About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservatives push Reagan's 1961 attacks on "socialized medicine" but ignore that he was criticizing Medicare

August 17, 2009 9:29 am ET — 171 Comments

On August 14, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, and O'Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham featured a recording of Ronald Reagan speaking in 1961 against "socialized medicine" for the American Medical Association's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Medicare. Neither Drudge, Limbaugh, nor Ingraham, however, noted that Reagan was speaking out against an early version of Medicare, which has become very popular since it was enacted 44 years ago, or that Reagan's dire predictions of curtailments of freedom were never realized.

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

Conservatives reach back to Medicare fight to fearmonger about heath care reform

Drudge Report: By 9 a.m. on August 14, the Drudge Report featured the headline, "1961: Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine," with a link to a YouTube video of a 1961 recording, "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine."

From the Drudge Report on August 14:

reaganmedicare

Limbaugh: "I get chills up my back." After airing several clips from the 1961 recording, Limbaugh stated, "I tell you, I get chills up my back. I feel like I'm listening to my dad. My dad said the same thing to me: 'You boys are going to be slaves.' " Limbaugh added, "The battle never ends. Well, battles end. The war will never end. Remember the history of the world is communism, socialism, totalitarianism, statism. That's the history of the world. ... And after they own the White House, and after they own the House of Representatives, and after they own the Senate, and after they own the Pentagon, and after they own everything else in government they can populate, they will then own you. And that's what Reagan was trying to warn of back in 1961." [Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/14/09]

Ingraham: "I have to believe that Ronald Reagan is smiling down on these town hall forums." Guest hosting Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham stated: "Powerful arguments against socialized medicine have been around not for months, but for decades. Ronald Reagan was saying this back in 1961." After playing a clip from Reagan's recording, Ingraham added, "I have to believe that Ronald Reagan is smiling down on these town hall forums where law abiding and hard-working Americans are standing up for freedom." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/14/09]

Reagan's 1961 missive was against Medicare's precursor legislation

Reagan's 1961 message was recorded as part of the American Medical Association's "Operation Coffee Cup," the goal of which "was to defeat legislation called King-Anderson, a congressional health care bill designed to assist older Americans that, in a watered-down version, ultimately came into being as Medicare." In the recording, Reagan warned that if the bill were passed, doctors would be told by the government where to live and where to practice, and that "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."

Medicare is overwhelmingly popular among enrollees and the American public

Seventy-seven percent say Medicare is "very important" for the country. An April 2009 health tracking poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that "[j]ust over three in four Americans say the Medicare program is 'very important' for the country as a whole, and just over half say it is very important for their own family. Seniors -- who make up the bulk of current participants -- are even more likely to say the program is important to them: nine in ten of those aged 65 and up say the program is important to them and their family, with nearly all of these (78 percent overall) calling it 'very important.' "

Commonwealth Fund: Medicare beneficiaries age 65+ "reported greater overall satisfaction." A May 2009 Commonwealth Fund survey concluded that "elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans."

Medicare rated higher than private health insurance plans. As Mark Blumenthal wrote on National Journal Online, surveys by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that in 2007, "56 percent of enrollees in traditional fee-for-service Medicare give their 'health plan' a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale. Similarly, 60 percent of seniors enrolled in Medicare Managed Care rated their plans a 9 or 10. But according to the CAHPS [Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems ] surveys compiled by HHS, only 40 percent of Americans enrolled in private health insurance gave their plans a 9 or 10 rating." Blumenthal added, "More importantly, the higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care. More than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they 'always' get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance." [NationalJournal.com, 6/29/09].

From Blumenthal's post:

medicarechart

Chait: "You'd think conservatives would be embarrassed about this sort of talk"

In a July 20 entry on The New Republic's The Plank blog, senior editor Jonathan Chait wrote of Reagan's "utterly preposterous" 1961 recording:

National Review's Jonah Goldberg links to this Ronald Reagan diatribe against the Medicare bill. Goldberg says it's "still fresh today." This is true, but not in the way Goldberg thinks. Reagan made a series of falsifiable claims about Medicare that, listened to forty years later, sound utterly preposterous. I transcribed a few choice bits. Here's Reagan describing what will happen if Medicare is enacted:

First you [the governement] decide that the doctor can have so many patients. ... So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has to say to him, "You can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors, you have to go live somewhere else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. Pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a livin [sic], but will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. ...

And if 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.

You'd think conservatives would be embarrassed about this sort of talk. After all, can there be anybody who doesn't live in a militia compound who believes the passage of Medicare represented the death knell of that freedom in America? Does anybody think this business about the government dictating what city doctors live in has come true? Yet conservatives continue to trumpet it.

Limbaugh conservatives continue 75-year-old "socialized medicine" smear

A Media Matters for America analysis found that dating as far back as the 1930s, conservatives have attacked at least 16 different health care reform initiatives as "socialized medicine," or as a step toward that inevitable result.

Transcripts:

From the August 14 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Ronald Reagan in 1961, Operation Coffee Cup, the whole thing is 10 minutes, we don't have all 10 minutes of it, but Operation Coffee Cup campaign against socialized medicine as it was then proposed by Democrats. And here is just a portion. We have three sound bites of Reagan from a recording that was distributed by the American Medical Association.

REAGAN [audio clip]: Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.

LIMBAUGH: Ronald Reagan. And, by the way, Norman Thomas is the grandfather of Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas, and he was an avowed socialist. Here's the second of our three clips of Reagan.

REAGAN [audio clip]: Let's also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it's like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren't equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has to say to him you can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go. This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.

LIMBAUGH: And that provision was part and parcel of HillaryCare, assigning doctors regionally, assigning them geographically. It went so far in Hillary's health care bill as to assign what specialty they would learn. Doctors were going to be totally controlled. And it would be no different in this health care bill if Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Waxman get what they want. Here's the next one.

REAGAN [audio clip]: You and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen, to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms, and at the moment, the key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day, as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if 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.

LIMBAUGH: I tell you, I get chills up my back. I feel like I'm listening to my dad. My dad said the same thing to me: "You boys are going to be slaves." Ronald Reagan and my dad, they grew up in the -- I mean, the thick of the Cold War. They knew who communists were, socialists, and they know what their intent was. And they were scared to death for my brother and me over what would happen if they weren't defeated. Here's Ronald Reagan in 1961 warning of the dangers of socialized medicine. That's how far back the left has been trying to get it. And he's right. It's a parallel, in a way, to global warming. The environmentalist wackos have made great inroads, because who wants a dirty planet, who wants to destroy the planet? Who can possibly oppose people who say they're trying to save animals and the planet? The same token, who can oppose a plan that's going to get health care for everybody?

Now, so far they've been beaten back; for 50 years they have been beaten back. But they never stop. The lesson here is they never stop, and there are plenty of Norman Thomases around today. They don't call themselves socialists. They don't even call themselves liberals. They call themselves progressives now. But when Norman Thomas said, "The American people would never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program," that's no different than Rahm Emanuel saying, "We have to take advantage of this crisis." It's no different than Obama lying through his teeth about what the health care plan contains. It's what the left always does, folks. It's what they always have to do. They can't be open. You would reject everything they say they want to do if they were open and honest about it. So the battle never ends. Well, battles end. The war will never end. Remember the history of the world is communism, socialism, totalitarianism, statism. That's the history of the world. That's the history of mankind.

The United States of America is the exception. And that is part and parcel how you define American exceptionalism, founded on liberty and freedom and the knowledge that those traits, the liberty, freedom, all come from our creator. And there are people who for their own aggrandizement and power want to snuff that liberty out. That's just the way it is. And they've always been here in America, too. But they've never gotten as close to realizing their dream as they are now. They own the White House. They own the House of Representatives. They own the Senate. They must not own all of those after the elections of 2010. But they're never going to go away. They'll come back under the guise of some other issue or name trying to advance the agenda. It's just who they are. I don't care about their motivations. I don't care to try to explain motivations. It's just who liberals and socialists are. And after they own the White House, and after they own the House of Representatives, and after they own the Senate, and after they own the Pentagon, and after they own everything else in government they can populate, they will then own you. And that's what Reagan was trying to warn of back in 1961.

