It took 42 presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. …

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

Those were the words of Sen. Barack Obama in 2006. Harry Reid also voted against raising the debt limit.

117 comments on “It took 42 presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt

  1. Nyp says:

    Yet it was raised. B/c soundbity symbolic protest votes are not really the same as genuine threats by an entire House of Congress to blow up the global economy.

  2. Winston Smith says:

    That’s right, we’ve always known that when Democrats protest the growing national debt, it’s only symbolic, but when Republicans actually try to do something about it, they will destroy the world. Some days, ya just can’t win…

    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

  3. Milty says:

    I’m surprised that President Obama found the time to make a speech on the Senate floor given that he didn’t bother to show up for work more than a couple dozen times during his four year Senate career.

  4. Milty says:

    In 2011, President Obama explained his 2006 vote. “When you’re a Senator, traditionally what’s happened is this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars. As President, you start realizing, ‘you know what? We– we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States.’ And so that was just a example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country.”

    OK, he was a new Senator, so that gets him off the hook (yeah right), but what about old Senator Reid (20 years of Senate experience in 2006) and the other 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who voted en mass against increasing the debt ceiling? Is this a case of “there’s no fool like an old fool”?

  5. nyp says:

    Don’t mess with a default of US obligations.
    Really. This is not a game.

  6. Steve says:

    OK, so just HOW does that explain Hairy Weeds vote in ’06?

  7. Nyp says:

    Politicians make symbolic protest votes all the time. What the House Republicans are doing is not a symbolic protest vote. They are deadly serious about blowing up the economic system if the Republican agenda is not acceded to. Do not play this game. This is not talk-radio. It is serious and the consequences are dire.

  8. Steve says:

    House Republicans are most certainly making protest votes, Nyp. They know with absolute certainty Harry Reid will block any votes on any house bills he thinks have any chance of garnering enough Senate votes to force a veto and he is allowing votes ONLY on those bills he knows have no chance of passing in the Senate!

    It figures you guys are sure the Republicans are serious, its your dogma in which you are mired.

    Popularity votes is a better description than so called “symbolic” votes and it happens on all sides of the cube.
    Wading through the slime is required to find the originator of the mud, in this case it is Harry Reid as the slimy obstructionist.

    AND Nyp refuses to acknowledge it!

  9. Winston Smith says:

    Just more evidence that just about everyone in Congress are klepto-republicrats that really don’t want a Constitutionally-limited republic that pays its bills as it goes.

    “And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.” – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)

    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)
    – Thomas Jefferson (NYP: pls check)

  10. Rincon says:

    Liberals demand that Medicaid, welfare, education and the like not be gutted. Republicans guard the defense budget and farm subsidies while insisting that taxes don’t need to be raised to pay our huge debt. Neither group will compromise because their bases wouldn’t approve, so the problem festers. With what I read here, this dynamic won’t be changing any time soon.

    Somehow, of course, the President always seems to be blamed for the debt when it’s Congress that holds the purse strings.

  11. According to Heritage Foundation, the debt limit has been raised seven times since Obama took office. This has added $43,000 in debt for every American household in just the past four years. Raising the debt limit for a year would add another $8,800 per household. This not a game.


  12. Steve says:

    Full Faith and Credit.

    The operative word being “Credit”. We keep digging our hole deeper and deeper with no end in sight.

  13. Milty says:

    “Politicians make symbolic protest votes all the time. What the House Republicans are doing is not a symbolic protest vote. They are deadly serious about blowing up the economic system if the Republican agenda is not acceded to. Do not play this game. This is not talk-radio. It is serious and the consequences are dire.”

    Nyp, you’re giving the Republicans a lot more credit than they deserve for having a spine. When push comes to shove, they’re going to do what they do best. They’re going to cave. So quit worrying about it.

  14. Athos says:

    The Federal Reserve (word games played by evil men! They are a private, incorporated entity, NOT a federal agency of our government) is now holding something north of $3.39 Trillion in our debt.

    Why don’t we just bankrupt off that amount? Of course, that still leaves us owing another $13+ trillion. But after all, it’s just electronic pulses, not real money, right??

  15. nyp says:

    Athos – it is completely insane for you to contend that the Federal Reserve Board is not a federal agency. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

    People like Milty I can have a principled argument with — he at least operates off of a plane of reality. Saying that the Federal Reserve Board is not a federal agency just shows how many of your guys operate in a fantasy universe.

  16. Winston Smith says:

    “Athos – it is completely insane for you to contend that the Federal Reserve Board is not a federal agency. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.”

    Once again, NYP shows that he only believes the MSM, cannot think outside the box, and refuses to even consider that he has lived his life being deceived. Too bad, seems like an OK bloke…

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength

  17. Athos says:

    Read ’em and weep, petey. They got us all by the short hairs.

  18. Rincon says:

    From your source, Athos:

    The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not “owned” by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

    As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

    However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve’s activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent within the government” rather than “independent of government.”

    Arguing about whether it is a “federal agency” or not is splitting hairs.

  19. Steve says:

    “If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
    – Andrew Jackson

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
    – Henry Ford

    “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.”
    – Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

    That last one says it all.

  20. Nyp says:

    Athos – precisely what is it in that link that makes you believe that the Federal Reserve Board is a private entity and not an agency of the United States government?

  21. Nyp says:

    Steve – who is it that you believe controls US monetary policy? The Rothchilds? Is that why you are trying to say?

  22. Steve says:

    No, I am saying the a couple things that have been said in the past.

    First is Congress. They alone have the authority to issue money. Congress basically gave that away to individuals barely answerable to Congress anymore.

    Monetary policy of nations is out of the hands of those very nations today. Central banks own the world.

    I say the true knowledge of who actually controls US monetary policy is well hidden from view, just as Henry Ford made clear. I believe this is on purpose. As witness, read those FAQ’s written by the FED. Muddy at best and real control not spelled out at all.

