Arthur Laffer says the big problem in health care is the gap between what health consumers pay and the actual cost. He calls this the health-care wedge. Any proposed solution that doesn't make that gap smaller or get rid of it will perpetuate the problems. Obama's takeover will make it worse.
President Barack Obama is correct when he says that "soaring health-care costs make our current course unsustainable." Many Americans agree: 55% of respondents to a recent CNN poll think the U.S. health-care system needs a great deal of reform. Yet 70% of Americans are satisfied with their current health-care arrangements, and for good reason--they work.Posted by Ron Hebron at August 06, 2009 07:20 AM | Email ThisConsumers are receiving quality medical care at little direct cost to themselves. This creates runaway costs that have to be addressed. But ill-advised reforms can make things much worse.
An effective cure begins with an accurate diagnosis, which is sorely lacking in most policy circles. The proposals currently on offer fail to address the fundamental driver of health-care costs: the health-care wedge.
The health-care wedge is an economic term that reflects the difference between what health-care costs the specific provider and what the patient actually pays. When health care is subsidized, no one should be surprised that people demand more of it and that the costs to produce it increase. Mr. Obama's health-care plan does nothing to address the gap between the price paid and the price received. Instead, it's like a negative tax: Costs rise and people demand more than they need.
To pay for the subsidy that the administration and Congress propose, revenues have to come from somewhere. The Obama team has come to the conclusion that we should tax small businesses, large employers and the rich. That won't work because the health-care recipients will lose their jobs as businesses can no longer afford their employees and the wealthy flee.
The bottom line is that when the government spends money on health care, the patient does not. The patient is then separated from the transaction in the sense that costs are no longer his concern. And when the patient doesn't care about costs, only those who want higher costs--like doctors and drug companies--care.
This should be familiar to all. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac made unsubstantiated loans under government cover until they couldn't cover their bets, and caused the mortgage crisis.
We are headed for another massive meltdown under Democrat health insurance control. But that's what you expect when you put Democrats in charge. They abdicate all personal responsibility, while at the same time promising everything free to everyone. And when fewer people care about maintaining their health to keep their rates down, because they've been promised free or less expensive government healthcare, just think about what that will do to healthcare costs.
I guess that's why 52-39, Americans oppose Obamacare.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 6, 2009 08:00 AMWith the current state, employer provided health plans are not portable other than the limited COBRA coverage, which is expensive and limited in time. This is one of the main issues with the current health care set up of predominantly employer-based health plans.
Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 08:23 AMWhat do you call a person who owes most of their labor to a master?
Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 08:34 AMThe problem is that people have been conned by Democrats in to thinking that healthcare is a right, and that insurance should be free, or highly subsidized. Healthcare is not a right just as owning and driving a car is not a right. See the Bill of Rights. Your rights are quite limited.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 6, 2009 08:37 AM"What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics,"
It's come to this...
At least for now, you have a choice to sign on to any plan you want. That people have come to expect this as a benefit from their employers, even as they know that most jobs are at will, and might go away, is one of the reason's why life is not fair. People take the cheaper route, and they get less. If you can buy a Mercedes on your own, but your employer provides you an Accord as long as you are employed, that's your choice. And you should not cry with the Accord goes away with your termination. Welcome to the real world, real value has real costs.
There are plenty of ways to solve this problem without the government getting involved. But those bills are not on the table. And that is the real problem.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 6, 2009 08:45 AMPrecisely. By creating an ever increasing "gap" they are separating people from the transaction, so they can control the system for their own social/political ends.
This whole health care reform agenda stinks to high heaven. I say protest it respectfully but protest it with everything you have. It is about overarching control by a group of people whose interest is elitism and consolidation of political power. No part of it is reasonable or acceptable.
Rather than solving any real problems, this so-called health care reform proposal is meant to destroy the fabric of our republic by undoing the freedom upon which it is founded. "Health Care Reform" is the key piece in the game of dominoes (toppling freedom) after which others will fall . . . but only if we give in here
We do not have to let them do this.
Proudly look the phony liberal bastards in the face and SAY NO!!
RESIST THIS SOCIALIST TAKEOVER WITH EVERYTHING YOU CAN MUSTER!!
If we let them get away with this, no good can come from it.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 6, 2009 08:54 AMOBTW, on the car insurance angle, I have noticed that car insurance companies are getting a lot more sticking when it comes to what you can use your vehicle for and who can use. A couple of examples is using your car while working (a lot more legal verbiage is increasing in this area--be advised to ask for a company car, instead of using your own car for work related trips), and loaning your car to friends or non-household family members (legal verbiage around regular use of car by non-covered policy holders).
Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 09:18 AMWith the current state, employer provided health plans are not portable other than the limited COBRA coverage, which is expensive and limited in time. This is one of the main issues with the current health care set up of predominantly employer-based health plans.
Please see HIPAA laws and creditable coverage. If you lose your job, you don't need to go with COBRA, you can get a low cost individual plan (Lifewise or MEGA) and that counts as continuing coverage.
The fact that so many are ignorant of the law doesn't mean we need to throw out a system that the vast majority are satisfied with; it means the law should be better advertised.
NO ONE should ever have a pre-existing condition exclusion unless they are either ignorant of their rights under HIPAA, or they simply cannot afford $50-$60 a month for a high deductible plan for coverage between jobs.
It's really amazing the lies that the left spreads relating to coverage, how they use fear to drive people towards their goal. But, that's what has worked for the left in the past, and so they will continue to scare people to keep themselves in power.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 09:29 AMIt would be so expensive that the government would have to rescue us from the evil car insurance companies.
Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 09:31 AMOpen up competition, and let all insurance providers offer a la carte policies tailored specifically to what customers want to pay for. That INCREASES competition and LOWERS prices. Competition lowers prices - this is a concept lost on Democrats.
Posted by: Palouse on August 6, 2009 09:48 AMSo, Republican's don't like mandates on insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Fine, then address the root cause of the problem, which is right now most of the system is through employer provided plans, which lack portability.
The way to do this would be to make health insurance premiums tax deductible for individuals. Right now, they are deductible for businesses, but not for individuals; tax law pushes the purchase to the company. It is economically beneficial to both parties if the company provides insurance right now (company gets to provide a tax-free benefit).
So, change the current law (as President Bush proposed in January 2007, and which Pelosi and Reid declared DOA). Make health insurance purchased by an individual 100% tax free; you can lower your AGI by the amount spent on insurance.
That would cause a dramatic rise in self-insurance, consumers getting involved in their own coverage, and better cost-control over the long term (because each individual would be responsible, rather than a single person in the HR department) than what we have now.
Then, to really finish it off, eliminate 90% of the restrictions on health insurance plans at the Federal and State level. Eliminate mandatory mental coverage. Eliminate mandatory alternative medicine coverage. Eliminate mandatory contraceptive/neonatal coverage (all of which are mandatory in Washington State).
Open up the choices, give individuals the same tax incentives as businesses, and you'd see a massive change in costs and coverage. But of course, that means turning responsibility back to the people; can we trust them, and are we willing to let those who choose to take the risks, fail?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 09:48 AM1 continuous coverage despite employment changes.
2 vigorous competition for each insuree.
3 much more incentive for insurees to maintain their own health and insurance costs.
But Dems don't want this kind of market freedom. So they only offer plans and speak in rhetoric that villifies insurance companies.
The system is broken because the consumer of healthcare an d insurance is removed from the point of purchase. We don't buy anything else in our lives this way.
It's ironic that Dem Victim masters have convinced many to abdicate the most important aspect, and indeed their life itself, their health, to middlemen and now the government.
No wonder polls show 52-39 against Obamacare, and rising.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 6, 2009 10:05 AMWhat you see from some of the town hall meetings is the stance that we don't want government running our healthcare, and this stance is from people that are on or close to being on Medicare. Therefore, why are they not also shouting to do away with Medicare. It is government run.
Just curious.
Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 12:25 PMtc ##24), Medicare is a great reason to resist a public plan like a vampire resists sunlight. Medicare is quickly running out of money--according to the most recent actuarial projections, it will run out of money in less than 10 years, but with the economic downturn, it will run out MUCH more quickly than that. And, at the same time, more and more doctors are not accepting new medicare patients because the reimbursements don't cover the costs. AND, as part of the current health care debate, Obama wants to reduce reimbursements even further. Medicare is NOT an argument for putting in place a public option!
Posted by: Bill H on August 6, 2009 12:57 PMDoing away with Medicare might be a good thing, but at least fixing it is something that must be done. However, our current administration doesn't care about health care....but control.
One example....helmet laws...they say to protect life...fine, but if you make the decision to not wear one and get killed in the crash that is the conscequence of that decision. The gov shouldn't be dictating that. I know that's not health care, but you understand. So for HC...if you don't want insurance or want everything the gov says you have to have now (see WA State) then you shouldn't have to. Then you'll deal with the consequences of those decisions.
Posted by: Dengle on August 6, 2009 12:57 PMRick d - yer a lying moron
Zero insurance - approx. 50 million
Medicare - 46 million
Medicaid - 60 million
SCHIP - 10 million
tricare - 10 million
fehbp - 8 million
VA - 7 million
so that leaves 109 million that would be 'upended', a little more than a third.
Of those, I doubt a majority want to keep paying ballooning costs. but the morons on the right, beholden to big pharma/insurance scam companies, etc. sure are whining a lot.
I'm "beholden to big pharma"? No way, man! I'm a slave to small pharma.
Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 01:08 PMstudies show that most Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their own health care -- but they are dissatisfied with the country's overall system, because most Americans who have insurance believe that those who don't have it are not receiving care. Those same studies, however, show that a surprisingly large 70 percent of the estimated 46 million Americans who don't have insurance say they do, in fact, receive health care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it. 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. The survey is the only recent poll for which data is publicly available that allows for a comparison of the satisfaction of insured and uninsured Americans.
You don't raze the house because you have a leaky roof, mike. Then again, maybe some liberals like yourself would, but it isn't the smartest approach if the rest of the building is structurally sound. Wise up
Posted by: Rick D. on August 6, 2009 01:40 PMIf you are in control of your money, you make sure it is spent wisely!!!
Posted by: USARonin on August 6, 2009 02:18 PMThe Democrat so-called health care reform proposal is meant to destroy the fabric of our republic by undoing the freedom upon which it is founded. "Health Care Reform" is a bad idea in every way, and we do not have to let them do this.
If liberals wanted to actually fix something that is the responsibility of government, they would work to limit illegal immigration and in doing so ease some of the pressure on our health care system. Let Mexico take care of their own people. Since they refuse to act responsibly I say fu*k them and the lame donkey they rode in on.
Proudly look the phony liberal bastards in the face and say DAMN-IT HELL NO!!
Keep your damn slimy lying dishonest Democrat hands the hell off my health care!!!!
Posted by: Amused by BS on August 6, 2009 02:41 PMWhy is it OK to screw with the private choice of 109 million people? Apparently you think it's OK to eliminate the choice and options for one out of 3 people in the US.
How do you justify eliminating the choice of 1/3rd of the population, if your own numbers are correct?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 02:46 PMMedicare and Medicaid are bad enough as multi ten trillion dollar liabilities. We don't need Obamacare to make it worse. Look at the CBO numbers out to 2030. Nothing but debt. And it will be even worse without funding from cap and trade plus decreased revenue due to all of the other job killing Obama plans.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 6, 2009 03:41 PMWhat I find puzzling about the quote Ron provided, is the underlying assumption that patients should and would care about costs if they saw them more clearly. Maybe someone here has read more of his works and can clarify, but to me it appears that he is saying that if people saw the true costs, they would migrate to the low cost option. This in turn would contain and possibly reduce health care costs. My question is whether cost is the primary driver when it comes to health care? I don't doubt it is a factor, but I also feel that individual care just as much, if not more about the quality of the care as they do the cost. To put it economically, given a choice between provider A that is the low cost provider and low quality provider and provider B who is a medium cost provider and high quality provider, which would the patient choose? For me, there is a certain level of quality that has to be met before cost comes into play. This is assuming that other factors like travel distance, time availability, etc, are non-factors. Add those factors into the equation, and cost is definately secondary. I don't care if I can save a few dollars, if the provider is not available when I want to schedule my appointments, I will look to a different provider.
So, where I find Laffer's opinion piece lacking is due to not factoring in other variables and assuming cost is the primary driver.
Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 04:06 PMI know when I moved from being an employee to being self-employed I started to pay a LOT more attention to my health insurance options, costs, and coverage. And I've actively managed it for the last dozen years.
Do people just go and buy whatever car insurance they stumble upon first? Do homeowners not shop around for home insurance? Do people just take whatever life insurance plan is plopped in front of them?
Why would you think people would treat their health insurance any different than other insurance plans?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 04:31 PM"There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it is, and I'm not concerned about what I get. And that's government. And that's close to 40% of our national income."
HSA's fall under the first instance, where you are concerned about both price and quality. Our current employer-based insurance scheme, falls under the third instance, which is why most people are happy with their quality of care, but prices have skyrocketed. A government run health plan falls under the fourth instance, since the government will be spending the taxpayers money on the government plan patients--this implies both the quality of care declining and the price going up.
Here is a video of Friedman discussing this issue:
The 4 Ways to Spend Money by Milton Friedman
Posted by: Bill H on August 6, 2009 05:54 PMIf Canada is the example of the kind of healthcare you're envisioning here, good luck with that pipe dream of working around YOUR schedule, tc. Laffer's piece was dead on correct. Much more coherent than either the Democrats or Obama pushing this boondoggle have been able to communicate to the American public. Seems their only concern is the lightning speed by which to pass a bad bill through without nary a soul bothering to read it, nor the American public being allowed to weigh in on the subject when its their money.
Not exactly change I can believe in when it's worse than the status quo.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 6, 2009 06:30 PMI also feel that Laffer's analysis leaves out primary drivers in users health coverage decisions. He leaves out quality. He leaves out availability. He leaves out accessibility. He alludes to consumers not knowing what the pay. This is not true for all. For example, in my 25 plus years receiving my own health insurance, the only time I did know what a procedure/ exam cost was when I had Group Health (HMO version). With all the various PPO plans, I always get a statement from the Insurance provider on the claim submitted and amount paid. Knowing what I paid has not factored into decision making. Therefore, I don't see how his analysis is valid.
Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 07:17 PMa. the article was written in 2006. show me current numbers, if you please. we've had millions of people lose jobs, premiums go up 12+ percent and insurance co's denying appropriate coverage at faster rates than in '06.
b. if you really think 89% of americans are 'satisfied' w/ their health insurance, you haven't been paying attention, are just wilfully misinformed, or your threshold of 'satisfied' is intentionally lowered.
btw, the article you linked includes a paper by debunked moron, john lott - who makes up his own info and then makes up online personas to 'prove' said fabricated info.
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 07:45 PMrick, you really think a poll being pimped by faux noise is 'fair and balanced?'~ mike
mike: quit being ignorant. The poll/study was conducted by ABC news, USA today and Kaiser family foundation- not FNC. The Fox news story provided the links to that poll but apparently, you're too far gone in your pavolvian irrational hatred of FNC to follow the results of the poll because of the messenger that provided them. Like I said, wise up. Stomping your feet in a temper tantrum isn't going to change those figures one iota, mike.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 6, 2009 07:54 PM
3. Which political party do you trust to do a better job handling health care?
dems - 48
repubes - 31
4. Thinking about health care in the country as a whole, are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of health care in this country?
net satisfied - 44%
net dissatisfied - 54%
5. And are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in this country?
net satisfied - 18%
net dissatisfied - 80%
6. Thinking now about the number of Americans who have no health insurance - do you think that's (a critical problem for the country, a serious problem but not a critical one, a problem but not serious, or not much of a problem at all)?
86% thought it was a serious or critical problem
36. Which would you prefer - the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?
current - 40%
universal - 56%
the survey also revealed that:
nearly 70% of respondents delayed serious treatment(mostly due to costs)
56% worried about losing health insurance due to job loss
60% worry about being able to afford cost in coming years
1/3 of respondants had insurance co's refused to pay for coverage they believed was covered
42% of respondants felt it is more important to increase # of insured, second only to reducing costs (hello single payer!)
76% believe providing healthcare for americans is more important than keeping down taxes
2/3 believed their care would stay same or better
2/3 availability of treatment would be same or better
2/3 believed cost would stay same or better
2/3 believed choice of doctors and hospitals would be same or better
2/3 were opposed to HSA's
so rick, do you still think john lott did a good job of summarizing the poll? and you're right, i should have looked at the poll sooner, since it only shows how out of touch the right is on this issue. is faux news even telling hallf truths these days?
