spammers?

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 15, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Joe -- did you sign the petition to WalMart? They'll be next to go.

We have to stop Beck's blatant racism, and it will happen. We can't let the KKK lead the public discourse.

Posted by: drindl | August 15, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

As manipulated mobs distract the mainstream media...

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZES THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM.

A MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM DEPLOYS MICROWAVE / LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS' TO DEGRADE THE LIVES OF UNJUSTLY TARGETED AMERICANS.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE COVERT DEPLOYMENT OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS...

...AND WHEN WILL YOU BAN THEIR USE ON U.S. CITIZENS...

...AND BAN THE COVERT GPS / CELL PHONE TRACKING OF INDIVIDUALS...

...THE BACKBONE OF AN AMERICAN GESTAPO THAT IS OPERATING ON YOUR WATCH?


And, Mr. President: What caused that bald streak on the back of your head behind your left ear?

The victims of this covert torture program fear that you are among the targets of these crimes against humanity.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" ("stream" or "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 15, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

For the record--

No one takes seriously any Rasmussen poll--it is by far the most GOP agenda driven poll in the market. It is no coincidence Rasmussen is such a frequent guest of the Fox News hate commentators. As for the poll posted in this space, again, it speaks volumes that not even Drudge posted the bogus poll that was fronted here to push some agenda. If someone--anyone--is writing or implying that a majority of Americans support the lunatics and thugs who are disrupting civil town hall discussions on health care reform, they are pushing a personal agenda.

P.S.: The Glenn Beck boycott is working. On Friday he announced, teary-eyed, he is going "on vacation." If I had lost GEICO, State Farm, etc., as sponsors in a matter of days, I'd be "going on vacation," too. Shout outs to the thousands who answered the nationwide call to contact Beck's sponsors. People power works.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 15, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted earlier: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Gee. I thought he was dead.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 15, 2009 2:57 AM | Report abuse

Remember when Palin was going to be vice president?

Now she's just a stupid blogger

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Now who are the idiots?

==

You guys

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 2:10 AM | Report abuse

This may seem mawkish but I've always loved this painting, regarded it as the most emblematic picture of democracy ever done:

http://www.mahalo.com/norman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech

What a stinking shame the Republicans have so grotesquely perverted this idealistic vision. May the Palinites and the rest of the liars burn in hell.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 2:05 AM | Report abuse

"Act like an idiot to lose the election

==

I don't think it's an act.

Posted by: chrisfox8"


Well, I don't think that was really the plan

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Looks like all those "genius" libs have been outdone by an idiot, again.

Guess all those idiot voters figured out the scams too. Global warming, stimulus, efficient government, takeover of industries. Now who are the idiots?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 15, 2009 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Act like an idiot to lose the election

==

I don't think it's an act.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 15, 2009 12:57 AM | Report abuse

"Looks like Sarah palin has more power via facebook than the elected president or the so called leader of the lib senate. She has managed to have the death councils removed from the bill"

Yup, that was the plan all along. Act like an idiot to lose the election and then run the country through facebook.

Works for me.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 15, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Here's some stellar logic too.

We'll make the most critical decision any nation can make: to go to war against a nation that has never attacked us. We are so certain this nation is preparing to attack us with nuclear weapons that we must preemptively commit thousands of troops and trillions of dollars because those weapons are very close to readiness. We are however so certain of their existence, we know exactly where they are, that we must mobilize.

But when we get there and find nothing more that a moldy jar of peanut butter ("an aflatoxin lab!"), why, it's not *our* fault. Bad intel! Everyone believed they were there! Why, even John Kerry believed it!

"heh heh heh no WMDs over here heh heh heh"

"(*chuckle*)"

"I chose to defen' America."

Never mind all those guys unminded by roadside bombs.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib lib

Posted by: king_of_zouk

==

you got anything else?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Here is some dizzying lib logic. Hold on tight.

Medicare is an admirable government health care program. But it is broke. But to pay for another government health care program we will cut the budget. But there will be more coverage and no rationing. And spending will decline

even cccp can't defend it.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

NOT a lie:

Posted by: JakeD

==

heh heh heh damned good thing irony is massless

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Sarah palin has more power via facebook than the elected president or the so called leader of the lib senate. She has managed to have the death councils removed from the bill

lib leadership on display for all to see.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are now at risk, like the "Weathermen" of the 60s, though with dentures and glaucoma blinders instead of long greasy hair: whatever havoc, so long as the country is perceived to be worse off, just smash it.

Smart, hard working, honest people are increasingly annoyed by Obama. Still one can honestly detest both political parties and have no respect for Republicans.

Just now, the far right got even farther right in Gaza: "The group is very critical of Hamas, which seized Gaza in 2007, accusing the Islamist group of not being Islamist enough." BBC

My friends and I speculate about America's apparent insulation from a right wing military takeover. We decide we are safe. This is something real and wonderful and it is why we still live here. The far right and the far left ultimately bang boats and kill themselves and each other. America's secret way forward.


Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

NOT a lie:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

silly Libs. integrity is not your strongest feature.

==

Uh, you support the party that lied us into Iraq.

There's no worse example of integrity than that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I don't hate you.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

You hate everything except old white Republican men.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

How about we start crushing all Bugatti Veyrons if their owners make more than $250,000 per year?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I hate Renaults ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen corrects for sampling bias. Something CNN and Kos don't do. Hence the accuracy. Kos wil tell you that 80% approval is correct, without mentioning they sampled 90% Libs in an online self-selecting poll. They won't even report the questions they didn't like the responses to.

funny how libs want to "correct" the census, but not polls. kind of like demanding an ID for town halls but not to vote. silly Libs. integrity is not your strongest feature.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Poor Libs, so factually challanged.

In Obamaworld, as explained by the president in his Tuesday town hall, if we pour money into primary care for diabetics instead of giving surgeons "$30,000, $40,000, $50,000" for a later amputation -- a whopper that misrepresents the surgeon's fee by a factor of at least 30 -- "that will save us money." Back on Earth, a rigorous study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. That's because prevention applied to large populations is very expensive, as shown by another report Elmendorf cites, a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health-care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health-care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy -- yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse.

Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health-care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen did have Obama up by 5 - 6 points near the end, so he wasn't that far off. I think there is a modest Republican tilt to the poll, but not huge. I can't say as it does much for my confidence in him when he drops by Hannity's show and yuks it up with Sean for awhile. Then again, so does Juan Williams who is nobody's right winger (ChrisFox8 possibly excepted).

All that having been said, we're in the sausage making stage. Lots of "free floating anxiety" that's going to drive down numbers. I forget where I heard that, but it fits.

The concept that Republicans can be trusted for health care reform strikes me as ironic, at best. The Republican party is united to kill this or any process. Exactly what initiatives did we see from 2000 - 2008? Nada. [Adding a $100b/year drug benefit without paying for it hardly counts as reform.]

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 14, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Back on "Cash for Clunkers":

http://www.theweeklydriver.com/articles/1430/1/Maserati-Clunker-Colorado-man-turns-in-1985-Maserati-Bitiurbo-to-Cash-For-Clunkers-for-3500/Page1.html

A rare, like-new 1985 Maserati Bi Turbo with 18,400 miles on it was traded in to be crushed. Can we do that to MORE French cars?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

(from John Marshall of Talking Points Memo):

"On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general, I've been watching them closely now through at least two cycles. The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends."

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

@margaret - Trained at 2? I'm impressed (and jealous). My twins are past 3 1/2 and showing little to no interest in the whole process. Secondo (the one on the spectrum) actually seems to get the whole association, but he seems to hold it in until he gets up. We might be resorting to bribery.

Back on topic, the department of silly statistics. Here's one: In 2005, the majority (85%) of Canadians were very or somewhat satisfied with the health care services they received in 2005.

Even using the health care industries numbers, 77 percent of Americans are satisfied with their existing health insurance coverage. 85>77. And Canadians pay a *lot* less.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 14, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Get back to us when you get an interesting statistic from a reputable poll

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.

Democrats held a four-point lead on the issue last month and a 10-point lead in June. For most of the past two years, more than 50% of voters said they trusted Democrats on health care. The latest results mark the lowest level of support measured for the party on the now-contentious issue.

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of U.S. voters now in favor of it. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

Overall, Republicans lead Democrats in terms of voter trust on eight out of 10 key issues for the second consecutive month, and the two are tied on one issue.

Republican candidates continue to hold a modest lead over Democrats for the seventh straight week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, Mark I see you are back on. Your request re separate threads is a little disingenuous. You have published your e-mail address at least twice. What,no takers.

Posted by: rawreid | August 14, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers, pls email me at
mark_in_austin@operamail.com


cfox8, I suspect that the three cities at altitude will show better statistically, as well, regardless of the lifestyles of the citizens. The Georgian natives of the Caucasus mountains eat over 3000 calories per day and lots of animal fat - butter, cheese, beef, lamb - but are very long lived. Andean natives chew the coca leaves but are very long lived. A life at altitude increases the strength of the heart-lung machine.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers, pls email me at
mark_in_austin@operamail.com


cfox8, I suspect that the three cities at altitude will show better statistically, as well, regardless of the lifestyles of the citizens. The Georgian natives of the Caucasus mountains eat over 300 calories per day and lots of animal fat - butter, cheese, beef, lamb - but are very long lived. Andean natives chew the coca leaves but are very long lived. A life at altitude increases the strength of the heart-lung machine.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

simple simon - are you advocating that a program that satisfies over 85% of the population should be taken over by the government, which currently satisfies about 20% of the population?

that has got to be a great example of muddled Lib thinking.

==

Speaking of muddled thinking, where does you "20%" figure come from, and what does it refer to?

My guess is "nowhere" and "nothing"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm with bsimon and nodebris -- the GOP has done nothing to move forward on reform; much easier to sit on the back bench and mock and find fault and say any movement is impossible.
Theodore Roosevelt pointed this out when he described himself as the man in the ring. He did a lot of great things for this country, even with the rich and powerful shouting at him. Obama is this century's man in the ring.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 14, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers - Thank you. I am for health care reform, too. But I am for a universal plan that would establish a national single payer HMO. The currently proposed plans are an "okay" interim band aide, but we need that national system to fix the mess we have at some point. I have only very recently come to the conclusion that the current proposals are better than nothing.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 14, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

simple simon - are you advocating that a program that satisfies over 85% of the population should be taken over by the government, which currently satisfies about 20% of the population?

that has got to be a great example of muddled Lib thinking.

and the eventual outcome will be the same.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

nodebris writes
"It is certainly possible -- and easy -- to pick holes in any proposed solution; but it is not entirely honest to do so unless one admits up front that maintaining the status quo is among the worst and least tenable options."


This point is far too often overlooked by the opponents of reform; and more importantly by the people debating the opponents of reform.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 14, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I was in drivl's neighborhood this week. the most intelligent creature was a goat.

I hereby apologize for all the mean things I said about your naturally occuring handicap.

I presume it is the same with Chrischupapinga.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I agree, nodebris, about GP shortages and a host of other problems with the current system.

The problem is getting support to fix those problems, when a majority of people aren't affected by each one of them. The default position is the status quo, and that's not tenable. Unfortunately, not enough people are aware of the problems.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Exceptions are diseases that do not shorten lifetime based care costs and which cost amazing amounts of money, like schizophrenia.

==

Hmmm.

Are psychologists still treating schizophrenics on the couch?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I am entirely skeptical of what is "revealed" by a cursory reading of Gallop polls.

Posted by: nodebris | August 14, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the GP dilemma, is it not true that the situation has been getting progressively worse under the current system? I'm quite certain this is true regarding ob/gyn, at the very least. How then will the status quo fix this problem?

It is certainly possible -- and easy -- to pick holes in any proposed solution; but it is not entirely honest to do so unless one admits up front that maintaining the status quo is among the worst and least tenable options.

Posted by: nodebris | August 14, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza HAS answered my questions.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

BB, mibrooks, the mistake about diapers being an expense that can be applied to a Federal Medical Spending account is mine.

A law firm my husband was with several years ago allowed baby diapers, etc. to be reimbursed from the spending account. The Federal program we currently use does not. That's OK -- no one's been in diapers since my youngest was 2 (he was a champ at toilet training -- I tell him to put that on his resume).

This takes nothing away from what a good program it is. BB knows I have an autistic teenager. No one reimburses for her weekly "autistic teens" group therapy (yes, they do talk therapy together). That's where the spending account is great. She goes almost 5 figures in health bills all on her own, so to get to pay 5K of those bills in pre-tax dollars is a beginning.