From the August 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

INGRAHAM: What happened to the Democrats being the party of the little guys? White House press secretary Robert Gibbs keeps saying that the town halls are not representative. It's just all a lot of chatter. And team Obama says that the people are just misinformed. The left has spent a lot of time, effort, and money trying to discredit the town hallers as the yahoo racist fringe.

Well, this strategy has clearly backfired. Look, Democrats have been caught flat-footed, it's obvious, by this popular uprising. But all those Harvard grads at the White House should have known better. Powerful arguments against socialized medicine have been around not for months, but for decades. Ronald Reagan was saying this back in 1961.

REAGAN [audio clip]: One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.

INGRAHAM: I have to believe that Ronald Reagan is smiling down on these town hall forums, where law-abiding and hard-working Americans are standing up for freedom.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by terrapin53 (August 17, 2009 10:01 am ET)
      12 2
      Reagan is dead and gone and wrong. These people need to join the 21st century.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Vincenzo (August 17, 2009 10:14 am ET)
        13 1
        Ronny is a conservative god and will not disappear soon enough. He pushed all the right buttons, tax cuts, runaway spending, military adventures, firing union workers, rode a horse, scandals for the sake of America, good with chimps.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (August 17, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
          6 2
          Ronald Reagan - "B" actor, "C-" president, "D" husband (one divorce), and "F" father (Read Michael Reagan's book to learn what a "wonderful" father St. Ronnie was.)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
            2 14
            First of all, this article defends Ronald Reagan and secondly, who was a better president than him? Barack Obama? Excuse me, I'm going to go laugh so hard that water is going to come out of my nose.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dbtexas (August 17, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
              4 1
              Obviously, you didn't read the article - or at least understand it. Go ahead and laugh. We would like to see that water thing.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 17, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
              7 1
              Guess you've forgotten about all the criminal convictions of his administration officials, or maybe the fact that he traded arms for hostages, or maybe the fact that he appeased terrorists.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:44 am ET)
                  1
                So I guess it was ok for Clinton to commit perjury? Interesting.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 18, 2009 8:39 am ET)
              1  
              Tell me about how good things were under Reagan,if you were grown and had to make a living then.Tell me in your own words,talk radio quotes are considered weak evidence.And if you can give some evidence to support what you say.personal or statistic.You know people like to see people do hard impossible things,like jump a river on a bicycle.I am waiting to see you jump a river on your bicycle.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:46 am ET)
                  1
                Your ridiculous analogy notwithstanding, explain to me how he turned the economy around after Carter ruined it to the prosperous one when George Bush Sr. took over.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
          1 14
          Yeah, how dare he do an excellent job? What's the matter with him? He should definitely have taken a cue from Obama and ruined the country.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
            9 2
            Yup, Uncle Ron was such a good president. Of course your partisan viewpoint would have nothing to do with how you percieve his "legacy".
            Where as, it seems that you have already made your mind up about the Obama presidency, even though he has only been in office 7 months.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:47 am ET)
                1
              7 months is long enough to know someone's policies and these will ruin the country. In fact, they're already doing just that.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 11:49 am ET)
                 
              So your worship of Obama isn't partisan? Interesting.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (August 17, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
            5 1
            What was your favorite part of the Reagan era? The TRA of 1986, which ended up shifting the tax burden to the middle class, the deregulation of the S&Ls, which led to huge bailouts (for the time), or the general feeling that you were about to die in a nuclear holocaust triggered by a doddering old fool who couldn't remember his wife's name?


            Randy
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:49 am ET)
                1
              Yeah, the Cold War was Reagan's fault. I keep forgetting that. The Soviets had nothing to do with it, is that right? By the way, you may want to go read a history book or two so you can come to the realization that Reagan ended the Cold War. That's just free advice for you.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by flappy (August 17, 2009 9:04 pm ET)
            6 2
            Obama is a real man, not a fake president. Our country needs real change and Bush did nothing, leaving it up to the Democrats to bail out the Republicans again. Clinton had to do it after the mess Reagan/Bush left us, now Obama has the monumental task of straightening out the Bush/Cheney debacle. Reagan was well liked but a horrible President, he was the god-father of the world recession of 2008. Many of his policy's of the 1980's led us to the brink of a major Depression last year. The hope for a better future and the realization that our past needs to be corrected will lead our great country out of the wilderness. Obama is the real man to do it. Can anyone really imagine McCain/Palin trying to cope with all the problems left behind by Bush?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 17, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
              7 2
              Can anyone really imagine McCain/Palin trying to cope with all the problems left behind by Bush?

              I can. Tax cuts, govt. deregulation, and another unnecessary war.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:54 am ET)
                  1
                What war is that? The ones that Obama hasn't ended like he said he was going to?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:53 am ET)
                1
              Oh man, I needed a laugh to cheer me up today. Thank you. Spending trillions on pork is going to help the country. Now I've heard it all. Blaming Reagan for the recession is so far beyond ignorant I can't even put it into words. I suppose Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had nothing to do with it, correct? They didn't help with the housing crisis that caused this, and neither did Bill Clinton? Obama is a JOKE, plain and simple. He has no experience. He has criminals in his cabinet that are advising him. Soon people will realize that fainting and swooning at a candidate's rallies doesn't make for a good president.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 18, 2009 8:48 am ET)
            2  
            Reagan took his cues form Koch Industries Inc.,not the American people.President Obama has started repairing President Reagan's destruction of middle America.There are so many traps set up for middle America.A good deal of time has to be spent removing the systemic traps,before much of the repair can began.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:55 am ET)
                1
              I don't even know what to say to people like you that are so in the tank for Obama. It's really mind-boggling.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by cArn (August 17, 2009 10:42 am ET)
        9 1
        Well, to be fair, FDR is even deader and goner than Reagan, but I wouldn't complain if more politicians and people used him as the model of how to (generally) govern. The issue isn't about admiring past Presidents and wanting to emulate some of their policies. There's nothing wrong with that. The issue is which ones people choose to look up to, and when admiration becomes bind exaltation.

        I believe FDR was a far greater leader than Reagan, mainly because he laid the foundation for modern liberalism (regulated capitalism with a large social safety net to protect citizens. But they were both human, just like the founders and the rest of us. I really wish people would stop treating them like demi-gods or larger than life characters.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
          3  
          You don't mean that we should actually "learn" from history, do you?

          Oh My Gosh! That would mean paying attention in school.
          It would mean coming to understand that some of my most holy tennants are actually wrong, and or, built on sand.
          It might even mean that some people would have to admit that Reagan wasn't a god but; merely a man playing a role.
          (he did look good doing it though.


          Naw, now that I think about it, it will never happen.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 11:50 am ET)
             
          You're right, he couldn't turn the depression around in 8 years (the war had to do that), but Reagan turned around the mess that came out of the 70's during his term.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 17, 2009 11:57 am ET)
        7  
        Hey, give 'em a break! It was only 48 years ago! Not that much has changed since the Kennedy administration!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (August 17, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
        8 1
        Reagan is dead and gone and wrong. These people need to join the 21st century.


        Forget it - these knuckleheads are still mired in the 16th Century....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj2970 (August 18, 2009 2:07 am ET)
        3  
        Yes, strange they bring up Reagan. Let us count the corrupt ways that occurred in his administration, Starting with the granddaddy of them all, the Iran Contra Affair where government first sold arms to Iran (remember the evil ones) then sent the proceeds to another illegal operation, in order to send illegal support the Contra rebels. Neither approved by congress. then the thuggery of the HUD director, and last but not least, the Secretary of Interior, Watts, conducted illegal activities, As a result of this scandal, sixteen convictions were eventually handed down, including several members of the Reagan administration.[
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dr. matt (August 17, 2009 10:08 am ET)
      14 4
      "I have to believe that Ronald Reagan is smiling down on these town hall forums."


      I have to believe that Ronnie Raygun, looking up from the depths of Hell wishing he was in Heaven, realizes his reich-wing kkkonservatism is an evil destructive terrorist movement.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by cArn (August 17, 2009 10:16 am ET)
        14 2
        "I have to believe that Ronalod Reagan is smiling down on these town halls where Americans are standing up for freedom."

        Wow. Just wow. These people have some nerve mocking Obama with things like "The One" and "Messiah" (blasphemy?) when they continue to worship at the Altar of Reagan.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (August 17, 2009 10:33 am ET)
          15 2
          Check out "Tear Down this Myth". Its a book about the Reagan myth and how modern day conservatives portray Reagan as more conservative than he was, so as to promote their extreme agenda. Just one example: Reagan felt that killing civilians in pursuit of terrorist was terrorism. Imagine telling that to W's gang before the Iraq invasion! Reagan, it turns out, gets a lot of credit for things he didn't do, avoids being held accountable the mistakes he did do and is being morphed into a modern day ideological extremist conservative. His myth as a flawless steely eyed conservative is usefull in a time when ideological zealots have only bad real life examples to show for their previous years in control of most of our government.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dr. matt (August 17, 2009 10:45 am ET)
            17 2
            Teabag hacks do not know their Raygun history.

            Ever hear Anchor Baby Malkin say that Raygun doubled the social security withholding tax?

            Ever hear Insean Vannity say that Raygun raised taxes 7 times?

            In 1982 alone, Raygun signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

            According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

            In 1983, Raygun signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate.

            This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

            In 1984, Raygun signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act.

            This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

            The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.

            Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years.

            And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

            The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Raygun presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

            But, should we really be surprised? We know it's a well established fact that conservatives are best at growing the government and debt.


            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
              4 11
              If those taxes were so awful, why didn't Clinton reverse them? I'm just curious.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
                7 3
                Ah, blissfully ignorant. I think the point was that Reagan wasn't the hero that all the neo cons want to make out of him.
                He participated in all the evil socialistic policies that all the libruls get blamed for now. The only difference being that a lot of neo cons want to rewrite history and make it appear that Reagan was something he wasn't.

                Taxes are not inherently evil, since the government really does need to pay for all those pesky programs.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by dr. matt (August 17, 2009 10:48 am ET)
            14 3
            And, let us not forget....Raygun not only TALKED to our enemies (the Iranians), but sold them arms, armed a terrorist network (Hezbollah), negotiated with terrorists for the release of hostages, and armed other terrorists (the Contras). This combined with the amazing triple header of selling arms simultaneously to all three of Iraq, Iran, and Israel, made Raygun the gold medal champion of rhetorical and moral gymnastics.

            But hey, Raygun's rhetoric about how "government is evil" was dead-on accurate....He PROVED it!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 17, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
              3 1
              OK, Dr. Matt, do 5 Hail Nancy's and The Gipper's Prayer for that load of blasphemy.

              LIMBAUGH: I tell you, I get chills up my back..

              But I'll bet Boss Hogg still bags on Chris Matthews for getting a thrill up his leg. Is it ok to be excited by a speech only if it takes several decades?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
              5  
              This combined with the amazing triple header of selling arms simultaneously to all three of Iraq, Iran, and Israel, made Raygun the gold medal champion of rhetorical and moral gymnastics.

              And that makes him the perfect capitalist, since everyone knows a capitalist will sell you the rope for his own execution.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by vwcat (August 17, 2009 11:52 am ET)
            12 2
            I have said that if Reagan was president today and governed and believed like he did in the 80s, today's conservatives would rip him apart for being soft, too liberal and for daring to work with democrats.
            But, Nancy was intrigued with Obama during the campaign and likes him. Not too crazy about W, however. This is according to Ron Reagan Jr.
            I would think Reagan would be appalled by the behavior and thinking of conservatives today.
            But, I'm a progressive and intensely disliked Reagan when he was president.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
            2 13
            No one WANTS to kill civilians but it is a natural side effect of war. If you had ever served in the military, you would actually know this.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
              6 1
              And your point, as small as it may be, is what?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:59 am ET)
                   
                My point is everyone is whining about civilians being killed in these wars and probably don't have the slightest idea what combat is like. That's war. By the way, just for the record, plenty of civilians have been killed under Obama's watch in Pakistan and elsewhere. I guess that's ok though, right?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Pinhead (August 17, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
              7 1
              I never served in the military and I know that. But I also know that that's why you damn-well better make sure that war is a last resort. There is no such thing as a "just war", there are, however, "just causes" (and the Iraq war is not a just cause).
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 9:59 am ET)
                   
                I didn't agree with invading Iraq either. I want to be clear about that.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (August 17, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
              4  
              "No one WANTS to kill civilians but it is a natural side effect of war."

              Well that is obvious but does not explain Reagan's policy. Reagan did not buy into the idea that a war on terror would be moral or effective. He rejected the "either you are with us or against us" song and dance. He realized that you can't always bomb your way out of complex problems. As much as I hate to admit it, at times he was capable of a nuanced reality based approach. Reagan - in disguise - would have been shouted down on fox news and marginalized in W's cabinet. Oriely would have called him a pin head and Limbaugh and Hannity would have him in bed with bin laden for such talk.

              "If you had ever served in the military, you would actually know this. "

              Well Reagan apparently knew this and thats why he realized that piles of dead civilians can be counter productive against terrorism. Funny comment though. I have never been in the military and I already knew this!!!! In fact I think everyone knows this. Its so obvious that you must think Reagan was an idiot for taking this position on terrorism. Or are you implying that since "killing civilians" is a "natural side effect" of war that we shouldn't be concerned with civilian death as long as we defeat the enemy. Even flying planes into office buildings is ok as long as you win.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:02 am ET)
                   
                If you think Al Qaeda defeated us or ever will, you are sadly mistaken. Also, no, I don't think it's ok to kill civilians ever, but ground or air combat WILL produce civilian casualties. That's called war.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by fantagor (August 17, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
              4  
              No one WANTS to kill civilians but it is a natural side effect of war.


              It goes without saying that to be an empire one must play the role of tyrant, and such declarations as the one above comport nicely with that notion. The death of innocent civilians resulting from America's colonial period is just an unfortunate side effect, nothing more. We don't WANT to kill them, but they just won't stop living where we drop hundreds of tons of bombs.

              Randy
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:03 am ET)
                   
                So, you're saying war can exist WITHOUT collateral damage? You are clearly an amazing military leader then and should be at the forefront of every conflict we have.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 11:52 am ET)
                  1
                We shouldn't be tyrants, we should just spend our time flying around the world apologizing to them, correct?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by sunlander (August 18, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
                  1  
                  The fact is we have been hell-bent on pursuing an imperial foreign policy for the last sixty years, while allowing our own infrastructure to decay and our own people to be marginalized by the whims of globalists and in service to profit. We should spend our time correcting these destructive mistakes - an apology is always a good place to start. Americans haven't created this problem for America; Republicans and Conservatives have and they will never apologize, for anything.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 10:15 am ET)
                      1
                    Like Obama, you are apologizing for the United States instead of acknowledging what we've done for the world. People like you make our country appear weak.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
                      1  
                      No, ignorance makes our country appear weak. You and your ilk make our country look weak. Simple-mindedness makes our country look stupid and weak. I do not expect you to understand that, because the simplest of abstract thought is clearly too complex for you. But, it is true.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by achrispage6992 (August 18, 2009 7:26 am ET)
              2 1
              Just because you may have served in the military does in no way mean you would know anything about civilian casualties in a war. You have such a narrow view and understanding of "collateral damage" and war. "natural side effect of war" waaaaaay to funny.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:03 am ET)
                   
                Have you served? If not, why are you even speaking?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                   
                So... the fact that I've seen combat and you haven't gives me no greater perspective?
                Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
          2 14
          We aren't mocking Obama, we are mocking YOU. Obama doesn't think he's the messiah, you do. Does that make sense now?
          Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:06 am ET)
                1
              The fact that you called me a "hick" speaks volumes. If you think your intelligence surpasses mine, you are sadly mistaken. When people think that once their candidate becomes president, that they won't have to buy gas, pay their mortgage, etc., anymore, it shows that you think of this person as some sort of deity.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by captfoster2 (August 17, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
            8 1
            We aren't mocking Obama, we are mocking YOU. Obama doesn't think he's the messiah, you do.

