Orrin Hatch worries that health-care reform might make Democrats popular forevermore
November 2nd, 2009 at 01:52pm Pat Cunningham
You’ve got to hand it to Sen.Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, for UNCOMMON POLITICAL CANDOR.
An excerpt:
Hatch asserted that the health bills, which he believes represent a “step-by-step approach to socialized medicine,” will lead to Americans’ dependence on Democrats for their health and other issues.
”And if they get there, of course, you’re going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody’s going to say, ‘All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party,’ ” Hatch said during an interview with the conservative CNSNews.com.
”That’s their goal,” Hatch added. “That’s what keeps Democrats in power.”
Imagine that! Those darned Democrats are just trying to ingratiate themselves with a majority of the American people! It’s outrageous!
UPDATE: And then there’s Virginia Foxx, a House Republican from North Carolina, who SAYS Democratic efforts at health-care reform are a bigger threat to America than terrorism.
Entry Filed under: Orrin Hatch, Democrats
33 Comments Add your own
1. expdoc | November 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I think the term is dependent not popular.
No doubt that the Democrats dream of the populace being dependent on mother government for their every want and need.
After all,the best way to solidify your power base is to scare people into believing that their only chance for survival is to vote for you. Then you promise to take care of them and oh boy, if that other guy get’s elected he will take away all that you are entitled to.
2. gowader | November 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Why do you think Chuck Jefferson will never be voted out of office. He even has classes designed to show his people how to sign up for the gravey train!!!!
3. George | November 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
It’s a good thing the Demmycrats are looking out for us little people. I mean, without them, how would we ever manage to take care of ourselves? We are obviously too stupid to do so. Good thing someone in DC knows whats better for me than I do. Stop standing there with your hand out, get off your couch and go get a friggin job and quit waiting for someone to give you what you think you are “entitled” to
4. Dave Barrett | November 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
George,
Apparently you and no one close to you currently cannot get health insurance because of a “pre-existing” condition or because they have maxed out on medical bills. Many people in this country, some very smart and able to take care of themselves up until now, find themselves in that position. One person by themselves, no matter how smart and capable, cannot force the health insurance companies to insure them and unless you are a multi-millionaire any of a number of medical situations can easily bankrupt your family even if you had what you thought was good health insurance. It is not just people without jobs who find themselves in that situation.
And by the way, providing health insurance for all would not necessarily ensure eternal dominance by the Democratic Party. Just look at the experience of Canada, Britain, France, Germany, etc. etc. All the Republicans would have to do was convince the public that they could manage universal health insurance better than the Democrats. Of course, the way the Republicans are painting themselves into a corner by being totally in opposition to every aspect of meaningful health insurance reform it would probably take 15 or 20 years before they could convince the public to trust them on health insurnace.
5. SNuss | November 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Two HIGHLY relevant quotes, from Thomas Jefferson:
“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
And one from James Madison:
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… they may appoint teachers in every state… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”
6. Neftali | November 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
OMG! Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) NAILS IT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_0UdjElNQ
Take THAT Alan Grayson!
7. Pat Cunningham | November 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
SNuss: The second of your two Jefferson quotations is bogus. He never said it.
8. snuss | November 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
After further research, it is unproven that it is a Jefferson quote, but several sources DO attribute it to him. But, can you dispute the truth it contains?
Otherwise, here are two more appropriate quotes:
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
And the most appropriate one:
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government”.
Thomas Jefferson
9. Neftali | November 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
The CBO announced today that around 2% of the population would sign up for the public option. So let’s do some simple math:
US Population 304,059,724
% sign up for Public Option 2.00%
Number of Public Option people 6,081,194
Cost of Public Option ($1 Trillion) $1,000,000,000,000
Cost per person over 10 years $164,441.38
Cost per person per year $16,444.14
So the government will spent sixteen thousand dollars per person per year who signs up for the public option. And you liberals are okay with this?
10. shawnnews | November 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I heard Limbaugh say that social security and medicare were designed to keep the dems in office. Of course, this never happens.
11. Craig Knauss | November 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Neftali,
Your whole computation is based on a wildly speculative assumption: that the cost of the health care reform program is going to cost $1 billion. And the rest of the numbers are also just estimates and assumptions. As I learned long ago in computer programming, “garbage in means garbage out”. Don’t try to present wild-ass guesses as fact.
12. Richard | November 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
This is kind of funny. What have the Democrats managed to tuck into this 1,900 page healthcare bill? Well how about goodies like this … uncovered by BigGovernment.com:
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
Well that’s rather obvious, isn’t it? Just what in the hell does this have to do with health care reform? How does protecting trial lawyer’s contingency fees improve the delivery and quality of health care to the American people? It is a gift from Nancy Pelosi directly to trial lawyers … trial lawyers who contribute tens of millions of dollars to Democrats in every election year. Any changes made on medical liability lawsuits will not be allowed to affect the livelihood for her beloved trial lawyers.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi-health-care-bill-blows-a-kiss-to-trial-lawyers/
13. Richard | November 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Neftali……..Nice that Snowe has done her part to vote for this.
14. Neftali | November 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 am
Craig Knauss - Which of my numbers are you claiming is wrong? The US population within a million. The percent signing up for the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, as does the expected cost of the House health care bill over 10 years. Those are not my numbers, those are numbers which our Congress is using.
And its not $1 Billion, bone-head. Its $1 Trillion over 10 years.
15. Neftali | November 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 am
Richard - How many times do I have to explain this before you finally get it through your thick skull? Snowe is part of the Senate and she voted for S.1796, the Senate Finance Committee bill, also called “America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009″ which did not include the public option. Snowe has stated several times she will NOT vote for a health care bill that includes the public option.
The current legislative thuggery, er bill, that Pelosi is all giggly about is the two thousand page HR.3962, the so-called “Affordable Health Care for America Act” which does include the Socialist public option.
Snowe is in the Senate. Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Two totally different bills. Got it?
16. Richard | November 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Got it………. Snowe voted for the version with the S1796 that does not include the public option yet……..yet being the key word. YET. The Public Option will be added at a later date ………just watch the space was left open to specifically be filled in at a later date. Not like the liberals are after the Public Option or anything like that.
Outside of a few so called Blue Dogs the ultimate goal of the lefts quest for power is the public option……then again, like Snowe is a conservative……lol
17. Richard | November 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 am
A government takeover of our health care system will do more than the Islamic terrorists to cause permanent damage to our Republic. The amounts of money we will have to borrow from China and Europe to fund this takeover will be a burden on generations of Americans to come. You can’t say that about the Islamic terrorist attacks. The terrorists didn’t rob tens of millions of Americans of their sense of independence. ObamaCare will. The Islamic terrorist attacks did not permanently reduce the quality of health care in the United States. ObamaCare will. The Islamic terrorist attacks did not destroy health care innovation in the United States. ObamaCare will.
Virginia Foxx is right. The Islamic terrorists can only dream of harming America the way the Democrats takeover of health care will.
18. Richard | November 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
As to Orrin Hatch comment……I came across this little piece in respone to Pat’s little fluff of………. Imagine that! Those darned Democrats are just trying to ingratiate themselves with a majority of the American people! It’s outrageous!
When it comes to achieving the Democrats dreams and schemes, there is nothing that will stand in their way. Not even that pesky little thing called the Constitution. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch put it all in perspective recently. He does not believe that the Democrat plans for healthcare are justifiable. He says that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”
Ain’t that the truth?
First it is healthcare. Then what? What comes next for the Democrats to achieve their goal of making you more and more dependent on government? Orrin Hatch’s point is that right now, the Constitution still remains a “barrier” for the Democrats. But if they get their way with healthcare, the levies will be broken. There will be nothing stopping them from trampling over what is left of our Constitution.
And the White House doesn’t seem to have a problem with that. Robert Gibbs was asked just yesterday whether White House lawyers had reviewed the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Robert Gibbs’ response was that the White House is not seriously concerned about this.
Not seriously concerned? What is there to be MORE concerned about than upholding the foundation of this country? Then upholding the Constitution. Didn’t The Community Organizer take an oath to protect and defend our Constitution? And now he’s “Not concerned”? And if you will remember, Nancy Pelosi had a similar response last week. When asked about the Constitutionality of her healthcare plan, she actually thought the reporter was joking. She chuckled, “Are you serious? Is that a serious question?” Yes, Nancy. Yes, Robert. Yes, Obama. We are serious. And it is about time you get serious too before you completely destroy what is left of this great country.
19. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
richard: The constitutionality of Obamacare (or anything else) is not for you or your wingnut heroes to decide. That’s why we have a Supreme Court, and the last time I checked, most of the justices on the high court were conservatives. If there’s a constitutional problem with health-care legislation, take it to the court. Until then, spare me your ridiculous arguments that those terrible Democrats are out to shred the Constitution and turn America into a commie gulag.
By the way, richard, Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, one of America’s finest schools. Where did you teach constitutional law?
20. Mike Carroll | November 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
“and the last time I checked, most of the justices on the high court were conservatives.”Tell me which one is the Conservative-Breyer?, Stevens?, Ginsburg?, Sotomayor? Kennedy?
Only a liberal could see Kennedy as a Conservative. Good try.
21. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Mike Carroll: Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan, is a fairly reliable conservative vote on the high court. Granted, he’s no Scalia or Thomas (thank God), but neither is he a Ginsburg or Breyer. Read this (especially the part where it says Kennedy “usually takes a conservative viewpoint, but sometimes has looked at cases individually”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
22. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Mike Carroll: One other thing: When I put “supreme court” and “conservative majority” in a Google search field, I got more than 42,000 references.
23. expdoc | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Pat,
Your comment about Justice Thomas sadly proves that you too are a racist.
24. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
doc: Quit pretending to be an idiot. We’ve got others here who are better at it. They’re not pretending.
By the way, why are you so quick to throw around this racism stuff lately?
25. DingDong | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Pat you are the first one to throw around the words relating to racism. Usually when your point is weak.
Put your search into google
racist site:http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce
or
bigot site:http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce
Interesting how many times this blog has those words.
26. Mike Carroll | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Souter was nominated by Bush 1 and he certainly was no Conservative. Kennedy is the lone member of what I call the muddled middle (now that O\’Connor has retired). No Conservative thinks of Kennedy as a Conservative jurist.
27. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
DingDong: The question I posed to expdoc has nothing to do with this blog’s frequent discussion of racism. I merely wondered why he was raising the issue so much of late, often in contexts completely unrelated to matters of race.
And as for our discussions of racism here, I don’t apologize for that. Racism is part of our national political argument these days. And it comes up here in various contexts, including those in which a blatant bigot like Juice offers comments about his dislike for black folks, his affinity for “European-Americans” and other such stuff.
Let me repeat: I have never said that critics of President Obama are all racists. Nor have I ever said that all conservatives are racists. I have many non-racist acquaintances who are conservative critics of Obama.
But anybody who would deny that Obamaphobics include a lot of blatant bigots is just blind. Anybody who would deny that Rush Limbaugh is racist is just deaf.
28. Richard | November 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
http://www.missourah.com/2009/09/15/obama-criticism-flow-chart/
This flow chart should help your point Pat. I am glade that I could help you with this race thing.
29. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Mike Carroll: You say “No Conservative thinks of Kennedy as a Conservative jurist.” My, my. I didn’t know that you were authorized to speak for all conservatives. Do they all check in with you before registering their opinions on the ideology of high-court justices? Or do you keep a tally on your own?
The fact remains that Kennedy votes the conservative position more often than not. Just because he doesn’t always vote with Scalia doesn’t make him a liberal or even a moderate.
But then, this debate between us has wandered far afield from the original point I made to richard that the constitutionality of health-care reform is not for him to decide. It’s a matter for the courts, and the current high court is not exactly a bastion of liberalism.
30. expdoc | November 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Pat,
You obviously know that I am kidding, but I am on that kick lately because I am tired of racism being raised when it comes to those who disagree with the President.
It is mostly laughable and sets serious discussion about race issues back significantly. It is very much like the boy who cried wolf.
The Democrats are trying to lead our country into dramatic,historical change and debate is warranted, but being supressed.
The strong arm tactics being used do nothing to engender confidence and there are pretty clear signs that independents who had voted for “hope and change” are not getting what they bargained for.
Beyond the false charge of racism, Pelosi’s tactic of bringing a 1900 page bill to the floor and allowing no amendments or significant debate is far from a transparent or bipartisan process.
31. DingDong | November 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Pat, you set the tone for the blog, then wonder why others are quick to claim racism.
32. Mike Carroll | November 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“My, my. I didn’t know that you were authorized to speak for all conservatives. Do they all check in with you before registering their opinions on the ideology of high-court justices?”
Why yes, actually, they do.
The secret is out.
33. Craig Knauss | November 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Neftali, my putting down $1 billion was a typo. You and I both know I was quoting you and meant $1 trillion. Big deal, “bonehead”. Also the estimate I saw from the CBO was a bit over $800 billion, not $1 trillion. And all the numbers you used were ESTIMATES. For example, the census data is speculation until the next census is taken. And that number will be only an estimate. And it’s only a guess what percentage will opt for the public option. So, in short, they’re all soft numbers. Would you stake your life on any of them? I sincerely doubt it. And by the way, GWB’s last budget was about $3 trillion. And that was for ONE year, not ten.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed