About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Hannity: Health care reform is "the most irresponsible piece of domestic legislation in our lifetime"

March 21, 2010 10:14 pm ET

From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The_Cat (March 21, 2010 10:16 pm ET)
      13  
      Actually, we've been working on this for two generations now, Sean. You want irresponsible? Go look through the Patriot Act.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (March 21, 2010 10:53 pm ET)
        7  
        That, and the Bush tax cuts deserve at least a dishonorable mention: It was a nice surplus while it lasted.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ojnabieoot (March 22, 2010 12:02 am ET)
        8  
        Nope, Medicare Part D. Not only did it severely bloat the deficit, it was done for pure political posturing, and showed the Republicans to be enormous hypocrites on "entitlement spending." Oh, and it failed miserably. Pharmaceuticals started jacking prices up, draining the federal government (along with the tax cuts, and the wars, and the lack of economic growth, and...) while the "doughnut hole" denied drugs to hundreds of thousands of seniors.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by aj.physics (March 22, 2010 3:39 am ET)
        1  
        That's just what I was thinking.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Midnight Kevin (March 21, 2010 10:17 pm ET)
      10  
      I think the most irresponsible thing was the GOP and FOx's constant goading of the teabaggers with endless lies...
      -------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 21, 2010 10:40 pm ET)
        6  
        Those of us who said there was a deal to be done, that there are a lot of parts of this bill that look familiar, that look like Mitt Romney’s plan, that look like plans Republicans proposed in 1993 and 1994, they look like things that were drafted at the Heritage foundation in 1990 and 1991, we can work with this, there are things we don’t like, [but] President Obama will pay a lot maybe for 20 or 30 Republican votes, let’s deal — that was shut down, we went the radical way, looking for Waterloo, and it looks like we arrived at Waterloo.

        ...Some of the Republican leadership like Jim DeMint, I think did play a very hard-line role. Some of our leaders were trapped. They were trapped by voices in the media that revved the Republican base into a frenzy that made dealing impossible. I mean, you can’t negotiate with Adolf Hitler, and if the President is Adolf Hitler, then obviously you can’t negotiate with him. So some of the blame has has got to go to those who said, who got the psychology of the party to a point where a lot of good people, reasonable people were trapped.

        ...We are encouraging a mood of radicalism in the party that is not just uncivil, that’s not the problem, the problem is it makes you stupid. It makes you make bad decisions, it leads you to think that President Obama with 53% of the vote is as beatable in 2009 as President Clinton with 42% of the vote in 1993, and that’s obviously not true.


        That's what David Frum said.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 10:49 pm ET)
          8  
          Interesting. I'm not a Frum fan, but he is relatively one of the sane[r] conservatives out there, and he's right in this instance. DeMint said out loud what Republican intransigence on HCR was: purely political and designed solely to damage Obama. Thanks for your honesty, DeMinted.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by alienofwar (March 21, 2010 10:20 pm ET)
      7  
      Hey Hannity, when you going to address the allegations against your Freedom Alliance group claiming massive fraud and abuse with donations?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/hannitys-freedom-concerts_n_505294.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 10:38 pm ET)
        3  
        Saw that. What a sleaze.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by thaneb (March 21, 2010 10:39 pm ET)
        3  
        Hair decidedly graying-feeling the heat?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rtejon (March 22, 2010 12:43 am ET)
        2  
        We may never know if Oliver North was really aware of or condoning drug trafficking as a means of raising funds for the Contras, but efforts by investigative journalists to establish those connections met a standard at least as high as many of the smears Hannity runs with every day on his shows.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Stonerscum (March 21, 2010 10:22 pm ET)
         
      Really Sean? I'd go with the Bush tax cuts...or the medicare drug program that was unpaid for...Oh yeah thats when the GOP was in power and anyone who was against it was a traitor.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (March 21, 2010 10:39 pm ET)
      4  
      No SEAN, You and fools like you are irresponsible jerks who care only for your rich friends and not the common everyday American.You all should do us a big favor , shut up and leave.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Porkeater (March 21, 2010 10:51 pm ET)
      5  
      Why is he pulling his punches? Why doesn't he remind us that people will be marrying horses, nazis will be riding dinosaurs in the street, the moon will turn red and the seas will rise? Come on Hannity, man up!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 10:55 pm ET)
        3  
        Are you saying that they've gotten to Hannity too?!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (March 21, 2010 11:12 pm ET)
        5  
        I think Hannity and Beck and the rest will now quietly get their affairs in order...I mean, since the destruction of the USA is here and we're all gonna soon die. It was nice knowing all you guys...fun while it lasted. So long... ;>)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (March 21, 2010 10:53 pm ET)
      5  
      FOX LOSES! AMERICA WINS!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:11 pm ET)
        11
      A trillion dollar bill just past that provides absolutely nothing. All it does is force everyone to buy a product from the health insurance companies. It forces people to spend money. It will drive the profits of the health insurance companies up. There's no reason for them to lower any of their rates if people are forced to buy from them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Porkeater (March 21, 2010 11:12 pm ET)
        3  
        Spoilsport. Wait and see, maybe it will benefit you.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:15 pm ET)
            6
          Spoilsport. Wait and see, maybe it will benefit you.
          I will actually. And if it does benefit me without further increasing our national debt then I'll be the first to admit it. I have my doubts about it. For it to work you have to trust the insurance companies to lower rates out of the goodness of their hearts. I should have purchased stock in health insurance knowing that people will soon HAVE to buy it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 11:24 pm ET)
            5  
            "It will drive the profits of the health insurance companies up."

            Wasn't this all about destroying private insurers? That's what I heard on Fox.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:28 pm ET)
                5
              Wasn't this all about destroying private insurers? That's what I heard on Fox.
              I imagine if it had a public option with it. A government run insurance company - with no need to turn a profit and no threat of damaging losses - could easily, if they wanted to, put the hammer on private insurance companies.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 11:34 pm ET)
                7  
                Which would have been a good thing. Too bad Obama chose not to pursue it. Progressive in large measure got shafted on this bill, which in many ways was a very centrist, corporately friendly bill, despite all the lies told by Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. that this was some sort of socialist takeover.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by jjamele2880 (March 22, 2010 8:34 am ET)
                1  
                Several "ifs" in your post. There's no public option in the bill. There's no creation of a government-run insurance company.

                If there was a clause outlawing private insurance, that would destroy private insurers. There isn't. So what is your point?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (March 22, 2010 9:20 am ET)
                     
                  Fear, fear, and more fear, jjamele2880. Same as it ever was.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (March 22, 2010 10:46 am ET)
                    1
                  Somebody asked a question about "destroying private insurers". I simply answered that I "imagine if it had a public option" private insurers could be destroyed. You really need to read the posts I was responding to before commenting on mine.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jjamele2880 (March 22, 2010 11:26 am ET)
                       
                    Imagine if you had half a brain, what intelligent posts you might write!

                    For now, however, most of us have to live in the real world.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by Dradeeus (March 21, 2010 11:15 pm ET)
        4  
        That's actually a pleasant surprise. I didn't know you were in favor of the public option or single payer.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:17 pm ET)
          1 6
          Ironically the only Constitutional way to have true health care reform is through universal coverage for every American. I've explained this a couple times that if it applies to every citizen equally with no standards or qualifications it would be Constitutional under the General Welfare. The key is it has to be General. It can't be subsidized just for the poor.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (March 22, 2010 8:36 am ET)
            2  
            That means Medicare (available only to people in a certain age bracket, with few exceptions) and Medicaid (available only to people in a certain income bracket) are Unconstitutional. It also means the Progressive Income Tax is unconstitutional since it treats groups of people differently, even exempting certain people from paying federal income taxes. How many windmills do you want to tilt at?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 22, 2010 10:51 am ET)
                1
              Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional. You are correct. A progressive income tax though is constitutional as the government does have the power to set rates how they deem necessary. It's unfortunate - and I don't agree with it - but it is constitutional.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by roverflash (March 21, 2010 11:17 pm ET)
        4  
        It also forces insurance companies to stop discriminating against Americans on the basis of pre-existing conditions. That would be one thing this legislation provides.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:18 pm ET)
            8
          That's fine. I don't think any conservative has as problem with that. It's still going to force people to give more money to health insurance companies. Why would they have any motive to lower rates?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 11:40 pm ET)
            3  
            "That's fine. I don't think any conservative has as problem with that."

            Then you'd think it would have been good for at least one Republican vote, somewhere in the House or Senate.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:46 pm ET)
                5
              You can't vote for a bill just because there's one good thing in it. If you have a bill that provides free housing, food, and insurance for the poor but it also requires puppies to be killed, cats to be cooked, and bans television, guess what? You're not voting for that bill.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by christopher howard (March 21, 2010 11:49 pm ET)
                4  
                None of which was the case. The GOP decided to go for pure obstructionism on this for political gain. They wanted Obama to meet his Waterloo, in DeMint's words. They failed. Maybe some of the saner heads in the GOP will prevail next time around, if the rightwing noise machine lets them.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 22, 2010 12:03 am ET)
            4  
            I don't CARE if the insurance companies are MOTIVATED to act reasonably or not. They aren't going to be ABLE to justify huge rate increases if they don't have huge increases in costs to justify those rate increases.

            You're under the mistaken impression that health insurance companies just raise rate willy-nilly without having to justify those increases to state insurance boards right now!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 22, 2010 12:23 am ET)
                4
              You're under the mistaken impression that health insurance companies just raise rate willy-nilly without having to justify those increases to state insurance boards right now!
              If they already have to justify them to state boards then these state boards were the ones approving all these rate increase in the first place. If that's the case we could've solved this whole mess by holding them more accountable and questioning their reasons for approving these rate increases.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (March 22, 2010 2:30 am ET)
                1  
                Yes, they ARE, and so insurance companies will NOT be able to raise rates as you said they could if their costs have gone down!

                You dunce. Do you think your previous posts somehow just disappear?

                Here's what you wrote.

                "It's still going to force people to give more money to health insurance companies. Why would they have any motive to lower rates?"

                And while COSTS to health insurance companies are increasing by leaps and bounds, doofus, they can JUSTIFY those rate increases to the state insurance boards. But when the insurance companies can't justify increases in premiums because they aren't SEEING the same increasing costs, then they WON'T get the premium increases anymore.

                So, like I said, I don't CARE about how motivated insurance companies are. It doesn't MATTER. They don't GET to simply raise rates willy-nilly.

                But thanks, once again, for proving that you don't read and comprehend well.

                Or, you're simply a troll who's not willing to participate in a fair debate.

                So, which is it? Are you really, really ignorant, or are you a troll?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (March 22, 2010 10:45 am ET)
                     
                  But when the insurance companies can't justify increases in premiums because they aren't SEEING the same increasing costs, then they WON'T get the premium increases anymore.
                  And what sections in this bill keeps costs from going down? The health insurance mandate increases revenue for the insurance companies. Revenue and costs are completely different things, though. Just because your revenue increases doesn't mean your costs automatically stabilize or drop.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by progressiveright (March 22, 2010 3:34 am ET)
            1  
            Because they will be required to lower them.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by MidnightWriter (March 21, 2010 11:23 pm ET)
        4  
        Yes, absolutely nothing--other than provide more people access to health care, eliminate denying coverage because of preexisting conditions, and do away with the real "Death Panel," namely those lifetime caps that allowed insurance companies to decide how much financial value a human life had.

        In my book that's a damned fine absolutely nothing. Not quite Universal Coverage, but a decent first step.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 21, 2010 11:27 pm ET)
          1 4
          Yes, absolutely nothing--other than provide more people access to health care
          It doesn't provide health care to anybody. All it does is force (rightly so by the way) the insurance companies to not drop or deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions.

          If you own a health insurance company right now, why would you not be salivating at the thought of knowing that everyone is going to have to come to your company to purchase coverage, especially if you are only one of maybe two alternatives they have since you can't cross state lines for coverage.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MidnightWriter (March 21, 2010 11:40 pm ET)
            3  
            Funny. I seem to remember something about tax credits being given to small businesses in order to provide health insurance to their employee and an expansion of Medicare.

            Seems like that would cover more people.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (March 22, 2010 8:42 am ET)
            1  
            "...other than provide more people access to health care"- Midnight

            "It doesn't provide health care to anybody."- MagCynic

            Health Insurance Companies provide access- they don't provide health CARE, and never have. They move money around. They take your money and, if you ask very nicely, fill out a lot of forms, and gain favor with the pencil pusher in the insurance office, MAY provide you with the funds to get care. They aren't doctors.

            So you are quite right Mags- the bill doesn't provide health care to anybody. It improves access to that care. I'd like to see the government cut out the insurance companies altogether and provide actual CARE through single-payer, but that's not going to happen for the foreseeable future.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 22, 2010 10:49 am ET)
                 
              So you are quite right Mags- the bill doesn't provide health care to anybody. It improves access to that care
              It doesn't provide access to health care either. That would be true if they had some public option in it. It doesn't. The only thing this bill does is spend almost a trillion dollars that requires you to buy a product from a private company. That's the main thing. The rest of it is simple regulations like banning preexisting conditions. How does all this cost almost a trillion dollars and yet provide nothing? It's not like tomorrow we're all going to get a piece of paper in the mail saying we can now go to a doctor for a checkup.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (March 21, 2010 11:23 pm ET)
      7  
      To be fair, all evidence indicates Sean Hannity was born yesterday.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by calblack82 (March 21, 2010 11:37 pm ET)
         
      Whats wrong is now I a conservative Catholic have to pay out of my tax dollars I don't care what "plans you can choose my and your tax dollars pay for abortions, its morally wrong, and this president has created officially bankrupted this country morally and financially, and you don't know jack about the patriot act sign up for the military before you talk about knowing the Patriot Act.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (March 21, 2010 11:41 pm ET)
      4  
      What's he going to tell us next? That WMD's have been found in Iraq?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Jeremy Danials (March 22, 2010 7:04 am ET)
        1  
        ...aww, not again! hat'd be how many times now? 1,236,819?

        Byte is not amused. Handyjob needsd to go away. FAR, FAR away...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (March 22, 2010 12:39 am ET)
      3  
      I can think of 3 that are even more irresponsible and all 3 were pushed by GOP Presidents. They are the Regan tax cuts (still not to where we would have been revenue wise) the Bush tax cut (even further behind) and the Patriot Act (over half being stopped by courts for being Unconstitutional). How is that for you Hannity.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (March 22, 2010 8:38 am ET)
      2  
      Hannity: Health care reform is "the most irresponsible piece of domestic legislation in our lifetime"

      Why even listen to this yokel. He is a status quo advocate and with this bill, you can not get any better with a gift for the health insurance companies.

      Never should a bill consists of over 2,000 pages. We had a bill that was only 30 pages, and that was ignored.
      Report Abuse