            Who does? Got proof that anyone other than right-wing radio mouth pieces and corporate TV whores ever made that claim?

            I implore you to find even one link to ANY liberal, progressive, or Democrat of any kind that ever made that claim!!

            Just one? Either find proof or shut the hell up!!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:09 am ET)
                2
              You do. How many times do I have to say it? How about Chris Mathews saying he has "a thrill going up his leg" every time Obama speaks? There's one for you.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by achrispage6992 (August 18, 2009 7:31 am ET)
            2 3
            Name one liberal who has called Obama the "Messiah", just one. The only persons I have ever heard, read, and seen call Obama "Messiah" are folks like you. Folks who are just plain jealous that your party simply cannot forge a leader who captures the imagination of the populace. Reagan is the closest thing you have had, that in and of itself should tell you all you need to know.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:09 am ET)
                2
              It's not what you call him, it's how you act. I've made this clear.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
        2 15
        You are the very definition of idiocy. I see that it's better if your president commits perjury and gets impeached, right?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dr. matt (August 17, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
          11  

          Congrats, two Clinton references in one thread. You're the very definition of "obtuse".
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jmille426471 (August 18, 2009 5:51 am ET)
          1 1
          Yes, being impeached over BJ's is far worse than secretly arming genocidal war-criminals. Anyone who doesn't understand that is the very definition of idiocy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 11:25 am ET)
              1
            He was impeached for committing perjury, genius. It really wasn't that long ago. I thought you would remember.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jmille426471 (August 18, 2009 10:20 pm ET)
              1  
              Seems like you don't know what the word "aquitted" means, genius.
              But when it comes to being dishonest about such an important matter of state like BJ's, its easy to see how you could treat it as a special case. Especially when compared to silly things like outing CIA agents and arming terrorists.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 10:18 am ET)
                  1
                The fact that he was acquitted is completely irrelevant. OJ was acquitted also. That doesn't mean he was innocent. Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. I don't understand why this is difficult for you to understand.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
                     
                  "The fact that he was acquitted is completely irrelevant. OJ was acquitted also. That doesn't mean he was innocent. Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. I don't understand why this is difficult for you to understand."

                  How American of you. Being acquitted is irrelevant. Those who are acquitted are guilty. Those who are guilty (as in the Reagan administration) are to be ignored. Up is down. Black is white. Grow up.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
                  1  
                  The lie would have to be considered relevant to the proceedings in order for it to be perjury. It wasn't.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 10:13 am ET)
      11 1
      "INGRAHAM: I have to believe that Ronald Reagan is smiling down on these town hall forums, where law-abiding and hard-working Americans are standing up for freedom."

      No he's not. Say what you will about Reagan, and I could say a lot, but, he was a great communicator, or maybe THE great communicator as he was called so often. He never yelled, or shouted, but he took you down with some wit, and that charm, he had tons of it, which is why he was a great politician.

      I'm not exactly sure what freedom Ingraham supposes these folks are standing up for. Freedom to get screwed over by insurance companies? Freedom to not have health care? Freedom to sound like yelling and shouting idiots (speaking about the townhall yellers we've been seeing)? It's not as if these folks are out there defending our nation against a hoarde of invaders or something like that.

      God forbid we take care of the citizens (ALL citizens) of our country.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (August 17, 2009 10:46 am ET)
        9  
        It's all about being able to point out that Obama is not a good leader, therefore "winning." See Fox Nation.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (August 17, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
        5  
        Right on Mags. The Reagan 'wistfulness' these people have for him allows them to morph him into whatever point they are currently making. I can't link to it right now, but all you have to do is search 'Reagan shut up" on youtube to find another one of their favorite Reagan quotes that shows his intolerance for disorder.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 11:25 am ET)
          1
        So I guess we should take care of illegals too? Those don't count as citizens.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (August 17, 2009 10:16 am ET)
      5  
      LOL. It looks like we all got annoyed at that disturbing quote about Reagan.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eb (August 17, 2009 10:18 am ET)
      14 2
      Rush: "The United States of America is the exception"

      He is correct. We are the only developed nation that pays so much for so little health care. Not only that, we seem incapable of having an honest adult debate about what our options are and how we can use and improve on what other countries do around the would. Pathetically, we can't even have a functional debate.

      Ingraham:
      "It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project."

      Well much of our current system is for profit. If it is humanitarian at all, its a side effect of making profit. Of course all the health care lobby guys and teabags of wind would have you forget that its very easy to disguise a for-profit health care provider as a humanitarian project... That is, as long as you don't get cut off from insurance or have to pay full price out of pocket.

      Reagan:
      "The doctor begins to lose freedoms"

      The marketplace and the HMO bureaucracies can also tie doctors hands professionally. If Reagan's predictions were to be correct, obviously doctors would suffer greatly in these countries that are "destroyed" by socialized medicine. Then as now, it is obvious that no effort will be made to see how things are done in other countries to learn from them to create a better system. Then and now the status quo is very important to powerful constitutancies. Anyone that rocks this boat must be sinister. Forget about looking at what our options truly are and investigating why other countries can do that we cant do. The debate has been disfunctional for a reason. As the Reagan stuff shows, its been disfunctional for a long long time.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by danical (August 17, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
        2 7
        Let's let the dead stay dead here. Reagan argued that once we allow government to run sectors of our economy it would lead to inefficiencies and potential tyranny. He was right. Look at the collapse of Fannie Mae et al. Government decided to expand home ownership to low income families. The problems always come as unexpected consequences. The lack of controls lead to speculators in the real estate business that drove up prices.
        As to healthcare, the answer is to pass Tort Reform. Limit what lawyers can get from the system and there will be billions in savings. The savings will come from the elimination of defensive medicine.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 4:53 pm ET)
          6  
          Government decided to expand home ownership to low income families.

          I think if you check the numbers it wasn't just "poor" people who procurred those ARM loans that should have never been issued. If you want to blame Fannie Mae for their bad loans look to your own post.
          "The lack of controls "

          Tort Reform is not "the answer". Maybe there needs to be some controls in place to limit certain types of judgements but; other than that assuming that limiting liablity judgements is going to "fix" health care is silly.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (August 17, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
          4  
          They have passed Tort Reform in Missouri, and healthcare costs haven't gone down there or anywhere. In the end, bad doctors will stay in practice longer and hurt more people, and the industry will pocket the savings. A for-profit healthcare system is wholly immoral. Like charging rape victims for the rape kit. Sarah Palin was for that as well.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
               
            Absolutely correct. There are some areas where I think tort reform can be justified. However, it will NOT bring down costs. This is quantifiable. Ask anyone who lives in Missouri how far down their healthcare costs have gone?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (August 17, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
          4  
          "Reagan argued that once we allow government to run sectors of our economy it would lead to inefficiencies and potential tyranny"

          Sure government involvment in the economy CAN lead to inefficiencies and potential tyranny. That's obvious. What is often conveniently overlooked is that corporate control of our economy through monopoly and excessive greed also can led to inefficiencies and potential tyranny. Reagan warned us that governments can be communistic. Not much of an original observation during the cold war.

