Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Peter Roskam: Why I Voted To Repeal Job-Killing ObamaCare (UPDATED x2)

Roskam is pretty calm, cool and collected... and civil... in the video.

In contrast, the Dems compare Republicans to Nazis. Nice.

UPDATED: Here's House Speaker John Boehner:

UPDATED x2 1/21/11 7:00 a.m.: Looks like Congressman Steve Cohen is trying to back away from his remarks, noted above, comparing Republicans to Nazis. Guess he didn't get the civility memo.

What IS it with Democrats who seem to have to keep invoking Hitler and the Nazis to try to promote their agenda. Do Dems know how to do anything except call names anymore? They need to review the principle of Reductio ad Hitlerum.


Anonymous said...

A political stunt that was a waste of time. As Americans learn more about the Affordable Health Care Act, the more they like it. Polls from every faction are showing that shift. It was reported last night that only 18% of Americans want a complete repeal. It has never been perfect, but it is a start!
Drive a car - Insurance a law
Own a home, can't get a mortgage without Insurance
Pursuing our right to Life (Declaration of Independence) cannot be achieved if we don't have a way to see a healthcare provider from time to time.

Rob_N said...


Claiming the reform act "kills" jobs is civil?

At least Cantor had the sense to change that GOP lie to "job-destroying".

Lie? Yes. The Congressional Budget Office says the reform will actually SAVE hundreds of thousands of jobs. I note that Republicans are only too happy to quote when they like the CBO's stats.

By the way, only 18% of Americans now oppose Obama's Healthcare Reform according to a recent ABC/WaPo poll -- so my civil GOP friends please keep calling it Obamacare.

Anonymous said...

Steve Cohen is a jerk. And where is Minority Leader Pelosi's voice in telling him to keep his stupidity to himself. How anyone can stand on the Floor of the US House and say what he said is beyond moronic.
And to Rob N, Obamacare has little to do with healthcare reform. The Democrats refuse to discuss Medical Liability Reform which surely can help lower healthcare costs. While I strongly hope that we can provide basic healthcare to all American citizens, what was shoved down our throats in the Pelosi/Reid Bill doesn't come close. When Pelosi said, ignorantly, that the Bill had to pass so that we'd know what it contained, that said it all. That's chutzpah, and that's also not very bright. Because that 'dynamic duo" refused to work in a bi-partisan manner in crafting that Bill it's no wonder we have MANY Americans not happy, not having the benefits promised. Many of the promises in the flawed Bill won't even be in effect until 2014. Let's hope that the 112th Congress can and WILL work across party lines to tweak the Bill so that real reform does emerge, real healthcare reform that benefits the American public without further bankrupting our federal budget can be presented. This should not be a Democrat or Republican owned Bill. This should be a Bill crafted by BOTH parties so that we all are winners. Haven't we had enough of partisanship. There are great ideas on both sides of the aisle but unless we encourage this in our elected officials it will be the same old, same old all over again and nobody wins.

Rob_N said...

Anon 8:44,

The law that ends discrimination against the sick and hurt and that leads to free market reforms like insurance exchanges has "little to do with healthcare reform"?

I'm curious if you've actually read the law or if you're just going off what partisan conservative pundits have claimed about the law.

I agree Rep. Cohen's remarks were over the top, but saying the Republicans are following The Big Lie model of propaganda isn't that far off the mark (without having to bring up historical figures who have proven how it works in the past, to diabolical effect).

To wit, you yourself bring up "The Democrats refuse to discuss Medical Liability Reform which surely can help lower healthcare costs."

This in and of itself is part of the conservatives' Big Lie theory on healthcare reform.

Medical Liability total -- all the malpractice insurance costs, all the lawyers' fees, all the preventive/investigative medical testing, etc. -- only contributes to something like 5% of overall healthcare costs in this country.

Technically, if we were able to reduce that 5% we would be able to "lower costs".

And I even agree we can look into how to better regulate the malpractice insurance industry as Democrats have indeed proposed (popping another lie of yours -- that Dems "refuse" to discuss liability reform).

But where I draw the line in the sand is at allowing doctors, hospitals and others in authority to get away with unscrupulous or negligent behavior which is the direct effect of the Republicans' proposals including now Senator Kirk's proposal from the last Congressional session when he was in the House.

We ought not to give negligence an unfair advantage against regular folks who have been harmed by said negligence.

Did you know that an outsized portion of all medical malpractice comes at the hands of a very few doctors who, for whatever reasons, are sometimes still allowed to practice medicine?

Dealing with such doctors would be a quick and dramatic way to reduce malpractice claims which would in turn eventually reduce medical liability costs.

Why don't conservatives discuss these sorts of common sense proposals instead of immediately jumping to the defense of big business (ie, medical conglomerates)?

PS: Only 18% of Americans are opposed to "Obamacare" (which was actually Bob Dole-care and Mitt Romney-care, no Democrats they).

Bursts another of the conservatives' "Big Lies" on healthcare reform (ie, that America opposes what the Dems did after the GOP refused to help craft the bill in any way shape or form).

Anonymous said...

Actually Rob, the 5% figure you quote concerning the overall costs of malpractice liability upon the total health care dollar is way too high. The total cost of liability related medical expenses, including attorneys fees, court and discovery costs is actually in the range of between 1 and 1.7%.

But Nevada is perhaps the best argument that draconian medical malpractice liability limits reduce the cost of both treatment and malpractice insurance. With a limit of $75,000 for non economic damages, Nevada still has the most expensive emergency room treatment cost in the country. In the four years after the med/mal limits were imposed, liability rates for physicians actually increased. And while their incredibly goofy GOP governor Gibbons at the time touted the increase in registered physicians in Nevada in the year following the med/mal 'reform' package as proof it was working, the number of licensed physicians there has actually dropped 20% in the past five years.

This whole 'liability reform' issue is a red herring, a buzz-word driven effort with little or no beneficial effect for the patient.

Anonymous said...

I personally think the civility debate is overblown as I noted in my earlier comments on this lets sit together at the state of the union thing. the media needs a new way to talk about sarah palin with congress out of session (they are almost as obsessed with her as catlady is with mark).

As for real issues, I would love to see as many republicans as possible win municipal elections this year with the hopes of spinning them into state senate/house candidates by 2012/14 so they can go down there and clean house.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Team America said...

Drive-by attacks on other commenters will be removed by management.

Anonymous said...

Except, of course, if they're from your buddy, Bees.

And why isn't 'foklaes' also saddled with Bees' tastelessly immature "sackless" moniker? This commenter, foklaes, is, to the casual reader, also anonymous.