She's one of the reasons I am for health care reform. I know that her working career will be spotty, and she may even be pinned-down to the kinds of jobs that don't offer health insurance. As long as health insurance is tied to your employment I know that my child who MOST needs continuous coverage is my child LEAST likely to have it.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 14, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Does "Mind your own f*cking business you weak-minded idiot" = vulgar name-calling?

==

Since CC isn't answering your "questions" maybe you should put him on "The List" too.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

@m_i_a: I find it VERY hard to believe that SLC makes the fittest list at all, much less number one. I was last there like fifteen years ago but I remember it as loaded with fatties. And the streets are full of eyelids at half-mast, reflecting the heavy trank consumption people need to get through those Family Home Evenings.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

Does "Mind your own f*cking business you weak-minded idiot" = vulgar name-calling?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

They're just bothersome, not a dangerous nut like Beck.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

You'd better start boycotting Whole Foods now too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Mark, that must include all of New York, incluidng Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. It would look different if it was just Manhattan, I'm sure.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Of course, the primary definition of scatology is the study of fecal matter. In archeology, fossilized fecal matter.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Here are the top 25 fittest and fattest cities according to Men’s Fitness:

Top Fittest Cities

1. Salt Lake City, UT 2. Colorado Springs, CO
3. Minneapolis, MN 4. Denver, CO 5. Albuquerque, NM
6. Portland, OR 7. Honolulu, HI 8. Seattle, WA
9. Omaha, NE 10. Virginia Beach, VA 11. Milwaukee, WI
12. San Francisco, CA 13. Tucson, AZ 14. Boston, MA
15. Cleveland, OH 16. St. Louis, MO 17. Austin, TX
18. Washington, DC 19. Sacramento, CA
20. Oakland, CA 21. Atlanta, GA 22. Fresno, CA
23. Tampa, FL 24. Nashville-Davidson, TN
25. Pittsburgh, PA

Top Fattest Cities

1. Miami, FL 2. Oklahoma City, OK 3. San Antonio, TX
4. Las Vegas, NV 5. New York, NY 6. Houston, TX
7. El Paso, TX 8. Jacksonville, FL 9. Charlotte, NC
10. Louisville-Jefferson, KY 11. Memphis, TN
12. Detroit, MI 13. Chicago, IL
14. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 15. San Jose, CA
16. Tulsa, OK 17. Baltimore, MD 18. Columbus, OH
19. Raleigh, NC 20. Philadelphia, PA
21. L.A.-Long Beach, CA 22. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
23. Indianapolis, IN 24. San Diego, CA
25. Kansas City, MO

How did your city do?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly"

G. K. Chesterton

That especially includes Health Care Systems and economic rescue packages.

(Get on the GKC page and read the essay it comes from for the reasoning)

Posted by: ceflynline | August 14, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline

You are true, you made me laugh again and I like your writing. See ya'll.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Teabaggers is what they call themselves. So I don't see what the issue is.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Wrong. chrissuxcox is vulgar on its face. teabagger is vulgar only in the minds of those who know its scatalogical meaning.

==

... and who makes a point of declaring that's the meaning he intends.

Until a few minutes ago I didn't know what sex act "teabaggers" refers to, and now knowing it, don't see how that could be arousing .. sounds scary to me ... teeth .. anyway.

There's a scatalogical second meaning to "strawberry shortcake" too. Are we protesting bakeries?

Lousy dodge, Jake. Get a life.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

mark,

This might be semantic, all health care prevents death. The ICU might be construed as prevention. So I guess huge cars are health care too.

All the things you list are "worth it",
but whole life health care costs for populations are not reduced by longer lives. It is just a fact.

We only contribute to health care for a few decades, but we consume it every year. Once the diseases happen, it does not matter to the equation whether the onset is in the 40s or the 90s they are really expensive.
Lots of fat people are dying in their 50s, 40s, now even in their 30s! Their "capitated" health care cost will be lower than someone who lived to 95, no matter how much the lucky guy ate right.

Exceptions are diseases that do not shorten lifetime based care costs and which cost amazing amounts of money, like schizophrenia. Sheesh, I sound like Larry Summers. Economics sure is nasty.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, koolkat_1960, I have informed Mr. Cillizza as to its vulgar meaning.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, I hate this program. I have a trash truck which is eligible, but I refuse to accept $4500 for a machine I bought 7 years ago for $850. My two Subarus have 85k and 125k respectively, but it is just wrong to use national debt to drive artificial consumption, ney "consumer demand"...for a new car. Depression preventing deficit spending is ok, I suppose, but again, for cars? Posted by: shrink2"

OK, its noble of you to not take the incentive, IF

You are doing a very careful job of keeping your veicles in excellent operating condition, so that they aren't among the mosquito foggers we have to deal with every day in traffic,

AND, you will realize when your veterans have reached the legitimate end of their service life and turn them in for new(er) ones.

I personally am not a model for keeping up car sales because I drive my vehicles to death, and probably could do a better job of maintaining them, but I understand that the incentive of getting all that cash for that dying F150 might just get my redneck neighbor to finally junk that POS and get something that doesn't keep me awake nights. THAT is probably the only thing that will motivate a great many owners to do the right thing, since the free money will certainly go away.

For those reasons the program is a good idea.

And, should you be one of those less than rational drivers who don't notice the birds falling out of the trees when you drive buy, ignore your conscience and take the cash.

Posted by: ceflynline | August 14, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"BTW: if "chrissuxcox" is vulgar, so is labeling us Teabaggers."

Wrong. chrissuxcox is vulgar on its face. teabagger is vulgar only in the minds of those who know its scatalogical meaning.

Nice try....NOT!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 14, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Great idea, Grannie Annie!

Of course that wouldn't apply to Obama's town halls, but for congressmen it makes some sense. It would also scare off some of the home-grown kooks who are constituents but are afraid of anyone asking for ID.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I think it's about time that ALL IDs be checked at the door and if the person presenting the ID isn't a constituent of the person holding the Town Hall meeting, they should not be admitted. That way the "seeding" of naysayers will be greatly reduced and perhaps people attending the meeting will actually be able to hear what's going on and thereby learn something.

Posted by: GrannyAnnie | August 14, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

For the record, The Federal Aviation Administration has (1) lots of problems and (2) is solely responsible for the astonishing safety record of American commercial aviation.

Think it is the Boeing product? Yes and No. The 737 is the most crashed jet in history...in countries and flown by airlines that (perhaps) should not exist.
The yes part is this. Boeing and the FAA are two sides of the same coin.

Lets get some confidence. If we decided our government run health care had to be the world's best, we would do it.

What is wrong with the right wing patriot, so proud of our military expeditions, so resentful of the agencies that will, like it or not, take care of their adult diaper payments?

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Shrink2:

I think there are a few things we can do to make health insurance a bit more fair. I do think that eliminating perverse incentives is a good start in general.

After that, we truly need to reform entitlements. Just as GM learned, promises made in the '60s can come back to bite you when you need to make good on them.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

While I was taking a break from working I sold about a thousand 90's electronica CDs I never listened to, and make several hundred trips to the post office to mail them (made almost ten grand and good riddance to all that techno crap). I never had to wait more than five minutes.

Zouk's "argument" is incredibly weak

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, what about when we think of prevention as :

seat belts gun safety air bags steel belted radial tires

reduced smoking good nutrition exercise

flouridation innoculations 4 wheel disk brakes

DUI license revocation reducing alcohol consumption

I believe there is more along this line we can do. Some of it has no public cost. Quit smoking. Quit drinking and drugging. Quit sugar.

A fat population will be an expensive one to care for, no matter how we pay for it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"

All of this talk about death panels is a distraction, the biggest issue with me is, Do we really want the govt running a part of our health care and of course the biggest is How the Heck are we going to pay for it? not enough rich folks to pay for it and the dems know it, we will run even bigger deficits and tax the middle class while still not addressing the cost curve. We should be looking at reforming medicare and social security and not this nonsense. Posted by: vbhoomes "

The easiest way to pay for it might be an additional 10% tariff on all imports. That might even slip by without more than a ripple in the balance of trade either way, because our current export list tends to be necessities unavailable elsewhere, and our current import list is highly price insensitive, since much of the price is going to middle men. Personally, I actually like that solution, but only put it up to show that paying for whatever we get is possible.

But actually debating HOW to pay for whatever we are going to get, and actually debating what mix of public and private medical providers is needed to give EVERYBODY, (illegal aliens included, also a debatable point) isn't happening, because currently the democrats are trying to craft a bill and the Repuiblicans are trying to strangle ANY bill in comittee.

UNTIL we get republicans to stop their tantrums and join in making health care for all a national duty, we are going to get a bill written, critiqued, and passed by Dems and independents. I personally figure that that is the best of all possible bills, but my pragmatic self says that a bill that the republicans work for rather than against might actually come up with good points that my guys might have missed.

But, SINCE the Republicans want no part of a health care bill, and SINCE Obama is quite correct in saying no bill is not an option, lets get as bipartisan as possible, ALL Democrats voting for whatever they can agree on and any republicans willing to cross Boehner and McConnell. Sort of like building Bombers in WWII. We built planes that had obvious defects and immediately sent them to rework facilities to correct the deficiencies because that was faster than stopping all production until all deficiencies being added on the main production lines would have been.

Lets build a deficient Health Care System, so that we actually get one, and then we can make it more perfect as time and experience allow.

That gives us the best of two worlds, health care now and better health care as we learn from what we are building.

And ANY TIME the Republicans finally decide to buy in they are welcome.

Posted by: ceflynline | August 14, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse


For the record, I have never suggested that anyone dip their scrotum into anyone else's mouth. Next canard?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

RE: DMV and Post Office.

For starters, the DMV is run by the state, so while experience may vary widely, it's not a federal bureaucracy. They've shortened lines mostly by doing much more online and through the mail.

As for the Post Office, yeah the lines were long, back in the '90s, at Christmas time. Try sending a letter across the country with any private carrier, and see how far it goes for 44 cents.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers, pls email me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

all will be explained.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"Separating health-care from employment and retirement decisions might help that."

Exactly. That is why I said whether the cost of prevention is worthwhile is another topic.

I believe it is and yet, we have to admit that longer lives cost more and figure out a way to appreciate (pay for) that.

We can't pretend that prevention pays for itself, or even more silly, pretend that prevention cuts the cost of a person's (whole life) health care in general.

The only thing that cuts the cost of a person's health care is poor health care.

If society decided to pay 50% of gdp on its own health, they would have to give up a lot of other things they might think matter, but it is a real choice and one worth considering.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"I often wonder, when I hear attacks on the post office and the DMV as examples of government's ineffectiveness, which post offices and DMVs these people have been visiting. Certainly not the ones I use, where the wait even during peak hours is no worse than showing up at Red Lobster without a reservation, and the waits during off-peak hours range from nonexistent to the length of a couple of Motley Crue songs. Not that the music they play while you wait in line is ever that good, mind you."

You have to think a party is in trouble when its main drivers for policy ideas are old Jerry Seinfeld jokes.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 14, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

TEA = Taxed Enough Already.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the rules for CARS could have been better written. The overwhelming response suggests that as a minimum, the incentive could have been lower, getting more clunkers off the road for less money. But that's the sausage-making process in congress for you; I'm sure the auto industry had a lot of input. Funny how the Michigan GOP was all for that one, huh?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The scatalogical meaning of "teabagger" is known to everyone using it as a put-down here.

==

No, it isn't. When I use it, it's a reference to those stupid "tea parties" where crowds of racists (4/15/09) and later a half-dozen or so smokers (7/4/09) showed up to protest ... their own taxes being lowered.

I'm aware it has a scatalogical meaning, but I honestly have no idea what it refers to. If you guys don't like potentially scatalogical references then you should have chosen another name for your phony protests. Deal.

As for zouk's "accuracy," you have no idea if that's true or not, and I'm not about to enlighten you. Again, you lie. And lie, and lie, and lie.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I know mike, I agree, but I really think we could do better than the rules of that program. Soon gas will be in the $8-12/gal range maybe more. It should be actually. We need to get away from these things if we want cheaper anything, including health care. It is a short term success, no doubt, but it kicks the can down the road, just as surely.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

And that is the conundrum, isn't it, shrink2? The longer we live past retirement, the more we use up resources without contributing. Separating health-care from employment and retirement decisions might help that.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I'd ask you to prove it with an actual quote, but you are on "The List"© too.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I've never joked about Obama being assassinated, and Palin is not lying about euthanasia.

==

And that's two lies in one post

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

shrink2,

I'm glad that you don't feel compelled to take advantage of the CARS program, despite having an eligible vehicle. To each his own.