          " The problems always come as unexpected consequences"

          And in right winger world only government actions can have unexpected consequences. Their big blind spot is that market based coporate descisions are just as capaple of unexpected consequences. In fact, when you consider the lure of the almighty dollar, unexpected unintended consequences are easily overlooked. If I am getting rich, who wants to hear about side effects.

          "pass Tort Reform"

          A real healthy media environment would investigate how this issue is handled in other countries. How do single payer plans deal with medical error for example. Instead we waste our time with death panels.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 18, 2009 9:19 am ET)
             
          Let the dead stay dead.If conservatives(republicans)did not believe that Reagan was a majic word that could make any lie the truth:I believe many people,including those here would leave him dead and never say his name.If the conservatives(republicans),would ease up on some of thir lies,they could leave him dead too.Also tell me something you have learned about fanni mae own you own.Tort reform do not bring cost down.People in business charge as much as they can get.Buying congressmen,and so called tort reform has made it impossible to sue a credit card company.Have credit card fees and interest rates decreased.Credit card companies have been exempt from law suits for a long.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by John Paradox (August 17, 2009 10:59 am ET)
      6 1
      Originally a member of the Democratic Party, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.

      Reagan was required to tour GE plants around the country and deliver speeches to the employees. Often, these speeches were politically motivated and held a conservative, pro-business message.[47] He wrote his own speeches, laboring diligently and daily upon his prose. Although he had speechwriters later in the White House, he continued editing, and even occasionally writing, many of his speeches.[49] Eventually, the speeches became too controversial for the company's liking, and Reagan was fired by General Electric in 1962.

      admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and supporter of the New Deal,[47] but in the early 1950s his political leanings began to shift rightwards out of a desire for a more limited federal government.

      WikiPedia
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 17, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
        4 4
        Originally a member of the Democratic Party, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.
        When he got rich.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Obama '12 (August 17, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
          7 1
          And the Democrats started caring about civil rights, the poor and middle class while the Republicans went the other way...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
          4 11
          Yeah, there are no rich people in the Democratic party or anything, like Barack Obama.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
            2  
            And your point is?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 10:12 am ET)
                 
              You liberals act like the republican are all "rich, white people" and the democrats "can relate to the poor and minorities". Give me a break.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 2:21 pm ET)
                   
                Are you a caricature, stark? Because if you are playing the role of an obtuse, ignorant, Fox News created character then you are hilarious. And wonderful in a Colbert sort of way. If you are serious...then I am truly sorry.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 11:02 am ET)
      9 1
      I thought republicans were for "looking forward" and not dwelling on the past? Apparently, this is only for the Bush years. Something they dug up from 48 years ago is relevant how again?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (August 17, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
        6 1
        No they are still fighting hippies in the 60's. They are stuck in that age when they could dismiss the counterculture as nothing but immoral dupes for communism. They remain awash in the victimhood of being the lone conservative holdouts in a nation slipping away to a 1960's hell. That is why they can never see how powerfull their allies in government, the media, and business are. That is why they wallow in their "poor me" teabag anger. That is why they need to create liberal straw men to demonize.

        Since the 60's many progressive libs have moved on. The typical ditto head in Hannity's America has no idea how moral and sophisticated progressive attempts at problem solving have become. They get fed a stereotype of liberals and thus easily fall prey to fear mongering. Ironically "lefties" seem more able to problem solve without dependence on ideology these days. Unfortunately too many contemporary conservatives seem addicted to ideology, especially when they have so many ideological media heroes like rush and hannity to remind them that to solve problems, all one has to do is "stay the course" and fight the "evildoers".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (August 18, 2009 8:45 am ET)
            1
          America has no idea how moral and sophisticated progressive attempts at problem solving have become.


          Oh do tell...
          Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (August 17, 2009 11:11 am ET)
      7  
      From my memories of Ronald Reagan, he didn't much like protestors, or at least protestors to his policies. He might cheer on the people disrupting the town halls, but I can also bet that he would be trashing them in private for lacking class. He said some really crass things about the poor and hippies when he was Governor of California. I know there are reports of seniors attending these meetings and telling the Congressmen to keep their hands off of Medicare. It seems that many of them have no understanding of the evils of socialized medicine, since they don't want to get rid of Medicare. Well, maybe they mean those other communist plots like Social Security.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jonesjax2374 (August 17, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
        2  
        Thanks for posting that epk. Reagan would hardly be smiling at any hysterical mob. Check out the history of Berkeley's Free Speech Movement and find out just how tolerant of "FREEDOM" RR was.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (August 18, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
           
        Can you come up with GOOD things to say about hippies?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (August 17, 2009 11:42 am ET)
      4  
      So, Limbaugh gets chills running up his body....
      and they laugh at Matthews for saying that last year. hmmmmm.

      Chait writes that he thinks conservatives should be embarrassed by that Reagan clip with those ridiculous claims about medicare back in 1961.
      What about Death Panels that is being bandied about today? Or how the poor innocent CEOs and Drug Companies and Big Insurance will suffer under the evil reforms by the fascist Obama - or is he socialist? or communist? or whatever else they claim him to be.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (August 17, 2009 11:48 am ET)
        4  
        To be fair I laugh at Matthews for saying that too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
          4  
          Same here.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 17, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
            2 1
            Everybody does. (and sorry,VWCat, for noting that Rush quote before scrolling down). I also laugh at Matthews man-crushes on Romney and Bush. The difference is, you don't hear many liberal commentators mentioning the swooning over Repubs, but the "thrill up the leg" is still a mainstay on con radio & Fox, used as evidence of "liberal bias".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (August 17, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
              2  
              Ture. I remember before that thrill went up Matthews leg he declared that John McCain "deserves to be President." That sure is some liberal bias.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (August 17, 2009 11:47 am ET)
      6  
      I'm not sure the audience for these shows care that he was talking about Medicare. Despite all the evidence to the contrary many conservatives do not view Medicare as a successful program. Just a week or so ago Newt Gingrich used it as an example of how poorly the govt does healthcare and even Howard Dean failed to challenge him on it. Medicare is a very successful example of "socialized" healthcare.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 17, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
        4 1
        On Meet the Press just yesterday, Dick Armey once again said that Medicare is "tyranny."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
          4  
          I'm certain that the millions of people who benefitted from Medicare, and the millions still benefitting from Medicare would disagree. Strangely enough, a bunch of those folks would probably support Armey.

          Our older citizens are much better cared for now with Medicare, no doubt about it. Imagine what state our senior citizens would be in if there were no Medicare, and there were no Social Security.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
               
            Right. This is important. Let everyone know where the right really stands. They want to do away with Social Security and Medicare and that is why a public option is out of the question with them. It is important that we require them to have the courage of their convictions and include this in their argument. Admit that the real argument is not death panels and other nonsense, it is that the right wants to do away with all of these government programs. Let's see where the American people stand on these issues. Let's see how far on the fringe the ideas of doing away with Medicare and Social Security really are.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by dr. matt (August 17, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
          8 1
          Providing health care to our Nation's poor and elderly is "tyranny"? Seriously, these teabagging wing-nuts are so completely divorced from reality.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 17, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
            1 10
            Are you aware that there's something called Medicare? I'm just wondering.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
                 
              Yes we are, and that is the point, stark. The right believes that Medicare and Social Security are tyranny and want to do away with them. Let's have the actual argument and see where the American people stand. How many Americans actually want to do away with Medicare and Social Security?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 10:21 am ET)
                   
                No, we don't believe they should be done away with, but they are corrupt, jokes of systems that had good intentions and have been bankrupt by government beauracracy. If the government can't even run those things without killing them, how do you expect them to run a health care program that takes care of 300 million people?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
                     
                  You are hilarious, Colbert. "We don't believe they should be done away with" but "they are corrupt, jokes of systems" and "have been bankrupted by the government bureaucracy". You don't see any problem with those statements coming one right after the other? So, Colbert, if we should not do away with these programs that are "jokes" and "corrupt" and "bankrupted", what should we do with them? I would love to hear your solutions.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
          4  
          But; it is. Medicare does have controls in place that constrain how much doctors are paid for certain procedures/care.

          That, by the neo-con diffinition, is tyranny.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Obama '12 (August 17, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
      9 2
      Do these people EVER shut up about St. Reagan? Last time I checked, Medicare works, negotiating with terrorists is bad, and for the millionth time HE DID NOT DESTROY THE SOVIET UNION!!!! IT COLLAPSED ON ITSELF! I think the only reasons why he was deitized are that Republicans own the media and he was the only one who somehow managed to get sane people to buy into the neoconvict agenda.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
        3 1
        Please don't destroy my preconceptions. It just feels so good to think that an American president was able to destroy the evil soviet union.

        Granted, all he really did was give them more impetous to spend money they didn't have but; it sure sounds nice. Of course, it also ignores all that debt we racked up while ignoring all those taxes he put in place.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by phredicles (August 18, 2009 4:16 am ET)
            1
          On top of which, it's funny how the same people who insist that St. Ronnie brought down the Soviet Union by "forcing" them to spend way more than they could afford on their military are the most vocal in insisting that we spend way more than we can afford on our military. So where do they think this is going to get us?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by lyvwyr101 (August 17, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
      7 2
      Reagan is smiling down at us? Good-I'm glad to hear that-because I'm mooning him!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 17, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
      2 1
      Made no difference to Reagan a role is a role.And he played it however they told him too. People who can't ,don't want to deal with the real world,want someone to play a role and lie to them.But while they are off in la la land we still got to live in the world we are in.Somebody please wake them up and tell them
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
      8 2
      Ronald Reagan never dyed his hair, and he was a great Governor of California too! He really didn't know what Ollie North was doing,and he never raised taxes or ran up a deficit. The savings and Loan industry blossomed under his deregulation, and he never negotiated with terrorist. He contracted Alzheimers 3 days after he left office and never ever had govbermint healthcare, oh did I mention he single-handidly brought down communism.
      Talk about cult of personality, and hero worship...Jezzz these authoritarians got it down!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
      3 13
      While Reagan might not have been correct about where doctors practice medicine, he did lay out some very important arguments.

      What is missing from this analysis is the cost for medicare. According to a report, medicare spending is far outstripping revenue.

      Medicare has six times the unfunded liability of Social Security. Some studies claim medicare debt will rise in the neighborhood of $32 trillion dollars over the next 65 years. Medicare will consume almost 80% of the nation's GDP by 2075.

      As of 2007, Medicare received 11 percent of federal non-entitlement tax dollars. By 2020, the program will receive one in five tax dollars. By 2030, Medicare will claim one in three dollars and by 2050, that number rises to one in every two tax dollars.

      You might as well realize that for intent and purpose, medicare is fundamentally insolvent. It spends more than it takes in and it will only get worse.

      So when arguing for another government funded health insurance program for Americans, ask yourself who will pay that bill in addition to the underfunded Medicare program?

      We know the answer, it will be you and me, and our children and our grandchildren.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
        2 8
        ps. These statistics I quoted were from an article titled:

        Study Claims Medicare Debt Will Rise $32.4 Trillion

        http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/278861/study_claims_medicare_debt_will_rise.html
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Obama '12 (August 17, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
        2  
        Decent points. Medicare was a good idea, but I think they forgot that the Baby Boomers would eventually put us in a lot of debt because there are so many of them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
          4  
          I think you should see this: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-times-real-reporter-dana-gould-town-hall
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
            2 12
            conger,

            I watched the first part. I must say that seeing that it was produced for Bill Maher makes me very suspect.

            First of all, those Obama/Hitler signs look like the ones used by Democratic plant at the John Dingal townhall meetings who later on was passing out Dingal campaign literature.

            Secondly, even though people lined up through the night to get free health care, it does not mean all of them did not have access to health care. I've seen people wait in line all night at a Best Buy to get a good deal. What is interesting is that this video shows how, when a service is free, how quickly the demand outstrips the supply.

            Full disclosure: However, when I saw Bill Maher, (a comedian,) I realized that this is another piece of edited leftist propaganda so did not continue. Thanks for link.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
              6 1
              Your hopeless,you could sit here and talk about people calling Obama a liar as democratic plants? Really!? some of the people there were LaRouche supporters it says so on their signs. As far as access yes some did have access to care and had insurance(something you would have heard if you watched the video) except their insurance didn't cover things like dental or eyecare, or maybe a high deductable. If you watch the video many had jobs,not well paying jobs so maybe the guy with the tooth abcess that needed extraction(cost Western Dental $300)whose insurance didn't cover it might want to try to get it for free instead of living in pain and eventually having that abcess turn his blood septic. Maybe the person with chest pains might want to wait inline for an ecg and cardiac work-up that is insurance wouldn't cover,or if no insurance he/she couldn't pay out-of pocket. Lets see to call EMS for a ride to the hospital $500. The 9 yr. old little girl who missed a day from school for free eye glasses should've just sat closer to the chalk-board right?
              The services that were provided free was from doctors and patient care givers who usually travel to third world countries to provide this care ;they were surprised to find this need right in California's largest city. But to you these people were waiting for a deal, just like they would get at best buy! You saw people trying to get something for free instead of in need and trying to make ends meet, that really is no surprise to me coming from someone who believes Joe McCarthy had a point.
              By the way Bill Maher is not a Democrat but a Libertarian!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 8:25 pm ET)
                1 5
                I did not say those people who called Obama a liar as Democratic plants so your objection is a straw man argument. If you look at my post, I referred to the signs I saw on the video.

                I don't blame anyone for trying to get in on free health care. We don't know what those people earned or what insurance they had. I found the part of the video I watched to be so slanted that if fell into the relm of propaganda. In my view it made the whole video suspect.

                (As an aside, the little girl only needed contact the Lions Club for help getting eye glasses.)

                We are getting off topic. I believe in health care reform. I simply disagree that the way to lower costs is for Obama and the government to take over health care and making it a another government program. It will increase costs rather than reduce them. I also think it will make for long waits, (like the type you described above), for everyone, not just the man with the toothache. I think Obamacare is unsubstainable in the long run and undermines the greatest health care system in the world, not to mention increasing the debt by trillions and increasing taxes.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  Too funny you allege something about the carriers of the signs(with no proof other than your instincts)and I point out that some of the signs had LaRouche name on them signaling their support for him and I'am creating strawmen? Anyway!
                  I believe that the moon is made up of cheeder cheese,reality is another. President Obama is not talking about a government takeover of the healthcare system. That is just another talking point given by those who don't want to see a public option. The CBO doesn't say that. Cost must be reduced and a public option is a way of doing this. I myself believe in single-payer but will accept a public option as a compromise. I think what is unsustainable is the status-quo. We rank 37th in the world in quality of care yet pay more than many other countries. So where paying more and receiving less. Medicare cost have risen slightly less than private insurance. But again this is not a government takeover of the healthcare system. But I tell you if we continue the status-quo as 14,000 people per/day continue to lose their insurance,and as healthcare premiums continue to rise for private insurance with bankruptcies due to medical bills rising and 18,000 people dying each year due to lack of insurance the government will be compelled to act and the cost will be even more.
                  Your rant on taxes and increasing debt is laughable. President Obama has proposed a way of paying for this proposal unlike President Bush who ran a war off the budget(lets see $trillion dollars and counting)and pushed through a prescription drug program with none of these conservatives wondering then how they were going to pay for it. Such is the way of hyprocrites. Playing politics with peoples lives. The truth is cons had a chance at reforming the system and left us with the present crisis,now they just want President Obama to fail. They want to do to him now what they couldn't accomplish last Nov. He ran on this issue and I intend to hold him to his promise. He/We won the election.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 18, 2009 8:27 am ET)
                    1 1
                    Don't you know democrats plant racism in Conservatives(republicans)hearts.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (August 18, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
                       
                    congero,

                    You can claim some of the signs were by LaRouch. That does not invalidate my comment that they look like the same signs used by Democratic operatives in Michigan.
                    Therefore your comment maybe interesting, but it is irrelevant to my comment.

                    I disagree that we rank 37th in the world in health care. The WHO methodology used to compile that ranking take into account socialized health care among other things. The U.S. ranks lower because it has not socialized it's healthcare system while Cuba ranks higher because it did.

                    Also the rankings are primarily based on longevity.
                    Many factors go into that statistic. Orientals seem to be genetically programmed to live longer. 5 out of the top 6 countries in longevity are in the Orient.

                    Also not taken into account are: Homicides, motor vehicle deaths, AIDS deaths, and drug induced deaths.
                    None of these have anything to do with health care, but do influence the mortality rate.

                    With regards to infant mortality. Different countries use different measuring sticks. The U.S. says if the infant draws one breath, it is considered an infant. Soviet Republic countries, for example Belarus and Russia, tend to exclude very small babies born alive, but with less that 28 weeks gestation and who die within seven days of birth.

                    Data for countries with less developed health care systems sometimes only count births that take place in hospitals and health centres.

                    In addition, the U.S. does a far better job keeping prenatal infants alive where in less developed countries they would die before birth.

                    The U.S. is first by a mile in responsiveness, which measures quality of health care and also ranks top in development of lifesaving drugs.

                    Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (August 17, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
              8 1
              I must say that seeing that it was produced for Bill Maher makes me very suspect.
              Full disclosure: However, when I saw Bill Maher, (a comedian,) I realized that this is another piece of edited leftist propaganda so did not continue.
              Excuse me, but aren't you the same person that puts up links from the Heritage Foundation, and then says "what part of it is false" when the accuracy of your source is questioned?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
                2 8
                Hi Brab,

                You make a point. However the difference is that Heritage Foundation is a respected organization (although few here,) and document their research.

                Bill Maher, on the other hand, is, IMHO, simply a comedian who found a shtick of attacking Bush, religion, and conservatives. You can see that the reporter is clearly playing to his audience

                As you can see, I already explained that I found enough in the "news" story that I found discrediting. I did not need to watch Maher and the reporter discuss what I consider to be a biased and edited report.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 17, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  Your humble opinion is subjective, though. If you can rationalize blowing off Maher because he's criticized Bush (and religion, really? Is Andrew Sullivan a rabid liberal or something?), then we can dismiss your sources the same way.

                  As you can see, I already explained that I found enough in the "news" story that I found discrediting.
                  First of all, those Obama/Hitler signs look like the ones used by Democratic plant at the John Dingal townhall meetings who later on was passing out Dingal campaign literature.
                  I did not say those people who called Obama a liar as Democratic plants...
                  Then your first point is meaningless. If you're not suggesting that they're plants, then it doesn't mean anything that one sign looks like another.
                  Secondly, even though people lined up through the night to get free health care, it does not mean all of them did not have access to health care.
                  We don't know what those people earned or what insurance they had.
                  And then you have no point there, either. All of them may have been without insurance, so your supposition is a meaningless diversion.

                  So no, you did not explain any such thing. You followed up the quotes in your other reply above with "I found the part of the video I watched to be so slanted that if fell into the relm of propaganda." That's entirely subjective, and the same line could be used regarding any citation of a partisan website, including one from the Heritage Foundation.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by phredicles (August 18, 2009 4:20 am ET)
                  1  
                  The Heritage Foundation? Respected? Only by right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
        4  
        You make a case for healthcare cost reform AA not one against Medicare. With ALL healthcare cost growing 5x that of wages "who" will be able to afford healthcare? Isn't that why we need to control cost and reduce it while at the same time induring greater access. At the present rate you and your children and their children won't be able to afford it unless of course your in the top 1% of the population. But then maybe you could tell us more stories about how McCarthy was right!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
          2 13
          We agree that we need to control healthcare costs.

          Adding 47 million presently without insurance to a government insurance program, of which millions will pay nothing, and at the same time encouraging many millions more to enroll, will more than offset any cost control. More people will want more health care because it will cost them nothing.

          The snark at the end only shows your ignorance about McCarthy's claims and subsequent proof (look up Venona Papers) of communist agents infiltrating the U.S. government. I invite you to check this link as a start:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
            6 1
            The 1st part is not the part I was concerned about. It was the 1500 people who waited in line for hours some even overnight for free healthcare. I suggest you watch it again. I could care less about the Obama haters at the start of the video.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (August 17, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
            5  
            So your point would be that if those 47 million people would just get off their duff and get a job, there wouldn't be a health insurance issue. If the costs get too high, just work more overtime.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 8:58 pm ET)
              1 5
              bilbo,
              From the Financial Conservative:

              Ok. 47 Million uninsured. That’s a pretty big number to breakdown… amazingly it will only take me 5 lines

              18 M – Make $50,000 a year… OUT

              12.6 M – Not Citizens… OUT

              8 M – Under age of 18… OUT

              4 M – 18-20 years of Age… OUT

              4.4 M Are left

              There is no free lunch. People work overtime all the time to pay bills. I do so for family dental bills and physical therapy that is over and above what my insurance covers.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 9:00 pm ET)
                1 5
                ps. see http://thefinancialconservative.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/47-million-uninsured-is-a-myth/
                Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (August 17, 2009 10:38 pm ET)
                6  
                There is no free lunch

                Try saying that to the 18,000 people who die each year due to lack of health care coverage.

                Oh, that's right, they won't be able to hear you, because they're DEAD.

                And while you're at it you could send post cards of condolence to the 1,000,000 people who will file bankruptcy this year due to health care costs.

                As always, AA, you receive a free bumper sticker:

                PROFITS OVER PEOPLE
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 17, 2009 11:33 pm ET)
                  5  
                  And if you can't trust The Financial Conservative for information who can you trust? (Question not directed at AA, who has previously referred to The Heritage Foundation as a "respected organization". Har.)

                  I like that breakdown,it's one of my favorite right wing propaganda bits lately.First let's eliminate everybody under 20, because they never have any health problems, apparently.

                  I'm not sure who's proposing insuring non-citizens, but eliminating wouldn't make any sense without knowing how it would compare to emergency room treatment that we're paying for now.

                  My favorite part , which I've heard from several right wingers, is eliminating those who make 50k plus.A great example of Republican doubletalk;

                  When it comes to taxes, those making a quarter million are just squeaking by, and can't take the burden of (slightly) higher taxes.

                  But when the subject is health care, suddenly those making 1/5 of that 250k are rolling in disposable income.

                  Who says conservatives aren't flexible?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jonesjax2374 (August 18, 2009 12:07 am ET)
                    2 1
                    Colonel you're my favorite blogger. Thanks for posting. It might be also useful to know that someone making 50K, say, only gets 1500/yr in dental. Thats ONE catastrophe, btw. That's not even counting other health issues.

                    The RR worship has GOT to stop - its just too hilariously wrong. Its like SLEEPER - when you wake up and realize cigs and booze and sugar are really good for you.

                    RR is also famous for suggesting that the BANCROFT LIBRARY (host of Mark Twain and other apparently UNAMERICAN "PROGRESSIVE" writers) should sell rare books because nobody reads them, after all. Brilliant man. Greatest President. LOL!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 18, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
                         
                      Well thanks, but I think a blogger is somebody who actually has their own blog. I'm just another goofball posting comments on a website.

                      I know you're making the point that somebody around average income probably doesn't have real comprehensive coverage (whether on their own or through work), but the GOP talking point is that anybody making 50k should not be counted among the uninsured because they're so wealthy.They can obviously afford it, they just don't want health care.

                      I think it just shows how out of ideas the wingnuts are. Their best argument against reforming healthcare seems to be trying to minimize the number of people who are uninsured. Not by insuring them, but by not counting them.

                      Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
            4  
            AA that was no snark at the end it was the truth. It was not against the law to be a Communist in the USA just as it isn't against the law for you spout some BS about McCarthy the tail-gunner having a point. He ruined the lives of many people with his "red-scare", and he died deservidly in shame. Very telling that you would try to resurrect him.
            President Obama has proposed a way of paying for his plan unlike Bush who got us into a war in Iraq without even putting it in the budget, and started the Medicare prescription drug plan without a way to pay for it. You may not agree with Obamas plan but at least he explained how he would PAY FOR IT!
            Hey I got one for you : "Did you hear the one about the guy driving up to the soup line with his wife and kids in a 2009 Cadillac...The nerve...see what happens when you give people something for nothing! <sarcasm>
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 8:41 pm ET)
              1 5
              conger,

              It was a snark because it had nothing to do with the issue. I never said it was against the law to be a communist. I only pointed out to you again, that McCarthy was correct. You have not proven me wrong. All in all, I think you are conflating McCarthy with the House Unamerican Activitites Committee.

              Apparently you did not read the link on the Venona files. Here is an excerpt: "To what extent any given individual named in the Venona papers was actually involved with Soviet intelligence is a topic of dispute. While a number of academics and historians assert that most of the individuals mentioned in the Venona papers were likely either clandestine assets and/or contacts of Soviet intelligence."

              WE are in agreement that Bush should have added the Iraq war to the Budget. However he is not alone in guilt. There were a number of Democrats who went along with him, including our present Secretary of State. I also agree with you about the medicare drug program.

              As best as I can tell, Obama has not realistically explained how he would pay for the shortfall in his health care insurance as calculated by the CBO. At best, he comes up billions of dollars short. One of the proposals is to rob Medicare to pay for the insurance. I've seen him deny that would be the case. Perhaps you have something current that shows how he intends Obama care to be cost neutral?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (August 17, 2009 10:50 pm ET)
                4 1
                AA I don't have to prove you wrong. History has!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (August 17, 2009 11:06 pm ET)
                4  
                McCARTHY was a fearmongering idiot. For every communist he found he ruined approximately 50 INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES during his gestapolike rampage.Check upon the HOUSE and SENATE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITES COMMETTIES.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (August 18, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
                     
                  hurricane,

                  You need are mistaken. There was only the House UnAmerican Committee.

                  Do you have any proof that McCarthy ruined 50 innocent American lives for every Communist he found?

                  ps. One doesn't have to like McCarthy or his tactics to realize he was correct.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (August 18, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
                       
                    You really look foolish trying to defend a scoundrel like McCarthy. Your on the wrong side of history.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (August 18, 2009 9:03 am ET)
             
          But then maybe you could tell us more stories about how McCarthy was right!


          Maybe you should do a wee bit of research. AA pointed out the Venona Papers are a good start.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (August 18, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
               
            That boat has sailed...Histories verdict is in no matter how much you try to white wash it. Joe "tail Gunner" McCarthy and his main man Roy Cohn died angry,and as scorned and disgraced men for what they did to peoples lives in their mad witch hunt for "reds". Have you no shame ?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (August 17, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
        3 1
        AA,

        You right about one thing... at this point the smartest thing for the Democrats to do is to vote down the pathetically watered down version that the public option has become because of the Republican whores and spineless Democrats and instead...

        Combine Medicare and Medicaid and then expand it to each and every American that wants to join in on it... do not make it mandatory, but a true public option of a system that already exists!

        Based on the numbers I have seen, it would cost roughly $1200 a year for a family of 5 to be fully covered by the already existing system... that $1200 would come out of each parents paycheck based on the poverty level and sliding scale based on needed funds to survive.

        Medicare and Medicaid are not perfect... but I think even you can agree that a simply expansion of that which exists already would be a smarter and better idea than creating a new watered down bureaucracy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (August 17, 2009 9:06 pm ET)
          2 2
          Capt.
          Your descriptions not withstanding, we are in general agreement. I would be in favor of tax breaks for the purpose of purchasing healthcare insurance as yet another althernative to government run health insurance.

          Although I have issues with medicare funding, (it is underfunded by trillions,) I like your idea better than the ones proposed by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (August 17, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
            4  
            I would be in favor of tax breaks for the purpose of purchasing healthcare insurance as yet another althernative to government run health insurance.
            Of course, that doesn't address the fact that many people can't get covered because of pre-existing conditions. I also thought it was sort of common on the right to say that poor people don't pay any taxes. So where would that tax break come from? Either poor people don't get covered, or the government would have to pony up to do it.

            Additionally, it doesn't address one of my pet causes here;people get fired from jobs because they cost companies healthcare money. That makes the pre-existing condition aspect more prevalent, and also raises the question of how those people will pay for coverage until they get another job. Life doesn't always coincide with tax season.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (August 18, 2009 9:12 am ET)
                1
              people get fired from jobs because they cost companies healthcare money.


              OK, pony up and show some data on this. I'm fairly sure this is illegal, so there should be legal records if this is happening with the frequency you imply.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 18, 2009 10:43 am ET)
                3  
                My father got fired after having heart surgery, while having a stellar work record. They claimed they were eliminating his job, but then hired several younger people to do that job. He was able to sue for age discrimination, but the legality of firing for health reasons wasn't specifically addressed.

                In the state I live in, you can get fired without just cause anyway, because they're "at will" employers. My wife got fired for not doing something illegal that she was ordered to do in the course of her job. No legal recourse was available for that, and trust me when I say she's the type of person to pursue it.

                How do you prove what the motivation was in a court of law? Obviously they're not going to list "health problems" as the reason for termination, since they can always come up with some other phony justification. Now, if two people that I happen to know are two of the handful of people that this has ever happened to in this country, then I apologize and withdraw the point. Somehow, I doubt that's the case.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Happens all the time. What you do is eliminate the position and then you are covered legally. Then you create essentially the same position under a different title. I have seen it many times.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by jmille426471 (August 18, 2009 6:13 am ET)
        1  
        AA, have you ever considered examining the cost of private insurance in this country? Those costs have been rising FASTER than medicare for quite some time. This despite the fact that the monopolistic insurance kings serve a healthier, slower growing population and save an awful lot of money by denying coverage and rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. It doesn't matter that those costs arent borne by the tax-payer, they are slowly strangling our economy in a number of ways.

        What we have is a healthcare crisis, not a medicare crisis.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (August 17, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
      4 3
      REGAN was completely wrong about MEDICARE. His fearmongering didnt jive with the end results.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tallrugger (August 18, 2009 4:43 am ET)
         
      To All,

      I have listened to President Ronald Reagan's remarks from 1961 about the dangers of socialized medicine then, and I have analyzed them in the now. His remarks are just as fitting today as they were almost 50 years ago. Very scary.

      And if you don't have the intellectual honesty and integrity to at least admit that such argument at least has MERIT, then you pigeon-hole YOURSELF into one of the following categories:

      1. Those who seek to advance an agenda, regardless of right or wrong, OR

      2. Those who have someone else's agenda foisted upon them and are not capable or unwilling to judge for themselves the intellectual merits of such agenda.

      Which is it?

      Which leaves all who respond bound to one of 3 options (listed alphabetically so as not to confuse):

      A. Those who will advance arguments based on MERIT and not slur nor baseless indignation.

      B. See 1 above.

      C. See 2 above.

      I guess that's about it. Might be a bit of a challenge in this crowd. ;)

      Regards,

      Neal

      P.S. At least put a real first name with your post, or don't post.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (August 18, 2009 5:42 am ET)
        2
      Not sure what relevance Ronald Reagan has to anything in today's world. Believe it or not, I actually liked Nixon more than Reagan. Atleast with Nixon you knew who you were dealing with. Reagan would "act" like he was Mr. Cowboy but screwed a lot of things up for a lot of people.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.