The new polling also shows that 80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent
Just seven percent (7%) now rate the quality of care they receive as poor.Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 08:37 PMSo by an 11:1 margin, people rate their coverage and care as good or excellent.
And what does the American voter worry about regarding health insurance and "reform"? Well it's the cost of the plan, not the coverage. The American voter doesn't want to bankrupt this nation to cover a small percentage of people.
Seems you really are out of touch with what the people really like, but that's what happens when you live in an echo chamber, or are a liberal. Facts become irrelevant and ignored.
The Kaiser/ABC News/USA Today survey found that about 13.4 percent of Americans were uninsured (a number slightly smaller than the 15.5 percent estimate used in policy debates from a Department of Labor survey). In crunching the numbers, since 13.4 percent multiplied by the 17.5 percent of the uninsured said that they were "very dissatisfied," it follows that out of all Americans, only 2.3 percent are both uninsured and "very dissatisfied" with the care they receive. The number rises to 3.9 percent when you include all the uninsured who are dissatisfied in any way with their health care.To put those numbers differently, 5 million uninsured Americans are very dissatisfied with their health care. Including those dissatisfied in any way raises that to 8.4 million.
You don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water in life, so why does Obama want to do the equivelent of this in attempt to add a relative few percentage of Americans to the rolls of the insured? And why the rush? Can't anyone read the effin' bill before passing it? Apparently not in the administration that ran on the mantra of "transparency".
Posted by: Rick D. on August 6, 2009 09:14 PMNot without at least two days and two lawyers at your side...;)
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 09:21 PM"Deficit hits record $1.3 trillion for July"
Unemployment projection if Stimulus passed = 8% max
Unemployment actual after Stimulus passed = 9.5%
Cash for Clunkers projected cost = $1 billion.
Cash for Clunkers actual cost = $3 billion.
Health Care Reform projected cost = $1 trillion
Health Care Reform actual cost = ???
What do you think? Should we not read this piece of crap bill and pass it RIGHT NOW! TODAY!
We.Do.Not.Want.This.
How much clearer can we be?
Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 09:34 PMthe status quo is fine with you?
according to rasmussen (who's polling has been flawed as of late - telephone surveys are junk science these days)
50% rate the system as bad or inadequate
rick, you're still quoting john lott. he's damaged goods, like bush.
WE DEFINITELY WANT REFORM! (cos the status quo and repubes both stink to high hell)
Posted by: mike on August 6, 2009 09:45 PMmike is complaining because some citizens voiced their concerns to their representatives who are actively trying to alter the quality (not for the better either) of the healthcare the constituents are currently receiving? You apparently aren't aware of the brownshirt tactics the left regularly employs, mike. From Columbia Univerity rioters storming the stage to disrupt an invited speaker to these leftist children acting out against free speech towards another Univeristy invited speaker.
Don't even bring up "common decency or Robert's rules of order" with a straight face as your side is the first ones to break such decorum. And you know it.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 7, 2009 04:54 AM50% rate the system as bad or inadequate
Now see, you need to actually put two and two together to get four...
In that same poll, 80% are satisfied with their own insurance. That drops dramatically when you talk about insurance as a whole; it's the "other guy" that people hear about.
This is a classic case of the media making the situation a lot worse than it is. Most people are happy with what they have, but they keep hearing how bad it is so most people must have it bad so we need to change. But the reality is just the opposite! A massive majority - 80%! - rates their own situation as good or excellent.
This shows the value of asking good questions. Don't just do the junk of "is the nation's health insurance system good or bad", but ask people personally.
If you have a big divergence between the two, then the problem is perception. Individuals are - by a very large margin - satisfied with what they have. But the public perception is that their neighbors are all in bad situations so we need to do something.
That perception is manipulated by the White House, Congress, and the media. Most people are happy, but we're told over and over just how bad it is for most people (a clear lie) and most people start to believe it.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand this...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2009 06:22 AMLet's see, I said this:
"We.Do.Not.Want.This.
How much clearer can we be?"
And then you ask:
"you don't want reform?"
Do you need a dictionary?
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."
-
Excuse me, but screw you.