    In any case this is the system we all grew with and were never really told anything about. It was only sign here and so you can get that savings account…here’s your number. Its even more underhanded today, babies get the number in the hospital at birth today. Slow and insidious leads to suspicion and conspiracy theory. Both of those lead to untruth’s and bad decisions on which they are based.

    The FED controls US monetary policy, the trouble is, very little is fully public as to just who the FED really is. (Yet ANOTHER in the long line of “Trust us were from the government and were here to help. No matter how much it hurts.)

  23. Milty says:

    “The FED controls US monetary policy, the trouble is, very little is fully public as to just who the FED really is. (Yet ANOTHER in the long line of “Trust us were from the government and were here to help. No matter how much it hurts.)”

    This was intentional. As I recall, the Federal Reserve was a product of the Progressive era of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. One of the characteristics of progressivism during that time was a distrust of democracy. The progressives thought elected officials would sacrifice what was best for everyone if it didn’t further their goal of being re-elected. So mechanisms were put in place that would provide a buffer between the electorate and the decision makers. The widespread use of the city manager and county manager form of local government came from this era. The Federal Reserve was established during the Wilson presidency. The indexing of county and municipal taxes would be a byproduct of this philosophy (“I didn’t vote to raise the gas tax, it automatically went up because of inflation, so don’t blame me for it when the next election comes around”).

    The rationale was that if these people weren’t tied too closely to the electorate, they would make more rational decisions because they wouldn’t be beholden to the next election. This worked in some cases, but in other cases the appointed officials decided that they would do what was best for themselves since it was more difficult to hold them accountable for their actions.

  24. Steve says:

    Back in Henry Ford’s day that would work.

    With the ease and speed of today’s communication, it’s only creating a very large and quickly growing group of people who are easily convinced the conspiracy theories are factually true.

  25. Athos says:

    Read it again, petey. I gave you the government version ( full of g-speak) so you could experience the full effects of cleverly worded misinformation.
    Kind of like our federal income taxes being “voluntary”.
    We only needed 4 pages to write our Constitution, not 2400.
    And somehow, I just don’t picture you as a “you can trust us” kind of guy.

    So what’s up, petey?

  26. Nyp says:

    Oh my God.

  27. Rincon says:

    I think I’m glad Congress isn’t directly controlling monetary policy. If they had, we might be living in caves by now.

    I’m amazed how analagous your fretting about government control is to the global warming controversy. As you say about warming, everything is fine so far. The increase in government control is leveling out, so there’s obviously no problem anymore. I also read several cretins claiming that the benefits of increased government control are greater than the disadvantages, so don’t worry; there’s no need to act.

  28. Steve says:

    Rincon, I believe if the Congress was still directly responsible for monetary policy and issuing currency, the populace would be far more involved in the politics of the country instead of just presidential elections and Congress would either experience far more turnover or would be far more in tune with their electorate and they would have far less time for silly federal laws like these:

    May is Steelmark Month: in which all citizens should observe with the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

    A US citizen can take possession of any foreign, uninhabited island, as long as it contains bird droppings.

    No person may appear as a contestant in more than one game show a year.

    And many more.

    Really, Congress would have far more work to do if they would stick to the constitutionally authorized work they were given by the founders and the stupid stuff they concern themselves with today would be almost nonexistent.

  29. Winston Smith says:

    With the Panic of 1907 resulting in a recession, with hundreds of private banks going under, Congress decided to study European banks, which were considered superior by some, because they were supposedly less susceptible to economic ups and downs.

    After the study was completed, a secret meeting between certain powerful bankers and government officials was carried out on Jekyl Island, GA, wherein the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was written. This act was then passed by a few members of Congress surreptitiously after the Christmas recess was called. Newly elected president Wilson signed the act into law, following the advice of the bankers who had supported his election.

    And so, in spite of the warning of Jefferson, and the elimination of the central bank by Andy Jackson, the United States found itself again with a private banking system owned by certain American and European shareholders that would, over the next 100 years, manipulate the money supply, thereby causing inflation and deflation, devalue the dollar to less than 5% of its 1913 level, and raise and lower interest rates at whim to control the economy.

    And now, for your amusement and edification:

  30. Athos says:

    Thank you, Winston Smith. Well done!
    How’d you like those videos, Rinnie and petey?

  31. Rincon says:

    The first video was good. I didn’t watch the second though, because I’m sure a Cliff Notes version will be coming out shortly.

    The banking system has profited greatly from performing limited services, yet Conservatives defend it and all of the profiteers working within the system, calling it capitalism, while simultaneously decrying the basis for the bankers’ riches. The basis of our money system is certainly questionable, but just as Conservatives defend the coal industry for example, because it brought us great proseperity, couldn’t a Liberal defend the monetary system on the same basis? Just as with global warming, I haven’t seen a problem so far, so it must be OK.

    I would like to see a genuine debate about our money system by two authorities, because I question it too. Unlike Conservatives though, I hesitate to condemn a system that has worked well so far because somebody writes a book or makes a video claiming it to be nefarious. If you examine history, you will find that the economy has not always functioned smoothly. Try looking up the Panics of 1857 and 1873 for example. Would the older way of doing things function effectively in an economy where trillions of dollars can travel around the world in a heartbeat? I don’t know and I suspect there may be disagreement among authorities about it.

  32. Athos says:

    Interesting post, Rincon (you’re not the pitcher, are you?).
    The cartoon (2nd video) is there to capture the attention span of all those low information citizens. And low information is more a reference to civic knowledge as opposed to anything else. It too much to hope for our schools to begin teaching government and requiring reading ” the Creatures of Jeckle Island” as a text book, yes?
    So how do we have an informed debate on our monetary policy? Most people know Jackson to be either Phil or Michael, not Andrew ( even though he’s on our $20 bill!
    And seeing how we can’t get the truth from our Feds about ZeroCare, Ben Ghazi, or QE infinity, who’s gonna play Deep Throat exposing the Federal Reserve?

  33. Winston Smith says:

    Rincon, our debt-based monetary system is neither conservative nor liberal, right nor left, and has been consistently supported by both parties. Or both parties have been supported by the monetary system, depending how you look at it 🙂

    That’s why I often refer to the fascist/globalist banksters and their klepto-republicrat minions. My wife gets tired of the phrase, but I find it quite descriptive. I am often tempted to call them something even more descriptive, but I must hold myself back…

    The thing is, if the purpose of the Fed was to stabilize the economy and the dollar, it has failed miserably and should be replaced. The primary question is, was this failure by design or not?

  34. Rincon says:

    I disagree that it has failed miserably. We have had prosperity unparalled in history. Our recession is an inconvenience more than a societal catastrophe. Nobody’s dying in the streets, and there’s far less suffering than there was 100 years ago, even in the best of times. Does that mean the system is optimal? Of course not, but so far, it doesn’t seem to have brought down civilization. I would like to hear the other viewpoint before I decide how (un)desirable our monetary system is.

    The Creatures of Jekyll Island was one book written by one individual. It may be a seminal work, or it may fade like books on the Bermuda Triangle. Does anyone other than die-hard Conservatives seriously question our monetary system?

  35. Winston Smith says:

    Considering we are $17 trillion in debt (some say much more, but let’s use the official #) and many countries are looking to end the petro-dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency because of that debt, I’d say we’re pretty close to fail. If the dollar is no longer used as the only currency for trading oil, as was negotiated with OPEC by Kissinger in 1973, there is going to be some serious $ devaluation on the global market. Of course, since we won’t be able to afford foreign goods anymore, maybe that will stimulate growth in our manufacturing base that was destroyed by NAFTA and GATT. That will probably take only 3-5 years to ramp back up, and I’m sure we can hang on that long…

  36. nyp says:

    Gee, looks pretty good.

  37. nyp says:

    Yup, it is. If any of you (or your family members) do not have decent-quality health insurance, or if you have a small business and want to find a good group plan, you should definitely click over to it:

    Even Athos.

  38. Winston Smith says:

    So, comrades, what if I don’t sign up? How long before one of my neighbors turns me in and I get disappeared one night?

    BTW, let’s see what liberal champion Bob Woodward says about the shutdown:

  39. nyp says:

    I have a different question for you, Winston Smith. Two, actually:
    1. Do you call yourself Winston Smith because you believe that the United States of America is an Orwellian nightmare?

    2. If you get in a car crash and wind up in the emergency room, do you expect the hospital staff to treat you if you don’t have insurance? What about if one of your kids has leukemia, but you don’t have health insurance – do you think that he or she should get medical treatment?

  40. Winston Smith says:

    1. “Winston Smith” serves to remind people that between the warfare/welfare state and our militarized police/surveillance state (“Two Evil States For The Price Of One!”), we are becoming Orwellian.

    2. Even as a young’un, before mandatory auto insurance, I knew it was wise to have insurance, but also realized that the state forcing people to buy insurance was wrong. Wash, rinse, repeat. My opinion hasn’t changed in 33 years. I even got rid of my new RX-7 back then because my bad driving choices raised my insurance payment above my car payment 😦

    3. When pragmatism continually subverts principle, as is too often the case, eventually we have no principles remaining.

    4. ObamaCare has been designed to “make sure” nobody off the grid gets medical care — it is a control mechanism masquerading as a social benefit, just as the federal income tax was sold to the American people as a “soak the rich” scheme a hundred years ago.

    5. When people like NYP finally realize that this game we play is all about liberty v. tyranny, and that government, no matter the size, is always used by Control Freaks to get more control, whatever Machiavellian manipulations that are proposed by the weasels will be rejected out of hand, and the corrupt system will come tumbling down.

    6. I not-so-patiently await that day…

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Government is Good

  41. nyp says:

    1. So you do indeed believe that the United States of America is an Orwellian totalitarian nightmare. Anyone else on this board agree with this guy?

    2. If someone (say, “Athos”) wrecks his car and doesn’t have insurance, should the hospital allow him to bleed out in front of the emergency room doors? What about Atho’s uninsured little daughter with leukemia (in my hypothetical). Should she be denied treatment b/c Athos doesn’t have insurance?

  42. Winston Smith says:

    Oh look, some others are preparing to be disappeared:

    Time for the DHS to do house-to-house insurance checks. Maybe they should confiscate any guns if you don’t comply. Knives and rocks too!

    Sieg Heil, Baby!

  43. Winston Smith says:

    Your “Orwellian totalitarian nightmare” my “we are becoming Orwellian”

  44. Winston Smith says:

    Oops, it dropped the “” does not equal. Some HTML issue, I suspect. Or was it the NSA?

  45. Winston Smith says:

    “2. If someone (say, “Athos”) wrecks his car and doesn’t have insurance, should the hospital allow him to bleed out in front of the emergency room doors?”

    Pls, don’t insult me with false choices. I’m not 17 anymore…

    BTW, if trolling extremist websites like this 🙂 is all you have to do, maybe it’s time to take up golf or knitting…

  46. nyp says:

    not a false choice at all. It happens every single day in every state of the Union. People who do not have insurance — some by choice, some because of economic circumstances — show up in emergency rooms and oncologists offices in dire circumstances.

    Should those people be saved? Or not?

    Your attempts to dodge the question show that even you — a 9/11 denialist — are not willing to face up to the consequences of your extremism.

    Fortunately, is now in operation to address the sorts of problems that you refuse to address.

  47. Athos says:

    My ears are burning. Is someone talking about me? Shame on you, petey, but since you brought it up (again) let’s talk about my situation from 30 years ago…..

