CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

OP-ED | GOP Opposition To Obamacare Baffles Former HHS Secretary

by | Mar 31, 2014 3:00pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Health Care, Opinion, Health Care Opinion, Reprinted with permission from the Center for Public Integrity

Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, Who Served As HHS Secretary Under President George H.W. Bush, Says Affordable Care Act Resembles Plan Crafted By Republicans In Early 1990s

The Republican leadership’s intense opposition to the Affordable Care Act clearly baffles — and disappoints — one of the party’s most admired figures, former Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Louis W. Sullivan.

Speaking at the opening session of the Association of Health Care Journalists 2014 conference in Denver last Thursday, Sullivan, the former president of the Morehouse School of Medicine who served as HHS Secretary during the George H. W. Bush administration, noted that many of the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act are based on the reform proposals he and other Republicans crafted more than two decades ago.

“Many of the features of the Affordable Care Act are part of what we proposed back in 1991,” he said, mentioning in particular the individual mandate. That provision — the requirement that Americans enroll in a private health insurance plan if they are not eligible for a government program like Medicare or Medicaid — is among the most vilified by today’s GOP.

NIH “If they were supportive of it then, why are they so opposed to it now?” he asked.

This was not the first time Sullivan has expressed support for the concepts behind the reform law.

“If implemented the way it should be, (the law) will result in more people having access to health insurance, and improve the health status of our citizens,” Sullivan told the Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser last September.

In another interview with the Anniston (Ala.) Star in November he stated unequivocally, “I’m for the Affordable Care Act.” He added, “It’s an imperfect bill and has a number of things that need to be addressed, but rather than working to try to dismantle it, we should work to improve it.”

He went on to say that the plan he developed in 1991 with help and support from other Republicans — including those who are leading the charge against Obamacare today — “had the similar concept of the health insurance exchange.” That plan also would have provided subsidies to help low-income individuals and families afford coverage, just as the Affordable Care Act does.

“But now the Republican Party is attacking the same concept,” he said. “I’m not for that kind of political one-upmanship.”

Sullivan is especially dismayed that so many Republican governors, including Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia, where Sullivan was born and still lives, have refused to expand the Medicaid program to bring more low-incomes individuals and families into coverage, as the Affordable Care Act makes possible.

Deal has said expanding Medicaid “is something our state cannot afford,” even with the federal government paying 100 percent of the cost of expansion during the first three years and 90 percent after that.

“I think it is probably unrealistic to expect that promise to be fulfilled in the long term, simply because of the financial status that the federal government is in,” Deal said during the Republican National Convention in Tampa in 2012.

Sullivan told the journalists Thursday that, in his view, Georgia can’t afford not to expand Medicaid.

Not only would the expansion bring hundreds of thousands of Georgians into coverage, the millions of dollars the federal government would send to the Peach State “would be in circulation” in the state, he said. That money, he added, would help pay the salaries of nurses and other health care providers and help keep the doors open at big public hospitals like Atlanta’s Grady Memorial. 

Since Sullivan’s tenure as Secretary of Health and Human Services ended in 1993, he has remained active in efforts to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care disparities among people of color. Honored by the Republican National Committee in February — Black History Month — as one of three GOP “trailblazers” (along with former Assistant Secretary of Labor William Brooks and former Ohio Supreme Court Judge Sara J. Harper), he now heads the Sullivan Alliance to Transform the Health Professions.

The goal of the Alliance, according to its website, is to “provide the focused leadership, deep commitment, and sustainable efforts that will result in the addition to our nation’s workforce of more well-trained health professionals from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.”

Among the areas most in need of an expanded workforce, Sullivan says, is oral health. In an op-ed in The New York Times in April 2012, Sullivan called on more states to follow Alaska and Minnesota’s lead in passing legislation to allow mid-level dental professionals to treat patients, especially in areas where few dentists practice.

Sullivan, who turned 80 last November, is showing no signs of slowing down. The country would be well served if politicians on both sides of the aisle would follow behind the trail he continues to blaze to improve the health of all Americans.

Former CIGNA executive-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter is writing about the health care industry and the ongoing battle for health reform for the Center for Public Integrity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(49) Archived Comments

posted by: Joebigjoe | March 31, 2014  7:24pm

This guy sounds like a General Colin Powell type person.

Wendall why not do a piece on what another doctor thinks of this? Dr. Ben Carson.

Maybe he’ll talk to you when he isnt busy with defending his first ever IRS audit which magically occurred when he decided to speak out against Obamacare with Obama three feet away from him.

The fact is that the Rand Corporation is saying that only 1/3rd of the people who have signed up for Obamacare had no insurance beforehand. I wonder how many of those signed up and havent paid a premium?

posted by: GBear423 | April 1, 2014  7:52am


Q: “If they (GOP) were supportive of it then, why are they so opposed to it now?” he asked.

A: Constitutional Movement:  Low/Less taxes, a smaller, efficient Government and less intrusion into Citizens lives. It is reforming the GOP. Which needs to be done, Let the Democrats be the Big Government Party, Republicans need to be the Freedom from mandates and regulation alternative.

Dr Ben Carson needs to be the next HHS Secretary, if not a higher position!

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 1, 2014  8:19am

I just read that Obamacare has only provided coverage to 1.7% of the uninsured and the NY Times is saying that out of the 7 million number that 20% of them havent paid premiums and a number of the 7 million are double counted in the system for various reasons.

Harry Reid has the gall to stand up in front of the Senate and say that the stories of people having problems because of Obamacare are lies but there are stories every day in the media of people whose lives will be devastated because of this law.

posted by: Politijoe | April 2, 2014  12:06am


The bottom line on healthcare reform is that our current system costs more, provides less and still doesn’t insure all of its citizens. Simply based on these economic principals, the ACA, which is modeled after a Republican plan addresses these challenges and in the case of the Commonwealth plan (Rommneycare) has been a success. Therefore your opposition certainly cannot be directed at the fiscal soundness of healthcare reform or the uncertainty of its success. What remains is simply an unfounded and unarticulated fear of big government intrusion.

The problem is the obvious contradictions in your position. Government already intrudes on a womans right to choose, traditional marriage, end of life and a host of other norms we apply to a civilized society. This anti-government agenda fueled by the conservative carnival barkers to an intellectually lazy cohort simply distracts from our civility and compromises our democracy.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 2, 2014  7:38am

Politijoe, nice attempt at spin. You get a Gold star.

Modeled after the Republican plan? The Republican plan had state exchanges and they were not run by the federal government. There was also competition in that Heritage plan.

Fiscal soundness? I guess when even the liberal news networks talk about how they need many more young people to sign up or the financial model just doesn’t work is information we should ignore that information? How about when the CBO says it?