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 07:39 AMGary, you are being too nice
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 7, 2009 08:09 AMnot everyone who opposes an illegal and falsely reasoned war are democrats. yes, some of the protestors were democrats, and some were just out to cause trouble.
the people that "tore up seattle" during the WTO weren't democrats, they were anarchists. only a handful of the tens of thousands of demonstrators were violent. lots of us at the protests weren't politically affiliated at the time, we were just trying to observe, mediate and keep the non-violent demonstrators (a legal right, btw) from having our civil rights violated.
slashing van tires?
republicans do it to, like at the crown coliseum during an obama event, or did you conveniently forget that?
shooting up republican headquarters? hell, at least they didn't kill anyone.
maybe you conveniently forgot the murder of bill gwatney in the arkansas DNC hq?
what a friggin hypocrite.
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 08:16 AMI assume, then, that you will join me and condemn all physical anger and hostility in politics? Including stoking such fires?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2009 09:01 AMprovide some evidence that any 'republicans' had anything to do with the Crown Coliseum vandalism or the murder of bill gwatney.
thanks
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 7, 2009 09:47 AM"were"? Why aren't they still?
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 09:54 AMThanks.
You do know that they are collecting these addresses and IP's for "further use"...right? I am OK with that - I won't go out on my knees like "mike" or pudgy - I will go out fighting.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 7, 2009 10:14 AMhttp://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm?cnn=yes
...or honestly. And people want them to handle their health care.
Latest posts over at Gateway Pundit have SEUI thugs slapping around citizens and "citizens" taking pictures of the people that stand up in opposition.
Talk about Brown Shirts! Man, there are here now!
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 7, 2009 11:08 AMat least dems are trying to let the repubs have a say, even if they'll be whiny dbags and disrupt civil town halls like the diaper-wearing babies they appear to really be.
no need to shut that up, drive away the latino, black, asian, female, gay, christian and independent voters, and you're in the last throes of the republican party
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 11:55 AMhey, remember how bush kept those w/ opposing views completely out of townhalls?
Actually, no. Can you remind me? I do remember, though, that Obama had questions pre-screened and pre-selected for his townhalls...
at least dems are trying to let the repubs have a say
Sure, is that why the Pelosi/Obama/Reid triumvirate always say "the Republicans don't have any plans, no input, just the party of no" when there are, in fact, substantive bills and amendments offered? And why anyone who dissents is a brownshirt thug?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2009 01:06 PMDissent is patriotic.
There is nothing wrong with having an opposing view, and often times it is a good thing, otherwise we'd all be lock step robots like the right.
Disruption of civil democracy is not dissent. Silencing opponents by drowning them out and telling them to shut up, rattling them, etc is not dissent. It goes against the very foundation of democracy. It's how third graders operate in the school yard, not grown adults.
Gateway Pundit reports on leftwing thuggery. SEIU thugs are walking around in purple shirts, apparently self-appointed intimidators/enforcers. Gateway: "Tea Party Protester Attacked--1 Black conservative seriously hurt in St. Louis...6 people were arrested outside the Russ Carnahan town hall event on Thursday after thugs attacked tea party protesters...at least three of the batterers were SEIU representatives".
The beating victim, who is a black conservative who says he was simply selling flags that said "Don't tread on me" told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that "one of his attackers--also a black man---used a racial slur against him before the attack started."
THERE'S YOUR BROWN SHIRTS---THEY'RE CLEARLY ON THE LEFT. No denying it.
Posted by: Michele on August 7, 2009 01:24 PM"Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them"
-
You gonna go after him now?
How can that be? Doesn't the State take care of everything there, including wiping... well, you know... the same thing some people want the government to do for them right here?
Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 02:06 PM
Probably like Michelle and Gary I have been fighting against liberalism and totalitarianism for several decades and I have paid some pretty large prices for my conservatism. Up until last year it seemed to others like I was being shrill whenever I suggested that the liberals were after what they openly and apologetically support today (communist socialism. Now they talk as if that is an understatement.
In rabid defense of their presumed uber-mandate, the White House is attacking the American people for disagreeing with them. Soon the narrative could be so surreal that many wiser grass roots conservatives will simply stop talking and go quiet. Because the discussion is circular and proves irreconcilable there will be no point in talking and we will be quietly preparing for the inevitable action. Our political leaders had better recognize what is happening and go full tilt against Obama and the rats. The "well-dressed mob" Pelosi refers to are real pissed off and real resourceful and unafraid of punks like Pelosi, Reed, and Obama, and COMPROMISE WILL NOT DO.
This may well end very badly for all of us, where the average liberal will be hurt as much as the average conservative, but no matter what happens, I am very glad to be a conservative.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 7, 2009 03:30 PMdo you really not remember bush's hand selected town halls, where protestors were arrested and those looking suspicious weren't let in at all? were you sleeping throughout the previous administration's underhanded tactics? your ignorance amuses me.
remember how the right tried to marginalize liberal protestors by calling them traitors, terrorist sympathizers and haters of america?
if you don't you're selective memory may be a sign of lunacy or alzheimers. either way, i suggest seeing a therapist before your rights are revoked for being a bad comrade.
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 07:20 PMVoters to Congress: You're Blowing It
August 7, 2009 Posted by John at 2:45 PM
Public unhappiness with the Democrats' attempt to ram government medicine through Congress is reflected in the current Rasmussen survey on Congressional performance. The findings are brutal: 56 percent of voters say Congress is doing a "poor" job, compared to 4 percent who say "excellent." Overall, only 14 percent of voters rate the Pelosi/Reid Congress as good or excellent, while an extraordinary 84 percent say fair or poor:
We might not have Nancy Pelosi to kick around too much longer.
All the government has to do is get rid of the stimulus, and fund anyone who needs health care to the tune of $200 a month.
(And its $33 a month for the poor to begin with).
End of story.
Problem solved.
(BTW. That was the John McCain plan, right there).
Posted by: John Bailo on August 7, 2009 08:08 PMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#32336394
protest fail!
congress hasn't had a positive approval rating since sometime before the contract (to wreck) america.
Posted by: mike on August 7, 2009 08:11 PMCan you point me to some of them? I remember the liberals screaming so loudly about it, but yet there always seemed to be Code Pink or other liberals in those meetings to shout out...
So please, point me to some?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2009 08:25 PMWe all know that Obama does not lie!!
Posted by: Tim on August 7, 2009 10:29 PM"AK-47": Your "now serving" ticket in the ER--'Now serving AA-2!'
"22": the average number of illegal aliens per household that will get free treatment on your dime
"12-gauge": the size needle it will feel like in your hind end when the taxes for this boondoggle kick in
"45"--the new age at which the rationed care will encourage you to seek "end of life counseling"
"hollow point": the bureaucrat's brain that will dictate your treatment and care
"bullseye": the taxpayer and his wallet
"camo": all that's being spewed about this scam
"assault rifle": what will be used on citizens who disagree peacefully as the numbers swell
"empty shelves of ammo" in stores these days: your doctor, any new research, drugs & equipment, MRI's available, etc etc
"big game hunting": the trips, travel and extra money we will spend going to 3rd world countries for better medical care
"hunting accident" the term coined for future preventable deaths from the government-rationed & delayed care & procedures
"my cold dead hands": no comment...you guess...
Shut Up, He Explained
August 7, 2009 Posted by John at 11:40 PM
"Earlier today, I'd intended to do a post with that title commenting on Barack Obama's outrageous, arrogant remark:
But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.
By the "folks who created the mess," I suppose he doesn't mean Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their fellow Democrats who have controlled Congress for the last 2 1/2 years. Nor, presumably, does he mean himself; yet I can't recall Obama ever identifying a single measure that he opposed as a back-bench senator that somehow contributed to current economic problems.
But Obama lacks any such self-knowledge. By "the folks who created this mess," whom he wants to shut up, he no doubt means Republicans and others who oppose his government medicine scheme and other crackpot plans.
But we can't repeat the message too often. Barack Obama is an arrogant would-be machine boss who fundamentally fails to understand representative democracy, perhaps because of his below-average knowledge of history, which we've noted on a number of occasions. Fortunately, "shut up" is not yet a winning political argument. Not in the United States of America, anyway."
Posted by: KDS on August 8, 2009 10:54 AMI'm taking obamination at his word and arming myself appropriately.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 8, 2009 02:40 PM