November 02, 2009

Bachmann: Storm the Gates

Firebrand Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is mad as Hell, and she doesn't want you to take it from Congress any more.

"The American people spoke loud and clear at town hall meetings all across the country throughout August. But, it would appear that Congress didn't hear a word they had to say. The Democrats' latest health care proposal unveiled late last week may be packaged a little differently, but its the same old bad bill as before.

"This bill is a trillion-dollar, budget-busting, government takeover of our health care system. It will put bureaucrats between people and their health care. It will lead to rationed care, hurting the most vulnerable amongst us first. It will break the bank, leaving our children to pay the bill with diminished freedoms and dwindling prosperity.

"The American people need to stand up again and make sure that Congress hears them this time. Speaker Pelosi is putting her bill on fast track to a vote and it remains to be seen if the House will even get a chance to vote on the commonsense Republican alternatives. The people need to make a House Call on Washington this week and tell their Representatives to vote no to a government take-over of one-fifth of our economy. This is gangster government at its worst.

"I urge all Americans to come to Washington this Thursday. Come and meet up with your Representative and tell them that you want to control your health care."

"Gangster government at its worst."

That's putting it mildly.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 2, 2009 11:09 PM

I am 67 years old and this is the first time, I have really feared for my country. Obama brought a strange dis-ease into the WH. I hope we can purge it before it spreads. It is like a cancer with tentacles reaching out to grasp ever part of our nation and squeeze it to death.

Posted by: eveh at November 3, 2009 12:24 AM

It's pretty funny how you guys call it tyranny whenever the majority of Americans have different opinions than your own.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 02:20 AM


A majority of Americans are AGAINST ObamaCare. I just re-read Bachmann's remarks and didnt see the word tyranny used anywhere.

Posted by: Mick Kraut at November 3, 2009 07:53 AM


Do you understand that once the government becomes responsible for your healthcare they will regulate and control every aspect of your life that could have an impact on your health?

In other words the federal government will regulate and control every aspect of your life.

Tyranny sounds like a fairly apt description. That any percentage of the population thinks it's a swell idea doesn't change that fact.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at November 3, 2009 08:12 AM

Mick, if you add the people who like the current bill to the people who think it doesn't go far enough towards reform I think you'll find a majority, or at least plurality.

Stephen, do you understand that a public option does not equal governmental control of your health care much less control of every aspect of your life that could impact ones health? Besides, people sure seem to like Medicare.

The overblown fear-mongering reminds me of the response some folks on the left had to The Patriot Act. The sky is always falling! :)

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 09:04 AM


The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's down from 45% a week ago but unchanged from two weeks ago.

Fifty-four percent (54%) now oppose the legislative effort, up three points since last week.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of liberals support the plan, but just 18% of conservatives agree.

Only 23% of all voters Strongly Support the plan while nearly twice as man (44%) are Strongly Opposed.

As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 69% of those in the president's party. The plan is opposed by 80% of Republicans and a plurality (48%) of unaffiliated voters.

Almost twice as many are strongly opposed as strongly favor government-rationed health care.

We ARE the majority.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2009 09:05 AM

I knew you'd run to Rasmussen!

You didn't address the fact that a healthy percentage of those who oppose the plan do so because they don't think it goes far enough. You can use all caps all you like but it doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 09:17 AM

If conservatives are organizing in Iowa to send pork-loving Grassley home, we can send them all home. Time to reboot this government.

Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 3, 2009 09:22 AM


Link please. Where are all of these people who oppose because it doesnt go far enough? If it is a fact to be addressed then produce the data.

And if you have an issue with Rasmussen here is an amalgam of polls...

People may well want what they consider to be "reform" but I think it is clear that they dont want this...they dont want a government takeover. That isnt fearmongering.

Posted by: Mick Kraut at November 3, 2009 09:38 AM

Mick, I know you've seen dozens of polls showing 60-70% support for a public option or even single payer system. Those are the people who want the current bills to go farther.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 09:48 AM


No I have not seen "dozens of polls" showing support for a single payer system or the public option.

I am sure that any population wanting public option or single payer systemes would indeed want the bills to go further, I just challenge the 60%-70% number you are presenting.

The fact that there have been no links provided by you lead me to believe that there arent any recent polls reflecting this data.

If there were I have to think that the Conyers bill would be flying through the congress. With 70% approval on the issue and complete control of the legislative and executive branches would make passage easier than falling down for the administration.

The fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid havent passed something now is a direct reflection on how unpopular the idea is. The Republicans cannot stop them. Why havent the run something through and declared victory yet?

Posted by: Mick Kraut at November 3, 2009 10:51 AM


You say the public option doesn't represent total control of the health care industry in one breath and then in the other you claim that there are large percentages of the population who feel the current proposals - all of of which include the public option - don't go far enough?

How far do you think these people want to go?