However, it has been an effective way to stimulate the economy. It targeted an industry that was particularly hard-hit by the recession, one that was shedding jobs at a very high rate. And compared to highway projects, etc, it was immediate.

The stimulus contains a large number of initiatives, with varying time scales, designed to last long enough to get us through the recession. CARS was a particularly quick one, but the others are ongoing.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Agreed: early detection is cost effective in the short term and vasectomies are very effective for families on a budget.

But we all die of diseases, acute or chronic and the longer we live, the more we cost, it is as simple as that. It is sad to say, but the per capita cost of health care where life is 'brutish and short' is very low.

If we want all of us to live long, enabled, happy lives we may end up having a health care culture, wherein most of our $$ is spent on enabled, long, happy lives, this instead of vices, useless products, stuff in the garage and symbols of decadence in general.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

What's next "Cash for Washers & Dryers"? Or, "Cash for Plasma Screen TVs"? Maybe the Dems should just come out and be blatant about it: re-register Democratic Party and get $10,000!!!

==

Snotty and sarcastic.

The initiative is working, getting people back to work, getting lousy low-mileage cars off the road. You just don't like seeing an Obama success.

That's too bad.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

GESTAPO USA: Gov't Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America

Live link:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 14, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The scatalogical meaning of "teabagger" is known to everyone using it as a put-down here. At least "king_of_zouk" was being factual (which according to "drindl" means it is not name-calling).

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I've never joked about Obama being assassinated, and Palin is not lying about euthanasia.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

BTW: if "chrissuxcox" is vulgar, so is labeling us Teabaggers.

==

You're the people who showed up at phony "tea parties" in mockery of the Boston event before the Revolutionary war. The scatalogical meaning of "teabagger" is scarcely known to anyone, if you're trying to sell that as a sexually explicit reference, well, good luck.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

What's next "Cash for Washers & Dryers"? Or, "Cash for Plasma Screen TVs"? Maybe the Dems should just come out and be blatant about it: re-register Democratic Party and get $10,000!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

As manufactured mobs distract mainstream media...

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZES THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM.

A MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM DEPLOYS MICROWAVE / LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS' TO DEGRADE THE LIVES OF UNJUSTLY TARGETED AMERICANS.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT DEPLOYMENT OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS...

...AND WHEN WILL YOU BAN THEIR USE ON U.S. CITIZENS...

...AND BAN THE COVERT GPS / CELL PHONE TRACKING OF INDIVIDUALS -- THE BACKBONE OF AN AMERICAN GESTAPO THAT IS OPERATING ON YOUR WATCH?

And, Mr. President, what caused that bald streak on the back of your head behind your left ear? The victims of this covert torture program fear that you are among the targets of these crimes against humanity.

nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" ("stream" or "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 14, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Oh, it's fake, all right.

Hardly anyone showing up knows anything about the nominal topic of the meetings. They come to scream about how much they hate Obama. It's not grass roots, it's fake astroturf by people aimlessly angry about America being less "pale" than they're used to.

The only "healthcare" issues they care about are phony ones like death panels, and they're being egged on by private insurance companies who're seeing the end of the gravy train flashing before their eyes.

And as there, so here. You hate Obama because he's black, you've made "jokes" about him being assassinated, and you too are repeating Palin lies about euthanasia.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

mcdonalsherry:

I've read the bill too. What did you think about Section 1233 re: "end-of-life" counseling at least every five (5) years?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse


Can ANYONE give me a reason why 95% of senior citizens are enrolled in Medicare, other than it is their only option, or their most cost-effective option?

There are a bunch of GM retirees who until recently had a better plan. It helped to bankrupt the company. Now I'm guessing they'll be on Medicare as well.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Cash-for-clunkers" it may be drawing money from other consumer purchases and could also undermine future car sales, U.S. economists have warned"

Yeah, I hate this program. I have a trash truck which is eligible, but I refuse to accept $4500 for a machine I bought 7 years ago for $850. My two Subarus have 85k and 125k respectively, but it is just wrong to use national debt to drive artificial consumption, ney "consumer demand"...for a new car.

Depression preventing deficit spending is ok, I suppose, but again, for cars?

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

On topic, then, I agree with Mr. Cillizza that not only are people paying close attention to this debate but that the frustration and downright anger being vented is seen as authentic and powerful by a majority of those watching the coverage. That's a good point to keep in mind (since the Dems are trying to spin this a fake grassroots, just like they did the TEA Parties). BTW: if "chrissuxcox" is vulgar, so is labeling us Teabaggers.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I understand that with some diseases, applying stringent prevention to everyone can be much more expensive than treating the relatively few actual cases.

However, some preventive care and especially screenings can be very cost-effective.

I tried an HMO for one year in 1995. The care was pretty bad, but they were glad to give me a free vasectomy--no more pregancies from our family! Too bad for them I switched back to the regular plan a month later.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Back to "Cash-for-clunkers" it may be drawing money from other consumer purchases and could also undermine future car sales, U.S. economists have warned:

==

"Economists" who worry about "distorting the marketplace" are charlatans selling snake oil. Their position is based on a quasi-religious view of money and their belief in a "pristine undistorted state" which has no foundation in reality.

And oh, your post is off-topic. Why don't you just answer the question about your own hypocritical acceptance of Medicare checks and quit trying to change the subject?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

minm, totally agree.

Among other things, the end of fee for service has to be part of the reform package or there will be no reform, just a magnification of the existing mess.

Oddly, just today I got a Cleveland Clinic recruiting package, it looks like a great place to work. Kaiser out here in the PNW always looks good to me when I am mad at the public sector.

On another topic, contrary to Obama's premise, preventive services cost lots more than they save. Long lives cost more than short lives (is Lipitor treatment or prevention?). No matter when it happens, Death is that great sucking sound behind the health care fortune.

The question of whether the wonderful benefits of prevention (I am a huge believer) are worth the cost is a whole 'nother topic.


Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

To those people out there who have bought into all the misinformation (and I have read Bill 3200) they've already made up their collective minds so there's no way that you can have a logical discussion with them.
The expression "I've made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts" fits these people very well.

Posted by: mcdonalsherry | August 14, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

You posted about people buying low MPG vehicles on the CARS program before. Thanks for the link, which shows that a whopping 0.25% of the funds so far have gone to such purchases. These are allowed when you are trading in an extremely low MPG vehicle, usually a large truck.

While I would agree that perhaps this isn't in the true spirit of the program, it does get the clunker off the road and it does stimulate the economy. Still a win-win. That explains why congress rushed to extend the program.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

Please let "chrisfox8" know that you have indeed refused to answer my simple and polite hypothetical questions -- as I've always said, no one is under any obligation to answer questions here -- not doing so, however, gets you on The List.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Back to "Cash-for-clunkers" it may be drawing money from other consumer purchases and could also undermine future car sales, U.S. economists have warned:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940088ae-8830-11de-82e4-00144feabdc0.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

@mibrooks - Ah, I can see where there was a miscommunication. Adult diapers are probably allowed, as they are to provide relief for a medical condition. Not so for a baby. Contact lens solution is fine, because myopia is a medical condition.

Vitamins, which I didn't mention, are in the "it depends" category. If you take them for general health, no go. If, on the other hand, you have an iron deficiency, then the vitamins are for a medical condition and potentially eligible.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 14, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

And, Jake, if I ever refused to answer a question from you, I don't remember what it was. It wasn't in the last few days. Ask it again and I will answer.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

But, it's not "infantile" to refuse to answer my questions in the first place?

==

Nobody has "refused" to answer your questions. That's nonsense, and it's never happened. The only person here who ever "refuses" to answer questions is you.

MOST posts here go unanswered. Yours, mine, everyone's. Yours probably more than most because so many of your "questions" are clearly intended to bait the reader into an outraged response, or to engage people into wasting time rebutting the same dumb positions over and over and over.

And over and over and over and over.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

@mibrooks - It's the government plan: www.fsafeds.com. For example:

DIAPERS, DIAPER SERVICE HCFSA (there's an X in the not eligible box)
Not for routine care of a healthy newborn.

DIAPERS, DIAPER SERVICE (cont.) (there's an X in the potentially eligible box)
To relieve or ameliorate the effect of a particular illness or disease on you, your disabled child or dependent, who would not need this product “but for” the medical condition.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Regardless, Jake, you have personal experience with Medicare, and you choose to stay with it. That is in direct contradiction to all of your fear-mongering about government-run healthcare.

And I know you are enrolled in Medicare, because you never lie.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Jake, Mike's question is perfectly legitimate and your pouting refusal to answer is nothing more than childish.

You claim to be old enough to be retired. I don't believe you, but that's beside the point. You claim to be on medicare yet you rail against it as unconstitutional.

If you're ideologically opposed to medicare, why do you accept it? At the very least you're a flaming hypocrite. And this hypocrisy casts your alleged positions into even more doubt.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

But, it's not "infantile" to refuse to answer my questions in the first place? You've never heard of "Game Theory"?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Since you've refused to answer my polite questions -- they weren't even about your own personal finances -- it should come as no shock when I do the same.

==

how infantile

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

When you 'assume', you'll make an @ss out of you and me!

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

shrink2,

Sorry, that post wasn't thought through very well. I have nothing against the medical profession earning a good living--it's very demanding and stressful work.

I agree with you about perverse incentives. That's why I'm encouraged by models such as the Billings, Cleveland, and Mayo Clinics, who pay their doctors a competitive salary, not per-procedure.

Interestingly, quality of care goes up, while the number of procedures and the cost of care go down.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I often wonder, when I hear attacks on the post office and the DMV as examples of government's ineffectiveness, which post offices and DMVs these people have been visiting. Certainly not the ones I use, where the wait even during peak hours is no worse than showing up at Red Lobster without a reservation, and the waits during off-peak hours range from nonexistent to the length of a couple of Motley Crue songs. Not that the music they play while you wait in line is ever that good, mind you.

Of course, I don't know if you can compare the post office and DMV to health care in either a positive or negative regard. Are there peak hours for health care? "Yikes! That's a nasty cut, but maybe you should wait for the lunch rush to end before you head to the urgent care center."

Posted by: GJonahJameson | August 14, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

That's fine, Jake. Since I know that you are a very intelligent person, I will assume that you chose Medicare because it was the most cost-effective health-care option for you as a senior citizen.

You chose well. I wish that all Americans had health care that was affordable and couldn't be yanked away when they get sick. I'm not so worried about my mom, since she has government insurance better than Medicare--the same plan our congressmen would like us to be able to opt into.

For myself, I know that if I lose my job, I'm screwed. Thanks for caring.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Retail sales down AND unexpected jump in unemployment claim filings:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9A26FK03

Apart from whether "Cash for Clunkers" is Constitutional, people are getting new cars under 20 MPG (including Hummers ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

minm,

Maybe you were joking, but apart from doctors who get hauled off in handcuffs from time to time, no one is getting top 10% $$ seeing VA, Medicare and Medicaid patients all day. The profiteers are privateers, as in pirates.

The heterogeneity of doctor pay is another symptom of our broken health care business model. Why should a doctor who sees poor people get paid a fraction of the money paid to a doctor who sees the rich? Or does anyone think those who see the poor do so because they have to?

Less money in exchange for a meaningful life's work, I guess that is what we want to protect.

Perverse incentives are everywhere in the American government/private insurance cabal and yet it is still protected by those with all four hooves in the trough as an efficient "free market".

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

As anyone with a brain can see, the moonbats have ruined the blog......again.
Perhaps a concerted effort of ignoring the fools will result in their going back to whatever gutter from which they emerged.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Let's see now. Sotomayor confirmed. Unemployment dropped. Earnings are up. The CARS effort is very popular.

Obama hasn't passed health care reform YET. Not exactly a string of failures.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

Since you've refused to answer my polite questions -- they weren't even about your own personal finances -- it should come as no shock when I do the same.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of that top 10% of earners are in the medical profession. And the rest of us can't afford health care. Ironic, isn't it?

==

Not quite as scandalous as that one CEO making $1.7 *billion* over ten years while cutting off people fighting cancer

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

OK, I'm going to assume that Jake is too busy trying to misconstrue other peoples posts to answer a polite question.

So, I'll just state the obvious: Medicare is government-run health care. It is more cost-effective than private insurance. It is cheaper than private insurance, assuming you could even get a policy. Which is why 95% of seniors are enrolled in it.

And that's why Jake is enrolled in it. And why he doesn't want it repealed, even if he likes to pretend it is unconstitutional.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox, there's not much there to neuter.

==

yeah that infantile "lib" and "moonbat" and "messiah" crap is all he can manage, and all he can get away with.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

You mean you want the government to force people to continue living, perhaps in terrible pain?

Is that your idea of smaller government?

==

No, that's their idea of a "culture of life"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of that top 10% of earners are in the medical profession. And the rest of us can't afford health care. Ironic, isn't it?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox, there's not much there to neuter.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

You mean you want the government to force people to continue living, perhaps in terrible pain?

Is that your idea of smaller government? To me, that seems like an unconstiutional overreach of government.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

but after we retake Congress in 2010,

==

Wanna put some money on that bet?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

They have assisted suicide in Oregon Chrisfox, but after we retake Congress in 2010, I would perfer you take a less drastic action.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 14, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

their credibility these days is definitely on the wane. Pelosi is a laughing stock, Reid is a proven loser. Even the messiah has been revealed for an empty fake

==

You should find somewhere else to surf, this kind of stuff fits in here like a cigar butt on an angel food cake

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

ignoring moonbats

==

enjoying your neutering

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

One reason so many americans can't afford health care:

'A recent update to a research paper by University of California, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez has found that income inequality is worse than it has ever been in the United States:

As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that’s “higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the ‘roaring” 1920s.‘”

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

We were talking about the Advanced Care Directive Consultation. I was assuming it was a separate appointment. Therefore, if you don't want an ACDC you don't make an appointment to see the doctor for that consult.

I did not mean that you had to avoid doctors lest you get forced into the consult.

I understand that this *could* be done as part of another visit. But if you go in for a flu shot, you can get that and then walk out.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

'Pelosi is a laughing stock, Reid is a proven loser. Even the messiah has been revealed for an empty fake"

this drool is supposed to pass as intelligent discourse. And will be repeated ad infinitum as it has been for two years.

I wish to god they could get a better class of trolls here. Boooooooooringgggg.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

One can hope now that the Repubs will find their true identity and march forward again.

==

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were.

Actually, if I were you, I would probably commit suicide.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

ignoring moonbats

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"Now that chris the hater has appeared, the blog will spiral down into the toilet as is his usual goal.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 1:38 PM "

Which is exacty wht everyone thought to themselves the minute zouk came on.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Blade, I am invoking my previous rule about ignoring moonbats. I was temporarily drawn into the leftist sewer with them, but no more.

their credibility these days is definitely on the wane. Pelosi is a laughing stock, Reid is a proven loser. Even the messiah has been revealed for an empty fake. I find it curious that it only took a few months for the entire Dem agenda to fall into dust. Repubs lasted almost 6 or 7 years in the midst of a contentious war. Libs can't even make it to resess before total self-destruction.

and that was with both houses, a willing and cooperative press, friendly world opinion and a voter mandate. how quickly they squandered it all.

One can hope now that the Repubs will find their true identity and march forward again.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade - "...You can't expense normal consumables such as diapers or vitamins in a flexible spending account." Sure you can! ANd you can use those savings for contact lens care, over the counter cough medicine, aspirin, adult diapers, and lots more. Whoever is managing your flex account is being waayyy to restrictive.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

No, I am not done with YOUR post yet:

"I said that the patient doesn't have to talk to the doctor. I meant they didn't have to go in to see the doctor, not that their only form of resistance was silence."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 12:46 PM

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

When I go to Việt Nam, a very poor country, I see signs aimed at pregnant women, advising them to be especially attentive to their own nutrition so their babies will have a better chance of being born healthy. A little reading shows that of the First World nations, America is the only one without a federal program encouraging good nutrition in pregnancy and good infant nutrition.

The absence of such concern at the federal level is reflected by our shockingly high infant mortality rate, rather ironic given that we have such a vehement and loud movement opposed to abortion.

And it's especially ironic that the people who scream about "the slaughter of the unborn" and the people opposed to spending money to help children be born and grow up healthy .. are the same people.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

No, the Medicare handbook would not say she has to. It would say she can't charge the government for this separate service if she doesn't cover all the parts of the service.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

@margaretmyers - A correction. You can't expense normal consumables such as diapers or vitamins in a flexible spending account. Only if there is a medical basis, such as prenatal vitamins. Also, the program isn't limited to Federal employees. My previous employer, a nonprofit research lab, also participated in such as system. My main beef with something along these lines is that you can't roll over the money from year to year. It's a real guessing game. It works well if you have anticipated expenses such as regular copays. In our case, birth control or psychiatric care for our son on the austim spectrum. It's not that helpful if something surprising happens, like when I broke my foot or needed a root canal & crown. Including a roll-over option should be a part of the whole health care reform bill.

@Zouk - Welcome back. Keep it civil.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 14, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

My father died in a VA hospital at 52, and my mother is a retired government worker (she has government-funded, BS/BC administered coverage), so I have no direct knowledge of Medicare's inner workings.

As a Medicare recipient, your input would be helpful. Can you explain why you enrolled in Medicare, rather than private insurance, or paying out of pocket for your medical care?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Mo, mikeinmidland, at most, the doctor would say, "It's been 5 years since we talked about setting up a Living Will. You can sit there and not say anything at all, but I'm supposed to go through the following ..." or some such, and any patient who says, "I don't want to discuss that, thank you" the doctor falls back on the Medicare Handbook says I have to.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Snowbama is down 11 points this month. time for another glitzy speech. now where did I put that teleprompter and Greek columns?"

Dude, it's been a year. Quit whining about the Greek columns.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Snowbama is down 11 points this month. time for another glitzy speech. now where did I put that teleprompter and Greek columns?

==

This childish stuff contributes nothing to the conversation. Quit it.

By the way, the love of your life is waaaaay down in esteem, even among Republicans.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Now that chris the hater has appeared, the blog will spiral down into the toilet as is his usual goal.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

It's the hypocrisy,-----.

"If you can recall the big give away to Big Pharma in 2003 that was known as the medicaid bill, you will recall that most Republicans voted for it, as Karl Rove told them do so, while most democrats opposed the large corporate welfare bill.

In the text is the following.

"The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

Here is a link to the 2003 vote and how everybody voted.

In wingnut world, this bill would be much worse. It ONLY targeted the terminally ill. You know. This only was done for the scared grandmothers near death, as their options were overwhelming. This was perfectly acceptable.

A bill that allows counseling to people well before that point in 2009, OTOH, is pure evil with eugenics, dead grandmas, Trig Palin euthanized, and various and other sorts of evil involved.

Chuck Grassley btw voted for this bill."

Here's a roll call of everyone who voted and how.

ttp://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459#name

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

For the record, SIX BILLION people on this planet undergo alleviable suffering -- whether you agree that government is the answer or not -- for the sake of argument, though, how much will Obamacare cost for all of them too?

==

American health care is for people in America, Jake, not for the entire world. We are a nation of about three hundred million.

If all you can do is divert the discussion into irrelevant tangents, why don't you take a day off and go troll a suicide watch support group or something noble like that

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

simply put, the more the Libs talk, the lower their approval falls. Isn't the truth an interesting thing?
If the facts about Libs keep getting out, unspun, they will be out of power in two years.

Snowbama is down 11 points this month. time for another glitzy speech. now where did I put that teleprompter and Greek columns?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse


OK, one more time for the chronically slow on the uptake:

Obviously a patient can go and see a doctor whenever they get sick. The patient does not, and would not under the language in HR3200, have to agree to any end-of-life counseling as a part of that or any other visit.

At most, the doctor could say, "Have you thought about setting up a Living Will?" or some such, and the patient would say, "I don't want to discuss that, thank you." Absolutely nothing to stop a doc from trying to start that conversation under existing statutes, and nothing requiring it in HR 3200.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Have they all so quickly forgotten what life is like at the post office and at the DMV? "

The only problems I've ever had at these places is that sometimes the wait can be long. It is annoying, but I don't remember the last time the post office has screwed up anything I've needed done (if ever) and the same is true with the DMV. The long DMV wait was only when I got my first driver's license at the main DMV. The satellites are much shorter waits. For the post office, the long lines are during peak hours like lunch or after work. Guess what? This is true of everything. Ever try to eat out in Georgetown at 7 on a Friday night?

Honestly, if this is the standard we are going to use, I'd want to see government actually take over some industries. (airlines comes to mind)

And while long waits are annoying, this isn't an issue intrinsic to government. I've waited in long lines for all sorts of things.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"Of course, drindl, but "mikeinmidland" was trying to argue that seniors wouldn't have to be subjected to end-of-life counseling by simply staying away from doctors."

Like everything else you say, complete nonsense.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

For the record, SIX BILLION people on this planet undergo alleviable suffering -- whether you agree that government is the answer or not -- for the sake of argument, though, how much will Obamacare cost for all of them too?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If, by "our parents and grandparents" you mean senior citizens on Medicare, the Obama proposals do very little to change that system.

The "public option" is obviously important only for those people under 65 who are not eligible for Medicare.

Besides the public option, the most important aspect of the plan is to require insurance companies to accept people, and not to drop them. I don't know how any of this would hurt the medical care of our seniors.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The idea that any sane person would be in favor of the government’s running the health industry simply doesn’t compute. Leaving such important matters in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats is beyond mind-boggling; it’s lunacy. Have they all so quickly forgotten what life is like at the post office and at the DMV?

==

So we should go on letting millions suffer from treatable ailments, go on letting a million Americans go bankrupt every year from medical expenses, go on paying twice as much as anyone else for healthcare, go on letting prices rise, go on letting 18 thousand die each year from lack of prompt care ...

... because you don't like waiting in lines.

Yeah you make a lot of sense.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

We need to pay for the care of people who can not or at least do not pay the bill (Medicaid), those with long term disabilities and those who are experiencing the last years of life (Medicare).

No insurer can profit by underwriting these risk pools. Medicaid and Medicare exist to 'lose' taxpayer money so that private insurers can 'make' money. Medicaid and Medicare prop up the private sector by carving out the high risk pools - and still our health care costs increase beyond any reasonable level.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"There is no mandate or requirement in HR 3200 for the patient to submit to any counseling of any kind.

Going back to my posts from 5:05 to 5:59pm, I said that the patient doesn't have to talk to the doctor. I meant they didn't have to go in to see the doctor, not that their only form of resistance was silence."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 12:46 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/13/health_care_the_view_from_both.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

and at least acknowledge government has failed us on many levels.

==

... by not doing a better job of protecting us from the privileged and powerful

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

That Reagan "Federal government is the enemy" stuff doesn't fly with anyone who is paying attention.

We just had 8 years of it under Bush and the result is an under-audited Wall Street in the ditch, under-regulated mortgage writing in the ditch, under monitored imports posoning us, under-audited banks in the ditch, under-funded energy research leaving us vulnerable to foreign countries, unfunded school mandates swamping local school district funding, and one dysfunctional, outdated, expensive health system. Looking back 48 years is what brought us to this point.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 14, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I said no such thing and you know it. Perhaps you are trying to imply that any time a Medicare recipient goes to the doctor, they can be forced you have an end-of-life care discussion. I really don't care whether that provision ends up in the legislation or not, I just object to people mischaracterizing it.

You have said you are on Medicare. You have also said Medicare is unconstitutional. Obviously you do not have the strength of your convictions, or you would opt out of Medicare in protest.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Quite honestly, I don’t even understand why Democrats are supporting Obama’s health plan. Assuming they’re aware that even during the presidential campaign, Obama suggested that a reasonable option for old folks in dire need of operations was to rely on pain pills, I can’t help wondering if liberals are so busy worrying about the health and comfort of terrorists down in Gitmo that they simply don’t have the time or inclination to fret over the plight of their own parents and grandparents. Or perhaps they’re simply eager to collect their inheritances.

The idea that any sane person would be in favor of the government’s running the health industry simply doesn’t compute. Leaving such important matters in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats is beyond mind-boggling; it’s lunacy. Have they all so quickly forgotten what life is like at the post office and at the DMV?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Of course, drindl, but "mikeinmidland" was trying to argue that seniors wouldn't have to be subjected to end-of-life counseling by simply staying away from doctors.

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

What about Washington? A lot of folks died during the Revolution.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Every senior gets sick often enough. Comes with the territory.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Let Ronald Reagan talk to you about Health Care. 48yrs ago he had it pegged. Hear it here, http://www.backamerica.net

==

Reagan isn't relevant.

Those old "government is the problem" talking points are from another era, a very shallow one, and that sentiment is dead.

Stop living in the past. I know you're wistful for that long-gone season of swagger but you have to grow up sometime. It's not cool to be a Republican anymore.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

But I thought you just said on the other thread that most of us seniors DON'T get sick that much?

Posted by: JakeD | August 14, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

davidhnaz writes
"Now you tell me what party is the party of war and death?"

Why did you leave out Lincoln? The war over which he presided saw a million US casualties.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 14, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Do we really need the govt running part of our healthcare?

Well, if you like Medicare, then the answer is yes. Medicare exists because seniors couldn't get affordable health insurance. It's too hard to make money insuring a group of people that get sick so much. So the government had to become the insurer.

I'm not a single-payer fanatic, but "Medicare for the Rest of Us" actually sounds pretty good to me.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 14, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Do we really want the govt running a part of our health care and of course the biggest is How the Heck are we going to pay for it?

==

That's not a problem with Obama's proposal.

That's the problem Obama's proposal is intended to solve.

Is there some reason you need such simple things explained to you over and over?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

seeya, joe.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

What a slanted story.

Americans approve of political participation. Americans approve of dissent and questioning as part of the political process.

That's not at all the same as saying that the howlers and screamers have legitimate concerns or grievances. The fact that majorities disapprove of disruption is so played down in this post that one would think Americans approved.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 14, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

David Vitter doing town halls:

"Many of those attending Vitter’s town halls have been shepherded to the events by local chapters of TeaPartyPatriots.org, a supposedly grassroots network of national activists that happens to “partner” with the health-care and insurance industry-funded lobbying firm Freedom Works, which has directed angry mobs to Democratic events. At a town-hall meeting on August 10 in Jefferson Parish, many local constituents were reportedly turned away while Tea Party activists were allowed to enter. When the event concluded, Vitter rushed out of the back door and away from the press and his constituents, guarded by a phalanx of police officers."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-13/from-hookers-to-health-care/?cid=hp:mainpromo5

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the knowledge, d.

Out for the day.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Though the government, we have also brought several imporant species -- like the bald eagle -- back from the brink of extinction.

What we have a problem with now is not the federal government itself or what we can do as a nation, but a concerted, 30 year ideological war against it.

We have lost our identity as a single nation. We are so wholly divided into two sides that we cannot accomplish anything whatsoever, because we have too many people cheering for failure.

I remember growing up and watching with pride as the first American walked on the moon -- and I can tell you that all Americans were proud, as one people. We are not that anymore, because too many people hate government so much they no longer want to achieve great things -- only for big ideas to fail. I do not beleive I wlll ever see a great achievement come out of this country again.

The America that became a great nation is gone. Nations come and nations go, and we are now watching the acceleration of our own dissolution, the beginning of our own end.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Then came ObamaCare. The Administration put enormous pressure on Congress to rush this bill through in 3 weeks. What? Overhaul the American public health system covering every person in the country with no public debate or discussion in 3 weeks? Are you angry?


Well, now, yes we are. Now the American public is angry with the political class. This growing upset was successful again in stalling this atrocious legislation. But the bill remains alive and the Democrats have their enormous margin in both chambers of Congress.


This frustration and anger came to the fore during town hall meetings this summer with Congressmen and Senators.


However, the only violence that has occurred has been by SEIU union thugs beating up on average citizens showing up to voice their constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assembly.


Although there are usually police present at these town hall meetings, they are not needed to protect the politicians from the public, they are there to protect the public from the "volunteers" brought there by the Democratic Party.


There doesn't need to be anybody to protect the politicians from the pitchforks wielded by all of us Americans who cling to our Bibles and our guns.


We need to be protected from the pitchforks brought in by the community organizer and his friends.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that Obamacare has too many conflicting goals. Skepticism is warranted when Obama promises to cut costs while simultaneously provding coverage to tens of millions of uninsured people.

This week, they rolled out their latest iteration of Democratic new math which involves savings tons of money by Obama's new golden egg, "prevention".

Obama said in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."


Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom.

But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong.

Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.


Krauthammer writes "In Obamaworld, as explained by the president in his Tuesday town hall, if we pour money into primary care for diabetics instead of giving surgeons "$30,000, $40,000, $50,000" for a later amputation -- a whopper that misrepresents the surgeon's fee by a factor of at least 30 -- "that will save us money."

Back on Earth, a rigorous study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent.

That's because prevention applied to large populations is very expensive, as shown by another report Elmendorf cites, a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should.

But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


It is healthcare reform's own contradictions that are causing it to sink, thanks to Obama's overreaching and dishonesty.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Drindl the Republicans do not have enough house & senate members to stop the public option, if its stop, its because you couldn't get your own party to go along with it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 14, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Woodrow Wilson “Progressive liberal democrat” gave us WW I 116 Thousand Americans and 18.6 Million total deaths.

Franklin Roosevelt another “Progressive liberal democrat” gave us WWII 418 Thousand Americans, and over 60 Million total death.

Harry Truman another “Progressive liberal democrat” gave us the nuclear bomb on Japan, and the Korean War 36 Thousand American and 1.2 Million deaths.

JFK and LBJ more liberal democrats, gave us the “Vietnam experience” 58 Thousand Americans and 1.5 Million deaths.

George H W Bush and George W Bush “Conservative Republicans” gave us Desert Storm (1991) and Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) 5 Thousand American Deaths combined 3 wars, and 1.4 (high estimate) total deaths.

Now you tell me what party is the party of war and death?

Posted by: davidhnaz | August 14, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"The other Western country most like us is Sweden. Their cultural and entertainment tastes, gun ownership, general anarchic freedom, even religious views and work ethic and worker productivity, are far more akin to ours than Canada or the U.K."

Gun ownership is not similar in Sweden. They have very strict laws, require licensing and education. I lived in Sweden for 6 years (and live in the UK now.) They have a far more cohesive view of family than the US and do not obsess about morality issues. Gay marriage is legal and half the government is staffed with women. I would agree that cultural and entertainment tastes are similar but that's mainly due to the overwhelming volume of American entertainment available.

Posted by: RickJ | August 14, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe,

the problem with you response to my post is, you did not read it for substance - nothing in your post indicates you read my post for substance

This is the problem with our system - you read the part you did not like and then failed to read the entire piece for substance - you did read the part where I s aaid they are subverting our democracy and this is why we need to pay closer attention to them and at least acknowledge government has failed us on many levels.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
__________
Social security, medicare, medicaid, clean air and water, national parks, interstate highways, the GI Bill, student college loans, government backed mortgages...yep, government has really failed us. Let's get rid of all that. For a start let's fill in the Grand Canyon for condos...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I didn't realize that was so long. But I think it's important to see what it this looks like from another perspective.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe,

the problem with you response to my post is, you did not read it for substance - nothing in your post indicates you read my post for substance

This is the problem with our system - you read the part you did not like and then failed to read the entire piece for substance - you did read the part where I s aaid they are subverting our democracy and this is why we need to pay closer attention to them and at least acknowledge government has failed us on many levels.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | August 14, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

On the original topic -- broadwayjoe is right. you may scroll past this if you are not interested in something from the Jewish Forward on the subject, an Israeli perspective on what's happening in America:

"In 1995, right-wing Israeli demonstrations opposing any political accommodation with the Palestinians featured posters depicting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the uniform of a Nazi SS officer. The message was duly received. On November 5, 1995, Yigal Amir, a far-right Israeli law student, assassinated Rabin at a Tel Aviv peace rally.

We should keep the Rabin assassination in mind as Rush Limbaugh, arguably the most influential ideologue of today’s American conservative movement, compares the Obama administration’s health care reform initiative to Nazism and the president himself to Hitler.

“Obama’s got a health care logo that’s right out of Adolf Hitler’s playbook” and “Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did,” Limbaugh told the millions who faithfully tune in to his radio show. The president “is sending out his brownshirts to head up opposition to genuine American citizens who want no part of what Barack Obama stands for and is trying to stuff down our throats,” Limbaugh continued, and “Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.”

Limbaugh is not alone in making the Hitler analogy. Demonstrators disrupting town hall meetings on health care reform have brandished images of President Obama with a Hitler-like mustache and signs with “Obama” written under a swastika. Earlier this year, the president of the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County in Maryland wrote on the group’s Web site that “Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common.”

From the outset, the strategy of some Republicans has been to delegitimize Barack Obama by depicting him as somehow dangerous and “un-American.”

That was conventional politics, albeit of the gutter variety. By comparing President Obama to Hitler, however, Limbaugh is sending his national audience a subliminal but clear message of a wholly different sort.

The problem is not just one of civility in political discourse. The real issue is that Limbaugh, with the tacit acquiescence of his corporate sponsors and the GOP establishment, is calling for sedition and worse.

If Limbaugh in his radio broadcast had made, in the words of the relevant federal statute, “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States,” he would have been thrown off the air and would be awaiting trial on felony charges. But his likening of Obama to Hitler is the functional equivalent of calling for an act of violence against the president of the United States."

I have posted most of it because the link is corrupted. We cannot just ignore this.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Reason5, on the Pharma side of this matter I favor R&D too. But part of the fed contrib to R&D that is conducted within Pfizer, etc., not just in the grad schools, should be a deal on patents that does not allow the abusive renewal of patents for ever so slightly different drugs.

I am dubious of the late night ads for patented RX drugs.
Perhaps they can be limited as part of the arrangement.

Just brainstorming.
--------------------------------
The Fed has some bargaining hammers now, it seems to me. For example, through NAFTA we could include CA pharmaceuticals in our market.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

millbrooks, so are Scandinavian, but for our burdensome South? ;-}

Perhaps the greatest disaster in government run anything here is Amtrak. The FAA does pretty well, NASA too I suppose.

Those of us who only work as providers for the VA, Medicaid and Medicare systems are perhaps too close to them to judge them.
My bias? I can't stand the idea that I am working in the guts of a system that no one thinks can work for all of us.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I read something today concerning this health care plan that I welcome as a major plus. One concern of mine was money for R&D and where it will come from. I have found out that there is a deal with pharmacueticals and Obama concerning this issue. Pharmaceuticals will donate $80 million to help get this bill passed in exchange for a promise that the gov't. will not negotiate medication prices. That still leaves money for R&D. I've made several posts on this issue, so I thought I would say this bill does have this clause to protect that.

Now the issue of medical professionals leaving the industry is still a problem. The end of life issue gets alot of publicity. But I wanted to say a deal is in place to help protect R&D.

Posted by: reason5 | August 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"Dismissing these naysayers will not help solve healthcare - we need to acknowledge they are angry. we need to look at the bigger complaints of distrust of the government."
________
They are hoodlums and, in some cases, domestic terrorists. The guy with the sidearm at the BHO event was not there to debate the "public option" or "single payer." Nor was the lunatic in MD that they carted away who brandished a sign explicitly threatening BHO and his family. Again, when the thugs are actually interviewed by real journalists, they have no informed opinion on health care reform, only on their hatred of our 44th President. When they do background checks on these mentals, they find most are paid by the health care lobbyists or have connections with the organized hate community. Give me a break.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

glazer1, I have never trusted that number for Medicare because Medicare has underfunded reserves. That is what I meant about not playing Mickey Mouse games with the reserves. In the 60s and 70s playing games with reserves was a favorite past time of some insurance execs. Companies went under and state commissions paid off - in other words taxpayers bailed out the crooks
.
Medicare has been systematically underfunded for various reasons, all political, that would get a private insurer into receivership.

Shrink, thye should put us in charge.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I thought about this a bit more, after posting it, and I should said Scandinavia. Norway is like the Mid-West, Sweden like the North-West, and Denmark like California and the Northeast.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

glazer and Leichtman -- Federal employees currently can set up pre-tax dollar medical spending accounts. We can put aside up to 5K from our paychecks: the money is taken from our gross pay and deposited, in bi-weekly installments, to a spending account. During the year, we cna then submit qualifying medical expenses (co-pays, dentist bills, therapy bills, diapers and OTC meds, too) to the account, and our reimbursement is then direct deposited to our bank accounts.

As Federal employees (including congress)we also enjoy the Federally run Federal Employee Health Benefit program. This is the model for the health care reform now being worked on in congress. We enjoy the program. Government analysts, using good medical guidelines, write the minimum standards for a wide variety of policies (Hi deduct/low premium, HMO, POS, etc). The same insurance companies everyone else uses then set at which they can offer these policies, and all the policies are offered to us every year. We can change our policy every year if we see one that suits us better than the one we currently have. It works beautifully, and I get good coverage at a price that is fair to me and acceptable to the insurance company.

I find nothing sinister in the program. The direct deposit and withdrawal has never been abused, I do not have a Gov't Health Care ID -- just a BC/BS card, and I have never had my BC/BS card turned away by a provider I wanted to use. I was recently asked if I have a living will, but when I said no there was no pressure to write one.

Win win win. You can have it, too, if the reform bills are passed.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 14, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 - Actually, it isn't Canada. The other Western country most like us is Sweden. Their cultural and entertainment tastes, gun ownership, general anarchic freedom, even religious views and work ethic and worker productivity, are far more akin to ours than Canada or the U.K. I have travelled extensively, actually lived for a time in Canada and Sweden (and 6 months in France, too) and Sweden was like being home in Oregon, whereas Canada always felt alien (and France was *really* different). My wife and I travel to Europe every other summer and we actually stop off in Sweden to decompress.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 14, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

What this space and BroderWorld will not tell you is the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without universal health care. In every other country, affordable health care is considered a basic civil right, not a communist plot. How we do health care reform is a legitimate debate -- one the town hall thugs and terrorists are not interested in, especially the lunatics who tore up the Roas Parks sign. But whether we need some kind of reform is not seriously debatable.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Then we agree on this:

Good to be skeptical about things that sound too good to be true.

Already far too few primary care practitioners coupled with the planned large increase in the numbers of insured will exacerbate not contain cost (put simply, we'll have to pay more for access).

No cost containment is possible if we continue to use the fee for service, corporate/competitive payment model.
Its incentives are perverse.

The open question and perhaps the most important problem here is whether our form of government is better able to closely regulate the insurance industry using a capitated business model, as you suggest, or whether our government would be better at being the health insurance industry (Medicaid for all, in essence).

As a result of the Supremes conflation of "freedom of speech" with graft/lobbying (my opinion obviously, but how about the performance of say, the SEC over the last decade?), I think we would do better to fund, improve and expand Medicaid to a single payer system. But this is a difficult choice, for sure.

Too bad the current plans, to the extent that we have been allowed to understand them, appear to be sown with the seeds of their own destruction.



Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin

The admin and overhead for Medicaid and Medicare is less than 5%.

That is what the insurers are afraid of. They want a competitive market health insurance system, as long as they can limit who they have to compete with.

Posted by: glazer1 | August 14, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Let Ronald Reagan talk to you about Health Care. 48yrs ago he had it pegged. Hear it here, http://www.backamerica.net

Posted by: davidhnaz | August 14, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, you make a good point that there are built-in medicare savings in the plan[s]. They should be explained carefully to us.

bsimon, I assumed by assumption that Proud was not opposed to training and paying for more first line providers. My differential equations prof used to criticize me for that in 1962.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"These people and those promoting the anger killed immigration reform and are now on the verge of killing healthcare reform. They have learned they can be the power brokers eventhough they lost the election. This subverts democracy."

This is absolutely true, Bobby, a very cogent observation.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

drindl, United Healthcare Group is the largest for profit insurer.

Their SEC filing audited statements are available on line.

For example, see: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6735253-12268-16938&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-09-167160

I welcome you to do this for each for-profit provider.

For UNHCG the direct medical costs absorb over 80% revenue. It is the direct medical costs that increase faster than rabbits. Admin overhead AND profit is less than 20%. A savings of no more than 5% is available out of the rest, if regulation works, and if no mickey mouse games are played with reserves.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Dismissing these naysayers will not help solve healthcare - we need to acknowledge they are angry. we need to look at the bigger complaints of distrust of the government.

If we choose to ignore this distruct, whether founded in fact or not, we chance it eventually paralyzing meaningful government.

These people and those promoting the anger killed immigration reform and are now on the verge of killing healthcare reform. They have learned they can be the power brokers eventhough they lost the election. This subverts democracy.

So we can dismiss them - but at what cost. We have to fight back and fight back hard on facts. We have to acknowledge govenment has failed us. Was it Reagan or Bush I who promised a lock box on SS -

you will never convince these people government can be trust so long as they continue to rob SS and medicare - plain and simple.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | August 14, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin writes
"The other country most like us is Canada. Before it socialized insurance [it never socialized medicine] it actually had enough GPs and nurses to run little clinincs everywhere. We presently do not.

... I think the solution really is to train more nurses and GPs and pay the education loans off to get 5 years of service out of them. I think that would be a cheap jumpstart to resolving the supply porblem that Proud sees. And that the Prez sees, I might add."


What you are saying is "we can't do it overnight." I think proud was saying "it can't be done." The latter is what I take issue with.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 14, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The problem is that no one in Congress understands health care because their program is so different than the average American's health care plan (if they even have one) so Congress doesn't have to deal with what all of us deal with on a regular basis; the doctors and insurance companies have too much vested in the current system to be willing to change it; and the average person is too emotional about it because it is such a large pocketbook issue for almost all Americans. If Obama and Congress can change the current system, it is merely a testament to their capacity to be agents for change, but it does not, does not, mean that it will be a change for the better.

Posted by: TXindependent1 | August 14, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

this is the most absurd post I have read to date:

We know that the majority of the managed care companies' employees do not have health insurance through their employer. They get "health savings accounts".

Posted by: glazer1 | August 14, 2009 11:20

My wife is a benefits manager at a large corp and zero have these accounts and very very few with other companies. Your comment is not only totally inaccurate but ridiculously misinformed.Maybe some in managed care companies have chosen that option but for most others it is either unavailable or unaffordable.

Posted by: leichtman | August 14, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Pick the Obama Plant today.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 14, 2009 11:15 AM

I assume, Jaxmax, that you were equally outraged when Bush would call on Jeff Gannon, (secret gay evangelist) at every press conference. Ya right.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | August 14, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

This is a stark demonstration of how many are without healthcare -- some families slept in their cars to get medical attention:

"When Remote Area Medical, the Tennessee-based organization running the event, decided to try its hand at large urban medical services, its principals thought Los Angeles would be a good place to start. But they were far from prepared for the outpouring of need. Set up for eight days of care, the group was already overwhelmed on the first day after allowing 1,500 people through the door, nearly 500 of whom had still not been served by day’s end and had to return in the wee hours Wednesday morning.

The enormous response to the free care was a stark corollary to the hundreds of Americans who have filled town-hall-style meetings throughout the country, angrily expressing their fear of the Obama administration’s proposed changes to the nation’s health care system. The bleachers of patients also reflected the state’s high unemployment, recent reduction in its Medicaid services for the poor and high deductibles and co-payments that have come to define many employer-sponsored insurance programs.

Many of those here said they lacked insurance, but many others said they had coverage but not enough to meet all their needs — or that they could afford. Some said they were well aware of the larger national health care debate, and were eager for changes."

Remote Area Medical was begun in 1985 as a mobile health clinic serving undeveloped countries like the Amazon, btw. Now they'rve serving here because the need in America is just as great as in many undeveloped countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/13clinic.html?_r=1

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"These are not concerned citizens so much as angry, violent mobs.

Look at the faces in the pictures -- the ugly expressions, the smirking, the nastiness, the hate. Every picture I've ssen of the town hallls looks like this.

These are not people who came for an honest 'discussion' but for an opportunity to vent their baseless rage.

and there is no question that quite a substantial number were called and asked to attend by their local R organization, or who say when asked they came because their favorite hate radio or TV broadcaster told them to.

Ask them if they came about healthcare or just because they hate Obama, and what do you think the answer will be?

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:05 AM"
______
d, what always tickles me is when these "patriots" are actually interviewed by real journalists, they know nothing about the subject they are allegedly riled up about (health care, taxes, the deficit, whatever).

Lawrence McDonnell had one of the health care town hall disrupters on TV and she had no substantive information about any health care. It was a joke. Same was true for the Palinites and the tea baggers.

Of course, they can, and do, go on endlessly about how they hate BHO and the _________s. THAT is the reason they show up at these events--not health care or any of these phony "proxy" issues.

You know these health-care-thugs-are-just-fine "polls" are bogus when even Drudge isn't fronting them.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

President Obama: "First, Do No Harm"

WHAT GOOD IS HEALTH CARE REFORM...
WHEN A COVERT 'MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM'
COMPROMISES THE HEALTH OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' AMERICANS?

• Obama agenda, rule of law subverted by fed-funded, extrajudicial GPS-activated vigilante Gestapo that is protected by local law enforcement and has operatives within health care facilities -- compromising the quality of patient care.

* Microwave/laser radiation "directed energy weapons" deployed to silently torture and degrade the health of American citizens -- the weaponization of the electromagnetic spectrum.

• "Intelligence-based policing" a pretext for a security/military/intel social purge executed at the grassroots with the cooperation of local law enforcement.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

BAN BY EXECUTIVE ORDER the use of directed energy weapons on American citizens...

...and the covert tracking of individuals via GPS devices or cell phones -- the electronic backbone of a nationwide American Gestapo.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Let Ronald Reagan talk to you about Health Care. 48yrs ago he had it pegged. Hear it here, http://www.backamerica.net

Posted by: davidhnaz | August 14, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

you keep repeating that Medicare is going broke but obviously ignore the fact in my post that that exact issue is part of most plans to rein in the cost of wasted Medicare spending which is precisely what is riling up his opponents. You can't have it both ways. Complain about the cost of Medicare, ignoring that it is a much cheaper delivery system and then using proposed cuts in Medicare waste a a the sole reason why you oppose the proposals.
On second thought you can have it both ways b/c circular arguments are where you are going. You say we need to adjust Medicare spending but then when I point out that that is precisely what is being proposed you scream we can't do that and its Al Gore's fault. Why don't you jut go join jakeD in the rubber room.

Posted by: leichtman | August 14, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

What is the model at Harlingen? What has changed?

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I wish we could have two separate threads where shrink and bb and bsimon and Proud and leichtman and bhoomes and any of the rest of us who want to discuss the problem could do so while everyone who wants to discuss polling or how representative or unrepresentative TH meetings are of anything can have another thread where they say stuff like "the trouble with you is..." and "how come you never..." and "why don't you ever" and "you fascist/socialist whatever".

Then we do not have to scroll through the posts that are not responsive to our favorite ways of communicating.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I have spent countless hours writing about problems in the VA system. We know the basic problem - they are teaching hospitals run by doctors in training. The university staff who are to be supervising them are off doing anything but supervising the doctors in training. If you eliminate the doctors in training running the hospitals you will see an incredible improvement in the quality of care.

THIS HAS HAPPENED - I wish Obama and Republican Congresspersons would come to Harlingen, Texas and see how this non-teaching facility VA mega clinic is run. You will not receive better care anywhere - the model they are using in Harlingen is amazing. It will be even better when they finish hiring all of the specialists so we do not have to use outside doctors. (Outside doctors do not have access to all of the Veterans medical records or test results)

My point is government healthcare can work if you honestly address the problems. I defy anyone who visits the Harlingen clinic to show where it is not as good or better than any private faciities anywhere in the US.

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | August 14, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The President may want to focus not only on the externals of the health insurance industry, but also the internals. Here in New York, we know that the top Executives of the "Not-for-Profit" Managed Care Companies have multi-million dollar annual salaries.

We know that the majority of the managed care companies' employees do not have health insurance through their employer. They get "health savings accounts".

Posted by: glazer1 | August 14, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

shrink, there's a patient for you on the board. We seem to be living through a mass outbreak of paranoid delusions.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"but the savings, although real, from limiting corporate profit by regulation, are not great."

What makes you think so, Mark? The profits are quite large, the salaries of those at the top, enormous. Also, we could save a fortune by banning advertising, the way we do for alcohol. It would not only save the costs of advertising itself [you cannot imagine how HUGE just the media buys are if you don't occasionally flip on daytime TV, for instance] but would always save a ton because people wouldn't be demanding all the latest most expensive drugs which are often no better [and often far more toxic] than stuff that's already on the market.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

CAN YOU SPOT THE OBAMA CONFRONTATION "PLANT" TODAY????

while observing the ObamaInfomerical, see if YOU can spot the
Obama disgruntled Planted Questioner scheduled for Obama today....

some HINTS:

1. Obama will have a place and clothing description of the planted questioner from staff.

Just as in football a QB will look where he wil throw and savy defenders can intercept, watch Obama's eyes... on prior questions..the confrontation has to occur later so as not to jump the shark

2. The key is to focus on the audience, the Plant will KNOW he will get a question, like the Secret Service are the only one NOT looking at Obama etc.

3. Later, watch the video carefully in VERY slow mo on split screen with Obama and the Questioner. Look carefully for movement by Obama BEFORE the question.

4. Watch for over exaggerated pauses and cadence shifts

5. See if access to the questioner is BLOCKED after the "Confrontation"

6. Ask the WH for his name (it will be probably be a white angry male) because remember EVERYONE has a security check beforehand, then run a background

Or better yet shout for him to id himself.

Now see, this is far more fun that just WATCHING the ObamaInfomercial

Pick the Obama Plant today.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 14, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

CAN YOU SPOT THE OBAMA CONFRONTATION "PLANT" TODAY????

while observing the ObamaInfomerical, see if YOU can spot the
Obama disgruntled Planted Questioner scheduled for Obama today....

some HINTS:

1. Obama will have a place and clothing description of the planted questioner from staff.

Just as in football a QB will look where he wil throw and savy defenders can intercept, watch Obama's eyes... on prior questions..the confrontation has to occur later so as not to jump the shark

2. The key is to focus on the audience, the Plant will KNOW he will get a question, like the Secret Service are the only one NOT looking at Obama etc.

3. Later, watch the video carefully in VERY slow mo on split screen with Obama and the Questioner. Look carefully for movement by Obama BEFORE the question.

4. Watch for over exaggerated pauses and cadence shifts

5. See if access to the questioner is BLOCKED after the "Confrontation"

6. Ask the WH for his name (it will be probably be a white angry male) because remember EVERYONE has a security check beforehand, then run a background

Or better yet shout for him to id himself.

Now see, this is far more fun that just WATCHING the ObamaInfomercial

Pick the Obama Plant today.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 14, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, I regret that I did not mention the "fee for service" conundrum before you did. I agree with you.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

CAN YOU SPOT THE OBAMA CONFRONTATION "PLANT" TODAY????

while observing the ObamaInfomerical, see if YOU can spot the
Obama disgruntled Planted Questioner scheduled for Obama today....

some HINTS:

1. Obama will have a place and clothing description of the planted questioner from staff.

Just as in football a QB will look where he wil throw and savy defenders can intercept, watch Obama's eyes... on prior questions..the confrontation has to occur later so as not to jump the shark


2. The key is to focus on the audience, the Plant will KNOW he will get a question, just like terrorists at a bomb blasts are the only ones not looking at the carnage

3. Later, watch the video carefully in VERY slow mo on split screen with Obama and the Questioner. Look carefully for movement by Obama BEFORE the question.

4. Watch for over exaggerated pauses and cadence shifts

5. See if access to the questioner is BLOCKED after the "Confrontation"

6. Ask the WH for his name (it will be probably be a white angry male) because remember EVERYONE has a security check beforehand, then run a background

Or better yet shout for him to id himself.

Now see, this is far more fun that just WATCHING the ObamaInfomercial

Pick the Obama Plant today.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 14, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"Leichtman you didn't answer my question because you couldn't, which is why the Obama plan is being resisted by a majority of the public"

this is not true according to polls I've read. If you have support for this, please offer a cite/link.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Shrink, Germany and Switzerland have mainly private for profit insurance but it is highly regulated. That is the direction of these bills. i would be fine with regulating health insurance, personally, but the savings, although real, from limiting corporate profit by regulation, are not great.

Those countries also had a better supply of entry level providers and include, if I am not mistaken, pharmacists as entry level providers for more than immunizations. There may be cost savings from unifying the paperwork, and then computerizing it, for the prescribed basic plan, but someone should be able to quantify them by looking at Switzerland and Germany.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If the supply of General Practitioners is markedly increased, but the fee for service, corporate business model is left intact, there will be no cost containment. All those doctors will have to make their money and they will continue to over-treat the people who pay their bills and under-treat the people who do not. The gyre will widen.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Let Ronald Reagan talk to you about Health Care. Hear it here, www.backamerica.net

Posted by: davidhnaz | August 14, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman you didn't answer my question because you couldn't, which is why the Obama plan is being resisted by a majority of the public. The Baucas plan has not arrived as of yet, when it does, then the CBO can score it. But I thought Al Gore already solved the waste in govt when he was VP with his reinventing govt. You mean it was a failure? If we can save money from waste, why have we not already done it? you do not need new legislation for for that. Medicare will go belly up in the near future as more baby boomers retire and the workforce grows smaller, that is the problem we need to solve 1st. When your friends in the WH and Congress do that,then you can talk about a public option.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 14, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

These are not concerned citizens so much as angry, violent mobs.

Look at the faces in the pictures -- the ugly expressions, the smirking, the nastiness, the hate. Every picture I've ssen of the town hallls looks like this.

These are not people who came for an honest 'discussion' but for an opportunity to vent their baseless rage.

and there is no question that quite a substantial number were called and asked to attend by their local R organization, or who say when asked they came because their favorite hate radio or TV broadcaster told them to.

Ask them if they came about healthcare or just because they hate Obama, and what do you think the answer will be?

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Linda McMahon for Connecticut Senate? Let her explain the numerous steriod and drug related deaths of WWE "wrestlers". If this was any other sport and I hesitate to call WWE a sport there would be congressional hearings.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | August 14, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"So please inform me how are we going to keep these insitutions solvent while at the same time spending another trillion or 2 on so called health care reform? If you can answer that I will take another look at the Obama plan."

it is interesting that you post that question because that is precisely what is involved in the Baucus plan and precisely why Obama is being attacked by the right and that the AMA has said they are withholding an endorsement of the plan b/c it is cutting the precise waste out of Medicare that you are clammering for b/w $300 and $500 billion.

I have a bigger question for you since you say we can not afford to do this. Do you think that American Corporations and Individuals can afford going down this same path of his their healthcare premiums rise 15% annually and avoid personal bankruptcy and allow US companies to remain competitive? And do you not understand 1. That the uninsurred are getting healthcare when they show up at our county hospitals sicker than they should be and more expensive to treat. Guess who is currently paying for that care; your county taing authority. and you never addressed my second question: do you think we can continue to pay 60% more then other industrial countries for healthcare that ranks the US at #37 in Life Expectancy. I say that is a lousy deal we can not afford to continue. And you also understand that all of the plans are debating in committees a wide range of different revenue options to pay for the plan. Something W and the Rs never considered with their spending for the Iraq war or Medicare part D. This is a health issue but also a very important Economic Issue to strengthen our American families and our US Corporations in an internationally competitive global market.

Posted by: leichtman | August 14, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Did they mention all the men with guns carrying signs with swastikas in the poll, CC? Did they mention this?"

"The AP reports that the Secret Service “is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading ‘Death to Obama’ outside a town hall meeting” held by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). yesterday. The protester’s sign also declared, “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.” The detention of the unidentified, 51-year-old man by local police comes on the heels of two Democratic members of Congress reporting that they received faxes to their offices featuring pictures of Obama accompanied by the phrase, “Death to All Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!”

Booing is nothing compared to all the death threats Democrats are getting. If Americans don't find this repellent and unacceptable, we have become a failed and barbaric state.

Posted by: drindl | August 14, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Mark, all smart people are skeptics. Apart from that, you said,

"...we do not see the connection between single payer and the lower cost;"

then you went on to make a bunch of good points about cost containment.

But do you see somewhere a health care system (1) costing its country some reasonable fraction of gdp, (2) delivering good access and outcomes and that (3) has a competitive, profit driven business model (not single payer in other words)?

I see lots of systems that accomplish 1 and 2. They are all government run. But we Americans think so little of our government; we don't believe in our government's ability to do anything right, apart from the military of course.

Why do we accept such incompetence as if settled law? Significant numbers of Americans vote for candidates who despise the positions to which they are trying to get elected. Can you imagine applying for a leadership position in a company by calling out the very nature of the corporation? Is it that we like to keep our government broken?

Posted by: shrink2 | August 14, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

bsimon and Proud - I think I can add to Proud's point.

The other country most like us is Canada. Before it socialized insurance [it never socialized medicine] it actually had enough GPs and nurses to run little clinincs everywhere. We presently do not.

So if the supply of service is not increased, one economic result could well be lower grade service, and another could be rationing, if price is forceably held constant by an external controller. I think services would suffer, myself. But I think the solution really is to train more nurses and GPs and pay the education loans off to get 5 years of service out of them. I think that would be a cheap jumpstart to resolving the supply porblem that Proud sees. And that the Prez sees, I might add.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I do not think you fully read my post Leichtman, I said we need to reform Medicare and Social Security, I did not say to repeal them. These govt run entities, have something in common, they cannot meet their unfunded obligations. So please inform me how are we going to keep these insitutions solvent while at the same time spending another trillion or 2 on so called health care reform? If you can answer that I will take another look at the Obama plan.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 14, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

mark I complete agree with you about the cost issue and why I am particularly concerned abouth demagoguery over a public option which is likely necessary for competition and to rein in cost. Medicare is a much more efficient delivery system the private healthcare which spends twice as much for administrative costs and wasted advertising costs even with all of its won problems. In my personal law practice I see diagnostic tools like MRIs and CTScans being abused by hospitals to the tune of $10,000 to $20,000 for simple injuries. And since medical malpractice claims have been all but shut down throughout Texas, this abuse by hospitals is a waste of valuable healthcare resources. So now I can be attacked is a proponent of rationing when I suggest that medically er should be limited to doing only 1-2 MRIs rather than the 6-8 I am now seeing, unless it is a critical patient. Your thoughts mark on that practice? This is a clear example of unnecessary waste that the right would unreasonably characterize as rationing b/c it cannot be explained on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: leichtman | August 14, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP writes
"Under the plan discussed at President Obama’s ... town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it’s paranoid to think that’s too good to be true."


If the rest of the western world is doing it, why can't we?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 14, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The Al Sharpton/MoveON.org/Code Pink liberals are lecturing anyone about civility? The newspaper that lauded the journalist/shoe thrower? The media that praised non-citizens blocking streets/burning US flags/demanding their rights? Anti-war protesters calling Bush Hilter, Cheney a Nazi, US military murderers, and Al Queda "freedom fighters" dares to tell us the rules of protest?

I would never go to a townhall and speak out. The left-wing media targets Obama critics for ruin -- look at Joe the Plumber, while giving a pass to the SEIU goons, the 11 year old plant in NH Hampshire, and the fake doctor in Houston. All Obama delegates beating citizens and misrepresenting themselves. The media censors this.

But I sympathize with these people, ACTUAL citizens and taxpayers. Those on Medicare have paid into a fund for 40 years -- they are not on public assistance. Stop sliming the old people. Al Gore had no problem dragging out a senior citizen to pick up cans off the street to pay for her prescription drugs despite the fact that her son was a wealthy union thug.

You can't have a party built on defending the rights of terrorists in Gitmo trying to stifle the dissent of US citizens. That explains the polls.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | August 14, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The Al Sharpton/MoveON.org/Code Pink liberals are lecturing anyone about civility? The newspaper that lauded the journalist/shoe thrower? The media that praised non-citizens blocking streets/burning US flags/demanding their rights? Anti-war protesters calling Bush Hilter, Cheney a Nazi, US military murderers, and Al Queda "freedom fighters" dares to tell us the rules of protest?

I would never go to a townhall and speak out. The left-wing media targets Obama critics for ruin -- look at Joe the Plumber, while giving a pass to the SEIU goons, the 11 year old plant in NH Hampshire, and the fake doctor in Houston. All Obama delegates beating citizens and misrepresenting themselves. The media censors this.

But I sympathize with these people, ACTUAL citizens and taxpayers. Those on Medicare have paid into a fund for 40 years -- they are not on public assistance. Stop sliming the old people. Al Gore had no problem dragging out a senior citizen to pick up cans off the street to pay for her prescription drugs despite the fact that her son was a wealthy union thug.

You can't have a party built on defending the rights of terrorists in Gitmo trying to stifle the dissent of US citizens. That explains the polls.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | August 14, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

It's an interesting study. Tell your average independent voter that citizens are packing town halls on health care to protest it, and he calls it democracy in action. Tell that same voter that those citizens aren't debating the issue so much as shouting down opposing views, and he calls it inappropriate. Makes me wonder which order the questions were asked in.

At any rate, efforts by the White House itself to portray the protesters as "angry mobs whose main goal is to disrupt the democratic process" -- or, for that matter, as essentially hired goons for Republican officials, which is another theory I've seen tossed around -- won't work, if only because it's coming directly from the White House. Though President Obama may not have the popularity numbers he had back in January, he's still fairly popular -- but I get the impression that given how annoyed most people are with the situation the U.S. is in, primarily due to the economy, it's going to be nigh impossible for the White House to convince the average person that people disrupting town halls on health care is bad, no matter how that disruption is carried out. It's going to take a concerted grassroots effort -- or at least something that looks like one -- to change that perception of the protesters in independents' minds.

Also, Linda McMahon? Now that would make the Connecticut Senate race interesting, though I can't say it would make it better. I think the last time Linda had an on-camera appearance in WWE, she kicked announcer Jim Ross in the groin and "fired" him (which, in the world of pro wrestling, means he was back on TV in a matter of weeks). I'd enjoy seeing that clip replayed in campaign commercials.

Or seeing "Stone Cold" Steve Austin run out during a debate to give Linda's opponent the Stone Cold Stunner, then flip off the crowd and drink beer.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | August 14, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Rational, reasoned thought does not produce mob mentality.

Posted by: molsonmich | August 14, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Let us say that bhoomes and I represent the skeptics, not Armpeg.

We are persons who have read how health care could be delivered more efficiently. We are persons who know that aggregate health care costs too much in America, and even worse, the costs accelerate faster than inflation - a lot faster.

We are persons who have the facts behind us to argue that Medicare-Medicaid will actually wipe out the economy of this nation without changing the aggregate cost curve substantially. As bhoomes says, there are not enough rich people to pay for everything.

So when we read about injustices in health insurance we want them fixed by appropriate regulation. But we have no illusions that we are addressing costs.

We know that Canadian health care is good and that it is single payer and that it costs less, but we do not see the connection between single payer and the lower cost; instead, we see the connection between having more GPs in more small clinics and having more nurses in more urgent care clinics with lower aggregate costs. Hospitals are expensive ways to treat anyone and wasteful for anything less than a major issue.

So proponents of this system should be telling us how we get more GPs, nurses, and preventive care and fewer hospitalizations. I can think of three humane ways to get poverty patients out of the emergency rooms. A smart person could think of more. The cost of doing it would be outweighed by the savings in Medicaid and in local hospital district taxes by a lot.
That is just an example.

Tell us how it is to be paid for and do not reply to the imaginary euthanasia victims. Bhoomes is more worried about the government's role than I , but I think he has tricare. [could not resist, bhoomes].

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

@vbhoomes - Nice thoughts, but the government is *already* running a large part of our healthcare system. Once you combine Medicare, Medicaid, VA and military, not to mention health insurance for government employees, more than half the health care in this country is paid for by the government. I'm hearing a lot of stories about cost-effective systems that may serve as potential models. None of that occurred during the last 14 years. At what fraction of GDP are you willing to admit that we have a problem? We're at 16%. Do I hear 20%?

@losthorizon10 - If all you have to add is insults of CC, why not just stop reading? You're like someone who decries all those scandalous mags at the front of the grocery store and then quietly buys one when noone is looking.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 14, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"Do we really want the govt running a part of our health care ?"

apparently you have no idea that that is exactly what they do through contracted health insurance companies with Medicare and Tricare.

My question to you is if you hate government so much vbhoomes are you ready to repeal Medicare and Tricareb/c that would certainly lead to the death of millions of senior and veterans.

and your comment we need to just forget about all of this other nonsense as you call it. Which nonsense is that? The 47 million uninsurred or the 15% annual increases to healthcare costs that has bankrupted millions of American families and crippled the competitivess of our American corporations or the fact that America spends 60% more for its healthcare and yet we are ranked 37th in life expectancy. Can you specify precisely what part of that crisis that you want to kick down the road and brazenly call nonsense.

Posted by: leichtman | August 14, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Under the plan discussed at President Obama’s infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it’s paranoid to think that’s too good to be true.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 14, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

All of this talk about death panels is a distraction, the biggest issue with me is, Do we really want the govt running a part of our health care and of course the biggest is How the Heck are we going to pay for it? not enough rich folks to pay for it and the dems know it, we will run even bigger deficits and tax the middle class while still not addressing the cost curve. We should be looking at reforming medicare and social security and not this nonsense.

Posted by: vbhoomes | August 14, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

No, Americans do NOT support the hooligans and thugs exercising their "heckler's veto" despite what this fronting of a bogus "poll" suggests. Didn't the guy who was toting a handgun to a BHO event have more than heckling in mind? Ya think? Moreover...

From HuffPo's Sam Stein's reporting (not opinionating):

"The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives on Thursday compared the disruptive protesters at recent health care town halls to people who unleashed dogs and spat on civil rights demonstrators during the 1960s.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Rep. James Clyburn, (D-S.C.), said that there was "absolutely" an analogy to be drawn between the horrid experience that he went through as a civil rights leader and the boisterous conservatives who have disrupted health care forums.

"I have seen this kind of hate before. I have seen this discussion before," he said. "I have seen snarling dogs going after people who were trying to peacefully assemble. I have seen the eyes of people who were being spat upon.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/clyburn-town-hall-protest_n_259118.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse


"In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies." Bruce Bartlett (was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/

Hate to cut and paste on you, but this column makes excellent reading.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 14, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

If you would like to stand up for single payer health care (medicare for all) in a democratic and constructive way please consider joining our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

Posted by: letsgobuffalo | August 14, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Linda McMahon? Are you kidding me? In her rare appearances on WWF/WWE events, she comes off as less ridiculous than the other McMahons. But there are still plenty of clips for her opponents to use against her. I remember clips of her being yelled at by her husband and slapped by her daughter. And I'm sure she's pushed or slapped a wrestler at least once.

Al Franken won a Senate seat despite embarrassing footage from his days as an entertainer. But SNL has a far better reputation than professional wrestling. Since Linda is in charge of the most well-known pro wrestling company, everything bad about pro wrestling can be blamed on her. I don't see how she stands a chance.

Posted by: Blarg | August 14, 2009 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Work that metaphor, armpeg!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 14, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"The protests that have dominated town halls -- and news coverage -- for the first two weeks of this month are being closely followed by much of the country and are largely regarded as appropriate, according to several surveys on the events released in the last forty-eight hours."

It is profoundly disappointing you are fronting this polling nonsense today implying Americans think the health care thugs are just fine. Enough already with the GOP talking points (Plain for 2012, Pawlenty for 2012, Corzine's in big trouble).

This piece on "polling" belongs on Drudge not in the Washington Post. This reminds me of Drudge's pre-election day polls that showed McCain winning in a double-digit landslide...and of the Rasmussen "polls" that every day support whatever absurd anti-BHO theme that the GOP and Fox News want them to.

You, oddly, don't report that it has been documented REPEATDELY (see, e.g., Rachel Maddow over the past week) these "protests" are not grassroots outbursts. Rather they are staged "Astroturf" hooliganism funded and organized by hidden corporate interests, Big Pharma, and the usual white supremacist thugs (two of whom jacked up an elderly black woman and tore up her "Rosa Parks" sign and one of whom was toting a firearm). Those are objective facts you choose to omit.

The real story (as you full well know) isn't some bogus poll (cold calling land phones in the middle of the workday says nothing about anything) suggesting--falsely--this thuggery is okay, it's that the thuggery is indicative of a much darker and dangerous problem (that this space has not once acknowledged much less discussed).

From HuffPo"s Earl Hutchinson:

"The angry faces and the fist shaking at the health care town halls today could provide a fertile recruiting ground for new more vocal and visible anti-government groups. Some of whose members could be sorely tempted to do more than just rant and fist shake. Hate group's bank on the volatile mix of frustration, anger and hostility toward a government they feel has betrayed them, and a black president whose message of change spells socialism to them, to swell their ranks. That's a chilling prospect for Obama and all of us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/hate-groups-bank-on-obama_b_258846.html

What say you about that????

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 14, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

As manipulated mobs distract the mainstream media...

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZES THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM.

A MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM DEPLOYS MICROWAVE / LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS' TO DEGRADE THE LIVES OF UNJUSTLY TARGETED AMERICANS.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE COVERT DEPLOYMENT OF DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS...

...AND WHEN WILL YOU BAN THEIR USE ON U.S. CITIZENS...

...AND BAN THE COVERT GPS / CELL PHONE TRACKING OF INDIVIDUALS...

...THE BACKBONE OF AN AMERICAN GESTAPO THAT IS OPERATING ON YOUR WATCH?


And, Mr. President: What caused that bald streak on the back of your head behind your left ear?

The victims of this covert torture program fear that you are among the targets of these crimes against humanity.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" ("stream" or "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 14, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Once again, the Post's favorite intern, Cillizza, manages to do a superficial analysis of an important story, gets in way over his head, and botches the job.

Cillizza, getting in a robe with Milbank to do unfunny video spots that get you on cable "news" may make you feel like you're important, but you're not. You're not even good at your job, which, by the way, is not to repeat right wing talking points, or throw your own opinion out to readers. Nobody care what YOU think, you're just a journalist, and not a very good one.

Instead of writing a "story" about how Americans view the media's coverage (which we all know avoids substance and research, and is little better than the celebrity "news" on TMZ) why don't you write an article on how Americans feel about THE ISSUES OF HEALTH CARE REFORM?

The right wing is using tactics of fear, lies, and hate to try and intimidate Americans from participating in the democratic process. You missed that, you overrated intern. You should be ashamed.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | August 14, 2009 8:34 AM | Report abuse

the difference fliewr is that this heckler veto by the right is organized and being driven by hate radio and funded by the healthcare industry rather than a few dissenters who opposed a conservative speaker. Its an apples and oranges comparison but we are used to your co-ordinated disinformation machine. Yesterday for instance like clockwork one of your supporters came here once an hour to cut and paste dininformation straight off the Drudge Report. mark and I will defend your right to free speech but the courts have weiged in on your strategy to shut down your opponent's equally valuable first amendment rights to free speech, using tactics the Supreme Court has labeled Heckler Vetos. That is unacceptable in a free society. The second difference is that rational thoughtful discussion about The Most Important Issue facing this country today is being deliberately orchistrated to be shut down by a minority voice which is far different then picking and choosing a particular conservative speeker being interrupted. The dimension and scale of these right wing mobs showing up as well as the length and breath of its orchistration makes your faux outrage an apples and oranges comparison. Distraction, misdicrection,and misinformation, a keen strategy but the public is waking up and realizing that your scare tactics are exactly the same as those used with Terry Schivo, which didn't exactly turn out very well for your side electorally, did it sir.

Posted by: leichtman | August 14, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Most Americans don't approve of these obnoxious gangs of Republican goons that show up at these town halls and behave like they were brought up in the city dump.

Posted by: Glimpy | August 14, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"I disagree with shouting down people trying to express an opinion. I think liberals are incredibly hypocritical though."

I don't think this is a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of civility and respect. People should have the right to express themselves in these forums without being shouted at or screamed at.

Posted by: RickJ | August 14, 2009 8:16 AM | Report abuse

armpeg,

Do we get to euthanize crazy people too?

Posted by: NeoGeezer | August 14, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

I am a critic of overhauling health insurance before or without dealing with the systemic aggregate costs of health care, that are clearly overwhelming, no matter how we pay for them. However, I assert that if this current effort founders on a massive disinformation campaign based on Armpeg's terror of being euthanized by American Nazis, then the end of rational discussion is near.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 14, 2009 7:55 AM | Report abuse

I disagree with shouting down people trying to express an opinion. I think liberals are incredibly hypocritical though.

Here's a link to show conservative speakers who are shouted down.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2687/being-shouted-down

Where's the liberal outrage there?

Also, I think it's great to see people involved in the political/democratic process. Healthcare reform MUST happen. I just don't like any of the proposals out there. Republicans and Democrats are only looking after their own self-interest.

Check out http://radicalprescription.com/ to see a truly innovative healthcare reform idea.

Posted by: fliewr | August 14, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse

If you cared to read the entire poll, it shows that a majority of Americans either disprove or do not care either way about the town hall mobs. Also, most Americans strongly disapprove of some of the mobsters favorite tactics, like shouting down their representatives and reform supporters.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | August 14, 2009 7:29 AM | Report abuse

The devil is in the detail with these polls. You neglect to add that nearly half in the Gallup poll feel that these protests are due to 'political activists to create organized opposition to the healthcare bills'. Both polls show that roughly one-third are following these town halls closely so it's hard to say how much of these opinions are based on perception or fleeting thoughts and how much is based on actually following and listening to what's going on. Your analogy to American Idol says it all...

Re Bachmann: too late!

Posted by: RickJ | August 14, 2009 6:44 AM | Report abuse

What's really the most amazing thing about all these town hall protests against Bozo Obama's, and the Democrap Socialist Parties Nazi--like health care plans that they're trying to con the American people with, is the fact that it's happening DESPITE THE FACT that the Main Stream Media has been working overtime to try to dicredit the American people doing it. The Main Stream Media, which has become nothing more than just another arm of the Democrap Socialist Party, has been cheerleading the Obama Health Care Plan and censoring it's negatives from the gitgo, instead of reporting what's all in it. These brave Americans protesting are a lot smarter than the Obama Nazies think they are. They don't want a facist Nazi Germany--like Health Care Plan that weeds out the undesireables--i. e. the ones who need more health care and don't pay the same taxes as when they were working. While it would save the Obamanistas a lot of money by getting rid of all the old people and non-producers as fast as they can, it's not the right thing to do. These retired or disabled Americans have earned the right to be treated the same as every other American, and just because they are now old, they shouldn't be forced to get in back, or under the bus.

Posted by: armpeg | August 14, 2009 5:54 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company