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 January 4th, 2012 at 5:11 pm, Hiraghm said:

   Apparently Gingrich once advocating barring “domestic abusers” from acquiring firearms. I don’t believed he said anything about amending the Constitution to change it, however.

   So, he’s anti-2nd-amendment, too.

2. #102
   On January 4th, 2012 at 5:22 pm, Hiraghm said:

   People seem to have misunderstood my point regarding Michelle Bachmann. The feminists, mostly leftists but including Palin, whine and moan about “glass ceilings” and how picked on women are; here’s a woman who ran for the highest office, and she got NONE of the feminist sympathy that we hear rhetorically day in and day out. Bachmann got attacked visciously by the leftists in the media… crickets. Bachmann got marginalized… crickets… Bachmann was forced to bow out… crickets.

   So, their agenda is not about expanding the opportunities for women, or establishing equality for women; it’s very obviously now just about gaining power for themselves and their cronies.

   Palin’s silence really ticks me off. She could snuggle up to that hag Ferraro, but couldn’t snuggle up to Bachmann.

   I’ve observed in my life two general types of women… those who like hanging out with men, and those who like staying with the womenfolk (to put it archaically). I think Palin’s the former and Bachmann’s more of the latter. I don’t think Palin and Bachmann viewed each other as allies, even though they allegedly shared similar views.

3. #103
   On January 4th, 2012 at 5:50 pm, MacEamonn said:

   Hermain Cain is up to something at (:30PM on Hannity’s show tonight. Hopefully it’s a endorsement of Santorium.

4. #104
   On January 4th, 2012 at 6:00 pm, Misscheryl said:

   5:50 pm, MacEamonn said:
   Hermain Cain is up to something at (:30PM on Hannity’s show tonight

   yeah, a job as a fox contributor. I wish I was wrong. I really couldn’t care less what this man’s opinion is on anything.

5. #105
   On January 4th, 2012 at 6:13 pm, AmericaFirst said:

   Just heard Brit Hume on Fox’s Special Report. He said the Conservative right wing has controlled the GOP for the last few decades. The moderate Republicans have been subdued. John McCain is a maverick who has been upsetting the GOP with his far right Conservative agenda for decades.

   I’m trying not to laugh. Brit Hume has DC Beltway Dementia. Was he just at a Democrat cocktail party sipping a few spiked drinks?

6. #106
   On January 4th, 2012 at 6:21 pm, Green eyed Lady said:

   While I understand the interest in Santorum (not Romney) please, do some research.
   I live in Pennsylvania, and can hardly stand the guy.
   Here’s some info to get you started.

   If the thought of big, intrusive liberal government offends you, he might just be your man. And if you favor a big, intrusive Republican government, he’s unquestionably your candidate…

   Here are a few snippets from The Club For Growth:

   His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
   Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.” Some of Santorum’s most anti-growth votes have come on trade issues. His record is one of protectionism.
   Santorum has a mixed record on yet another economic issue – this time regulation.”
   http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902

   I think it is great that he is strong on lowering taxes but he isn’t strong at all on reigning in spending and reducing the size of government.

   (This is my main problem with Santorum:)
   Santorum played a leading role in perhaps the single most important intra-Republican political battle of the last decade outside of the presidential primary of 2008. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has called the 2004 Republican U.S. Senate primary in Pennsylvania the start of the Tea Party movement. That race featured arch-RINO incumbent Senator Arlen Specter, who switched to the Democratic Party in 2009, being challenged by pro-growth conservative champion then-Congressman Pat Toomey. The entire GOP establishment backed Specter, but despite that, Toomey came within less than two points of winning. Santorum’s active role on behalf of Specter might have been the difference maker.

   At the time, Santorum was chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such, it would be expected that he would support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign in his home state. What is troubling is the aggressiveness with which Santorum backed the liberal Specter, and the lengths to which he would stoop to mislead Republican voters.

   In the years that followed his controversial support of Specter, Santorum has offered a series of revisionist explanations. Those explanations have changed several times, and none of them are consistent with what he said during the 2004 campaign. The only explanation that is consistent is political expediency. Santorum was willing to jettison conservative principles when it suited him in 2004, and he wants to try to explain it away when it no longer suits him on the 2012 presidential campaign trail.

   I still have issues with his crony capitalism regarding his relationship with Accuweather and National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 and his insertion of a syntheic fuel tax-credit in the Tax Relief Act 2006. I also have a big problem with his billing of his state for $73,000 so that his children who were living in Virginia could attend a cyber-school in Pennsylvania. He admitted in an interview Sept. 3, 2006 on Meet the Press that he did not meet the residency requirements to justify billing the tax payers of PA for it. He had actually been renting his PA home out. He did withdraw his children from the cyber school but refused to reimburse the PA tax payers for the years he falsely claimed residencey. After much press, he agreed to repay $55,000. Why did it take forcing him? Tax payer money is not his to use at his will.

   He also took corporate money from Highmark in 2007 resulting in a fine from the FEC to Highmark & it’s VP.

   He endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008.

   After watching what the Democrats did to Ken Buck regarding birth control, the fact that Santorum has publicly decried the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut and said there should be a ban on contraceptives gives campaign gold to the democrats.

   I encourage everyone to do research on each candidate on their own and come to their own conclusions.
   Remember, they all have issues.
   ***
   Why Rick Santorum’s Pennsylvania Residency Scam and School Tuition Fraud Still Matters

   http://hillbuzz.org/why-rick-santorums-pennsylvania-residency-scam-and-school-tuition-fraud-still-matters-and-why-he-cant-be-the-nominee-because-of-it-95754#idc-container

7. #107
   On January 4th, 2012 at 7:26 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   I searched here at MM for old posts that mentioned Santorum. On page 2 of the search results, I found this:

   Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week kicks off

   I was pleasantly surprised to find that Santorum had been one of the speakers (people like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz were also speakers, but at different venues):

   Penn State University
   Rick Santorum – 23rd, 8pm, 119 Osmond

   Temple University
   Rick Santorum – 24th, 8pm, Student Center 218

   University of Pennsylvania
   Rick Santorum – 24th, 5:30pm, Hillel-Steinhardt Hall
   panel with Daniel Pipes, Dr. Stephen Gale, and Ed Turzanski – 22nd, 7pm, Huntsman Hall

   Santorum understands Islamo-Fascism and is willing to speak openly about it. Good for him.

8. #108
   On January 4th, 2012 at 7:29 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

   The treatment of those in the country illegally was one of the most contentious points of debate among senators and will be an obstacle in negotiations with the House, lawmakers said.

   “It is an amnesty bill, or a legalization bill, that I think is just fundamentally unfair,” Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum told reporters. “There are very serious problems with this legislation that I hope the House of Representatives will address.”

9. #109
   On January 4th, 2012 at 7:46 pm, Hiraghm said:

   On January 4th, 2012 at 6:21 pm, Green eyed Lady said:

   Bachmann was the only candidate I even trusted somewhat*. Now, I’m left with nothing.

   .

   .

   *Oh, I could trust Paul on his attempts to crop the government back to within Constitutional boundaries. But I could also trust his foreign policy to be worse than Obama’s.

10. #110
    On January 4th, 2012 at 7:48 pm, Green eyed Lady said:

    On January 4th, 2012 at 7:26 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:
    Santorum understands Islamo-Fascism and is willing to speak openly about it. Good for him.

    Hello ITTRP…yes, can’t take that away from him, very effective on that issue.

11. #111
    On January 4th, 2012 at 8:06 pm, FilAmWIguy said:

    On January 4th, 2012 at 2:28 pm, Hiraghm said:

    Ever hear the phrase “divide and conquer”? The leftists have been dividing us for decades; along race lines, between the sexes, between ages, geography and now financial status.

    The only divide that matters anymore is in philosophy. Socialist v objectivist. Progressive v conservative. Skin color, sex, origin, financial status, none of that matters; only where a person stands on the question of individual liberty. THAT is the overriding issue over which we on the right should be battling one-another.

    Good point.

    On January 4th, 2012 at 5:22 pm, Hiraghm said:

    People seem to have misunderstood my point regarding Michelle Bachmann. The feminists, mostly leftists but including Palin, whine and moan about “glass ceilings” and how picked on women are; here’s a woman who ran for the highest office, and she got NONE of the feminist sympathy that we hear rhetorically day in and day out.

    …

    Palin’s silence really ticks me off. She could snuggle up to that hag Ferraro, but couldn’t snuggle up to Bachmann.

    Illogical point.

    So does gender matter or not? You seem to be arguing against yourself just to Palin bash.

    As soon as the Bachmann campaign went after Palin, it was a given MB would never be endorsed by Palin. Doesn’t matter on gender either. Insert the names of any two male politicians and the result would be the same.

    Bachmann’s campaign was over quite a while ago.

    You are merely doing a petty and contradictory Palin-bash to appease your obsession. Give it up already.

12. #112
    On January 4th, 2012 at 9:03 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Hi, Green eyed Lady. I think that if Santorum pledges to actually DO what the 2006 Democrats SAID they would do, then he could win support from both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. The 2006 Democrats won control of both houses of Congress by promising, in part:

    With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.

    …

    Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

    …

    Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

13. #113
    On January 4th, 2012 at 9:09 pm, bjc said:

    *God speed to Michele Bachmann; I supported her since the beginning with steady coin, but am pleased to see she has the decency to bow out gracefully; She has been right on all the issues, especially the spending death spiral we are in; She has more conservatism and trustworthiness in one hair on her head than Mitt Romney will ever have in his entire biological shell; Hello Greece!

14. #114
    On January 4th, 2012 at 10:14 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On January 4th, 2012 at 3:43 pm, T-Bone said:

    On January 4th, 2012 at 1:09 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Excuse me? As a Bachmann supporter myself, I think it is you who should take a flying leap. What gives you the right to have an advance say in who the Republican candidate should be? And then you insult the rest of us that you shaft. Take that shaft and shove it! Jerks.

    I have to admit, I think you are totally incoherent. I am a citizen of the State of Iowa and currently for caucus purposes a registered Republican.

    I started supporting Bachman the week of the Iowa straw poll in August 2011. I have supported her ever since on this and other sites. The RNC decided years ago that Iowa goes first. You have a bitch? Contact the RNC.

    Because Bachmann only got 6% of the caucus vote and SHE DECIDED to drop out (Perry did not) it is somehow the people of Iowa’s fault and you imply somehow we cheated.

    I am frankly tired of my state taking incoherent crap from people like you. Cupcake, I am sorry you lost. Have a hug and a cookie. We will mail you a participation ribbon to make you feel better.

15. #115
    On January 4th, 2012 at 10:20 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On January 4th, 2012 at 5:11 pm, Hiraghm said:
    Apparently Gingrich once advocating barring “domestic abusers” from acquiring firearms. I don’t believed he said anything about amending the Constitution to change it, however.

    So, he’s anti-2nd-amendment, too.

    Since domestic is a felony, they would lose their gun rights upon conviction already. Newt needs to do his homework.

16. #116
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:34 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    On January 4th, 2012 at 5:22 pm, Hiraghm said:
    People seem to have misunderstood my point regarding Michelle Bachmann. The feminists, mostly leftists but including Palin, whine and moan about “glass ceilings” and how picked on women are; here’s a woman who ran for the highest office, and she got NONE of the feminist sympathy that we hear rhetorically day in and day out. Bachmann got attacked visciously by the leftists in the media… crickets. Bachmann got marginalized… crickets… Bachmann was forced to bow out… crickets.
    So, their agenda is not about expanding the opportunities for women, or establishing equality for women; it’s very obviously now just about gaining power for themselves and their cronies.

    No, you have no idea what’s going on with feminism, really. A majority of liberal feminists voted for Obama over Clinton in the ’08 primary. Most feminists don’t vote for someone just because she’s a woman! We want to even the playing field, but voting in lesser candidates would not be progress! It would just give the appearance that women weren’t up to the job.

17. #117
    On January 5th, 2012 at 2:58 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    The truly LEFT WING fundamentalist feminist in the vein of Gloria Steinhem and that ilk DO tend to vote for someone because they are a woman–they were very vocal about it when Hillary was running against Obow2me for the nomination. Maybe, Stacy of Liberty, you are too young to remember, but when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harrassment (should have been assault charge on 3 women), not a peep of condemnation from the so-called feminists. When asked why the feminists weren’t up in arms about it, the President of NOW said that they did not want to condemn Bill Clinton because they wanted to help Hillary in her future political goals! This is bull hockey of the highest order.

    When Bill Clinton ran for the Presidency the first time, women who I know were far-left feminists said to me they were voting for him because “he was cute” and because “his wife is a political force.” I heard exactly the same thing when Obow2me ran for President, from the same feminist women who said, “He’s handsome, he’s articulate, and he’s very liberal–exactly our kind of guy.”
    I disagree with you not because I don’t think a woman is up to the job…I disagree with you because the majority of women IMO do not take and do not want to take an interest in the important issues and who the leader of our country should be (see my reference to He’s cute…)

18. #118
    On January 5th, 2012 at 5:09 pm, Laree said:

    Imus Guest this morning, Jake Tapper ABC News “The Democrats Want Mitt Romney To Be The Republican Nominee”

    Mr Vanilla apparently the Democrat’s favorite flavor.

    28,000 Independents participated out of 122,255 republican caucus goers, that puts republican participation in their own caucus under 100,000.00 Ron Paul came in 3rd with 21% his 3rd place win was made up of 44% Independents. The GOP really has a big problem with their base.
    They can’t see the big picture they need an excited base to vote in the General and Ron Paul’s voters are committed they will write Paul’s name in -in the general.

    Mitt Romney’s strategy of last man standing – surviving the primary by dividing the conservative base is hurting the GOP’s voter enthusiasm quotient. Barack Obama isn’t going to have a problem ginning up his base against the evil 1% that Mitt Romney will be representing. Talk about made to order political punching bag. Yes I can see why the Democrats want Romney to be the nominee.

19. #119
    On January 5th, 2012 at 8:30 pm, ChapBix said:

    #115. On January 5th, 2012 at 9:34 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Most feminists don’t vote for someone just because she’s a woman! We want to even the playing field, but voting in lesser candidates would not be progress!

    How is that vote for Obama working out for you, StaceyOfLiberty?

20. #120
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:09 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    On January 5th, 2012 at 8:30 pm, ChapBix said:
    How is that vote for Obama working out for you, StaceyOfLiberty?

    Everything’s been fine for me, to be honest.

    I don’t know whether the economy would be any better under a Republican president. I do know that DADT would not have been repealed, and that was important to me.

21. #121
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:10 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Anyway, Santorum scares the crap out of me. He is against birth control. Whether I use birth control or not is absolutely not the government’s business.

22. #122
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:12 pm, ChapBix said:

    #6. On January 4th, 2012 at 10:08 am, Flyoverman said:

    Boy, isn’t that the truth!

23. #123
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:14 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    On January 5th, 2012 at 2:58 pm, FirstSkirt said:
    Maybe, Stacy of Liberty, you are too young to remember, but when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harrassment (should have been assault charge on 3 women), not a peep of condemnation from the so-called feminists. When asked why the feminists weren’t up in arms about it, the President of NOW said that they did not want to condemn Bill Clinton because they wanted to help Hillary in her future political goals! This is bull hockey of the highest order.

    I didn’t know the NOW lady said that, but most feminists I know think infidelity is a personal and moral issue, but not something to campaign against. As a feminist, my main issues are bringing about more equal pay for equal work, and ending FGM.

    Oh, and not taking away my birth control!

24. #124
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:31 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    @ChapBix: Oh, and we got Osama Bin Laden. I was thrilled about that, no question!

25. #125
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:33 pm, ChapBix said:

    #119. On January 5th, 2012 at 9:09 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Barry Hussein Obama is increasingly appearing as petty, petulant and childish. Are those qualities we want in our chief executive? He has also confessed to being lazy. His appearance by teleconference with the IA Democrat caucus showed a lethargic candidate.

26. #126
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:35 pm, ChapBix said:

    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:10 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Anyway, Santorum scares the crap out of me. He is against birth control. Whether I use birth control or not is absolutely not the government’s business.

    But it is the government’s business to pay for it when you want an abortion?

27. #127
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:38 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    @ChapBix: Nope. Not that I would ever have one.

28. #128
    On January 5th, 2012 at 9:39 pm, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Also @ChapBix: he appears that way to you, but not to me. Go figure.

29. #129
    On January 5th, 2012 at 11:47 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Hi StaceyofLiberty,

    I feel quite certain that the economy would have been much better with a fiscally conservative president. The economy does better when taxes are lower and the government stays out, and I think the ability to achieve financial independence is much more important than stuff like DADT. I also think gun rights are more important than stuff like DADT. (Ever heard of the Pink Pistols? They have an excellent slogan: “Armed gays don’t get bashed.”)

    Also, it’s doubtful that a Republican president would have signed the health care bill, which is just an atrocity against freedom. There is no excuse for the individual mandate.

    Obama has appeared childish to me since one of the 2008 debates where he wanted the rules changed for him. He struck me as acting much like a preschooler. I believe he has continued to do so. He was upset on one occasion when somebody brought a hard copy of a bill they were scheduled to discuss into the room; frankly, there should have been more hard copies present. More recently, he’s attempting to override the constitution by making a recess appointment when the Congress is not in recess, which strikes me as smacking of the childish attitude that he should have anything he wants because he wants it. His rhetoric about the Republicans was his typical and tiresome bit about how whenever Republicans bother to represent the portion of the American people who voted for them, they’re putting fill-in-the-blank above the American people. It’s like he can’t comprehend that anyone could possibly honestly disagree with him about what is best-another childish trait.

    As far as Obama is concerned, I think the guy just does not honestly believe in freedom. If he thinks Choice A is best, he believes he has the right to overrule anyone who would make any other choice. This is much more dangerous than anything the Republican field is putting out this year.

    Incidentally, I don’t think Santorum is actually against birth control. I believe he stated he was personally against it, but believed the states were within their rights to regulate it. Believing that a law is a good idea and believing that a government is within its rights to make a law in the first place are two different positions.

    And I agree with you about female candidates-I happily voted for Palin and would have been delighted to vote for Bachmann, but I would never vote for Hillary Clinton or Pelosi.

30. #130
    On January 6th, 2012 at 12:31 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    I guess everyone has their own issues about which they feel strongly. And with Obama, I think there’s this fundamental thing where I just like the guy…like I think it would be fun to invite him to book club…and other people have the exact opposite reaction. I think it’s really hard for anyone to convince anyone else that they shouldn’t like or dislike a guy.

    I am in favor of universal health care and I mostly want coverage for the children, because it isn’t their fault if their parents are broke, and I want them to at least have a chance! My church can do a lot of great things, but if a child gets leukemia or something extremely expensive like that, I’m not sure we can cover all the expenses, because we’re not a big enough group. And many kids aren’t in churches, which is not their fault either.

    I understand the argument about massive waste at the federal level, and maybe it would be better to fund local groups to help people and especially children with health care crises, somehow.

    I admit I’m not an expert on the subject. It’s pretty big and complicated. I have a strong sense about what we owe “to the least of these.”

31. #131
    On January 6th, 2012 at 4:19 am, NestingHawk said:

    Hi StaceyofLiberty,

    Yeah, ultimately, it’s about who has the best policies.

    When you think about expanding the role of government, you have to think not just about the “goodies” you want given out, but the way the government can abuse that power. Think about the scenario of a political opposition leader being dependent on the government for health care.

    Universal health care also pretty much drives out the competition. Competition is what drives quality up and prices down. Quality of care would not only stagnate under what you propose, but get dramatically worse. The bureaucracy would grow with every complaint or new idea, and new bureaucracy means more taxes being taken. Nothing is really free; it’s a question of who is paying.

    Having an entire government bureaucracy between the patient and the doctor warps the incentives. It won’t be about what the patient wants or needs, but what the government wants or needs, and forced to compete against a service the patients are paying for whether they want to or not, independent doctors won’t be able to compete. The vast majority of doctors will be forced to work for the government, and therefore won’t be able to effectively protest what the government does. (Do you know what the Hatch Act is?) The doctors who don’t will have to charge loads for their services (between patient volume tanking and the government wanting them out of business) to make a living, and thus only serve the rich. (And who wants to go to school for eight years, not to mention have awful hours, malpractice suits, stress, to get stuck in a government job? Not many.)

    Universal health care is also horrible for the economy. Any time you take powers and money and put it into government instead of the private sector, it’s bad for the economy. Incentives are warped. It becomes about pleasing those in power, not individual customers. And with people being legally forced to pay you through taxes, you can’t really “lose” a customer, just an expense! Productivity goes down and wealth decreases.

    Nobody is arguing it’s a kid’s fault if the parents or broke or they don’t belong to a church. (I wouldn’t even consider not belonging to a church a “fault.”) Surely your church takes in kids who aren’t members of the congregation. You get more broke people and less resources to help them when the economy stinks, which is why the best thing you can do for them is improve the economy.

    You and your church will do a better job solving problems like that without the government’s “help”. The private sector innovates. One thing I might suggest is trying to ally yourselves with other charities that may have more fundraising power. Call around. Ask your congregation for ideas. Ask other charity groups for ideas.

    When you have trouble fundraising for a cause you like, it does not give you the right to take the money from other people. Nobody has the right to mug you or burglarize your home in order to give money to an orphanage, even if they feel good about themselves doing it. You have to work with others and persuade them to help you, just like everybody else with a cause. Part of this is competing with other charities to convince potential donors and volunteers that you are effective, another reason the private sector works better than the federal government. When you force other people to give money to a bureaucracy, you’re not doing anything for “the least of these.”

    Good luck with your church fundraisers and volunteering.

32. #132
    On January 6th, 2012 at 8:17 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Maybe there’s been a pretty huge communication fail on the part of conservatives when it comes to health care. I never hear detailed discussion about alternate ways we can help provide more of a safety net for the most vulnerable sick people in our society. I just hear people saying things like, “OMG socialism!”, which is not convincing to me at all.

33. #133
    On January 6th, 2012 at 10:04 am, FirstSkirt said:

    Stacey of Liberty @129: I am curious as to your definition of “like” when you said you like Obama. You said you like him in that you’d invite him to book club. What exactly do you mean?

34. #134
    On January 6th, 2012 at 11:29 am, Blackstone said:

    On January 6th, 2012 at 8:17 am, StaceyOfLiberty said:

    Maybe there’s been a pretty huge communication fail on the part of conservatives when it comes to health care. I never hear detailed discussion about alternate ways we can help provide more of a safety net for the most vulnerable sick people in our society.

    Inasmuch as Obamacare will make more people vulnerable, repealing it would definitely be a good start. But in addition, there have been other proposals, though you could be forgiven for not noticing given how there’s been a virtual media blackout on them. But they’ve been focused on increasing competition and letting the market work more efficiently, thus making quality care more affordable for more people.

    Ann Coulter put it succinctly:

    “Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care — and health insurance — on the free market.”

35. #135
    On January 6th, 2012 at 2:38 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Hi StaceyofLiberty,

    I like the ideas of changing the laws so that people can buy insurance across state lines and changing the tax code so that individuals get the same tax benefits as employers when purchasing health insurance. The former idea increases competition and will likely improve services for niche markets especially, and the latter takes another third party out from between the patient and the doctor.

    I also think tort reform is necessary. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any accountability for a doctor who messes up badly enough. I think the current system, however, doesn’t always take into account whether a given result was actually the fault of the doctor, and attracts people who want to abuse the system and just make a lot of money in a lawsuit that may be unfair or even baseless.

    I agree with everything Blackstone said in Post 133, and really like the Ann Coulter quote, which I don’t believe I’ve seen before.

    I seem to remember an Internet stream from Republicans around the time of the original health care votes discussing alternative ideas, but I couldn’t immediately find a reference to it looking back through Mrs. Malkin’s health care archive and I need to leave the blog and do other stuff for a bit.

36. #136
    On January 6th, 2012 at 2:40 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Oh-CATO and Thomas Sowell may have some good articles on the subject.

37. #137
    On January 6th, 2012 at 5:31 pm, drbulb said:

    Any organization that is not required to make a profit or at least break even (think virtually ALL government agencies) has ZERO incentive to provide a superior product at a lower cost. If the government “insurance” system costs too much they don’t go out of business, the just jack up taxes on those of us who actually pay them. A private company might get away with jacking up rates for awhile, but only until their COMPETITION provides a better value. Obamacare has no competition, hence no incentive to keep costs low and product quality high (I give you Britain’s NHS as an example). Inevitably, a government run almost anything will produce the EXACT OPPOSITE of a comparable free market product e.g. LOWER quality and HIGHER cost.