Government intrusion? Yeah I think that its common sense to want liberty and limited intrusion. Read the upcoming book by the HHS person who will outline how the gears of the federal government at least in that department have ground to a halt and alot of people do no work. That’s the American way I guess.

You really need to open your eyes. I have said this before. When US Senators from both parties, who are not out of their minds like Harry Reid is, are now looking at each other with fear that the NSA and CIA which are part of the executive branch, are out of control, we have a problem with big government intrusion.

The ACA could have been good but only an uninformed person cant see that wrapped within the few good things, is control of our lives and that makes me actually nausceous to the point of needing medical care that people don’t care about that control.

I have never seen an episode of House of Cards which apparently really goes after both parties with alot of what goes on being true. I don’t need to watch it to know what’s taking place, but might I recommend you watch it.

Too many people in both parties could care less about us. I just happen to think that the Conservative approach to things will do far less damage to our country than the free wheeling dependency and control of all approach of the progressives.

posted by: GBear423 | April 2, 2014  8:03am


Romneycare was signed by a Republican, and there was a lot of democrats that helped that bill along. It was bi-partisan. It works for the most part in MA.  But that is MA.  They are already used to high costs, and having a monopolized Insurance system. i lived there for 5 years, during Romney’s administration. It was a success because the People wanted it.

You can’t slap a Massachusetts plan on Arkansas or Oklahoma or even CA. Regions vary and we are not all East Coast Libs.  Democrats in Alabama would be considered ultra right Republicans in Connecticut.

posted by: Politijoe | April 2, 2014  4:36pm


For the sake of discussion, lets not begin to argue semantics. National healthcare reform was introduced by Republicans in the early 90’s led by Bob Dole, Rommney took that playbook and modeled the Commonwealth plan in Mass. Obama simply built on that.

It’s worth repeating…. Other nations and healthcare systems have successfully implemented healthcare reforms that cost half as much as ours and still manage to insure all their citizens, therefore we know this does work on a national scale. Furthermore, Rommneycare in Mass has been successful in lowering costs and insuring its citizens therefore we know this can work on a state level. The opinion that a Republican healthcare plan like the one in Mass cannot be duplicated nationally because of regional differences is silly, lots of programs are duplicated across states in spite of regional differences.

Like most new initiatives, particularly big complex systems like healthcare reform, there are wrinkles to iron out and obtaining the correct balance of younger citizens with older citizens is something to continue striving towards. Its also worth noting, again, that the ACA is designed for those with no insurance, sub-par insurance or the uninsurable, if you don’t fit into those categories it has little if any effect on you. 

Your comments….. ” alot of people (Federal employees)  do no work and that’s the American way I guess”  This is a blanket statement founded on conjecture with no context regarding the discussion.

Additionally you alluded that healthcare for the uninsured effects your personal liberties and went on to state   “the NSA and CIA are out of control” and “The ACA is controling of our lives”

What these comments indicate is there is a pattern in your thinking and validates for me that you have yet to even glance at any global healthcare comparisons.

Furthermore, absent the anti-government rhetoric and unarticulated conspiracy theories about a tyrannical government takeover Ive yet to understand what specifically your opposed to. As a result the only conclusion is that your wedded to your beliefs and not the facts. That is an unfortunate and insurmountable problem.

posted by: BrianO | April 4, 2014  3:50pm

Opposition to ACA is based upon the vast amount of money to be made upon the financial inefficiences inherent in our healthcare system.  Lots of folks make money when a knee replacement that should cost $5,000—and does overseas - costs $50,000 in the US.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 4, 2014  4:29pm

Brian, I dont have anything to do with the healthcare system and I am against the ACA, so I don’t follow you.

It’s a bad law for so many reasons that happened because it wasnt even read by most of the people that voted for it.

Seriously, when the finance guy Dem Sen. Max Baucus says that this is not good, you should listen to him.

Had they read it, and amended it without passing it in the middle of the night by 1 vote on a parliamentary maneuver and a promise of millions of dollars to a Nebraska Senator then millions of people wouldn’t be screwed over so you can help millions less people.

The world knows this plan has major issues and only the real Dem partisans that could be re-elected no matter what they do are the only ones that are for it.

Reasonable people say “we like this part, this part is a disaster, so let’s fix it” but they arent allowed to under threats from Pelosi, Reid and Obama. That behavior should scare the heck out of any one paying attention.

posted by: Politijoe | April 7, 2014  2:43pm


Joebigjoe, Again the critical fact   you and other right-wingers like GBear423 continue to sidestep is our that our current healthcare system costs more, provides less and still doesn’t insure all of its citizens. Based on these principals alone, the ACA is comparatively speaking fiscally sound, morally fair and economically sustainable. You’re half-baked anti-government conspiracy theories are the same old unfounded, unarticulated rhetoric we’ve heard from the extreme right for years. Share facts, data and specifics not conjecture and value statements.

Im going to make an assumption that you have a private, employer-based healthcare plan that is not sub-standard and you have never bothered to familiarize yourself with the global healthcare systems or domestic healthcare stats.

With that said, become familiar with the global healthcare systems, understand the statistics behind how we allocate our national healthcare dollars and the costs for low-wage families THEN make an informed opinion that is based in fact not one wedded to ideology or beliefs.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 7, 2014  3:12pm

Politijoe, I’ve been to India 6 times and China 3 times. Had to get a co-worker to a hospital in India, so don’t talk to me about healthcare in other countries. You have no idea how filthy the place was. Have friends that live in China (just emailed each other yesterday) and he is thinking about moving back to the US and mentioned how bad the Chinese healthcare system is. Keep living in your fantasy world about other countries.

As for my plan I have a good plan. Why, other than your apparent belief in socialism and communism, do you feel its OK for my plan to be cancelled because the insurer needed to make a minor modification to it, so I can then get a plan that costs me alot more and may not be as good, just so I can pay for other people who haven’t worked nearly as hard as me?

Remember I am all for people with pre-existing conditions not being denied coverage. I am all for a few years after college young people being able to get started in a career and remaining on their parents insurance.

Life is full of penalties. I am not OK with people who showed substandard effort in school or work getting the same health plan I do. Learn that life has consequences, and life has rewards.

Costs for low wage families? 30 years ago I worked as a security guard at St Francis Hospital in Hartford to put myself through school. For three years I saw low income people come to the ER for the most minor of ailments that in most cases didnt require a doctors visit and let me tell you, in 30 years nothing has changed, so dont tell me about allocating costs. The hospitals are still fighting the same fight today as I saw where patient triage nurses would have to explain to people that you don’t come to the ER for every little thing.

posted by: GBear423 | April 7, 2014  3:43pm


The LeftWinger known as Politijoe, my silly opinion is based on being from other regions.  I know people in Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, and California will tell you to take your mandate and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. These places had a competitive Insurance market, unlike the New England States.  Insurance is MUCH cheaper in other places.

Also, I am a Republican because there is no 3rd Party and Democrats appear to have left their minds.

Mandates on health Insurance was once opposed by the President as a Senator, and he was right to oppose them.  Bob Dole and any other Repub can think its just great, its not a Party Platform!

posted by: GBear423 | April 7, 2014  6:38pm


Some madman wrote- “the ACA is comparatively speaking fiscally sound, morally fair and economically sustainable.”

and that is why the mandate has been delayed so many times it is parodied on SNL. Nobody needs to look at global insurance trends (WTF??) or statistics, anyone with sense can see that the Insurance-Medical corrupted relationship over the last few decades has driven costs to their current unaffordable and indefensible point.  The ACA is a transfer of wealth, nothing more.  Taking money from the young and healthy and using it to pay for elderly and illegals.  Costs will remain high because it has been the Government that drove it to begin with. Tort reform anyone?? nooo, perish the thought

posted by: GBear423 | April 8, 2014  9:11am


Politijoe, et al ACA fanboys, here is a letter from a friend in Massachusetts, she is an indep contractor in IT:

“...they’ve gone up for any sort of reasonable care. There *may* be “more affordable” plans, but they are basically major medical and not medical health plans.

I paid $362 for 2 people per month self-subscribing in 2002, and it was top tier/platinum insurance. Now I pay close to $700/mo for 1 person (and dropped 4 tiers of care). This bill is higher than my mortgage.

This year because of Obamacare, we had two open enrollments during a 6 mos period. Each open enrollment raised the price until my recommended insurance was just over $800/mos. Uhm, no.

Under ObamaCare, I’d qualify for about $500 per month, but the insurance is really bad. By the time I’d be done paying my docs, I might as well get the higher rated insurance per month.

Additionally, if you apply for a subsidy you may or may not get reviewed for 8+ weeks, so they issue you Mass Health in the meantime. Right, nobody accepts MassHealth much.”

Reality, not global Insurance trend is what I speak from.

posted by: Politijoe | April 8, 2014  2:55pm


Joebigjoe, wow… Im speechless. Just when I didn’t think an individuals thinking couldnt be more sophomoric you cited, and I cant believe Im actually writing this, you cited China and India as examples of comparative healthcare systems? Why didn’t you just pick Haiti, Slovenia or Chad? For what its worth at this point, Im referring to industrialized western nations, try Germany, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland or Japan as examples. Lets even try Britain or Canada, which are not systems we have but at least it’s in the same sphere of reality.

To make matters worse you compound your dead-end thinking with statements like: “As for my plan I have a good plan. Why do you feel its OK for my plan to be cancelled because the insurer needed to make a minor modification to it just so I can pay for other people who haven’t worked nearly as hard as me?”

The ACA is designed with basic protections, therefore if a plan lacks these basic protections and the insurer needs to make “minor modifications” by default it is not a “good plan” in all likelihood it’s a junk policy. And how does one leap from healthcare to socialism and communism? Do you not even hear yourself?

You attempt a clumsy argument about paying for other people who haven’t worked as hard as you by stating you worked as a security guard at St Francis Hospital 30 years ago.

There are so many things wrong with your statement; so many that you don’t even realize how offensive, misdirected and uninformed a statement it is. Lets take a couple of those points…
you stated that “in most cases low income people who visited the ER didn’t require a doctors visit and they shouldn’t come to the ER for every little thing” I’m not sure what quantifies as “in most cases” Im also not aware of a medical assessment component in security guard training and furthermore the reason low-income families arrive at ER depts for routine care is because they don’t have healthcare plans. Therefore the reality is what would’ve been a $65 office visit is now an $800 ER visit due to a lack of healthcare…. and who pays for that? you and me. To add insult to injury, the ER is triage care not preventative care, therefore, as health conditions worsen, as they will without preventative care, these same individuals return to the ER with worse health and stay with me here, will increase the costs of our healthcare system and those of us “who have worked harder and therefore deserve healthcare” more money.

Bottom line and not surprisingly the one which you awkwardly tapped danced around is this current system you’re so beholden to costs more than ANY OTHER industrialized healthcare system in the world, is far less efficient and doesn’t insure everyone. This is an issue about COSTS. Unless of course you’re poor or live in a third world nation, in which case you don’t deserve it anyway right?

posted by: Politijoe | April 8, 2014  3:08pm


GBear423 you’re statement….“Nobody needs to look at global insurance trends (WTF??) or statistics”  says it all.

Your unwillingness to separate opinions from facts, evidence from conjecture and data from beliefs Leads to faulty unfounded conclusions, which simply don’t reflect the rest of moderate America’s views.

The fact is, which you have yet to address is that our healthcare system costs more than ANY OTHER industrialized system in the world, has poorer outcomes and still doesn’t insure everyone. THOSE are the simple facts its an issue of costs not low-information propaganda, but then again you clearly stated you’re not interested because after all who needs to to compare how other nations have managed to create healthcare systems that are 50% less expensive, with better outcomes and insure all their citizens right? who needs that nonsense.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 8, 2014  4:17pm

Politjoe I think alot of us wish you were truly speechless.

I set you up there buddy and you walked into it.

First of all my wife is Canadien and by marriage I guess you can say I have alot of relatives in Canada. Just so you know, they hate their system and are sick of their high taxes because of it.

My wife has friends she went to school with in France, Germany, and the UK. The reason they have better outcomes is twofold. One is people walk alot more over there and eat less garbage. Two is that the healthcare system is not very good so they take better care of themselves because they are scared to death of having to use it.

If their healthcare is so great can you name a hospital that we somewhat educated people would have heard of to go for Cancer, and other serious ailments in these countries? I can think of places that foreigners come to get treatment here like Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Sloan Kettering, Boston Childrens. Why dont you go Google some name for us.

My sister works at St Francis today and her daughter in law is a triage nurse. The stuff I described still goes on today with people not going to the clinics there for minor ailments and spending alot of our money because after all they dont pay for healthcare, we do.

As for your asinine statment about quality plans you need to stop listening to progressive baloney about these plans. There are alot of people going broke out there because of increased premiums they cant afford and they are either healthy or very sick and the new ACA plan isnt necessarily covering what they had covered prior and if it is its at a price they can’t afford.

Finally the ACA is not just basic protections or we wouldnt be having these disagreements. The ACA is filled with mandates. Mandates for alcoholism for tea tollers, contraceptive coverage for 55 year old women, and on and on.

If this damn ACA plan was so great then your glorious dear leader wouldnt be signing executive order after executive order to delay it and also grant exemptions for unions and others that support him and his causes. Wake up and smell the Tulips. By the way that would be the Netherlands which is having all kinds of issues these days.

posted by: GBear423 | April 8, 2014  5:33pm


Politijoe, why do I care what they are doing in Germany, Japan, or any other place?  they have their economy, we have ours.  they have a standard of affordability and a level of expectations for good care and we have ours. Get over it homey.

