See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On August 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am, Veretax said:

   I’m glad I’m not the only one holding it suspect. I just read Sebellius’s comments today about needing something to compete against the private option, and it dawned on me, if its competeing against the private option, is it ‘private’ or ‘public’. We are winning the battle, don’t give up now, turn up the burner on our representatives. I don’t turst the Congress with its fringe kooks putting out a reasonable bill that obama would sign despite the issues we’ve raised.

2. #102
   On August 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am, Bruce said:

   Some of you people just do not get it!!! The Constitution of the United States of America means absolutely nothing if no one is willing to assert it and enforce it.

   If about 100 million people would band together and compel the Federal Government to follow the Constitution, we could not only get rid of our bogus “President,” but we could eliminate at least 2/3 of the Federal Government, and eliminate deficit spending.

   Of course, a lot of folks will be unhappy when all their government-paid-for freebies disappear.

3. #103
   On August 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am, DBNinKY said:

   However, simply slapping the word “cooperative” onto a new “insurer,” but then specifying that the government — not the policyholders — picks the board of directors (as Sen. Schumer wants), or that taxpayers will subsidize it, or that it has to pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, would just be an exercise in trying to disguise a “public plan.”

   I guess subterfuge is the Obama administration’s last resort for salvaging this fiasco. Fooling voters has always been a favorite tool of the Dems – it’s how they get elected!

4. #104
   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, Regulus said:

   I was watching the movie “Gettysburg” on DVD yesterday, and watching the donks trying to foist the “public option” on us reminds me of the Confederates’ efforts to take Little Round Top: they’d try, fail, retreat a little ways downhill, regroup and come again… and again… and again.

   They almost succeeded, too, but for the 20th Maine’s desperation bayonet charge when all seemed lost.

   My point is, there’s no way that the donks are going to call it quits an the “public option” as long as they think that they have the numbers to wear down the opposition. This battle in going to last until either:

   1. The donks wear down or somehow hoodwink the American People into surrender; or

   2. We stage our own equivalent of that bayonet charge in November, 2010.

5. #105
   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:13 pm, rambler said:

   We have a public option for education which is funded by extorting taxes and we all know how well it works. Maybe if education were better, we would have elected official with better ideas.

6. #106
   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, Flyoverman said:

   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, Regulus said:

   2. We stage our own equivalent of that bayonet charge in November, 2010.

   The analogy of “cold steel” just sent a Chris Matthews tingle up my leg.

7. #107
   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

   I ~like~ this bayonet talk! (I hope it’s not just another one of those lame metaphor thingies.)

8. #108
   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, b-cat said:

   Within our country, the Obamajority is needed to take to the streets in support of health care with a public option paid for by reversing the obscene tax giveaways to the super rich during the Bush years. If health care reform fails, it will be a giant step backwards for the Obama administration and for working people, the labor movement, African American, Latino, Asian-Pacific Island communities, women and youth on every issue including the economy, peace and democracy.

   August is key. Members of Congress are home for summer recess. They will be seeking out the opinions of their constituents. The right wing is actively trying to shut down expression of opinion. They are using strong-arm tactics to disrupt town hall meetings, oppose any public option and push for taxing the health benefits of working people. Along with some centrists, they want to slow the process down. This would only benefit the medical-pharmaceutical corporate quest to further increase their profits.

   This was taken not from the website of some Democrat cheerleader, but from the Communist Party’s.

   http://www.cpusa.org/

9. #109
   On August 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pm, traveler49 said:

   First they called me a “denier”.

   Then they referred to me as a “birther”,

   Can’t wait till I’m called a “bayoneter”!

10. #110
    On August 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pm, TigerLady said:

    That libturd on Friday almost had me throwing a shoe at the t.v. The smog arragant 1 line strategist. Laura didn’t meet his challenge with a snide remark maybe like…” if it passes it will be due to the fact the W.H. has intimidated, threatened, bought out and threaten to sell out the so called “blue dogs”. do not forget these blue dog’s are 1 dogs to start and 2nd they are liberals…who would /will sell their mother and father for a vote.

