Comments


  • Right wingers are wearing out the "not in the constitution line" where were you people when Bush was wiretapping without a court order? Also calling MSNBC dishonest? What about Fox? I guess they are fair and ballanced? Come on!

    July 20, 2010 at 12:35 p.m.

  • Legion
    Roy Mark is back as gyroscope.

    August 28, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.

  • Whatever happened to that RoyMark person anyway?

    August 28, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.

  • Arlewil
    It is confusing and I probably made it more confusing by trying to summarize it.

    Here is how Factcheck.org analyzed it.

    The House bill would trim projected increases in payments for hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others, including home health care providers and suppliers of motor-driven wheelchairs. But it also proposes what CBO estimates is a $245 billion increase in spending for doctors, by canceling a scheduled 21 percent cut in physician payments. None of the "savings" or "cuts" (whichever you prefer) come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors. AARP, in a "Myths versus Facts" rundown of what’s being said about the health care bills, contradicts the claim made by 60 Plus.

    Summary

    The conservative 60 Plus Association is running a TV ad saying Congress plans to pay for overhauling health care "by cutting $500 billion from Medicare." It claims that this "will mean long waits for care" and cuts to MRIs and other imaging services, that "seniors may lose their own doctors" and that "government, not doctors, will decide if older patients are worth the cost." Actually, the House leadership’s version of the health care bill would trim a net total of only $219 billion from the projected growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And Congress isn’t proposing to cut benefit levels or to deny treatment to anyone who is "not worth the cost." We find this ad to be mostly false.

    Analysis

    The 60 Plus Association bills itself as nonpartisan and conservative. It says on its Web site that it is for "free enterprise, less government, less taxes" and claims to be "the conservative alternative" to AARP.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more...

    That’s all I can do.

    August 28, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

  • Mike
    Thanks for your answer to my question with regard to Pres Obama reducing Medicare costs by 500 billion dollars without reducing our current quality of healthcare. You said Pres Obama has identified $500,000,000,000 in waste and fraud that can be eliminated to pay for govt healthcare.
    Now I am really confused! If Pres Obama has been aware of this amount of waste and fraud, why hasn't he done something about it before now. I don't believe Congress would have to act on this. We may not even need government healthcare.
    Thanks for sharing.

    August 28, 2009 at 1:34 p.m.

  • Same MOS, now maybe the poster that was exposed for having seven different aliases will lecture the anonymous posters.

    The wonders of Word & the delete key.

    August 27, 2009 at 9:36 p.m.

  • Mike - yep.

    August 27, 2009 at 9:24 p.m.

  • Looks like Roy mark is back.

    August 27, 2009 at 9:18 p.m.

  • geez, now this blog has degenerated to whose expert is better, that sounds like a couple of litigation attorneys in a courtroom. And even worse what a bootleggers son ( yes that is in fact where the Kennedy money came from) did way back when compared to Laura Bush.

    Joe Kennedy....

    Besides not ever being proved that he was a bootlegger, other than buying the exclusive rights to distribute Dewars Scotch and Gordons gin in 1933 right after the end of prohibition, he also made a serious gaffe in 1940........... while Ambassador to Britain, His term as Ambassador and his political ambitions ended abruptly during the Battle of Britain in November 1940, with the publishing of his controversial remarks suggesting that "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here, [in the US].

    And that's my off topic post, sorta follows the comment thread tho.

    August 27, 2009 at 6:51 p.m.

  • A 17 year old girl is a big political personality like TK - excuse me I am doubled over laughing, I can't type anymore.

    August 27, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.

  • Never mind ,that was Laura's nickname..You are always one step ahead.

    August 27, 2009 at 5:45 p.m.

  • Pickles?Vet,have you ever heard of Nathan Hentoff?
    The Worldnetdaily's (The black helicopter web site).of the world are using him as a creditable source against Obama. ...

    August 27, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.

  • I knew bringing up Pickles would stir someone up.

    August 27, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.

  • Mike..."You don’t expect a wealthy family to use their influence? Huh?"