Cost is the problem.  An American problem, created right here in America, not France.

It is created by a corrupt Insurance system, a corrupt medical system, and a corrupt government system.
in the 1970s the system relied on Doctors, they abused it. In the 1980s it relied on Insurance, and it was abused. Add to this lawsuits that were allowed to reward into the millions for “malpractice”, to which the consumer had to pay that bill. 
Your ongoing need to muddy this up with global nonsense is quite sad.

My hedges need trimming, oh I must see how the do it in belgium!!!!!

posted by: Politijoe | April 8, 2014  9:10pm


GBear423 dismissing why/how they successfully manage the cost of their healthcare systems in France, Germany etc… is no different than proclaiming “why do I care what cancer treatments or surgical procedures have been cost effective or successful in other countries….what possible difference does it make in this country?”

Certainly even you can see this?

This is not an issue about abuse, death panels, government takeover, poor people, evil insurance companies, deservingness, transfer of wealth, or any of the other myriad of distractions.


We pay more, have poorer outcomes and don’t insure all our citizens.

THIS ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT THE COSTS. How can we provide healthcare cheaper than 17% of GDP, with improved outcomes and insure all our citizens.

therefore address it as such, eliminating the conjecture, value statements and anecdotal thinking.

If this is simply AN ISSUE ABOUT COSTS why is it so difficult for you to comprehend or threatening to your beliefs?

posted by: Politijoe | April 8, 2014  9:38pm


Hey JoebigJoe, is this your idea of a “gotcha moment”? Glad you have some family in Canada who use the Beveridge healthcare system, which is not at all what the ACA is modeled after, although why would you know that?  also wonderful that your wife’s family speaks for thirty million Canadians. Now let me let you in on a little “gotcha”  of my own. We own a vacation property in Montreal and spend at least 3 to 4 weeks annually in Quebec, Montreal, and/or Toronto. We have many friends and a couple of family members in these cities and have had long conversations about their healthcare system. Much like the U.S. it works for some and less for others but no one Ive EVER talked to hated it or would exchange it for the convoluted, fragmented, employer based healthcare system in the U.S…..NO ONE.

Your simplistic and amusing reasoning as to why some European healthcare systems have better outcomes is because…“They walk alot more and eat less garbage and because they are scared to death of having to use their healthcare”  In your limited mind this sophomoric conclusion explains why their national healthcare costs is 10% of GDP versus our 17% ….are you sure thats what you want to publicly state?

If you happen to reconsider this brilliant assessment, you might also want to rethink your equally semi coherent statement ” There are alot of people going broke out there because of increased premiums they cant afford …..”
Listen Bigjoe the fact is healthcare premiums have been increasing apx 8% annually for over a decade, we already have waiting lines, denied coverages for life saving procedures, bankruptcies, etc… all of these long before the ACA.

All we ask is that you attempt to become educated on an issue. This issue is SIMPLY ABOUT COSTS. not anecdotal conjecture, value statements or ideology.
Its about COSTS. how do we reduce our current healthcare spending of 17% of GDP to a sustainable level of other nations, improve outcomes and insure all our citizens. ITS ABOUT THE COSTS.

posted by: GBear423 | April 9, 2014  6:21am


Your Gov’t healthcare, via Yahoo news:
“Data trove shows U.S. doctors reap millions from Medicare”

posted by: GBear423 | April 9, 2014  6:42am


The solution is simple. remove Government from the equation. Allow Insurance companies to compete nationally for customers. Reform Tort laws.
Repeating over and over how great other countries do things is not an argument/solution, that is “anecdotal”. 
Economics, social norms, history of that specific nation(s), and the fact that America has propped most of these places financially since 1945 so they can have the ideal environment to re-develop are not easily addressed in this forum.  Nor is it relevant at all.  Apples and Oranges, we are a unique nation and people.

posted by: Politijoe | April 9, 2014  4:16pm


GBear423 You now recognize this is an issue about costs but blame the high cost on government interference. And further suggest that other countries simply have different norms and economics which keep their costs significantly lower with better outcomes, could it really be explained away just that easily? At this point I would recommend you take your foot out of your mouth.

This Yankee doodle dandy mythology of an America so god damn unique and set apart from other countries because of its independence and freedom doesn’t account for the fact that Canada has freedom, as does Japan, the UK, France, Italy Germany, Spain, Australia, and Belgium. In fact, there are over 200 sovereign states in the world, 180 of which have freedom.

What the facts bear out is, we’ve got a long way to go to achieve what should be the natural results of a nation with our wealth, strength and liberties.

Currently we’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy. We’re 178th in infant mortality and 3rd in median household income. Were 27th in infant mortality, 15th in reading, 64th in income equality and 4th in exports.

Unfortunately where we lead the civilized world is in the number of incarcerated citizens per capita, the highest healthcare costs of any industrialized nation, obesity rates and defense spending-where we spend more than the next 17 countries combined, 16 of whom are allies.
So dial back all that star bangled banner [expletive] and recognize the reality around you.

America has over 100,000 homeless vets living on the street, with less than 5% of the worlds population the freest nation on earth is home to 25% of the worlds incarcerated. For the wealthiest nation on earth we have the smallest and least effective social welfare system and the highest healthcare costs of any industrialized nation and still cant insure tens of millions of our citizens.

Pay attention for two seconds here, markets are constructed through public policies and therefore shaped by politics, for good or bad democratic politics shape markets. The debate should not be over whether government is involved in the formation of capitalism and markets, it ALWAYS has been because thats the way it was intended to be. Its no secret, when left to it’s own devices capitalism does some things badly or not at all. Markets alone have rarely if ever solved our economic problems. You’re lacking a proper understanding of the complimentary and balanced roles of government and the marketplace.

Therefore, if you still think its not about costs, comparing systems within a global economy, sustainability, and a collaborative government/market structure. You’re a man with two perfectly good legs who has never learned to walk.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 9, 2014  7:29pm

Politijoe, congratulations on finding NOT ONE person in Canada that didn’t like their health care system and wouldn’t replace it. If its so good then why do so many of them complain about the taxes and go out and buuy supplemental policies. Why can someone go to hospitals across the river from Windsor Ontario and see tons of cars with Canadien license plates? Oh yeah we would never want another program but they certainly dont hesitate to use ours.

Next time you’re at your cottage feel free to stay there. You seem to like other countries more than this one, so I cordially invite you to go explore as many of them as you can.

Here you go from the bastion of Conservatism the Washington Post.


Now from the last 24 hours the Morgan Stanley report on Obamacare. Would you like me to get the CBO report?