    I think she had a time crunch but I wanted her to say that, too. These people need to be called out as liars when they lie.

11. #111
    On August 17th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, TigerLady said:

    Yep. I believe this is absolutely true. I think Congress is going to go back into session, claim changes and wham bam thank you madam, it’s passed in the dark of night without any chance to object, call, email, protest. They’ve learned from their mistake of actually allowing people to read what they are proposing to pass. It won’t happen again.

    And then God help us because this is when it’s going to get uglier than it is now.

12. #112
    On August 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm, William said:

    Michelle,

    No, I do NOT trust Congress, Obama, any of their associates, or any government run Health Care proponents.

    Regarding the term “Misspoke,” what an overused, deceptive, dishonest word!

    How often can someone say something like, “White people are the devil. They should all be put in cages or shot? Then, when there is outrage at such a statement, the racist nut job can merely say “I misspoke,” or someone supporting such a racist nut can speak on their behalf and say “He mispoke. Sorry for the misunderstanding. What he meant s to say was that white polar bears are strong and their cubs are cute.”

    Misspoke they say?

    No, you didn’t “misspoke,” or “misspeak.” You know exactly what you said, and you know exactly what you meant, and you said what you meant, and you meant what we understand and heard you say, exactly as you said it, exactly what it means, exactly as we understand.

    When Obama, Clinton, Reverend Wright, Sean Penn, Al Gore, and the list goes on and on say something nasty, and they or their operatives say “I/He misspoke” I want to, well, fill in the blank.

    Original statement: “I want to make it so all people can get health care that is run by the government, except those who might be extremely ill, or old, or those who don’t support me.”

    Updated statement: “Oh. I misspoke. I would NEVER say that I want to make it so all people can get health care that is run by the government, except those who might be extremely ill, or old, or those who don’t support me. No. I would never say that. What I said, and what I meant to say is that you should trust me because I care about you. I am the Messiah, the Savior, your Leader, Mister Hope and Change. Mister yes, we can, and I care about you and I want to take care of you. I want health care to be for the little guy and I want the rich people to pay for it. They should pay for it because they are so rich and they shouldn’t be so rich and not help pay for your health care, those nasty rich people.”

    Then, when that turns out to be protested, the updated statement goes out: “Oh, I misspoke. I meant to say that rich people are nice because they help poor people and you not so poor people by volunteering to pay for your health care,” and on and on.

    Wouldn’t it be nice when we can hold politicians and celebrities to their word. “You meant what you said when you said it. You did NOT misspeak!”

13. #113
    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pm, Ragspierre said:

    If about 100 million people would band together and compel the Federal Government to follow the Constitution, we could not only get rid of our bogus “President,” but we could eliminate at least 2/3 of the Federal Government, and eliminate deficit spending.

    It would not take anything like that number.

    Perhaps as few as 100,000 productive Americans saying NO! would likely do the trick…

    Starvethebeast.net

14. #114
    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm, dadinseattle said:

    I see this as a new strategy, which is the same strategy-

    Lie…create confusion…lie some more.

    The disciples of Alinky are following obediently.

    Beware of carrots with huge sharp hooks inserted!

15. #115
    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm, Cathy B said:

    EEE GADS! Obama is addressing the VFW here in Phoenix right now! Applause is very weak, blah, blah, blah….waiting, waiting for a teleprompter malfunction.

16. #116
    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    The Left loves the idea of cooperatives (co-ops), they operate as a non profit, and the customers are the owners. Theoretically, credit unions are co-ops.

    There are co-op grocery stores in Austin, all full of the crunch granola stuff hippies love.

    I have no problem with the co-op model, the government doesn’t run them. In Austin, co-ops were exempt from certain taxes as they were considered ‘non-profits’. But I can deal with that.

    If the government starts up and funds a co-op, it is just single payer with a different name.

    Obama and the Demonrats will subsidize the co-ops so they can undercut private insurace.