The stated goal of many on the left - including the president - is a single-payer government run system of healthcare.

We are already half-way to socialized medicine and it doesn't matter to me if they are only trying to get to 3/4 socialized medicine with the current bills. They are going the wrong way.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at November 3, 2009 11:02 AM

I like the way you make a statement of fact when you clearly don't have any idea as to what you are talking about.

Fact, most people hate medicare and medicaid. The fact is they don't have a choice. Insurance companies are not allowed to compete for their dollar, even if they wanted to. Doctors find the system does not pay anything and is approaching levels at which they can not make a profit. Cardiovascular surgeons have been drived out of business due to targeted price reductions in the cardiology area, cardiologist are not far behind. Hospitals are being put out of business by medicare. This has to do with the very poor reimbursements not competitive action.

If you don't think that single payor is socialized medicine, then you are in sad shape. The reason that a larger percent of people don't oppose the bill is they don't understand it. Once they do, things will not be nice.

Posted by: David at November 3, 2009 11:42 AM

Jim, how do you propose to solve the bankruptcy crises facing Medicare? What makes you feel the government option will not also bankrupt itself? Considering the debt crises the USA now has does it make sense to add to it?

One of the Democrats main issues with the present health care system is it's cost. Why then are they proposing to increase taxes to pay for their health care bill if one issue is its cost?

Why drastically change a system when ALL polls show 80% of the people are satisfied with their present health care and insurance? If you were in business, would you fundamentally change your business plan if 80% of your customers were satisfied or would you fine tune your business plan instead?

Posted by: Rick at November 3, 2009 12:28 PM

Sorry guys, I thought the public option numbers were common knowledge, here are a few recent polls:

Rassmussen: 57% for the public option

Quinnipiac 61%-34% for a public option

CBS 62%-31% for a public option

Doctors support a public option over private only by 73%-27%.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 12:35 PM

And people, again my point wasn't to try and argue the merits of private insurance vs a public option vs single payer with you guys, I understand we're on opposite sides of the issue.

My point is that like it or not, the public option has majority popular support, which makes politicians voting for it something more like democracy in action than tyranny. Votes and voters matter. You ARE NOT the majority. ;)

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 12:54 PM

Oh, Jim, do you ever tire of childish games?

Of course the majority of Americans would prefer that their fellow citizens obtain health insurance... few of us are monsters.

But there is a world of difference between a general desire for greater health care coverage and the merits of a specific proposal (or raft of proposals), a fact that was noted when Hillarycare was proposed that remains unchanged.

The number of people who strong favor this current proposal by radical Democrats is a distinct minority (almost half) when compared to those strongly aligned against it.

Americans generally agree that the system should be reformed, but we overwhelmingly reject the monstrosity that the Democrats have attempted to use as a weapon against capitalism.

Now, do you understand the difference between accepting a concept, and rejecting a flawed implementation of that concept, or do you need that difference explained to you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2009 01:00 PM

Bob, you're the one playing games, 60-40% in favor of a public option, not "that their fellow citizens obtain health insurance" or "a general desire for greater health coverage". A public option.

The current proposal isn't at all radical, it's full of hedges to try and get Blue Dog support and a lone Republican. If it were radical, like a true public option without opt outs and triggers, it would have the same 60% support.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 01:07 PM

Jim, I asked you 6 questions and would enjoy your answers.

Posted by: Rick at November 3, 2009 01:45 PM

Jim, you're trying to be cute (or are simply obtuse), but no one is going to fall for your word play.

You attempt to conflate support for a vague general sentiment of support for a concept into support for a flawed bit of legislation, and it just isn't honest, only any level.

The number of Americans strongly opposed to the current bills collectively known as "Obamacare" outnumber those strongly in support of it by almost 2-1. Period. End of story. Those are the objective facts.

Quit trying to mislead people by citing a poll that measures "A" and claiming it supports "B", or you will be banned from this site.

Is that perfectly clear?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2009 01:48 PM

Bob you take the result of one poll, which yes says a majority of Americans do not like the current bills in the Senate and House -- note they are two very different bills so it's even less clear what people like and don't like about them -- and try and claim that is the same thing as support for the paragraph from Bachmann, or support for your own views on health care -- it isn't.

Yes you and Bachmann are angry, so are a lot of other people -- but not for the same reasons and if we steer closer to democracy than tyranny we would end up with a more radical bill. OK?
What is more important Bob, whether the public dislikes a bill (or parts of two bills), or why they dislike a bill ? I'm suggesting the why part matters more, and the evidence that points to what those reasons are does not support your take on the issue.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 02:04 PM

Jim, OK, I can assume my questions are not important enough for your response. However, I can also presume you recognize the answers would illustrate in reality you should be opposed to the "Obamacare" proposals.

Posted by: Rick at November 3, 2009 02:28 PM

Rick I'm sorry but I don't want to spend all day writing answers to a list of questions from you and others. It's a blog, I commented on the initial post, and tried to explain my comment, I did not sign up to host a lecture series. :)

But no, I'm not a big fan of the current proposals, I'd favor a single payer system where our health care dollars go to Drs, nurses, and hospitals, not insurance companies. Which brings us full circle. If we're going to storm the Hill to get a Bill the people want, it's not going to be a Bill you, CY, and Michelle like.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 02:32 PM

Jim, it will only take a few minutes, not all day!

Posted by: Rick at November 3, 2009 02:39 PM

It takes all day when you have to fabricate information.

Posted by: MANstreammedia at November 3, 2009 02:51 PM

Rick answers usually take a lot longer to write than questions.

For example here's a couple for you guys:

Which protest of the Medicare D expansion, did you attend and/or support? If you did not protest the bill what did you like best about it?

Did you agree with Cantor's vote, why, why not? How about Boehner and DeLay?

What impressed you most as fiscal conservatives about the funding mechanisms provided for in that bill?

Assuming you want Medicare/Medicaid scrapped, how do you propose covering the seniors and poor who currently receive those benefits, and how will that coverage get paid for?

And so forth...

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 03:48 PM

Your stats are suspect. You indicated 73% support from physicians. I eat lunch with a room full of doctors in different cities every day and have never met one of these doctors who support socialized medicine. The only ones in my area that favor the public option are those at the medical school as they know nothing of medical economics and are hard leftist. You might wonder why doctors are against the federal government taking over our health. That is because many have trained in government run hospitals and know the evils. They are not going to tolerate that system taking care of their families, much less their patients. They know that medicare and medicaid are broke as is our country and that the cost of these programs is beyond comprehension. So get real and get substantial stats if you are going to argue the issue. As it is, the concept is tearing the country apart and that would actually be a good thing.

Posted by: David at November 3, 2009 03:48 PM

Jim, I'm happy you oppose "Obamacare" and agree to fine tune a system that 80% of the people are satisfied with rather than fundamentally changing it.

Welcome aboard!!

Posted by: Rick at November 3, 2009 04:00 PM


I referenced a survey that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, you are referencing conversations you've had over lunch. I understand not all Dr.s think alike, but seriously, my stats are suspect?!? :)

I will give you this one for free, the AMA is against a public option just as I believe they were against the evils of Medicare. You know, the same Medicate Bachmann (suddenly) wants to protect.

Posted by: Jim at November 3, 2009 05:15 PM

"The American people spoke loud and clear at town hall meetings all across the country throughout August."

Yeah, but more Americans spoke even louder last November.

It's weird that you guys didn't notice that.

Posted by: salvage at November 3, 2009 05:24 PM

"Yeah, but more Americans spoke even louder last November"

That was November 2008, but August was 2009.

Posted by: Rick at November 3, 2009 06:11 PM

When you read medical material, you have to have a certain amount of critical analysis. The great New England Journal is about a biased as the New York Times. I would certainly not quote them on issues of this nature and I am very careful on general medical issues. My analysis is far superior. But I really don't care. I sense you are somewhat young. If this passes you will not be very happy in a few years. I will be ok, except for the enormous taxes and the ruin to the economy. As to the AMA, who care what they think? They only represent 30% of doctors and even those don't give them much concern. They are basically a bunch of older doctors that have never really had much of a practice. That is how they have time for the meetings.

As to your reference to medicare, it is a disaster. That is why they are trying to pass this measure. Medicare and medicaid are the primary reasons for the high cost of medical care.

But it seems that all you want to do is argue and are not really interested in learning anything.

Posted by: David at November 3, 2009 08:17 PM

I actually found your NEJM reference. I can't believe you sited this. First, it was AMA physicians. Only 2100 people responded to the survey. It is clear that the questions where arranged in a manner to assure a positive response to the public options. In short, it was a set up. If you are going to site articles, at least try to critique the material.

Posted by: David at November 3, 2009 08:50 PM

Dear David,

Again, you are citing...people you've overheard at lunch. A far superior analysis indeed. What pray tell is their favorite flavor of jello?

And not to be too mean, but can you read? The AMA, whatever it's strengths and weaknesses may be as an organization, is on your side in this, they are dead set against a public option.

In short, please pass the salt.

Posted by: Jim at November 4, 2009 01:33 AM

No jim, the AMA has come out for public option. I am suspecious of your ability to analyse data and the underlying meaning of issues. The use of the NEMJ article is a classic example.

Posted by: David at November 4, 2009 11:18 AM

How much does Jim plan on spending for new federal prisons to incarcerate those who flat out refuse to pay the fines for non-participation?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 5, 2009 12:33 PM

the AMA has come out for public option.

And only 20% of practicing doctors are AMA members.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 5, 2009 12:35 PM