You want to reduce the costs? Start with Tort reform. It wont solve it all but if you progressives arent even willing to do that then anything else you say about reducing costs is just left wing blather.

I was at a dermatologist yesterday for an annual skin cancer check. We got to talking about all the employees he needs because of the government requirements and insurance company requirements. You want to cut costs get the government out of it and make the insurance companies streamline their business processes. Then you can go find all those poor ladies a new job.

posted by: GBear423 | April 10, 2014  6:08am


Politijoe, Everyone sees it as an issue of costs. Its not a revelation.

if I were Japanese, i would think Japan and her people were the greatest.  Same were I German, or French.. well maybe not French, but fer sure English.  Why do you hate yourself? 

Its ok to be a yankee doodle dandee, really.  Hugs are free buddy, come on over!  :O)

posted by: GBear423 | April 10, 2014  6:14am


Someone with a bag over his head wrote: “Canada has freedom, as does Japan, the UK, France, Italy Germany, Spain, Australia, and Belgium. In fact, there are over 200 sovereign states in the world, 180 of which have freedom.”

Those places have Freedom because of my Country. Go open a history book and check out 1939 thru 1989.  Maybe get a clue.

posted by: CT Jim | April 10, 2014  8:18am

I know a lot of people that live in Canada and not one is complaining about their taxes because of healthcare. Very few go into the US and only for treatment that isn’t covered under their plan. (mostly elective surgery) You see Big joe if you took of your right wing blinders for a minute and put down your book of talking points you’d see that there are five provinces in Canada and the law that provides health care for all five provinces is the basic health care plan that covers the basics in healthcare. Some provinces provide more and in the provinces run by conservatives the citizens in those provinces purchase supplemental insurance on the open market to ensure they are fully covered. So for those Canadians complaining about that all I can say is vote out the conservatives.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2014  9:04am

CT Jim, again another highly Conservative publication. This time the Huffington Post.


Just spoke to my mother in law who is vacationing at the Villages in Florida right now from Canada.

She is no conservative but she could not believe that you guys think that people love their system up there and aren’t getting more upset every year about their taxes.

As for people coming for elective surgery, in some cases yes. In most cases its the middle of the road things where in the US you get it taken care of quickly and up there you could wait a year and a half. That hip replacement up there depending on what’s in the queue could take a year or so to get while you live in pain because it wont kill you. Down here it happens in two weeks in most cases.

We cant even wait in line at motor vehicles but you expect people to wait a year. If you are healthy you get in right away up there and if you are dying you get in right away. Its the people in the middle that are pretty much screwed.

posted by: CT Jim | April 10, 2014  12:22pm

Big joe, I for one would rather not have Canada’s system because the conservatives have diced it up so badly that it’s now ranked at 30th in the world but still WAY better than the US ranking of an abysmal 37th that’s right Joe 37th. I would much rather have the system in either France or Italy or San Marino. They are all single payer systems and oh yeah they are ranked #1 #2 and #3 in the world. Can you imagine the US is ranked 34 nations after a country named San Marino in Health care. I thought we had the greatest health care system in the world??? How can that be?

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2014  2:23pm

hey Jim you guys keep talking about these rankings for outcomes and health.

Let’s say that tomorrow you are diagnosed with a horrible disease. Lets hope that doesnt happen, but I have to ask the question.

Do you want to get treated by doctors here, San Marino, France, or the UK?

Forget the “I want to be near my family” part of it.

Assuming each country had access to the meds that you would need, personally I would choose the US, but what would you choose and why?

posted by: Politijoe | April 10, 2014  4:10pm


joebigjoe, attempting to enlighten you to simple facts is like trying to get a dog to swallow a pill, first you have to wrap it in bologna, then hold his snout closed and stroke his throat and just when you think he swallowed it he spits it back out on the floor.

The national cost of our healthcare is 17% of GDP.  Other nations costs are far less than that. And they have better outcomes while insuring all their citizens. This a fact you consistently seem to grapple with.

I suspect it forces you to consider that your idealized, mythic vision of America is somehow tarnished by this realization. Which somehow effects your own self identification as a god fearing, patriotic American.

Im here to reassure you that they’re facts. All your conjectures, distractions and amusing questions involving anecdotal scenarios don’t change the fundamental reality. We pay more, get less and still don’t insure all our citizens.

Ct Jim posed a question to you earlier and unfortunately you dodged it. He asked “why do you think Americas healthcare system ranks below the country of San Marino…. I thought we had the greatest health care system in the world, How can that be?”  Why didn’t you answer that?

In case you didn’t understand it, I’ll ask it in another way…. for a nation with our wealth, strength and ability, why is ok with you that we spend more for our healthcare and get less than every other industrialized nation on earth?

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2014  5:08pm

LOL. You did make me laugh with that definition. Good one.

I didn’t dodge a question. I don’t believe that the way these organizations define Outcome is accurate.

How would you define Outcome as it relates to our discussion here?

Yes, we are at 17% of GDP and yes there is alot of fraud, waste and abuse in that number. What makes you think that our government running healthcare would mean less fraud, waste and abuse? The fraud is mostly through government programs now like Medicare and Medicaid. The waste is debatable as you didnt respond to me about tort reform. Abuse is everywhere in our society and occurs when you have a complex society. Forget healthcare, just look at our stock markets.

None of these countries you tout have the complexity or population we do.

No more than an hour ago I read an article about Vermont discussing single payer for their state. It may surprise you that I don’t have an issue with that, as Vermont can handle their own issues better than the Federal Govt can.

I know you love my “oh by the way’s” so here is what else is in the article. Vermont gets 2.5 billion a year in tax revenue to run their state. Not the worlds most complex place I would hope you can agree. It would cost them another 2 Billion on top of that to go single payer. Where is that money coming from is the 2 Billion dollar question? Multiply that across 50 states, many of whom are more complex and definitely not as health conscious as Vermont people seem to be, and what do you get? A disaster of a program because I can guaran-freaking-tee that the 2 Billion is too low of an estimate.

posted by: Politijoe | April 10, 2014  6:55pm


Joebigjoe, thoughtful response, thank you. You had stated “I don’t believe the way these organizations define Outcome is accurate…..how would you define Outcome as it relates to our discussion here?” Outcomes as they relate to healthcare systems are indicators, for example: infant mortality, obesity and life expectancy, etc… if in comparison our indicators/outcomes are poorer than other nations that should begin to raise a red flag.