    Just like now that GM is a non-profit and subsidized by the Feds, they can afford to undercut not only expensive UAW built Fords, but probably also more reasonably priced US produced vehicles from non-union shops like the Tundra and many Honda and Subaru models.

    Unless Obama’s poison for them is card check and forced unionization…

17. #117
    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, Little Ma said:

    Oh, God! The Usurper is on tv again!!

    What worries me is that people will believe the subterfuge and stop protesting.

    Never give up! Fix bayonets!!!

18. #118
    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm, Veretax said:

    rightisright, while I understand your sentiments:

    No options, no compromises, no bill! Compromises is exactly why we have this crap going on now in congress…arm twisting and back room deals to sell out America and enhance individual legislators. These elitist bastards are to serve not dictate.

    what we need out of D.C. is the limitations to be placed on the health care industry:
    1. no insurance for illegal aliens(a foreigner, by definition)period.
    2. allow interstate sale of health insurance… increases competition.
    3. stop the mandatory coverage, if one needs a specific coverage then buy, don’t ask someone else to buy it for you.
    4. TORT REFORM.

    Don’t need no stinnnkin’ 1,000 plus page of government health care bill.

    I have a couple of questions to follow up.

    1. How do you ensure that everyone who is served is a citizen? My first thought was Drivers license, but then I remember some states (California was it?) Give them to illegals? My second thought was SSN Cards, but then what if the person is injured while not carrying id? So my question is how do we better identify citizens to prevent this, because until you solve that issue, I’m not sure the rest can happen.

    I want an A la carte Insurance plan where I can pick and choose what I think I need, with the Health Insurance able to make some good suggestions for what we need for things like catastrophic care and what not.

    Do you guys have any suggestions here? (Is a national ID card going to be necessary to do this?

19. #119
    On August 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, Ragspierre said:

    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm, Veretax said:

    How about this:

    you keep your money, and buy your own insurance…or not…according to your lights.

    NO government involvement. No edict. No third-party payer. You deal directly with your doctor.

    I know, radical concept.

20. #120
    On August 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    Rags, I like your “no government involvement” 95% of the way. The one hitch in going all the way is that there is no consensus — never will be one — for neglecting emergency or imminent, life-threatening conditions, regardless of ability to pay.

    Therefore, it ~does~ make sense to me to require or systematically provide this minimal level of coverage for everyone…we’re going to pay for it no matter.

    In any compulsory scheme, I would want to see people who want to go bareback, have an option of investing a certain amount of money into a savings account or investment portfolio of some sort that would assure that they could pay for basic, urgent care.

    In my dreams, if we defined this absolutely basic level of urgent care which, in one way or another, would have to be guaranteed for everyone and paid for, we could leave people free to opt-out of acupuncture, psychiatric care, a lot or routine testing such as PSA, fertility services, Viagara prescriptions, etc., etc. Not that some of these things aren’t good but free citizens should be able to decide for themselves what services they want and are willing to pay for, either in advance or at the point of service.

21. #121
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Ragspierre said:

    The one hitch in going all the way is that there is no consensus — never will be one — for neglecting emergency or imminent, life-threatening conditions, regardless of ability to pay.

    There is a tried and true method for dealing with that.

    It is called CHARITY, and it really is remarkably reliable.

    There are entire hospital systems in this nation, doing outstanding work, the function SOLELY on that proven principle.

    What you write presupposes that our central government has some right to MANDATE that we have some form of insurance on our health…minimal or not.

    I respectfully repudiate that notion.

    I resist it as respects state government, though I do not feel it can be opposed on fundamental constitutional grounds.

22. #122
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, John424 said:

    Reposted from another thread:

    As for Medicare: Yes, I think that most people on Medicare would LOVE to be off the dam*ed system. It costs a huge chunk of money and winds up paying for nothing. And I do mean nothing. The only way to get the bills paid is to buy a medicare supplement insurance policy. Medicare applies EVERYTHING to your “deductible” and leaves you either having to pay for all of your expenses out-of-pocket or relying on supplement insurance. And yes, I’m talking about Medicare A and Medicare B combined here.

    If you didn’t have to buy the dam*ed Medicare “insurance” (and yes, you do buy it – it comes straight out of your Social Security check), you could go out and buy a good policy on your own with that money and what you spend on your supplement policy.

    I’ve got two parents on Medicare right now that would kill to be able to opt out of the system.

    As for health care and insurance the way it currently is, I have said it before and I will say it again – LEAVE ME ALONE. I have insurance and I love it. It is affordable and I get great coverage with small co-pays. Over the last couple of years, I have had 3 hospital stays – 1 to bring me back from the brink of death from congestive heart failure, 1 to have triple heart bypass surgery, and most recently for complete dehydration associated with food poisoning which almost ruined my kidneys. In all cases, I got immediate care, and my total out-of-pocket expenses for each hospital stay was $300.

    Nobody reviewed my case and decided that I couldn’t or shouldn’t get the care I got. I was provided the care, the hospitals and docs billed the insurance company, and the insurance company paid. End of story.

    I don’t know anybody who has health insurance that suffers from that company “dictating” what care they will get.

    Yes, not everybody has insurance. But I also note that the left – at the start of this debate – was claiming “27 million” Americans without health insurance. Somehow, in the span of just a few months, that number is now “50 million”.

    Who’s doing the book-cooking here?

23. #123
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, torabora said:

    I’ve been to CSEArallies….they mean what they say…health care for all and soak the rich to pay for it. They are Bolsheviks who are anti-gunners, that is what’s holding them up.

24. #124
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm, Vntnrse said:

    No, I trust them! I really really do! I trust them! I trust them about as far as I can toss an elephant by the tail! Wouldn’t you?

25. #125
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, cheapseat said:

    i was just on the huffnpuff and read a few obamacare commies columns and i have to say, their f’ing nuts. they see no problem in a fat tax to punish the obese, but won’t even discuss a fag tax to pay for aids. they talk as if medicare, medicaid, and the veterans hospitals are bastions of success both carewise and financially. meanwhile arizona university hospital is spending 2 million dollars a month to treat 80 illegal immigrants on dialysis.

26. #126
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    n August 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm, Ragspierre said:

    What you write presupposes that our central government has some right to MANDATE that we have some form of insurance on our health…minimal or not.

    I suppose you can say that, but I mean to bow to the reality of a polity that, for better or worse, does not entirely (or even mostly) exist in a rights-bound universe. The political reality is that the government has assumed the role of guarantor of urgent care for all comers and there will never be any retreat on that. (Good that private charity willingly accepts some of the burden.)

    Government has taken on this burden on our behalf and someone is going to be coerced to pay for it. So as much as I am attracted to strictly limiting government according to “rights,” natural and constitutional, I don’t see that those boundaries are served by insisting that we will pay this inescapable cost out of vague and unspecified public money rather than doing what we can to force everyone to bear a share for the liability that he personally brings into the system.

    (This should not be construed as a effort to work toward a “compromise” for the current congressional session. I want the whole current initiative to be completely rejected and repudiated. I am thinking about what some sincere, bipartisan reforms might look like in the future…reforms that would be thoughtfully worked out and presented for extensive analysis and debate.)

27. #127
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, Drained Brain said:

    And for everybody who thinks Obama is moving us politically in the direction of Cuba, not exactly.

    They’re kind of moving the other direction.

28. #128
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    I’m not buying the hype. Are you?

    Nope.

29. #129
    On August 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, rightisright said:

    On August 17th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, Little Ma said:

    Never give up! Fix bayonets!!!

    I like it!

30. #130
    On August 17th, 2009 at 4:09 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    off topic….who’s your daddy? top row shows Frank Marshall Davis and the bottom is obama sr. Interesting….

    http://c2.api.ning.com/files/Ahd*T5idrwCsCx0uGMMlJmqU*fsI-Li8PzPEuqNvyxzAD5ADHvKaNlo0OkpHAoFXF2ZbeReYoeiiXwOHeOKdbXGGGa5lFwB3/obamas_daddy.jpg

31. #131
    On August 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    ooops didn’t work…try this link to get to it…or just copy the entire link and paste it…

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/maybe-the-real-reason-bho

32. #132
    On August 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, rlwo2008 said:

    If he does do away with the public option, he then will either threaten or actually try to do away with Medicare, MEDCAID, Tricare, and VA care.

33. #133
    On August 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, jdtruly said:

    Based on this lead trial balloon, health insurance stock prices rose today. Any little news spin on which to base imagined optimism is all the stock market is looking for. The Wall Street idiots will believe anything.

34. #134
    On August 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, TanyaB said:

    Don’t put your hand on your fanny while you are waiting to put ANY trust in a democrat, cause it will grow there.

35. #135
    On August 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm, DougT said:

    McCain proposed taking from Medicare to pay for what would have been McCaincare. Obama beat the crap out of him on the trail over that one.

    I believe, as rlwo2008 (#132) says, that Medicare dollars will be on the table as a “payment” for Obamacare.

    Until the healthcare debate started, I had been feeling pretty healthy. Now, every time I hear a politician speak I feel a little more ill.

36. #136
    On August 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Government has taken on this burden on our behalf and someone is going to be coerced to pay for it.

    And that move was hardly necessary or altruistic. Your argument is pragmatic, and while I appreciate the pragmatism, I also see fascist policy as being founded in what they saw as a “third way” based in pragmatism. I know you are not sympathetic to that theory of government, but you are arguing for it in the essence.

    So as much as I am attracted to strictly limiting government according to “rights,” natural and constitutional, I don’t see that those boundaries are served by insisting that we will pay this inescapable cost out of vague and unspecified public money rather than doing what we can to force everyone to bear a share for the liability that he personally brings into the system.

    And that is a statement I hope you reconsider.

    We have a proven history of being the most reliably charitable people in history.

    We also have mechanisms in place to accommodate “free rider” costs into the market price of virtually anything you could mention.

    I hope you do not mean to imply that some “nice” level of fascism is simply necessary. I believe in the concepts of liberty and free-market choices too much to agree to that in the least measure.

37. #137
    On August 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pm, Ragspierre said:

    …we can to force everyone to bear a share for the liability that he personally brings into the system.

    I had another insight into that proposition…

    We already do what you suggest via the imposition of force. At least the vast majority of Americans DO pay for their share of costs they bring into the system. We pay an additional amount…above the actual costs of the services we individually consume…to carry our impoverished neighbors. Many of us would (DO) voluntarily offer more.

    Of course, THE ONE is seeking to destroy all incentives for charitable giving in a bid to consolidate all largess under the all-powerful collective.

38. #138
    On August 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm, floridaobserver said:

    Anyone see “The Night of the Long Knives” on the history channel a month or so ago? Scary as all get out. If you can google it, read about it and read about Hitler’s Enabling Act below.

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/dictator.htm

    Much talk was made comparing Obama to Hitler. It’s the method of obtaining power that is so “interesting”. Judge for yourself.

    President Bush was much maligned about the Patriot Act. It was nowhere close. It was all about protecting our country, not destroying it.

39. #139
    On August 17th, 2009 at 6:45 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    Rags, sure, inflated costs passed on to many of us are the main mechanism by which we now pay for the uninsured. But that burden falls with wildly uneven impact. And we allow millions who are not truly needy to free-ride.

    I personally do not have insurance, although I have provisions in place and expect to pay the fair cost of services that I receive. Some months ago, I landed up in an ER and racked up an $11k bill in 24 hours. When I got the bill, and knowing the score, I asked the hospital if they offered a discount for uninsured patients. (They already knew that I was uninsured.) They instantly said, “Pay within 90 days and we give a 50% discount.” Good thing I asked, eh. So I paid up in a hurry, not that this was a red-hot deal. I expect that insurance companies have negotiated even lower rates. They offered me up to another 25% off if I wanted to plead poverty. My point is that their first take was to propose to more than DOUBLE charge to cover uninsured people who never intend to pay. It is crazy and pressures people to take insurance that does not really suit their situations. I just think everybody, as much as possible, should be able, and required, to pay his own way.