    I was assaulted, showed up at the emergency room and saved. The hospital was a private institution, as was the Doctor (who was in private practice). I was denied coverage by the government agency Victims of a Crime, and with mounting credit card debt, and no income, I declared bankruptcy (which is the purpose of the bankruptcy laws. No more debtors’ prison! Hoo-ray for me! And last I checked, the hospital and Visa, are still doing a thriving business! The Doctor, God bless his soul, has passed from this mortal coil, to set up residency on a much higher plane)

    I moved to Las Vegas and became gainfully employed, and fiscally responsible (funny how the two go together, eh?) Of course, moving to Las Vegas in the late 80s was an incredibly fortunate choice, due to the economic boom times we experienced (even with the influx of nanny state Californians!) When I married, and had children, I was diligent to insure us, so that your scenario (a parents’ worst nightmare) would be covered.

    It’s called moral responsibility. Something that’s sadly lacking in today’s world. And something that cannot be legislated from on high. Even if you’re the “Chøøsen Øne”!

  48. nyp says:

    Athos: you had no health insurance when you needed expensive medical care. Whether it was because you couldn’t afford it or because you were irresponsible, doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that you desperately needed medical care, you received it (thank goodness,) and then, because you had no insurance, you declared bankruptcy and passed all of those expenses onto your doctors, your hospital, and the taxpayers.

    Now the 9/11 truther who calls himself “Winston Smith” does not want to say whether saving your life was the right thing to do, given the fact that you were uninsured and couldn’t pay. Most of us believe that saving you was the only morally acceptable course. But treating people who don’t have insurance has an enormous cost to the rest of us. In fact, it is helping bankrupt America. Most of the long-term spending problems you folks bemoan relate to the increasing cost of healthcare. The premise of healthcare reform is that the best solution is to get everyone under the insurance umbrella from the start. People who can’t afford insurance on their own get a partial subsidy. But everyone should be covered by the get-go, so that they don’t go through what you (and your providers) went through.

    If you want to see the solution in actual operation, go to

  49. Athos says:

    Wrong again, petey. The taxpayers didn’t get dinged. These were PRIVATE organizations. You have a problem distinguishing between private and government? Why is that? This was a small community problem, not a Federal case! But you don’t get that, do you? Øne world leader is all you progressives can think about, and it’s never worked.


    The smaller group can determine whether or not they want me to live or die. They don’t have to get DC approval for blowing their noses! Banks work better that way, too, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

    BTW, golf is fun.

  50. Athos says:

    Don’t know about knitting!

  51. nyp says:

    You don’t seem to understand that all hospitals, public or private are subsidized in party by the government. The rates charged for Medicaid compensation reflect the costs these hospitals (and doctors) incur for uncompensated care.
    And anyway – are you saying the moral you draw from your personal story would have been different if the ambulence had taken you to a public hospital??

  52. Athos says:

    You really can’t move from you’re progressive play book, can you, petey?
    You also seem ill informed about bankruptcy laws. And you have no idea about private vs public vs federal business.
    And you work on Wall Street?

    On a similar note, how’s the 1st day of 404care treating you?

  53. Milty says:

    “The premise of healthcare reform is that the best solution is to get everyone under the insurance umbrella from the start. People who can’t afford insurance on their own get a partial subsidy. But everyone should be covered by the get-go, so that they don’t go through what you (and your providers) went through.”

    To add another hypothetical, what if Athos were in the US illegally? He wouldn’t be covered by the insurance umbrella, and the hospital legally wouldn’t be allowed to deny him treatment. So what’s your proposed solution to that situation? Put undocumented immigrants under the insurance umbrella? Allow hospitals to deny them coverage?

  54. Rincon says:

    The hospital that treated Athos is still in business, but the money didn’t spontaneously appear. They were required by law to treat him and eat the cost. They made up for Athos’ bill by overcharging others just as all hospitals must. Athos is just as much of a parasite as anyone who accepts welfare benefits of equal value.

    It sounds like Athos’ idea of a utopian medical system is for those young people with limited assets to pay nothing at all into our medical system and then, if they end up requiring expensive care, they can just demand charity from the rest of us (is it really charity if the law says you have to give it?). Afterwards, they can simply declare bankruptcy, and go on with life. Why would anyone who’s young and healthy, with limited assets bother with insurance?

    I ask again, why is it immoral to make someone pay for his own medical care and not immoral to force someone else to pay for it?

  55. Steve says:

    “They were required by law to treat him and eat the cost.” Hippocratic Oath, it taught Athos a much needed lesson. They took care of him and he paid it back by taking care of his (future) family.

  56. Rincon says:

    “…also realized that the state forcing people to buy insurance was wrong”.

    So lemme see here….I’m driving along, minding my own business when some uninsured derelict slams into my car causing a massive head injury and brain damage. Let’s say he’s uninsured because your brand of maorality was the law of the day. So he should be allowed to declare bankruptcy and go on his merry way while I reach the limits of my insurance and therefore must give up all of my assets and declare bankruptcy as well – and suffer the brain damage for the rest of my life.

    All the while, I was paying higher premiums because my insurance company knows that they don’t only have to cover the crashes that are my fault, but also those crashes that are the other guy’s fault. This means I’m paying my own insurance bill and the insurance bill of the loser that hit me. Once again, you think it’s just fine to force me to pay for the other guy’s liability insurance, but wrong to make him pay for his own. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Having insurance is a reasonable price to pay for such a privilege.

    Your antigovernmental fervor is so intense that you can’t see straight. Wake up. There are a lot of things in this world that can harm you besides government. Government exists in part to prevent us from harming each other. It would completely fail in this mission if done your way. No thanks!

  57. Steve says:

    If “uninsured motorists” coverage is so bad, why do you carry it?

    Could it be because people do illegal things? And just how are you going to get those scofflaws to pay up for their actions?
    By paying to jail them! So not only do you have to pay for your own care, you also have to pay for their jail time!

    Now, with HEALTH INSURANCE its different, in no way is HEALTH INSURANCE analogous to AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY insurance. I challenge you guys to come up with a legit example of personal physical damage due to an “uninsured patient”…

  58. Steve says:

    OH yeah! Those same uninsured motorists are likely to be the same uninsured patients! I guess there IS some kind of analogy here…maybe not the one you want.

  59. Athos says:

    The “antigovernmental fervor” led to the British colonies throwing off the yoke of a tyrannical king. And the English King was far better than all the tinpot dictators ruling the world today! And if history serves me correct, George 3 imposed far less tax than Ø and company are imposing, today. (and the colonist enjoyed far more freedom, didn’t they?)

    “parasite”? Really rinny? By your statement, we should simply END welfare because they are parasites, right? And of course, Medicare and Medicaid had NOTHING to do with the rise in health care costs, did it?

    And employer paid, tax free health coverage had nothing to do with rising health care costs, right?

    And John Edwards and ilk, medical malpractice law suits had nothing to do with rising health care costs, right?

    And 82 illegal aliens receiving free dialysis treatments 3 times a week at UMC have nothing to do with rising health care costs, right?

    But I’m the parasite, yes? And after all, bankruptcy is no big deal, is it? At least not in today’s standards. But 30 years ago it was the next to last way out for me to take care of debts that I couldn’t pay, at that time.

    And I did consider the last way out.

    You’re so blinded by your ideology that you ignore the truth. But then again, I keep forgetting that 40% fought against our independence, back in 1776. They’d rather lick the hand of their master, than stand as free men.

    They were called Tories, Royalists, or King’s Men.

  60. nyp says:

    I’m a “Royalist”? A Tory?

    I thought I was supposed to be a wild-eyed, bomb-throwing, hemp-growing socialist.

    So confusing ….

  61. Rincon says:

    The analogy between health and auto insurance is that in both cases, the bill for those that CHOOSE not to have insurance is, by law, paid by those that choose to have it. It’s called an unfunded mandate.

    Taxation alone was not the issue during the revolution. Remember taxation without representation?

    Although a bit inflammatory, the definition of parasite fits perfectly. I said that you were a parasite only to the degree that a welfare recipient would be. As a “flaming Liberal”, I consider temporary states of parasitism to be necessary to keep people whole during hard times. Do you?

    Unlike some Conservatives, I would not have let you bleed to death on the sidewalk. I don’t see though, that government should not have the right to make you pay for your own health care, but that you should have the right to make someone else pay for it.

    Since Medicare and Medicaid pay less than private insurance, they are not as guilty of inflating health care costs as private insurance. Employer paid health care probably had little to do with rising health care costs, but it tosses peoples’ lives upside down every time they lose a job. Malpractice suits are a substantial cause of high health care costs.

    Although an illegal alien inflates health care costs, he does so no more than you did. In both cases, someone needed care that they could not pay for. It is true though, that an alien is a lawbreaker and you were not.

    Bankruptcy is indeed stressful and, for most of us (Donald Trump excluded), a last resort. You paid a very big bill at that time – it just wasn’t financial. I appreciate your letting us use your situation as an example. It makes it easier for us to relate to someone who is temporarily in trouble needing a little help from the rest of us. Humans – or at least Moderates and Liberals, differ from most animals in that we take care of each other. Seems to me though, that to a Conservative, bankruptcy laws would be yet another unfunded government mandate to force those of us who produce more than we consume to pay for those of us that produce less than they consume. Liberals don’t feel quite the same way.

  62. Steve says:

    Nah, the wild-eyed, bomb-throwing, hemp-growing socialists are in charge today.

    Good of you to make it clear and own up to it.

  63. Steve says:

    Really? So if one CHOOSES to NOT carry HEALTH insurance there is no personal repercussion? (like in the case of automobile liability insurance one may choose to not carry it and to not drive a car) So how does one choose to not carry health insurance with and still have no repercussion as a result. (Since, as you guys all insist, its the same as automobile insurance.) Or are you calling the choice to not drive some kind of penalty for choosing not to drive?


    ACA is nothing like Automobile Liability insurance.

  64. nyp says:

    1. what does it mean to have the “freedom” to not purchase auto insurance by not driving a car? Sounds like a pretty cramped freedom to me.
    2. Unlike driving a car, one cannot avoid coming down with a brain tumor, getting run over, getting shot, etc. Those people arrive in the ER every single day. When they arrive without insurance, the rest of us taxpayers foot the bill. The only way to avoid that inevitable externality is to bring everyone under the umbrella.

    Thank goodness for

  65. Steve says:

    1. Tell that to those who choose to not own a car, Nyp. Over the years I have known several people who made that choice. And they have NOT been taxed, fined or penalized in any way for making that choice. In fact their cash on hand is actually larger for it. They are in effect rewarded for not having a car and the insurance.

    2. Is true. Its only that we do not agree on the current (weak) attempted solution. Insurance (as you have previously acknowledged) does not guarantee service. So we may still all be paying for it. Only time will tell now. On the other hand with automobile liability insurance coverage there are a bevy of body shops to fix the cars and medical provider choice (should that be necessary) is not limited by the network chosen by the liability insurance.

    So ONCE AGAIN ACA is nothing at all like automobile liability insurance.

  66. Rincon says:

    If you don’t get auto insurance and never have an accident, then you get away with taking a chance. If you do the same with health insurance, you also get away with it. If you have an accident without insurance, you force someone else to pay the cost. If you get sick or injured without insurance, you force someone else to pay the cost. Not much difference so far.

    In theory, you can opt out of auto insurance by not owning a car. Big deal. It’s hardly applicable to the many of us that would, for example, lose our jobs without access to a car. That makes it theoretical, not practical. Keep your theories. I deal in reality.

    If it is unethical to force someone to pay for their own medical care, then it’s more untethical to force someone to pay for the medical care of another (insurance situations notwithstanding; to be consistent therefore, if we eliminate the requirement for people to pay for their health insurance, we should eliminate the requirement that medical centers must treat those that cannot pay.

  67. Rincon says:

    Come to think of it, there’s a much simpler way of looking at it. In both cases, those who don’t purchase insurance are still insured and they’re making someone else pay for their insurance – except for the guy that doesn’t own a car. You’re claiming that people should have the right to make others pay for their insurance – unless you give doctors the right to refuse treatment to those who cannot pay.

  68. If you don’t have insurance, pay cash.


  69. Athos says:

    Rinny, there are NO conservatives that would let you, me or anyone, bleed out on the sidewalk.

    Please read that again.

    The progressive playbook can’t argue their points, and convince a free people to willingly give up their freedom.

    As Winston said, this is about tyranny vs freedom.

    Parasites come in all sizes and shapes. With your definition, children would qualify.

    As a conservative, I chose to see my children as my progeny, and my responsibility. It’s not the Village raising my children, it’s me and my wife.

    Socialism has NEVER worked in the history of man.

    Why do you think it will work, now, with us?

  70. Athos says:

    petey, I did not call you a Tory. I merely pointed out the historical fact, that not everyone was on board with the idea of self governance.

    However, feel free to interpret my statements however you want.

    Or as the old adage goes…..” if the shoe fits……

  71. Steve says:

    “If you do the same with health insurance, you also get away with it.”

    NO YOU DO NOT! unless you also opt out of being employed. You get to PAY a tax, you remember that single thing that made ACA constitutional?

    “In theory, you can opt out of auto insurance by not owning a car. ”
    Not theory, FACT.
    We personally know an employee at Binions who has never owned a car.

    And we have Melissa Finnell mentioned in an RJ Article by Richard Lake.
    “Melissa Finnell, for example, works at the Terrible’s gas station on the corner of Charleston and Martin Luther King. It’s going to be torn down.”
    “She does not own a car; she walks to work and takes the bus elsewhere.
    Now, she’s not sure what to do. She doesn’t make enough money to buy a car or to live in a more expensive part of town.”

    You guys claim to care so much about these very people. Yet you claim they are only “theory”.
    Step out of the ivory tower and walk the walk you try to talk.

  72. nyp says:

    So Athos, if you are not going to allow uninsured people who have been hit buy a bus to bleed out on the sidewalk in front of the emergency room, how are you going to afford to pay for their treatment? And why should we let people who can afford insurance make the deliberate decision to go without? They are gaming the system.

  73. Rincon says:

    This stuff is simple, but the three of you have failed to address the primary question: Why is it preferred for an individual to force others to pay for his insurance/health care over requiring people pay for their own care?

    To address your rhetorical points:

    First, I was and am describing the problems with the health care system that you appear to advocate, which was before Obamacare.

    “If you don’t have insurance, pay cash”. Hospitals have the right to charge far more for each procedure for those paying cash, and according to Time, they frequently do. This makes that option unfair and impractical for those that have cash. The people that gain an advantage by not paying insurance are those with few assets. They can just walk away and stick the hospital with the bill. The requirement to buy insurance is aimed at them, because, as most of my employees feel, there’s no reason to pay a big insurance bill when you’re insured by everyone else already.

    So if, as Athos claims, Conservatives won’t let people bleed to death on sidewalks, they’re content to allow those that are healthy without substantial assets to force everyone else to pay for their insurance (they are indeed insured if guaranteed medical care). Sounds socialistic to me, except that some don’t even have to contribute.

    “If you do the same with health insurance, you also get away with it”. Perhaps I should have been clearer Steve. I am referring to the former health care system – the one you support.

    I’ll change my wording: The part about owning a car is not theory. It’s just totally impractical for the vast majority of us. Rhetoric without substance Steve. Or you advocating that we abandon our autos? Maybe you’re an environmentalist after all 🙂

    Whether children fit the definition of parasites is tangential. Fact is, adults should pay their own way unhless they are unable. Forcing others insure you because you don’t feel like paying victimizes others.

    You seem to forget that insurance is socialistic in its operation, whether done by a company or a government. Everybody contributes and those with the greatest need take the greatest share.

  74. Steve says:

    I am tired of being told ACA is like Liability Insurance. ACA is not and it never was.
    That tactic is as bad as NV healthlink commercials calling the tax for non coverage a “fine” or “penalty”. It too is neither and if thiose were the only choices for that tax to be, ACA would have been ruled unconstitutional.

    I am tired of being lied to. I want the arguments in support to be based solely on actual fact.

    Fact one. It was passed into law only by Democrats.

    That is a good place to start.

  75. Rincon says:

    It is, and always has been wrong to force people to pay for the health insuarance of others. People should pay for their own care. Why is that so hard to understand?

    As for Constitutionality, I leave that to you and the lawyers.

  76. Athos says:

    “So if, as Athos claims, Conservatives won’t let people bleed ”
    As I claim, Rinny? You’re hopeless. Of course conservatives have to be barbarians! No way you can admit the evil of this tyranny, so you must invent phantom demons known as conservatives!
    And it’s been my experience that cash brings discounts at the doctors office. Don’t know what you’re talking about.

    And 404care forces young people to pay for old people. More importantly, the middle class pays for the poor, and all service will suffer.
    But in your pretzel logic mind zero is your god and all will be well!

  77. nyp says:

    After two and one-half days, more than 70,000 Americans have created ObamaCare accounts.

    If you are in Nevada and need to purchase affordable, high-quality insurance for yourself and your family, and if you wish to see if you qualify for a special tax credit, go to

  78. I did and got error messages.

  79. nyp says:

    Athos – you may not realize it, but if you are in group insurance plan (i.e., if you get health insurance through your job) the young people in that plan are “paying for the old people”

    Socialism !

  80. Athos says:

    petey, I was attacked. People hit at the bus stop were victims of a crime. I did have the option of suing my attacker in civil court for damages, but didn’t. Of course, this was before the law suit lottery was all the rage, but he had no money or assets, so who do I sue? McDonalds?
    Maybe I should have claimed “Disaster Area” and got FEMA money, eh?

  81. nyp says:

    You should have had insurance. People have medical emergencies all the time. Because you did not have insurance — for whatever reason — other taxpayers were forced to shoulder the cost of your medical care. Dealing with that problem is driving our medical system — and government –into bankruptcy. The only way we can fix it is to get everyone in under the insurance umbrella before they have a medical emergency like yours.

    If you want to see how the new system works, log into

  82. Winston Smith says:

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    Why did Adams say this? Is it not because Americans were expected to govern themselves, and by applying Christian principles, would love their neighbors and strive to serve each other? And in doing so, they would not need an expanded, bloated government to take care of them. Those that were able would voluntarily contribute to those they saw in need, whether that meant food, shelter and medical care, or just raising others’ spirits during difficult times.

    By involving government into every aspect of our lives, we replace that Christian love with mandated “systems” that destroy most people’s natural desires to help each other.

    Yes, some “liberals” will consider themselves morally superior because they use government to force others to take care of the less fortunate. And yes, some “conservatives” react strongly against being forced to take care of those that they think “game the system”.

    Because the cost of medical care has risen so sharply over the last few decades, for various reasons, some by design, we have been shoved into a Hegelian Dialectic corner allowing limited, manipulated solutions. It’s the old managed conflict game with a pre-determined synthesis that we move closer to with every iteration, that being single-payer health care, with no one allowed to operate outside of the control matrix.

  83. Steve says:

    “It is, and always has been wrong to force people to pay for the health insuarance of others. ”

    Like making the healthy young pay for the unhealthy aged?

  84. nyp says:

    the “healthy young” pay for the “unhealthy aged” every second of every day in the group plans that most Americans belong to. That is how insurance works. Of course, the healthy young are also paying for themselves when they get old and decrepit (at age 45 or so.) And they are also paying for their girlfriends, who have a tendency to turn into wives who need maternity and obstetric care.

    But I tell ‘ya — the people who get most upset about are not the healthy young, but the Tea Party old.

  85. Steve says:

    That explains Walgreens,,,,how?

  86. Nyp says:

    What walgreens did was a good thing. Why do you have a problem with it?

  87. Rincon says:

    “Like making the healthy young pay for the unhealthy aged?”
    We already subsidize the older generation more than necessary, but some subsidy for health care is necessary.

    A good capitalist would have old people pay for their insurance at rates that are commensurate with their risk. At advanced ages, this is impractical. Because old people generally cannot make the astronomical payments that private insurance would demand, an intergenerational transfer of money is necessary; hence, Medicare. This is termed socialism by Conservatives.

    For those under 65, let them pay premiums commensurate with their risk. If that’s not acceptable, then subsidize them or lower the minimum age for Medicare. Take your pick. One caveat: Premiums should be adjusted for risky behavior, but not for preexisting conditions.

  88. Steve says:

    Walgreens employs 240,000 people, under ACA they are required to provide health insurance. How is what they did good? Or even legal, Nyp?

    Ah, Rincon. When it was voluntary, health insurance was a different discussion. Now that it is mandatory its become a completely different animal.

  89. Steve says:

    “After two and one-half days, more than 70,000 Americans have created ObamaCare accounts.”

    Walgreens forces their 240,000 employees onto the exchanges and all you got so far is 70,000?

  90. Rincon says:

    Health insurance used to be mandatory for almost everyone before Obamacare. Paying for it was optional. Not anymore.

  91. Steve says:

    OK paying for health insurance used to be voluntary?

    Makes me wonder why anyone actually paid…

    But at least I have a clearer understanding of just how rich corporate entities like Walgreens and Sears are fully taking advantage of ACA. Love those private exchanges that mimic ACA…jokes on you guys, ACA….helping big insurance and rich corporate fat cats get richer and bigger with federal subsidies no less.

    Like I said, now that it is no longer voluntary its become a whole new animal. I hope you like what you built.

    Did I mention some 60,000 Walgreens employees no longer qualify for insurance and will be forced to pay for policies out of their meager, part time, pay?

  92. Rincon says:

    I better change my phraseology before someone nitpicks it:

    Since all were guaranteed medical care under the former system, then by definition, everybody was insured. Those who bought insurance or paid cash were also compelled to pay for the insurance of the parasites. The parasites no longer get a free ride. (see parasite definition below)

    Definition of parasite in this post: Someone who has the means to pay for insurance (usually with few assets), but decides not to, knowing that others will pick up the tab if major medical care is required.

  93. Steve says:

    Suddenly 60,000 Walgreens part timers qualify as parasites,,,oh only if they cannot afford the subsidized exchange insurance. I get it. You would rather they take responsibility and stop working so they can be honest about taking medicaid!

  94. Nyp says:

    fella, I’m afraid you don’t understand how private health exchanges work, nor what Walgreens did

  95. Rincon says:

    I generally reserve the word parasite for someone who could pay their own way but won’t. As far as I’m concerned, people who do not pay for their own health care are on the dole by definition. I’m surprised that you are so sympathetic for those who don’t pay their way.

  96. Steve says:

    fella…I know what I think about them. And I know what it takes to keep from being robbed by providers.

    ACA has changed private insurance companies into government subsidized insurance companies complete with a mandatory captive revenue source. They no longer qualify as “private” outfits. They have become pseudo bureaucracies.

    Its sad you think its still private enterprise.

  97. Athos says:

    It’s called choice, Rinny. It’s a valuable bi-product of freedom.

  98. Rincon says:

    Seems to me that the major changes affecting the “free enterprise” aspect were the requirement for everyone to pay for their own insurance (instead of billing the rest of us), and not allowing the insurance companies to refuse coverage or jack up rates for those of us with preexisting conditions. That’s destroying free enterprise?

    “It’s called choice, Rinny”. In the past, the only people given a choice were those that made the choice to stick the rest of us with the bill. The rest of us had no choice at all. We were required to pay for the parasite. I also remember an acquaintance that decided to go without insurance because the cheapest insurance he could find with his preexisting condition was $24,000 a year. Although he was willing to pay for insurance, he chose paying zero over bankruptcy. Some choice.

  99. Steve says:

    Forcing people to purchase anything they do not need or want is not free.

    People who do not purchase health insurance now are threatened with an increased tax, this is a first in the USA. However if these people do not have coverage and they do partake of services they will be subject to the full price of such service. It is in the law. It was the way prior too. The thing about making everyone else pay is only for those who found ways to get out of paying or for those who are not within the borders of the USA legally,,,and THIS has not changed one iota.

    Health insurance is no longer free enterprise.

  100. Rincon says:

    “Forcing people to purchase anything they do not need or want is not free”. My point exactly. Problem is, unless we let people die at the hospital entrance, everyone is insured, like it or not. The only question is whether we let some people stick others with the bill or we don’t let them do that.

    I suppose Rockefeller’s regional oil monopoly was free enterprise too, but it had to go. In a like way, an industry that colludes to keep the customer from knowing the true price of their services until after those services are performed also needs to go. An industry that has caused more bankruptcies than all others put together, while the majority of those bankrupted were insured, needs to go. An industry that for all intents and purposes, routinely refused coverage to those with preexisting conditions needed to go.

  101. Steve says:

    Except ACA actually re-enforces and grows that very industry. Including making people with no insurance pay full price and taxing them for not buying the insurance. On top of that ACA guarantees health insurance companies a fully captive revenue source!

    ACA is the antipathy of everything you just wrote Rincon!

  102. Rincon says:

    We either have to force people to pay for their own health care or force some of them to pay for the care of those that prefer not to pay. Take your pick. I call the second choice welfare.

    I agree that Obamacare is awful, just(hopefully)no more awful than the previous system and, in some ways, definitely better.

  103. Steve says:

    Well, there are people who pay for their own care. And their form of coverage is being taken away.

  104. Rincon says:

    The idiot writing the article claims to not need health coverage because he/she/it has substantial savings. Unless Kim is worth over two million or so, a case of kidney failure for example, would quickly consume it all. Suddenly, he would realize under this scenario, that he actually had insurance – paid for by the rest of us. Fact is, even if you’re worth a great deal, you are a fool to risk it all by betting that no catastrophe will occur. People with substantial savings like Kim can easily afford the insurance, fine, or tax anyway, so tell him to stop whining.

  105. Steve says:

    Even under ACA Kim qualifies for catastrophic coverage. She is tech, high dollar tech. She is 23 according to that article.

    Mainly, my complaints are about portions of the law that simply are very poorly written and it seems anything conservatives have to say about it always gets summarily dismissed and shot down by the Democrats. Well…..this time Democrats need conservatives to get pass this divide and its Democrats who knew it was coming all along. All that was needed, as you said, was to at least appear to be working with conservatives. What has happened is the Democrats have become the party of NO! and it matters little to conservatives as they have always been the heavy in this script. The Democrats are quickly catching up and some are surpassing conservatives on that front. “Yucca Mountain” Harry is a great example of the future Democrats are building for themselves and conservative have nothing to lose by helping them along the path.

    THAT is why I keep saying Democrats need to compromise, they are losing this battle.

    Not that it really bothers me much, its kinda fun to watch.

  106. Rincon says:

    Got to agree with you Steve. Democrats can hardly claim that Obamacare needs no improvement.

  107. Steve says:

    Ask yourself just who really bears the burden of Washington City’s stupidity?

  108. Milty says:

    Looks like even some supporters of Obamacare are shocked at the rates they’ll be paying.

    “Of course, I want people to have health care. I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

    “I’m not against Obamacare. It’s just the initial shock. I’m holding out hope that there will be a correction over a handful of years.”

  109. Steve says:

    That won’t make ACA go away. It really doesn’t matter who has control of the government in the coming years ACA is here to stay.

    What that says, and Republicans hope it grows, is people are going to be hopping mad about being lied to about the costs of health insurance under this law. I believe its the very reason Republicans were lobbing bills at the Senate all these months. Hoping to keep this front and center going into November 2014.
    So the new insurance bills are coming due just in time for a mid term election and Republicans have been suggesting a compromise from Democrats of holding off the individual mandate for one year. Democrats being the “Party of NO!” are falling for it, leading the way is “Yucca Mountain” Harry. It would have been incredibly simple for Democrats to defuse this and they are usually smarter about election season politics. Democrats cannot have forgotten the loss they took based on ACA in ’10. Maybe they’re drunk with their own hubris.

    It seems clear to me Republicans are hoping for a repeat of that ACA inspired voter backlash and Democrats seem to be all too willing to help them get it.

  110. Athos says:

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Are we now a nation of Forrest Gumps?

  111. Winston Smith says:

    ObamaCare is becoming a political and technological failure before our eyes…

    “As few as 1 in 100 applications on the federal exchange contains enough information to enroll the applicant in a plan, several insurance industry sources told CNBC on Friday. Some of the problems involve how the exchange’s software collects and verifies an applicant’s data.”

    Maybe the IT guys had to program it before they read it 🙂

  112. […] is from the man who, along with Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 while the nation was waging two wars against […]

  113. […] principled vote against the budget and debt ceiling deal (which is how Obama and Harry Reid voted in 2006, by the way) to a Japanese solider on some distant atoll still fighting World War […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s