You further pose the question ” we are at 17% of GDP and yes there is alot of fraud, waste and abuse in that number. What makes you think that our government running healthcare would mean less fraud, waste and abuse?”  My answer is that although fraud and waste are a part of our healthcare system, it simply doesn’t tell the whole story. There are individuals who will game ANY system and your example of Wall Street is a good one. Once we have recognized that our healthcare outcomes are poorer than other nations the question we have to ask ourselves is why? so we begin to drill down into the comparative data to establish an accurate assessment. The biggest difference is not fraud and waste, because other nations also have that, the difference is twofold….FIRST ours is a convoluted patchwork of out of pocket employer based healthcare systems which by default creates an inefficient costly system. SECOND most other nations have eliminated the profit in their healthcare systems, with profit comes additional costs like shareholders, margins, advertising, etc… healthcare should be perceived as a public good. We wouldn’t want our fire and police departments beholden to shareholders and incentivized to protect life and property by profit margins. The same holds true for healthcare and the results bear this out. Furthermore, markets are constructed through public policies and therefore shaped by politics, for good or bad democratic politics shape markets.

You also again brought up the issue of tort reform.  Even if we addressed waste, fraud and tort reform measures absent the ACA….all these measures combined simply would not begin to address the 17% of GDP our healthcare system costs us each year, we simply cannot solve 90% of this problem by addressing 10% of the problem. These cost continue to rise unsustainably. Our premiums have increased apx. 8% annually since the 1990’s. Without healthcare reform it will most certainly bankrupt the US economy in very short order.

This is an issue about costs.  I believe the ACA is a big step in that direction because it addresses and correlates the cost issue with outcomes and insures millions more.

I will again pose the question to you:
for a nation with our wealth, strength and ability, why is ok with you that we spend more for our healthcare and get less than every other industrialized nation on earth?

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 11, 2014  8:06am

Politijoe I think I have answered this question before in different posts and some of my answers were laughed at.

First of all I dont think we get less because I wouldnt want to be in any other countries health care system when “the big one comes.”

We are different than most of these nations. We are much more obese and as we introduce garbage food “products” more and more into other cultures their health is getting poorer as they get fatter. That will cost them more money as time goes on. This also has a direct correlation to outcomes.

Number 2 is we sit as we drive much more than them which means they are much closer to that magic 10000 steps a day number which leads to better health. Better health equals better outcomes when less of your population sits on their butt all day and suffers from metabolic syndrome.

Infant mortality is an easy one and this has been proven over and over. When you eliminate the infant mortality from inner cities we arent bad at all. Obviously a baby is a baby and we dont want any to not make it but you have to look directly at lifestyle and family breakdown as two very specific differences between our inner city poor and that of the other industrialized nations.

There is research that is pointing to women that used the pill having higher rates of breast cancer. Maybe there is an issue with infant mortality outside of the poor communities in the US that also impacts infant mortality. I’m pretty sure we use the pill alot more than other countries do. However in the end we would never be told that was a cause because our government and the pharma companies would never admit that because of the tort lawyers which is my last point.

Obviously there are a number of issues and everyone needs to chip in. Will tort reform solve the finance issues? No it wont. However, when one group like the malpractice lobby says “nope hands off us” and we agree, then every other group with skin in the game is going to fight change to their piece of the pie as well.

Finally your ACA comment about insuring millions more is just not accurate. It may be the goal but why havent more people signed up that dont have insurance? Is it lack of awareness? God I hope not.

Gallop, Rand, Blue Cross are all saying that this 7 million number which is nothing for what we have given up for this program is a false number.

You want single payer but you really trust a government who out of that 7 million cant tell you how many people have paid a premium? How many people had no insurance before and this was a godsend for them? How many people had insurance that was cancelled and were forced to go here? How many people are paying more than they did before?

I dont know what you do for a living but in my world if we had any kind of business where we spent hundred of millions of dollars or even a few million, and couldnt answer these basic questions about our customers, I would be fired as would alot of other people.

posted by: Politijoe | April 11, 2014  12:16pm


Joebigjoe,  its like trying to nail jello to the wall……  you stated ” I don’t think we get less” (in terms of outcomes) yet your misguided attempts to dismiss obesity because, as you cited “we sit more in this country and eat more processed foods” is a vast over simplification. You dismiss infant mortality as just effecting urban populations, but fail to comprehend most of our populations are in urban areas.  Outcomes, like costs, are based on per capita comparisons. Therefore other countries have obesity rates, infant mortality, life expectancy rates, etc.. we compare these outcomes the same as we do when comparing healthcare costs…per capita. Other outcomes include:  readmission rates, chronic disease rates, avoidable hospitalization rates, transmission rates, post surgical complications, preventable care, affordable care, accessible care and care coordination data. Is all of this data explained away because we have a different culture?  This is not an issue to be perceived myopically, step back, look at the data from thirty thousand feet and compare the differences.
You again mention tort reform, if you recognize that it wouldn’t come close to solving the issue of healthcare cost, why are you stuck on this? You also now question the accuracy of the 7 million who have signed up for Obamacare, why?
This is a large complex endeavor, as such all similar programs have learning curves : Medicare, Rommneycare, Bush’s prescription plan, the Apollo missions, Head Start, I could go on but you get the idea. The ACA is less than six months old. This program is in its infancy. This is not about death panels, socialism, Muslims, tort reform, communism, higher premiums, over eating or lack of walking so please stop distracting the conversation from the central issue of COSTS.
We spend far more (per capita) than any other nation. The totality of our outcomes (per capita) is less than most other nations and tens of millions remain uninsured.

With all due respect you haven’t answered the question, ‘why is it ok with you that a nation with our strength, wealth and abilities has the highest healthcare costs in the industrialized world?”

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 11, 2014  7:42pm

Politijoe you are exasperating. Are you married? God bless your wife or partner if you are.  If they Pistorius you some day, I’ll understand.

No it is not OK and we should always be striving to get better at controlling our costs.

posted by: Politijoe | April 12, 2014  8:42am


joebgjoe….good one.

And now that you have established this is an issue about costs, Its just a short step to identifying the factors which contribute to the highest healthcare costs in the industrialized world.

By now I would hope you also agree that when compared with other systems our healthcare model is a fragmented, out of pocket, employer based, for profit system which costs more, has poorer outcomes and still doesn’t insure everyone.

Assuming you’re still with me here, tell me where the ACA doesn’t begin to address these inefficiencies?

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 13, 2014  7:51pm

You sir are living in a fantasy world or even worse a highly partisan world.

Your precious ACA almost didnt pass. Special deals had to be cut to get it to pass. Parliamentary gimmicks had to be employed. Most of all the President of the United States had to flat out lie to the people of this country and also Congressmen like Bart Stupak. Two weeks ago he said yet again that he was told that abortion would not be covered in the ACA in exchange for his vote,and in his own words as a former Democrat Congressman he was lied to.

Does something need to be done to better our system? Of course. Do alot of things need to be done to better our system? Of course. Are some of the ACA ideas good ideas to do that? Of course.

However last I looked at the flag hanging from my garage, I’m an American. I would rather have a messed up system with freedom than the garbage being peddled here. If it were so great Obama would not have bypassed Congress and done executive orders to slow it down until when? After the next election so they can continue the lies.

You want single payer? Good for you. Most Americans dont want it and most people I know are pretty upset thinking that this ACA is such a disaster in the making (remember most of it hasnt been rolled out yet) that they feel it was made to fail, so we end up falling into single payer when the system collapses.

You always fall back to every single person needing to be covered with health insurance and getting quality healthcare. How about we start with every single person pulling their weight and then when that happens make that argument. Too many freeloaders in this country and I care that people with pre-existing conditions get covered, children get covered and people that have worked most or all of their lives. Where we differ is on people that dont work, dont go to school, could care less about their behavior getting the same coverage as the person that works hard and pays taxes.

Design a single payer where the people that dont carry their weight dont participate, and we dont have to pay for their garbage anymore and I’m all ears. I’m tired of busting my tail and sacrificing time away from my family for people who could care less because we give them an existence comfortable enough for them to just be a bit frustrated, and in many cases comfortable.

Learn some basic psychology Joe. Keep giving people more and more stuff that they dont have to pay for and they take take take.

Now you answer my question? Why should someone that makes 200,000 a year, has a masters degree, MD, or law degree sacrificing years of earning to get it, pays 60-75K a year in taxes get the same healthcare as someone who sits around on their front porch with their buddies?

posted by: Politijoe | April 14, 2014  7:04am


Damn joebigjoe, It appeared as if we were making some progress in your perspective but judging by your last post that familiar ego-driven John Wayne, red meat god bless America self-reliance stuff has been exposed once again. As melodrama, this is good entertainment, but as politics, it’s a train wreck. You’ve simply regurgitated all the contradictory, inaccurate and misleading fears submitted by the local Ayn Ryn wrecking crew who have clearly established a pattern of deception or sensationalism, one little better than the other.

Its obvious to me that your not wedded to the facts but to your beliefs. Otherwise you wouldn’t have such difficulty comprehending this issue is about costs. Its not about all the nonsense you repeat…GOD, flag, American, freeloaders, etc…  wake up joe it’s not 1950 anymore

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 14, 2014  2:08pm

You want facts, here are facts. You trust the government you’re a fool. When we can both stand here and say we trust the government we can turn over our healtcare to it.

You go worrying about costs. I am more worried about the freedom we have lost and the trampling of the Constitution.

This from a very unbiased professional journalist.

Sunday on Fox News Channel’s “Media Buzz,” former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson laid out the way the Obama administration harassed reporters and successfully stopped her network CBS from covering controversial stories…

“Now there’ve always been tensions, there have always been calls from the White House under any administration I assume, when they don’t like a particular story,” she said. “But it is particularly aggressive under the Obama administration and I think it’s a campaign that’s very well organized, that’s designed to have sort of a chilling effect and to some degree has been somewhat successful in getting broadcast producers who don’t really want to deal with the headache of it — why put on these controversial stories that we’re going to have to fight people on, when we can fill the broadcast with other perfectly decent stories that don’t ruffle the same feathers?”

“It borders on inappropriate if it is part of a campaign to stop, influence and manipulate the reporting.”

posted by: Politijoe | April 14, 2014  6:55pm


Joebigjoe: WHY do you keep moving the goal line on this subject?  its an issue about costs which you yourself have agreed to this point. Yet you weave in freedoms, the constitution, stock market, tort reform, processed foods, weight, the political process, freeloaders, free stuff, white house newsroom influence even the “pill” do you see the inconsistent nature that its about everything EXCEPT COSTS.

Worse yet….in spite of all of this b.s. your attempting to distract the subject with….your position STILL doesn’t hold water….even if all of it was relevant and here’s why:

1. you mention the amount of taxes you pay in comparison to healthcare reform and those “undeserving freeloader types who sit on the porch all day” 
FACT IS: your taxes have little to nothing to do with healthcare reform. I paid $90k last year in taxes so I also know a little something about this subject and heres the big obvious elephant in the room you just don’t want to acknowledge…… were paying for all those “undeserving freeloader types who sit on the porch all day”  one way or the other….the problem with your dead-end thinking is that with our current fragmented, convoluted system we pay significantly more (17% of GDP) than we will with Obamacare….(between 10-12% )

2. you again mention your antigovernment everything. Problem again is there are LOTS of programs the government does very well Such as: GI bill, consumer protections, clean air act, civil rights act, child welfare, child labor laws, secret service, coast guard, census, ADA, hoover dam, FDIC, federal interstate, peace corps, NIH….need I go on ???

All of which clearly indicates two things:
1. Your antigovernment rhetoric is simply nonsense and therefore reduces your position to uninformed conjecture and fear, not evidence and facts.

2. This obviously isn’t about costs for you, its about a maladaptive form of self-identification where in your mind,  establishing the faulty premise If I’m “good”  then “they” must be bad.
If I’m “honest and hard-working”  then they must be “undeserving and lazy” 

The problem with this dead-end thinking is the definition of “they.” What do they look like, where do they live, how old are they? and I suspect you can’t tell us because it’s a self-imposed delusion created by a false dichotomy, if this seems emotionally arrested, mindless and adolescent its because it is.

Big joe, it eventually becomes apparent when the uninformed are provided a false dichotomy and offered to look down on another group they will consistently vote against their own best interests and even empty their pockets to do so. Id ask that you think about that statement and what Ive said but that would require a level of perspective, insightfulness and self-reflection I don’t think your capable of.

What you represent is the last gasp of a dying political party who just wants to pick up their ball and go home…but they cant.

posted by: GBear423 | April 15, 2014  8:18am


PolitJoe nailed it with: “It eventually becomes apparent when the uninformed (Democrats) are provided a false dichotomy (fed by the Media) and offered to look down on another group (GOP, 2A supporters, etc) they will consistently vote against their own best interests and even empty their pockets to do so…”

You sir just described Democrats perfectly.  I will quote that one! 

OMG you should get paid for the amount of time and thought that go into these posts, it is entertaining!  Paying $90K in taxes, I am thinking you must be a public servant to be pulling in that amount!

posted by: CT Jim | April 15, 2014  11:40am

Big Joe always moves the goal lines especially when he has no answers only right wing rhetoric. I find it funny he goes to a disgruntled CBS employee giving an exclusive to Fox news lol. How long before her book comes out making her millions. And would wonder why she picked Fox news….Oh that’s it because right wing conspiracy theorists will buy the book. And based on what Big Joe is telling us about the pulse of the nation every state should be solid republican and the federal government is to be run by libertarians.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 15, 2014  12:15pm

CT Jim the reason she was on Fox news is no one else asked her. The main stream liberal media was her cheerleader when she went after Bush but now they cant give her the time of day because its the Obama administration. Her whole premise is that at CBS it became clear from emails she got, emails she saw, discussions she had, that it was not a good idea for CBS to go after THIS ADMINISTRATION because unlike other administrations this administration liked to call and threaten people.