    Yeah, actually, I do. I don't like it when it happens, but it is not unexpected. I was simply contrasting the behavior of a 17 year old girl whose name Vet couldn't remember with that of a thirty-something U.S. Senator. I was trying to get across the point that the senator is the one who should be the more mature of the two and should be expected to use the better judgement of the two. It turned out that the kid whose name can't be remembered exhibited a far greater level of honor and integrity than the senator. She didn't surround herself with speech writers and spin artists as did the senator. High dollar legal advice wasn't available to her and the pressure that the senator's family was able to bring to bear was not available to her either. Turns out the senator acted exactly like the spoiled rich kid who didn't grow up and change his ways until his body would no longer support the excesses he inflicted on it.

    August 27, 2009 at 3:55 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    August 27, 2009 at 3:27 p.m.

  • That’s funny Wayward; I have been a long time admirer of the Kennedy clan for their political exploits, not their so-called integrity..All the Kennedy men were womanizers, partygoers, and spoiled rich kids…You don’t expect a wealthy family to use their influence? Huh?

    August 27, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.

  • So the blog is not about Krugman,just his critism.

    August 27, 2009 at 3:09 p.m.

  • Vet..."So by that thinking it's O.K. to take a life if you're 17 versus a person who holds office?"

    C'mon, Vet, you know better than that. Of course it is not okay. But, I expect a higher level of maturity and integrity and honor from a thirty-something year old U.S. Senator than from any 17 year old kid. In these instances, the 17 year old came out way ahead. I don't expect the senator to use his family money and influence and his political power to weasel out of a tight spot that HE was responsible for in the first place. By your thinking, were his actions that day honorable? Did he, in your opinion, exhibit any integrity at all? Did he act in a way that would cause his family, his constituants, the U.S. Senate to look upon him with pride?

    August 27, 2009 at 2:49 p.m.

  • I see you're point it's all about Mike. Want go after those hard questions. MSNBC totally dishonest. Obama network..

    you have a good day.

    August 27, 2009 at 2:47 p.m.

  • Well Itisi
    It is pretty simple ,go back to the constitution and find where having the United States Air Force is constitutional….It was already discussed in this thread…read all the posts.

    You say it is spin, and from MSNBC but I am not ashamed of watching that network and I think I am capable of understanding the issues.

    I get it..You hate President Barack Obama and you are a viewer of Fox News.

    I left a couple of sources but I really don’t see any value in having a discussion with you because I like to discuss issues not the same old liberal & conservative food fights..

    You have a good day.

    August 27, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.

  • Mike,

    You will continue to put the liberal spin on everything and you do it very well, there is no doubt about it.

    There are 27 amendments under the Constitution, and no where do I see the right to have healthcare. Only to defend and the general welfare of the country, that is about as close as you will get.

    So if you think Obams is the right man for the job, you voted for him more power to you.

    I don’t like where he came from, nor do I like the people that he has been associated with, and continues the relationships till this day. He is a left wing radical the evidence will stand alone. He is self absorbed, and used to getting his way. He is not representing some community origination with a hand full of people. He doesn’t demonstrate positive leadership qualities. He is the President of the United States of America he damn well needs to act like but, instead he has the mentality some dictator in South America or banana republic. This country is bankrupt, you bet, he owns it, he wanted the job and now he has. He is trying to force a healthcare system that will not work right done the American taxpayers throat, that is part one of “HIS” fundamental change.

    Why don’t you take a look at all of these czars that he has created, and give your readers a point of view on those folks. You’re really good at documenting facts and then presenting those facts. But I don’t think you will do that, because it will hinder you’re liberal cause.

    I do enjoy reading you’re liberal spin and view points. One thing about it I don’t have to watch MSNBC, I can just read you’re stuff all one in the same..

    August 27, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.

  • The most creditable liberal economist,NYT’s , Nobel Prize winner ,Paul Krugman has criticized the stimulus and the general direction of Health Care Reform plan…Jeffery Sachs has also weighed in, as well as Warren Buffett with criticisms…..Those three individuals have a lot more clout than a country music critic for United Media….lol

    August 27, 2009 at 2:04 p.m.

  • Wayward:
    "Most importantly, she was a 17 year old kid, not a United States Senator."
    So by that thinking it's O.K. to take a life if you're 17 versus a person who holds office?

    August 27, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.

  • In the words of Dick Cheney "So."

    August 27, 2009 at 1:53 p.m.

  • Yeah, Hentoff sounds like a real dumb a$$.

    In 1972 Hentoff was named a Guggenheim Fellow.[3] He was awarded the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award in 1980 for his columns on law and criminal justice. In 1985 he was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Laws by Northeastern University.[4] In 1995 Hentoff was given the National Press Foundation's Award for lifetime distinguished contributions to journalism.[5] In 2004 Hentoff was named one of six NEA Jazz Masters by the US National Endowment for the Arts, the first non-musician to win this award.

    That same year, the Boston Latin School honored him as alumnus of the year. In October 2005, Hentoff was honored by the Human Life Foundation at their third annual Great Defender of Life dinner.

    Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, pro-life advocate, and he is often critical of the ideological left. He also supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    While once a longtime supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Hentoff has become a vocal critic of the organization for its advocacy of government-enforced university and workplace speech codes.[6] He serves on the board of advisors for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, another civil liberties group. Hentoff's book, Free Speech for Me — But Not for Thee, outlines his views on free speech and excoriates those who he feels favor censorship in any form.

    August 27, 2009 at 1:51 p.m.

  • Lol..They are so desperate ,the right-wing is using Nathan Irving "Nat" Hentoff (born June 10, 1925) is an American historian, novelist, jazz and country music critic, and syndicated columnist for United Media and writes regularly on jazz and country music for The Wall Street Journal. As a source…A country music critic!..That’s funny ,thanks Kenneth.

    . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff

    That makes my day.

    August 27, 2009 at 1:33 p.m.

  • Itisi

    Are we back on that party of family values thing?..You don’t really want to go down that “holier than thou road” do you?..

    A little research goes a long way….the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has launched a new Web site explaining its position on the issues. The Catholic Church has long advocated universal health care coverage. The full endorsement for comprehensive reform linked to on the site was actually written in 1993 and makes reference to the Clinton administration.

    http://www.theind.com/content/view/48...

    The NAE, which claims to represent 30 million constituents, said it recognizes that the American health care system is “complex,” reform will “not be easy,” and people may “disagree” on how to fix it.
    But in the face of many obstacles, the nation’s largest evangelical body called on President Obama and Congress to work together in a “bipartisan manner” to create a new health care system that has broad coverage, is cost effective, and respects the sanctity of human life.

    http://www.christianpost.com/article/...

    It was a mutual interest meeting.

    As for the coverage percentage…I heard several representatives say that the government pays 75% of their premiums…The Federal Employees Health Benefits say it can be as high as 75%..You may be right but that is not what I am concentrating on…It’s not part of the health care debate.

    So you are another former GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE(Public pension?) that hates the government.:-) Is that like people on Medicare not wanting a government to have anything to do with their health care?

    August 27, 2009 at 1:25 p.m.

  • Vet..."You know, every time I hear "Chappaquiddick," I think of a 17 year old girl from Midland, her name escapes me, who is married to a politician. She ran a stop sign and killed her boyfriend in 1963."

    Yeah, it happened but she didn't hide for 10 hours before notifying the cops and she didn't run away from the scene leaving someone to die who might have been saved. She had more honor and more integrity at 17 while facing a tragedy than Kennedy ever showed in his entire life. Most importantly, she was a 17 year old kid, not a United States Senator.

    August 27, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

  • Mike,
    On the issue of God being brought up on healthcare. Why did Obama have a meeting with religious leaders and talk healthcare? He is trying to sale it any way he can. I will tell you this from a moral stand point he is dead wrong.

    Why do you want government run healthcare? Is it a moral issue with you and the Democrats or more of the liberal side of this equation? Since when has the Democrats become so moral about anything

    August 27, 2009 at 12:55 p.m.

  • Mike,
    Sorry I misstated myself. The government does not pay 75% of a government employees insurance it’s about 50% or less depending on which option that you pick. You’re info is incorrect. I’m one of those re-tired federal employees.

    August 27, 2009 at 12:41 p.m.

  • Johnny said “OK Mike, it appears you are still living in the false reality of Democrat spin-world that people in opposition to this hobbled together bill are proponents of the status-quo. An absolute and manufactured falsehood.

    No more a falsehood than Health care Reform is a government takeover, death panels, death books, and the falsehoods, your side is spreading…Am I to believe that the GOP is willing to work on health care reform? They never have been that interested. Several quotes from the party leaders prove that out.

    August 27, 2009 at 12:24 p.m.

  • Johnny
    What’s the problem? I agree with everything you wrote; if you scroll down I wrote the same thing but without the co-pay and other small details of the federal employee coverage.

    The legislators will markup a bill several times, sends it over to CBO for their analysis but it is when the media hypes the results that all the confusion sets in.e.g. The committee members will do countless “what-if?” before the bill will come up for a debate. We all know a $900 billion will probably pass but anything with the word TRILLION dollars will cause fits…The final CBO analysis is the only one that matters to me because the committee members know it has to be deficit neutral and they must describe a way to pay for it; that will pass CBO analysis.

    AIG, automakers, death panels, fed employee coverage, death books, Candian Health care are all just the side shows..IMO

    CBO estimates cannot put a number on cost savings on what bringing home the troops home from Iraq will bring in, for Health Care Reform. It does not factor in the people that have quit smoking because of the tobacco tax. It’s a great tool but….

    August 27, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.

  • And as far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with my insurance. It's better than what the fedral goverment gets. I only pay 10% and they pay 80%. I choose my doctor.

    August 27, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.

  • Itisi
    You still do not have it right..The government pays 75% of the federal employee’s portion and the employee pays the remaining 25%..It still does not have anything to do with heath care reform.

    Only 40% of the Democratic Party is liberal, so by your standards the remaining 60% are not confused?

    God into the equation? Can you be more specific?

    Are you saying that (government run health care) Medicare & the VA are unconstitutional? Is there a case before the Supreme Court?

    August 27, 2009 at 11:51 a.m.

  • Mike, the insurance industry is one of the most regulated in our country, just typically at the state level. The problem was not with insurance underwriting, but with financial investment vehicles that fell outside of any existing or previously existing legislation (ie: types of derivatives). On the need for regulation to address such investment vehicles, I am in agreeance with you.

    August 27, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.

  • Ok, you do have a point there. AIG is only paying back because they are being forced to do so or risk being taxed. And as far as the goverment with their hands in Medicar, Social Security and Medicade...well we all know what kind of shape those are in.

    August 27, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.

  • OK Mike, it appears you are still living in the false reality of Democrat spin-world that people in opposition to this hobbled together bill are proponents of the status-quo. An absolute and manufactured falsehood.

    Please understand this, it's not health care reform, rather hasty incomplete healthcare legislation, that most people are opposed to. You would be better served to recognize this fact and make that the point of your attacks.

    In regards to your undying support for something you have decided to believe in, regardless of the obvious problems with; please explain:
    How it is that less than two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims to provides the Congress with the objective, timely, nonpartisan analyses needed for economic and budget decisions; recently concluded that the proposed health care reform bill (as its stands now in its flawed form) WOULD NOT result in a material reduction in healthcare costs?

    This bill pastes over many wide ranging issue with far reaching consequences, yet never addresses the consequences. As put very succinctly by somebody I know personally who has worked on healthcare reform, and knows this bill inside and out: This bill is so full of gaping holes and unaddressed issues that it can be best compared to a pair of worn out, patched up, hole in the crotch depression era pants.

    BTW, the insurance our Congressmen receive is the same all Federal employees receive. It is entirely consisted of a pool of private insurance plans competing for the business. It has premiums, co-pays, and other features very similar to many of the health insurance plans typically offered by large corporations to its employees.

    August 27, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.

  • JR74
    Are you suggesting that the insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the hospital industry will reform itself? What is their incentive? That’s like getting rid of EPA because the polluters will reduce their emissions because it is the right thing to do; regardless of their profits.:-)

    I agree the auto makers will never pay us back but AIG held us up because the government did not (still doesn’t) have a FDIC like control over insurance companies. The government should not have control over insurance companies but they shouldn’t hold a gun to the government’s head with a “too big to fail” ransom.

    The government pays for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, so they have a big stake in any kind of reform.

    August 27, 2009 at 11:38 a.m.

  • Vet

    It is ironic that President Nixon’s health care plan included an employer penalty and mandate but Ted Kennedy opposed it.

    You are right the same old scare tactics, and talking points go way back to the “Great Depression”…Perhaps the GOP could bring back the team that came up with “we will fight them over there; so we don’t have to fight them here”and”Mission Accomplished.” It seems like they had a slogan a week, back then.

    That’s funny …After eight years of George W. Bush they have the audacity to lecture someone about Barack Obama…

    August 27, 2009 at 11:19 a.m.

  • Mike,
    let me re-phrase that 75% part. A government employee does not pay 75% of the cost of their health insurance it’s about half or less, depending on the option you have.

    First off, I am not confused, secondly I know congress is on recess and there are 5 options on the table. You keep driving these so called facts on healthcare, and you continue to make statements i.e. healthcare which has not been debated, then tell me I’m confused. I think the whole ding liberal Democratic party is confused, they can take their fundamental change and stick where the sun doesn’t shine as far as I’m concerned. I’m sick of their lies and misleading remarks, then bringing God into the equation to sell their government run healthcare. The whole ding thing is unconstitutional.(IMO)

    August 27, 2009 at 11:16 a.m.

  • Yep thats the one I was talking about. You are right about the healthcare system needing to be fixed, Mike. But Letting the goverment fix it? Come on....Are they going to fix it like the fixed the auto companies or like they fixed AIG?

    "GoliadChica
    This is not a continuation of the campaign. YOU LOST! GET OVER IT and get your heads out of the sand."

    At least we don't have our heads up Obamas..well you know. If he did something worthwhile I won't have anything to say. GWB was a retard and Obama won by blowing smoke up everybodies.....If one of these bills makes it and its better than private insurance...which I don't see happening...I'd gladly participate.

    August 27, 2009 at 11:07 a.m.

  • Goliadchica
    Tell us how you really feel,don't hold back..:-)
    You described the elephant in the room...They know it.

    August 27, 2009 at 11 a.m.

  • Suzy
    Most of these posters have substituted the words “health care reform” for “government takeover “as if the insurance companies, corporations and pharmaceutical companies always have their best interest at heart…..You can show them the graphs and charts like Ross Perot used to do and they will just ignore it or question its validly.

    August 27, 2009 at 10:58 a.m.

  • Here are some blasts from the past some people may like:
    Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

    George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

    Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the presidency, Dole stated that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ... because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1992]

    One question I have asked is if this health care reform is not passed and insurance premiums double or maybe triple as is being reported, whose fault will it be?
    You know, every time I hear "Chappaquiddick," I think of a 17 year old girl from Midland, her name escapes me, who is married to a politician. She ran a stop sign and killed her boyfriend in 1963.

    August 27, 2009 at 10:46 a.m.

  • Well Itisi
    It is obvious you are for Big Pharma, the insurance companies and the status quo…

    What health care plan is on the table? Congress is on a recess and that is the reason they cannot make headway…There are 5 plans floating around in Washington..Not one has been debated or voted on.

    Itisi you need to go to basics because it is obvious you are confused…IMO

    I never said the new Health care Reform bill will pay 75% of the cost..The poster I replied to wanted a plan like the one government employees have right now..I explained the plan they had.

    August 27, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.

  • Hello Arlewil
    You are one of several that has said that my blogs helps them understand liberals…I have never pretended to be a spokesman for the Democratic Party or liberals but if helps you understand my own view point; then I have accomplished something.:-)

    I assume you are talking about the $500 billion in waste and fraud the administration is talking about reducing…You may be a country boy but that just tells me you are a good horse trader.e.g. When the health insurance industry tells the administration that they can kick in about $155 billion over the next ten years and Big Pharma will add another $80 billion;then you know that is just the tip of the iceberg…I don’t trust 10 year projections and there are so many variables,so I join you; I will be a skeptic because I know Medicare and Social Security will need to be fixed….It might mean that we will have to stop getting cost of living raises(already happened) so we can reduce the burden on the working middle-class…The working middle-class will produce the revenues, so we can continue to receive those entitlements…IMO

    August 27, 2009 at 10:35 a.m.

  • Mike,
    It’s very obvious that you’re for big government, and you don’t mined having the government telling you who, what, when and where, you’re choice.

    The insurance that government employees have is private healthcare insurance, just like any corporation or small company might have the employee pays part the government pays the other part. This healthcare plan that is on the table is no where near like what the government employees has in any form or fashion. The government does not pay 75% of that insurance. The government provides option from different insurance plans that the government has made available to the employee.

    Obama, continues to say that you have the option to pick and choice, if that is the case government run healthcare will be bought from private insurance companies. So to you someone is lying out there you no what.. Folks better start listen to the words of Obama, like the phrase “fundamental change” that is a very powerful phrase..

    August 27, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.

  • So, any of you aware that there is no Healthcare Bill to fight about yet? That the GOP is fighting any healthcare reform because they only fight FOR big business?

    Again, no bill has made it out of committee, so you are fighting over nothing and doing the dirty work of the GOP.

    Here's an idea...why don't you wait to fuss and fight when there is actually is something to fuss and fight over?

    We know what the fuss is about - that the GOP lost in November and would do anything to take down our President at any cost. And a lot of you have no morals about helping them either. Shame on you so called Christians. So much for being your brother's keeper. This is not a continuation of the campaign. YOU LOST! GET OVER IT and get your heads out of the sand.

    August 27, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.

  • I know for a fact that companies are already dropping coverage on their employees and it is just gonna get worse, reguardless of "if" a healthcare plan is passed. People have a hard time looking down the road and think that things will forever remain the same. It's not gonna happen.
    If things are allowed to remain like they are now, insurance policies are gonna price themselves out of existance for anyone except the super-rich.
    Right now, companies are offering their employees insurance so they can get, and retain, the best employees. It's not because they just want to spend money. I cannot see that changing if a healthcare plan is adopted. Sure, some of the smaller businesses will opt out, but they would have been forced to do it anyway as insurance premiums continue to rise.

    August 27, 2009 at 10:14 a.m.

  • JD said “Everything I needed to know about Obama's proposed healthcare was answered when he stated that he, his family, members of congress and their families will not use it. In a nutshell that tells me that it isn't worth a d**n.

    While Barack Obama is the president of the United States, he will have a physician at his side at all times; so you cannot accept that kind of care.

    The representatives and other federal employees may choose from about 30 private sector plans and the federal government pays about 75% of the cost.

    In the case of Medicare, SCHIP, Medicare, the government sends a check to the doctors, hospitals, and other private sector facilities…..It’s the VA that uses government run facilities.

    About the VA

    Until the early 1990s, care at VA hospitals was so substandard that Congress considered shutting down the entire system and giving ex-G.I.s vouchers for treatment at private facilities. Today it's a very different story. The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program--socialized medicine on a small scale--is beating the marketplace.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...

    August 27, 2009 at 10:07 a.m.

  • JR74
    I never said the Health Care Reform bill was great because I know we have 5 plans floating out there but I assume you are talking about the house bill that made it out of committee…H.R. 3200…..

    Not one bill has been debated or voted on, so I assume you are complaining about the public option…That will be similar (if passed) to what federal employees are enrolled in..The only difference is that the government pays for 75% of the cost for federal employees.

    It has been said that small business will let their company insurance go in favor of the public option but according to the Kaiser Foundation, the percentage of large employers offering health insurance held steady at more than 98 percent between 1999 and 2008. Smaller employers, in contrast, saw a decline from 65 to 59 percent between 1999 and 2007, although this number increased to 62 percent in 2008. Employers with fewer than 10 employers were most likely to drop health insurance. The percentage of these employers offering coverage fell from 56 to 49 percent between 1999 and 2008…That trend has already started ;without a bill.

    http://www.answerbag.com/articles/Abo...

    There is not a plan to force feed anyone; unless you call some sort of participation (like mandated car insurance) penalty but you can keep your current insurance.

    Health care cost will be about $2.4-$2.6 trillion this year…Do we continue to ignore the problem?..

    August 27, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.

  • Ok Mike, let me ask you this then.... If this healthcare reform bill is so great, then why isn't the goverment going to use it? They have a private insurance, just like most of us. If it's good enough for us, then it should be good enough for them....right? But yet they aren't going to. They are going to keep their private insurance, but try to force feed the rest of us their "reform". I have a great healthcare plan and I refuse to let that go. And isn't it true that if this bill passes most small buisness will let their company insurance go in favor of the cheaper goverment run healthcare? I ask to learn, not to try and start an arguement.

    August 27, 2009 at 8:22 a.m.

  • The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate health insurance and healthcare, but does it allow it to provide health insurance and be in the health insurance business? That is the fundamental question.

    August 26, 2009 at 11:42 p.m.

  • Sorry I don't believe in the schips because it is not adminstered equally. Just like the obama plan would not be.

    That is what people don't understand. They think a bill is sooooooooooooooooooo good. SCHIPS is not administered equally and children die without coverage. And skin color matters have seen it in action with workers children in Houston when trying to help abused family children.

    And talk about about abuse. What about the so called "minority poor buses" They drive up to local apartments and housing places and load children up and give them denistry and such. After auditing the program they have found fraud and convicted some.

    Oh yeah just another program not administered correctly. You can believe all you want but until things are administered equally I will not trust the government.

    But be liberal give us all equal access to the same level of care Congress has. That is the medical plan we all should have. No questions asked. Throw out the stupid plans currently offered.

    August 26, 2009 at 9:46 p.m.

  • I'd love to have the healthcare package options of Congress. Call it Tedcare if you want. TK was instrumental in getting SCHIP on the books.

    August 26, 2009 at 9:17 p.m.

  • Mike
    I appreciate the research you do and it helps me understand liberals. My wife and I are on Social Security and Medicare. We paid a lot of money for these benefits. Explain to me how the Govt Health Plan takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and maintains the quality we have now? I am just an ole country boy but when I reduce feed costs for the cows, they lose weight.
    Your blog on Riverside Park brought back a lot of memories.

    August 26, 2009 at 8:44 p.m.

  • Everything I needed to know about Obama's proposed healthcare was answered when he stated that he, his family, members of congress and their families will not use it. In a nutshell that tells me that it isn't worth a d**n.

    August 26, 2009 at 8:31 p.m.

  • Change = Rationing, Change = Balloning Deficits, Change = Stagflation, Change = Loss of Freedom, Change = Fear

    August 26, 2009 at 8:21 p.m.

  • Legal minutia is as easy as biblical notions to be dissected and skewed for evil purposes. Ask a Nazi if God is on their side: the answer will be yes. But to say that somehow the Constitution inhibits Congress from promoting the General Welfare of the People of the United States due to a misunderstood commerce notion is silly. And if you do not believe me watch it happen before your eyes, but please no Kool Aid as Ted Care not unlike Civil Rights and Busing and other bugaboos declared unconstitutional, despite of allot of Republican Screaming Hate speech, most have grown use to it.

    August 26, 2009 at 8:11 p.m.

  • It is amazing.......

    The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes. Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to the Congress of the United States. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

    Take your own advice.

    August 26, 2009 at 7:52 p.m.

  • It is amazing how folks that talk about the Constitution are so ignorant of it. They are most likely poorly educated. The Constitution in powers Government to:[words in brackets my comments]

    The Constitution of the United States of America

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union [not a bunch of separate states that are only loosely associated], establish justice, insure domestic tranquility [ this process may take allot to do], provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare [ not everybody for themselves I got mine you get yours which easily includes health care for all], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves [not each individual family but for all the citizenry] and our posterity [ OUR not selfish Republican lies], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    August 26, 2009 at 7:48 p.m.

  • Subjective, vague, which whatever.

    August 26, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.

  • No Mike as vague as congress understands the ruling, which must be very vague indeed, if they are using a Supreme court ruling that pertained to states rights as a justification to further health care reform, a federal bill that has absolutely nothing to do with states rights.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:59 p.m.

  • Legion357
    intended is subjective

    Have a good one...Astros v Cardinals.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.

  • The Supreme court case you cited proves my point.......

    Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

    There ya go, it WAS used to regulate medical cannabis. A purpose the commerce clause was never intended to be used for.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:47 p.m.

  • That meant that you can be as literal or as vague as you want but the SC has the final say..Read the bill,to see how they came to their decision.....

    August 26, 2009 at 6:47 p.m.

  • The supreme court ruled on the Air Force? Where did that come from?

    The interstate commerce clause was originally introduced in 1887 because of excessive rates railroads charge agricultural producers to ship their products to market. Repealed in 1995 most of the powers where transferred to the Surface Transportation Agency. And now are used as a constitutional reason to pass any legislation if even the tiniest hint of "interstate commerce" is involved.

    "No,Billo That has already been decided in Gonzales v. Raich.,that states the Constitution empowers Congress to enact broad regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce…"

    Your own words, not mine.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.

  • The constitution does not allow for the United States Air Force.....Go as far as you want...That is the job of the Supreme Court.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.

  • Status Quo=rationing Status Quo=insurance premiums will continue to rise.

    Reconciliation (51 votes) prevents democrats from passing a full bill; so it will be limited.
    A bill requiring taxation or budgetary approval still requires full 60 votes.

    Then again Social Security took more than one try, Civil Rights came in several packages, and Hillary care finally produced SCHIP…..Wheels are turning in the Democratic Party and today may be the catalyst for unity within the party…..Wyden-Bennett appeals to Republicans but at least Mike Enzi, (one of the gang of six), admitted the GOP will vote No, and all he is doing is trying to extract concessions.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.

  • "substantially affect interstate commerce", There it is, a absolutely vague ruling that can be interpreted many ways used as the basis for the health care bill.

    Interstate Commerce in U.S. constitutional law, any commercial transactions or traffic that cross state boundaries or that involve more than one state. The traditional concept that the free flow of commerce between states should not be impeded has been used to effect a wide range of regulations, both federal and state.

    In other words it could be used to regulate and pass new laws on just about anything. Food, Guns, Diapers, Toilet Paper, Electricity, Petroleum Products, ect. ect. ect. Even US Currency, it is minted, printed, shipped and changes hands from one state to another.

    Interstate Commerce, a catch all phrase that allows Congress to regulate just about anything they want to.

    August 26, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.

  • Only one senator elected not to censure Joe McCarthy, John Kennedy, and not only that RFK served on McCarthy's subcommittee. McCarthy and the Kennedy's were very close McCarthy was the godfather of RFK's first child and dated his sister's - yeah those stinking two faced Republicans.

    But back to the subject, will the government healthcare plan actually reduce costs or will they just shift them to some other entity or will they produce rationing? And finally why has Obama surrounded himself with so many weird commie radicals - he is scaring the he11 out of me.

    August 26, 2009 at 6 p.m.

  • hmmmmmmm are copying sources using talking points of someone else.

    TED CARE TED CARE. WE NEED THE NEW LIBERAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARE PLAN. CANCEL THE CURRENT MEDICAL BILL.

    August 26, 2009 at 5:56 p.m.

  • PS talking points......these are mine. Did not watch TV today. So somebody stole my idea? Darn.

    TEDCARE VOTE FOR TEDCARE! WE all want healthcare just like Ted and all of Congress.

    August 26, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.

  • I am just doing what the liberals do......today. It feels gooooooooooooooooood. I want TEDCARE. The most liberal medical care in the nation. We all should have it. Call your representative today.

    Thanks for being a liberal Mike and birthing this thought that we do need liberal health care Just Like TED.

    August 26, 2009 at 5:53 p.m.

  • Name-calling, and right-wing talking points will not derail Health Care Reform..

    Have a good evening

    August 26, 2009 at 5:38 p.m.

  • By the way Mike. TK was an alcoholic, womanizing, fat murderer. This day is for celebrating Mary Jo Kopeckne not TK.

    TK was married and running with a single woman that night when she died. He was running from the police that caught him trying to park. His family forced the police to close the inquest. Ask yourself why he did not tell the police until someone else did it for him.

    Murderer. He screwed up our nation and was hung by his own yard arm when he did before he could repeal the bill he insisted was passed to save MA from the nasty republicans.

    Lions cannot be tamed. Lions gleefully eat people. Lions have no conscience. TK did not give a tinker's dam about the commoners. He never did anything for them. He just had other people be forced to spend their own money --not his.

    Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead.

    August 26, 2009 at 5:38 p.m.

  • Mike being such the out of the closet liberal that you are and I admire you for your stance. I am asking for a more liberal medical plan.

    I WANT THE SAME MEDICAL PLAN TED GOT. I WANT TEDCARE.
    CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AND ASK FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PLAN THAT TED GOT.

    TEDCARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!
    TEDCARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!

    Blow away the current proposals. Give us TEDCARE!!! Are we not all equal under the liberal democratic requirements of the law. I want my TEDCARE I WILL GIVE UP MY MTV!!!

    August 26, 2009 at 5:33 p.m.