    The government does a lot of coercive things. Calling it “fascist” for them to try to rationalize the system and cut down on free-riders is way over the top. I mean it is ~their~ mandates, already in place, that impose these costs by requiring every ER to treat all comers. If wanting to flush out the deadbeats and spread the remaining costs in an equitable and rational way is “fascism,” then I guess I am one.

40. #140
    On August 17th, 2009 at 6:54 pm, swede said:

    My point is that their first take was to propose to more than DOUBLE charge to cover uninsured people who never intend to pay.

    True enough. And I would guess the majority of uninsured have an entitlement attitude with no intention of ever paying anything.

41. #141
    On August 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm, conservative in europe said:

    Never never never never underestimate the sneaky, underhanded, cowardly, stab you in the back, resentful, thief in the night strategy and tactics of the Democrats. This is smoke and mirrors combined with bright colors and flashy lights for the State Run Media.

    Blue Lips and his thugs know that they can’t loose this one. They will do anything to make sure it passes – and not a watered down version. they just want the SRM to soften up the centrist Dems and other fence sitters along with the RINOS so they can get the bill pushed through. Lying, cheating ba$***s the lot of them.

42. #142
    On August 17th, 2009 at 8:36 pm, Ragspierre said:

    If wanting to flush out the deadbeats and spread the remaining costs in an equitable and rational way is “fascism,” then I guess I am one.

    Please read what I wrote carefully. I did not say you were a fascist. I said your position is consistent with fascist policy.

    Your argument is, to me, logically similar to that used by Sandra Day O’Connor in upholding Roe v. Wade…”We’re used to it, regardless of it being wrong, so…”

    The market is…by all accounts…grossly distorted by government intervention. So, you recommend that…unsavory as it might seem…it be distorted yet more to “fix” it, and that that be done by compulsory means.

    I simply take the opposite position. Get the government…and ALLLLLL its distortions…OUT of our health economy.

    There WILL be responses to take care of those who fall between the cracks. I believe in Americans. I deplore and distrust our government as presently constituted.

43. #143
    On August 17th, 2009 at 10:21 pm, graysonret said:

    This whole thing isn’t about health care. This is about insurance and who pays. Everyone, including illegals, get health care, when they need it. People don’t want to pay for the insurance. They need their new electronic stuff first. The government knows this and has made the insurance industry out to be the enemy. It’s all about power and control. You get sick and call 911 for an ambulance, you get one. The medic doesn’t ask if you have insurance; you’re transported to the hospital. The ER physician on duty and the nurses treat you…even send you to OR, if needed. Question of paying, comes later. Many people don’t want to pay the bills, so they scream, “We have a right”. Politicians feed on this, and see opportunities. You have more of a right to food, than insurance, but I don’t see congress or the president making sure you have food on your table every day. People need car insurance more than health insurance, but again, I don’t see D.C., working on that “right”. They call it, “health care” because, if they called it, “health insurance”, no-one would be interested. The truth is, government today wants to take over the “health insurance industry”. That’s it, and that is what it is all about. This nonsense about health care is about conning you into thinking how important it is to support them. It should be called, “government insurance”, not Obamacare. Why? Because Obama can propose it, but not implement it. The president can’t do that; only congress. Of course, it’s easier to blame 1 person than 452. For example, if I suggest that maybe you should rob a bank, and you do, and get caught, the way we view government, I would go to jail and you go free and keep the money. Much like the so-called “Bush tax cuts”. Presidents don’t pass tax cuts; only congress. This should be called “government insurance takeover”, much more accurate than Obamacare. So let’s stop feeding into their “con” and call it what it is.

44. #144
    On August 18th, 2009 at 6:46 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Somebody mentioned it on talk radio this morning, when government takes over health care, all the doctors will be working for the government. So what’s the worst that could happen when they ‘go postal’?

45. #145
    On August 18th, 2009 at 8:52 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “…the majority of uninsured have an entitlement attitude with no intention of ever paying anything.”

    That is not just the uninsured!