Wake up Jim. You cant be that blind to how this administration and their Chicago politics is unlike anything we have seen since Nixon, and unfortunately for all of us, its much worse than Nixon.

posted by: Politijoe | April 15, 2014  12:45pm


Ct Jim, nice to hear a voice of reason in the wilderness. The sophomoric noise from the low-information right becomes so tedious at times its easy to forget they’re just a very small minority of extremists with an apocalyptic worldview.

posted by: Politijoe | April 15, 2014  8:20pm


Ct Jim isn’t it interesting how big joe and the rest of the flag-waving hypocrites rant about Benghazi but never mention that there were 13 embassy attacks under Bush? Or the manufactured Fast n Furious issue that they fail to disclose is simply an extension of a gun running program established under Bush and of course this Obama and Fox news “scoop” that is no different….. once again failing to mention that a Saudi prince is the largest stock holder in Fox news….. and that somehow receiving their all-American red-meat news diet from Saudi Arabia is ok. Shame on you contradictory hypocrites.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 16, 2014  7:44am

Foolish little minions.

1) The issue with Benghazi was not the attack, although one would hope that on 9-11 we would step up security. The issue was the cover up about the issue being a video and Hilary Clinton and Obama saying that it was a video to the families at the dead mens coffins.

The recent testimony by Mike Morrell showed two things that are very serious. He lied last year to another committee and the most important one is that in the world of the CIA what the Field Officer says is pretty much gospel, and what the analysts say in the US in their windowless offices is secondary unless they have some very direct contradictory information. There was no demonstration before the attack. This was a disgusting political lie. Today not one single arrest of any of the attackers although some of them have been out in the open to take. I guess we wouldnt want their side of the story now would we?

2) I’ll let ABC, and not Fox address your little left wing lie that you guys and others have eaten up.


3) Finally Saudi Prince? Yes that Prince is apparently the second largest stock holder in News Corp. He owns common stock which is no different than investing in a mutual fund. He has no voting power and is not on the board.

I guess in your totalitarian world certain people can only own publicly traded stock in certain firms if we let them.

We just had US government BLM people with true miliary style weapons point them at American citizens and say “take another step forward and we will shoot.” Today its reported Bloomberg wants to spend 50 million dollars more on gun control. You’re worried about the wrong Prince.

posted by: Politijoe | April 16, 2014  4:16pm


It obvious from the circular conversation regarding healthcare your simply not capable of intelligently discussing an issue. Suffice to say this will not become another circular conversation about another anti-government paranoia plot.

However, for whats its worth it has been well established the Saudi prince has on more than a few occasions influenced the direction of stories, changed headlines and stood down reports. So you justify that anyway that helps you sleep at night.

Secondly: as we’ve come to expect from the ugliness and innuendo of extremist rhetoric, facts are the first casualty. The compound in Benghazi has been referred to as an American embassy-far from it. This was largely a temporary intelligence outpost, requiring minimum-security standards, where most of the officials were working for the CIA and not the State department.

It bears repeating the CIA was responsible for security at the “annex” where most of the Americans in Benghazi were housed. Furthermore it was never recognized or implemented as a ‘shared responsibility’ by the intelligence or state departments in Washington charged with overseeing the post.

However, tempered by caution and shrouded by lack of information amid the fog of war, CIA operatives made decisions rapidly throughout the assault, without interference from Washington. Mobilizing evacuation efforts, enabling an unarmed drone to map escape routes, dispatching a security team from Tripoli and chartering aircraft that ultimately carried surviving personnel to safety the next day.

Secretary of State Clinton’s responsibilities did not include the day-to-day supervision of hundreds of diplomatic facilities—and certainly not a CIA station. Also worth mentioning, the nearly 100 pages of emails demanded of the White House clearly reveals the talking points were nothing more than a result of bureaucratic haggling between agencies and not the egregious cover-up about a demonstration or a video the scowling teapublicans claim.

General Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, among countless others has stated “peel back layer after layer of partisan deceit to reveal the truth about Republican motives and methods in the aftermath of Benghazi - and in so doing I offer a strong warning to America and our media to focus on the facts - not partisan rhetoric.”

Unfortunately, American diplomats and others have been killed in repeated attacks on foreign stations and embassies throughout the Bush administration, however instead of collaborating to minimize future attacks, conservatives are committed to manufacturing paranoia and unfounded conspiracies. Ultimately, this is a scandal in search of substance. Do your homework, like healthcare the facts lead to one place and it aint this paranoia-soaked sub-culture you subscribe to.

If you think this will win votes in 2016 you and the rest of your intellectually lazy cohorts are in for another very sad November night.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 16, 2014  5:22pm

Wow Joe, you just proved my point that for some people, extreme liberalism reflects a type of mental illness/brain abnormality where they just can’t seem to see facts for what they are.

You really think the most anti-Muslim news network out there is allowing a Saudi Prince to dictate coverage?

You really buy your story about Benghazi? Here let me quote Democrat Wesley Clark to make my point. How about looking at hearing transcripts and decide for yourself instead of looking uninformed and partisan?

You dont see what this government of Chicago thugs is doing to this country? This past weekend we had government agents pointing military style rifles at private citizens and telling them if they moved a step closer they would be shot. That’s OK?? Would that be because of tortoises? Unpaid bills? Chinese solar companies? Harry Reid, Democrat?

But of course I digress because my point in bring up these other things is that I dont trust this government and many of the people running it INCLUDING John Boehner. I dont want them running our healthcare. You see, I can be intellectually honest.

Now since this is a healthcare discussion let me go to todays news. Hmm, let me look at the New York Times that conservative rag.

Back in 2009 the Republicans raised concerns that for the first time in HISTORY, do you know what that means Joe? First time in History! ...the White House was trying to put through changes to the census.

The census Professor Progressive is supposed to be independent and away from the politics of either side.

Back in 2009 the Republicans were taken to task and called LIARS. Now the NYT is saying that White House has manipulated future census questions to mask the true impact in the future of Obamacare in our country.

Oh they would never do that? Really? You really think that? I hope not.

Our employment picture is 9 million jobs less than when Bill Clinton left office. He was a scum bag but good for jobs. However, we have a decent unemployment rate because the Obama White House has had the Labor dept redefine unemployment. Wouldnt want the people to know whats really going on.

In the last couple of days significant research came out about young peoples brains from smoking dope. I am looking forward to the liberal brain being put through an MRI to show things arent working right when facts are presented to them. Another heathcare issue for you.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages