Time Mag's Halperin on CNN: Lack of Universal Coverage 'Immoral'

Time Mag's Halperin on CNN: Lack of Universal Coverage 'Immoral'

By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
August 20, 2009 - 21:31 ET

“We're the only industrialized democracy that doesn't cover every citizen” and “that is immoral,” Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst for Time magazine where he oversees “The Page” blog, declared on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight in illustrating the prism through which journalists view the debate over the proper role of government in health care.

Halperin's contention occurred back on Thursday, August 6, but I'm just now catching up, following a vacation, thanks to a tip from Steve Allen of the Gentleman from Lickskillet comic strip, which had a liberal media bias theme a couple of weeks ago involving “Group Think” magazine.

When Dobbs challenged Halperin's premise -- “That's immoral?” -- the political director at ABC News for ten years until jumping to Time in 2007, affirmed: “Yes, to be a country this wealthy and be the only industrialized democracy that hasn't figured out how to cover everyone.”

From the Thursday, August 6 Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN:

MARK HALPERIN: There's three things that are true: We're the only industrialized democracy that doesn't cover every citizen. That is immoral.

LOU DOBBS: That's immoral?

HALPERIN: Yes, to be a country this wealthy and be the only industrialized democracy that hasn't figured out how to cover everyone. Two, every other industrialized democracy has done this through a government program. And three, the President faces of tough task, because this country is not for a single payer, and it's very hard to build anything else.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Immoral? LOL, that's

August 20, 2009 - 21:41 ET by ConservativeRex

Immoral? LOL, that's rich. Coming from anyone who has worked for ABC & Time to tell us that we are immoral just cracks me up.

OK, we're immoral, big deal. What's that make you? You POS in the media have too many pin sized heads with huge egos to call anyone names. I call excremento del torro on this.

What next? Are you going to call us extremist? Or maybe racist? Oh no, not that!!

Everyone is Covered

August 21, 2009 - 05:50 ET by allanf

Under existing Federal Law, no one can be turned away from an emergency room or be deinied life saving care in any hospital that received Federal Funds.

So it boils down to a question of payment. Socialists believe the "rich" should be responsible for your bill. Of course when its "free" your consumption increases.

Alan,

August 21, 2009 - 09:40 ET by UpNorth

thanks for framing the whole health care debate so succinctly. It's all about payment, and confiscating wealth from those who earn it, to give it to those who won't/can't/refuse to earn it. As Joe the Plumber said, "That's socialism". Indeed, no one can be refused medical care. You just have to realize that you get to pay for someone else's health care too, under the 0's plan.

Hospital Losses

August 21, 2009 - 12:24 ET by allanf

The general claim is that the uninsured raise the cost of health care for everyone. I've often wondered about this especially since reimbursment rates are negotiated directly with insurers in many cases.

The marginal cost of using a piece of testing equipment is generally small -- additional power, labor costs for staff, and consumbles. Physicians lose some billable time, but they don't bill 24 hoursr a day. If most of the patients are paying customers a 10% or so rate of non-payers should not ruin the medical system and probably not raise costs by a full 10%.

Bad Arguments for Obamacare

August 21, 2009 - 13:10 ET by slickwillie2001

Re 'the uninsured raise the cost of healthcare for everyone', I suppose it depends on what group that uninsured person is in. If it's someone that hasn't signed up for Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP etc, then it doesn't raise the cost for everyone because the hospital immediately signs them up. If it's someone making over $70K a year is also doesn't because they can pay.

Only if it is an illegal alien does it 'raise the cost for the rest of us', yet Obamacare exempts illegal aliens from the tax (that you can't call a tax) which is supposed to nudge the uninsured into getting health insurance, so to what extent Obamacare will resolve the problem is unknown and limited.

The other argument for Obamacare, that the USA spends so much per capita on healthcare, is a false argument. If those that now depend on ERs for all of their care are given 'free' Obamacare, our spending per capita will increase.

Spending per capita under Obamacare will also increase because of all the mandates in Obamacare, such as that requiring healthcare insurance for community organizations to be subsidized by taxpayers. Other coverage mandates from aromatherapy to marriage counseling services and everything between, will also inflate costs of healthcare insurance and per capita spending.

The only thing that can reduce per capita spending on health care is rationing.

Don't you DARE lecture me!

August 21, 2009 - 06:10 ET by motherbelt

That is indeed rich!

May I just say that I don'tneed to ever hear another word about my "morality" from these people.

These people who advocate killing babies in the womb because they are "inconvenient," (or even a punishment), who see nothing wrong with homosexual acts and think we should accept, even celebrate them, who think it's "moral" to starve a person to death, and who think it's perfectly acceptable for government to forcibly take an ever bigger portion of someone's justly and hard-earned money to give to someone else.......these people who think it's perfectly fine for everyone to live by their own standards, what they think is right, until it conflicts with liberal goals....

I say to them: Don't you DARE lecture me about morality!!

Whatever happened to "keep

August 22, 2009 - 01:21 ET by mattm

Whatever happened to "keep your laws and your morality off my body"?

Immoral? Here's what's

August 20, 2009 - 21:54 ET by celator

Immoral?
Here's what's immoral:

1. A so-called nationalized health care system run by faceless bureaucrats who coldly determine who is going to receive what kind of medical care in your local community hospital.

2. The planned destruction of our current pretty darned good health care delivery system in order to create an unmanageable, inefficient federal system in order to create more wealth for ambulance-chasing lawyers.

3. The refusal by mass media to carefully study the details of the proposed national health care system to inform the public of the unintended consequences of such a system.

Remember this: government has no heart; government has no compassion. And when government power is in the wrong hands, it is downright deadly.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

Total US charity donations - $307.65B in '08

August 20, 2009 - 21:49 ET by katainkent

that is the important number. These talking heads can bite me.

___________________________________________
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." - (Dr. In Chief) Barack Obama June 25, 2009

A country this wealthy???

August 20, 2009 - 21:57 ET by Texndoc

Honey-chile, them cupboards is bare thanks to your Messiah. So now you want a seven-course meal?

Tex... The left always

August 20, 2009 - 22:02 ET by bigtimer

Tex...

The left always conveniently forget how much we are in debt...how much they have racked up on top of that debt since the messiah took over.

They always will.

Hence...they just don't get one more reason the American people have had it and are saying as such.

It's beyond madness at his point.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

I could care less what

August 20, 2009 - 21:57 ET by bigtimer

I could care less what Halperin has to say...ever.

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

socialized meds

August 20, 2009 - 22:00 ET by Lindamae

Wow!

We could cover everyone just like they do in the "other" countries. I mean, how much would band aids for @ 20 million cost? Or the pencil and paper needed to make up a waiting list. We could do what was just done in Canada and tell the 6,000 patients that the door has been closed in their face because they ran out of money. Remeber when the Ukranian skater sent a fellow skater who was injured and found himself in a Ukranian hospital - he sent a care package with antibiotics, clean sheets, bandages, etc. We can be as inefficient as other countries if that is what some want. For myself, I'd rather keep my right to to my doctor while trying to devise a way for others to receive care as well. WE DON'T NEED TO REDUCE THE CARE WE HAVE NOW IN ORDER TO HELP OTHERS BUT BRING THEM UP TO OUR LEVEL OF CARE. Redistribution of wealth and redistribution of health care benefits are not what we need. I am convinced we must run fast away from single payer. That Congressional members who are also members of the Dem. Progressive Caucus (as well as the American Socialist Party ) are not pro single payer is easily debated by looking at the agendas of both organizations as well as reading the letter the group just sent out.

Amen.

August 21, 2009 - 05:31 ET by Red Jeep

America is not about being like the rest of the world, nor should it strive to be. America was and should be about giving everyone the opportunity to obtain wealth, not for all to be equally poor. The same is true with health care, America was and should be about striving to provide everyone the opportunity to have the best health care in the world, not sharing equally poor health care. Screw what the rest of the world is doing.

ahem

August 20, 2009 - 22:01 ET by candance

You self-righteous moral police are always trying to use the government to impose your personal convictions on everyone else! How dare you question my moral fiber. If I want a lecture on morals I'll go to church. Keep it out of the public square!

Besides, these people would disagree about that whole "cover every citizen" thing.

Keep my healthcare out of your welfare.

Healthcare as a right

August 21, 2009 - 02:33 ET by KC Mulville

If you believe that healthcare is a right, then you are scandalized that a government doesn't provide it. Then again,

Is a job a right? (Our government doesn't provide one.)
Is a car a right? (Our government doesn't provide one.)
Is food a right? (Our government doesn't provide it.)
Is a house a right? (Our government doesn't provide one.)

There are plenty of things in our lives that are necessary for decent living, but that our government doesn't provide. In this political/social/economic system, these are all things that you have to go out and get by yourself. When you tell me that 47 million people don't have healthcare, it's sad, but how many don't own a house? How many don't own a car? How many don't have a job?

All of the furor with healthcare starts with the assumption that healthcare is a right. It isn't.

Rights vs Wishes

August 21, 2009 - 20:36 ET by stratman

Agree and would go one level deeper - to the root of the problem.

Ask people what a "Right" is. Usually I get an answer like "free speech" or some other action. Stating it as something God given is insufficient description.

What makes something a "Right"? I like Walter E. Williams definition:

"True rights, such as those in our constitution, or those considered to natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. The exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. It imposes no obligations on another except those of non-interference. I have a right to ask a lady for a date but I have no right to impose an obligation on her to actually date me. Similarly, I have a right to ask you to permit me to live in your house and dine with your family but I have no right to impose such an obligation on you. Moreover, since I do not have these rights, I do not have a right to delegate authority to government to impose such obligations upon another. In other words, from a moral point of view, one can delegate only those rights that he possesses."

In this brief statement, Williams not only defines what a "Right" is but also begins to deconstruct the argument that Socialized Medicine is "moral".

"We can evaluate the morality of rights versus wishes another way. Suppose someone initiated force to prevent another from exercising his speech rights and another stepped in to protect that person's right to speak. Would that person he be seen as a hero or villain? Most people would answer, hero. Then suppose a person saw a homeless person in need of health care and did privately exactly what government does - initiate force to take someone's money to provide that homeless person with health care services. Would that person be seen as a hero or villain? Most people, at least I hope so, would see that person as a villain. That is, taking the rightful property of one person to give to another, to whom it does not belong, is considered theft and it is theft even if the proceeds are used for selfless purposes. It is theft whether two people or three hundred million people agree to taking another’s property."

The reporter and others confuse morality with "wishes" when speaking about Socialized Medicine. As Williams says, we all have wishes, but it is immoral to take another's money to satisfy my "wishes".

"Finally, charitable efforts to help one’s fellow man in need is noble. Reaching into one’s own pockets to help his fellow man is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and worth of condemnation."

I'd like to believe that if people were taught in school what defines a "Right" then we would not be increasingly taxed or pushing for Socialized Medicine as the only "reform" method for healthcare.

stratman

August 21, 2009 - 21:20 ET by katainkent

I love that article. Thank you for sharing it. I've copied it locally for safekeeping :)

___________________________________________
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller" Barack Obama (Dr. In Chief)

Definition of rights

August 21, 2009 - 22:39 ET by KC Mulville

Motherbelt has referenced this on occasion, and whereas I mostly agree with it, it isn't sufficient. There are different kinds of rights.

The right to be free from interference is only part of the story. Contracts, for instance, create rights and obligations. And that's important, because unlike almost every other political system, the American government is a contract.

I argue that the creation of the American government was an overt, deliberate, and intentional contract. The Founders deliberately created rights and obligations. Unlike past history, the American system was the first nation-sized joint venture. It all comes from the philosophical conviction that the only source of political authority is the consent of the governed. That's it. That's all there is. No divine authority. No rule by superior class, and no might makes right. Consent of the governed is all there is. If you want a government, you have to create it by getting others to ratify the contract.

And like any other contract, neither of the parties has the right to alter the contract without the consent of the other. But that's the false premise of liberalism: it's their belief that government has the right to take on rights and powers on their own initiative "for the good of the people." That, I strongly deny.

For me, that's the core of the argument. When we forget that the American government is a conscious and deliberate contract, and we sit back and let the government "rule" us out of whatever benevolence they see fit ... we've forgotten America.

Leave it to a liberal to

August 21, 2009 - 08:40 ET by dscott

Leave it to a liberal to elevate self-righteousness to the level of morality.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

bad policy

August 20, 2009 - 22:11 ET by BKeyser

You think that at some point the Dims will stop blaming the vast right-wing conspiracy, or the inability to deliver the message and realize that Americans just don't want it? I heard Bob Beckel say today (paraphrasing) "We Democrats have been trying to enact universal health care for 50 years; it's in our DNA." Well, chin up Bobby, I don't think it's the messenger...

Nice to have someone else pay your way

August 20, 2009 - 22:14 ET by thestalkinghorse

What about the fact that the US citizens heavily subsidize research and production of life-saving drugs. Who will do it once we decide we want ride in the wagon rather than push it like the "other industrialized nations" that sponge off of us for R & D, defense etc?

This just confirms we are on

August 20, 2009 - 22:15 ET by d1carter

This just confirms we are on the right side of this argument. All those industrialized countries are not bankrupt and their citizens are suffering.

Very telling that the best

August 20, 2009 - 22:19 ET by lsudolemite

Very telling that the best rationale for universal coverage they can come up with is: "Well all the other cool kids in the neighborhood are doing it, how come I can't?" I thought people stopped thinking like this when they became...you know...ADULTS.

Seems like the only thing liberals are truly experts at is spending other people's money.

POINT OF VIEW...

August 20, 2009 - 22:22 ET by danybhoy

What is really immoral is taking money from people who earned it & giving it in some way, shape, or form, to people who WON'T get off their @$$ & help themselves. Those who CAN'T, that's 1 thing, but those who WON'T, screw them.

"...How blind can you be, don't you see...

...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."

Nightwish

Desperate Leftists

August 20, 2009 - 22:22 ET by Johan

As socialized health care tanks more and more, leftists like Halperin gets more and more anxious and desperate. Now Obie is saying resistance to his government takeover of health care is "A Republican conspiracy". Where have we heard that before?

CHEESEHEAD...

August 20, 2009 - 22:34 ET by danybhoy

You know, Wisconsin's David Obie is right. It is "A Republican Conspiracy". Want to know another David? It's out in the open. Unlike the manner in which people like your leader Pelosi & Hoyer, who must plan their crap behind closed doors. We are in the open in telling you your Obama-care plan sucks, & needs to go down in flames.

"...How blind can you be, don't you see...

...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."

Nightwish

Halperin is a lying sack of sh*t

August 20, 2009 - 22:23 ET by R D Helm

First of all, we are not, nor have we ever been, nor were we ever intended to be, a democracy.

Secondly, there is no government anywhere on planet Earth that covers ALL of its citizens when it comes to health care.

-Dave

Halperin

August 20, 2009 - 22:28 ET by MCPO Airdale

Halperin got his White House approved talking points, I see. It really is sad to watch the deaththroes of an independent media in this country.

“We're the only industrialized democracy that doesn't .(fill in)

August 20, 2009 - 22:45 ET by Tjexcite

“We're the only industrialized democracy that doesn't cover everyones bar tab” and “that is immoral,”

“We're the only industrialized democracy that doesn't stop the weather from doing its normal thing” and “that is immoral,”

“We're the only industrialized democracy that doesn't give everyone a new car every year” and “that is immoral,”

let me fix that, tjexcite

August 20, 2009 - 22:47 ET by candance

We're the only industrialized democracy that still creates any substantial wealth.

candance

August 20, 2009 - 22:54 ET by MrShy

Obama & His minions are fast at work "fixing" that one, btw.

And there'll be a letter sitting on the Vespa seat.

You have got to give Mark Halperin credit for staying on the

August 20, 2009 - 22:51 ET by Rush Fan

White House's new ObamaCare talking points.

President Obama is now framing the healthcare debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,”and the leftist media are just following the new game plan.

The good news is that few are buying this tripe. The more CNN and the other leftist broadcasters pump this rubbish out, the more viewers flock to FoxNews.

As the latest Nielsen ratings show, FoxNews is demolishing their Obama-loving competition in the leftist media.---CORRECTION---FoxNews has no competition in the leftist Obama-loving media.

-----------------------------------------------------

“Understand something about liberalism. They never stop until they get what they want, and when they get what they want, it's never enough. That's why it's a constant thing to have to oppose them. You can't join forces with them, you can't moderate them, you can't slow them down by joining them, you can't make them like you and have them change their agenda. They have to be stopped.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

RF... Splendid

August 20, 2009 - 22:52 ET by bigtimer

RF...

Splendid news...

Can't you just hear the screech from Olbie & Ilk?

When will they ever learn...when will they ever ...learn?

Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh

rofl!!

August 20, 2009 - 22:59 ET by candance

The repeat of BOR gets more viewers than Maddow's live show.

Shhhhh!

August 21, 2009 - 03:40 ET by DoktorFranken

Sponsors will hear you. And then they'll be more boycotts and I'll have to give up my micro-wave popping corn. And that's high in anti-oxidants!

"President Obama is now

August 20, 2009 - 23:42 ET by ckc1227

"President Obama is now framing the healthcare debate as “a core
ethical and moral obligation,”and the leftist media are just following
the new game plan."

He actually has the nerve to say that we are our brothers keeper, with a straight face even, while he has a brother living in a tiny shack in Africa on, like, a dollar a month that he gives zero help.

Universal coverage "immoral?'

August 20, 2009 - 23:15 ET by m4ster chief

Funny, that's how I feel about the MSM's coverage of the news...

"Allies to Land at Normandy Tomorrow!" New York Times headline; June 5, 1944 (h/t M. Malkin)

"legislating

August 20, 2009 - 23:22 ET by TruthMonger

"legislating morality"

used to be BAD - now it is GOOD

Palin/Prejean 2012

""HALPERIN: Yes, to be a

August 20, 2009 - 23:38 ET by ckc1227

""HALPERIN: Yes, to be a country this wealthy and be the only
industrialized democracy that hasn't figured out how to cover everyone."

Maybe that's because it's not the U.S. government's RESPONSIBILITY to figure out how to cover everyone. We also don't make sure everyone has a gun, despite gun ownership actually being a right.

And newsflash genius....we didn't get to be this wealthy and powerful by doing the same dumb crap other industrialized democracies do.

news flash for Halperin

August 20, 2009 - 23:38 ET by candance

The British are now so desperate to save money, they've decided alzeheimers doesn't count as a medical condition . Old people are now being told that they can't get hospice care when they turn senile, because they're not really sick, they're just crazy.

Losing all your property to pay for adequate nursing assistance? I bet they wish they lived in a country that provided healthcare to everyone.

We are not an industrialized anything.

August 20, 2009 - 23:47 ET by JWF

We used to be. Our economy is mostly service based now. Two, most of our citizens are covered. The poor and the elderly have their own special programs even. The entire argument is signing up illegals, the rich that don't need it, the young and healthy that don't want it, and the temporarily unemployed that lost it because they had it through their employer. The Democrats are using this as an excuse to shove a new massive program down our throats.

And three, yes most people don't want this.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Sure we are

August 21, 2009 - 00:01 ET by Unsane

Ehhh. We still manufacture lots and lots of things. So in that sense we are quite industrialized.

Yes, we absolutely are mostly service based. But that still counts for something. Take the health care industry that is supposed to be the root of all evil. That is something like 18% of the national economy, and it very much a service. But the entire world gets served by it, and it gets served rather well. Yet another reason to be enraged at the Socialist attempt to slit the throat of the goose that lays the golden eggs.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

JWF seems to be missing something

August 21, 2009 - 00:04 ET by candance

Industrialized doesn't mean you have a factory-based economy. It just means you have mainstream access to modern technology.

I am not having a good night.

August 21, 2009 - 02:52 ET by JWF

I was just trying to nitpick. I coulda swore we were actually post-industrialized and had moved to service based economy over the course of my lifetime. I have also heard we have a knowledge based economy and/or information based economy. Now the Obamanauts are trying to change us over to a green economy.

I never heard of your definition. I understand industrialized economy as an economy that produces/manufactures things. We were moving to an industrialized nation during the industrial revolution. We began the transition to post-industrialization after WWII. We started that transition to service based economy sometime in the 70's.

I is confused candance.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Yezzir. I just don't like him using the word.

August 21, 2009 - 00:14 ET by JWF

You know he cares nothing about industrialization. It is a codeword. By industrialized democracy, he means modern democracy. By modern, he means progressive.

The countries actually doing a lot of the production (industrializing) nowadays, China & India, certainly do not have universal health care. Or at least not quality care.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

I don't know about China

August 21, 2009 - 00:16 ET by candance

But India has had government healthcare for some time now.

Technically correct sir.

August 21, 2009 - 01:03 ET by JWF

I would not want to base any of the suggested bills in Congress on India's health care system.

Idia currently spends less than 1 percent of its gross domestic product on public-sector health care, forcing majority of the people to take recourse in private medical care. Leading public-health experts have for years been warning that the allocation is woefully inadequate, and Jeffrey Sachs, chair of the international advisory panel of India’s National Rural Health Mission, has suggested that the figure should be raised to around 5 percent of GDP.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Candance,

August 21, 2009 - 09:50 ET by UpNorth

he qualified that by saying quality healthcare. I don't want to exchange what we have for India's healthcare, or anyone elses either.

Stealing

August 20, 2009 - 23:53 ET by Unsane

Stealing is immoral. Mr. Halperin apparently does not understand that governments can't baby people like he wants without first stealing from its citizens. This is especially true for His Majesty The Shahinshah, who thinks He can just steal from the wealthiest, most productive citizens to pull off His dream of being a Big Nanny.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

the problem, uns

August 20, 2009 - 23:59 ET by candance

When doctors, bankers, and every other "wealthy" profession is put on the government payroll, we will eventually run out of rich people to raise taxes on.

Just change the meaning

August 21, 2009 - 00:07 ET by Unsane

Not necessarily.

They will just redefine the meaning of "rich".

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Immoral is the Canadian and British Coverage

August 21, 2009 - 03:22 ET by TheHistorian

What is immoral is how Britain and Canada (and probably others) leave people to suffer because they are at the end of the line. The left always talks about "moral" when they want to put their hand in my pocket to hand out charity so that they feel good. If you leftists want better health coverage, tell the Tides Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, as well as Teresa Heinz-Kerry, to name four of many, to quit funding the immoral stuff they are now funding (like abortion on demand) and put the money into health care for others. It is time you liberals put your money where your mouth is and get your hand away from mine.

"What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel

Great points! May I just

August 21, 2009 - 07:31 ET by motherbelt

Great points!

May I just add: Immoral is forcing people to pull their own teeth with pliers and no anesthetic because they are in agony and can't get in to see a dentist.

These shysters lining their

August 21, 2009 - 04:27 ET by RR GOP

These shysters lining their own pockets while lecturing the rest of us about morality issues is really sickening.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

When the hell did libs

August 21, 2009 - 04:41 ET by chessplayer

When the hell did libs become concerned about morality?

Halperin is another reason

August 21, 2009 - 05:37 ET by Andrew H.

Halperin is another reason not to buy Time.

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

They are intentionally

August 21, 2009 - 06:05 ET by momdm

They are intentionally confusing health care with health care insurance in order to use this morality argument. Our country has laws about treating sick people without insurance and who cannot pay. Nobody is turned away at the emergency room door. If we had sick people turned away from care and dying in the street, then that would be immoral. We all are already paying for the medical care of the uninsured. The majority of people think that paying a trillion and half dollars over ten years to take care of the uninsured in a different way than we do now is obviously the wrong thing to do. They need to come up with a way to care for the uninsured that costs less than the way we do it now. Halperin is absolutely one of the most biased Obama lovers out there. He is a true Obama whore.

So is slavery immoral

August 21, 2009 - 06:32 ET by 10ksnooker

Slavery by debt so high it can never be repaid, is still slavery.

Another ridiculous argument

August 21, 2009 - 07:10 ET by BKeyser

I've heard this one lately:

Sure, everyone has access to healthcare, all they have to do is go to the emergency room and they will get treated. But here's the problem: those of us that are insured are paying higher rates to cover those who are not insured. If these people were insured, your rates would go down. (This is typical of the Left in this debate- make up a complaint and debunk it with fiction.)

I heard some Progressive Nun use this with BOR the other night. Seems to me that insurance companies are not paying the bill for uninsured hospital care; the government should be. The hospital can't just randomly pick a business to bill for a service they did not authorize. Granted, the government would reduce its healthcare expenditures if the uninsured were under a private health insurance plan, but not under a government plan- how could they? Additioanlly, if the uninsured individual obtains government insurance, as the Left is suggesting, someone has to pay that premium. If the individual is unable to pay the premium but is mandated to have coverage, the rest of us actually will have to subsidize that through higher taxes. AND, our private health insurance rates will remain the same since our plan would be unaffected- unless, our private plan loses clients due to the government-run competition. In that case, our rates will go up along with our taxes. Lose-lose? I think so.

Someone please correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

The Obama Tactic to defeat Resistance of ObamaCare

August 21, 2009 - 08:31 ET by Retired Geek

When a 'Starfish' wants to eat a Clam, the Starfish encounters a problem.

The Clam has much more strength to hold its shell closed than the Starfish has to open the shell of the Clam.

The Starfish has endurance and patience, applying a consistent pressure that finally wears out the Clam and it's resistance.

Once the Clam gives up it becomes a meal for the Starfish.

Barack Obama has won most of the things he wants accomplished, by exerting pressure that is relentless and 'Never Gives Up'.

Another Tactic Barack Obama has used successfully is diversion.

American resistance is now focused on and united against ObamaCare with great anger.

The problem with anger is that it dissipates over time naturally and Barack Obama knows that.

Barack Obama has already begun using Distraction by filing briefs against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law.)

Barack Obama knows what else is important to most of the Citizens who are resisting ObamaCare and he will begin attacking those important items 'One by One' splintering the anger and resistance.

This is why Barack Obama can state with 'Great Confidence' that he "Will have Health Care Reform" Obama style.

Anger will dissipate, the united front will splinter - citizens will be willing to settle for 'Something' and Barack Obama will have his 'Narcissistic Meal'.

This formula has worked throughout Barack Obama's life since childhood and he knows it will work this time with ObamaCare.

American Citizens must temper their anger with resolve and focus on ObamaCare, which is the key piece of the Barack Obama agenda, to destroy the present America and 'Change' America to ObamUnism.

Conservatives need to hold

August 21, 2009 - 08:47 ET by NL207

Conservatives need to hold out until the summer of '10. We will own the House and possibly the Senate too in '11 if Obama continues as he has. Then Obama will get nothing except the snot investigated out of his background. The man is dirty. Criminally dirty. His Chicago thug friends are rolling in dirt and corruption. I think we will need look no further than Tony Rezko and the relationship between Rezko, Obama and Obama's home / mortgage in Illinois to jail Obama.

Greek... are you familiar

August 21, 2009 - 09:01 ET by Jack Bauer

Greek... are you familiar with Gerald Celente at www.trendsresearch.com ? He has an excellent trackrecord in predicting events.

His organization is forecasting a massive administration distraction in October (so we won't have to wait long) which will get most behind the President and enable him to push through everything he wants.

Thanks Barack! You've done more to promote conservatism than any president since Ronald Reagan (PBUH).

Jack~

August 21, 2009 - 09:20 ET by Georgia Girl

Quite interesting. I do think there is one effective way to overcome this: bringing it into the light (knowledge). The public is starting to catch on to Obama's tricks, slowly but surely...so a little more enlightenment about the distraction technique can work to make Americans aware & not thrown off, like he would like. Then when they see it (distraction), they will know it -- if it is brought up enough ahead of time.

Now is the time to talk about this tactic -- Americans are becoming (rightly so) suspicious of Obama. Of course, FOXNEWS would be the only ones to cover the way Obama operates to push his agenda through...but knowledge is power. There's no time to waste. Once something is talked about, the power to use the tactic weakens considerably. I may be wrong, but I think the majority of Americans are scared enough that they won't take their eyes off the healthcare ball. But we must keep the dialog going.

Univeral denial of

August 21, 2009 - 08:42 ET by wiwf

Univeral denial of coverage, rationing of health care, and waiting lists are moral!

/sarc

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Moral?

August 21, 2009 - 08:42 ET by Iowa Boy

My step-mom and I are on complete opposite sides of the debate. She's for government-run health care. I am not. She was going on about how we need to cover everybody. I reminded her of her trip to Norway, where she fell and thought she broke her wrist and could not be seen by an MD. However, she was able to get in to a veterenarian for x-rays to confirm there was no fracture. In Europe and Canada, dogs and cats have better access to health care than humans.

Then I reminded her of when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and how she was able to get immediate care through the University of Iowa Hospitals in Iowa City and because of that IMMEDIATE care, she was cured and remains cancer-free for more than four years now. If she'd been Canadien, my father would be a windower.

She still says we need a government-run health care. Liberals will not see the facts even when they are staring them in the face.

"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." Official Motto of the State of Iowa

Mark Halperin?

August 21, 2009 - 08:44 ET by MightyMouth

Is this the same nitwit who made sure the Messiah the TOTUS/ Joker was on the cover of Time 12 months in a row?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

August 21, 2009 - 09:09 ET by jessieH

I think I'll become a MSM reporter. I can make stupid remarks with the best of them.

Immoral is those trying to

August 21, 2009 - 09:11 ET by b4m4wy

Immoral is those trying to get health insurance without trying to get a job. Immoral is expecting to be taken care of while not trying to take care of yourself. Immoral is electing a person because of his race and not his qualifications. It is not time for a black person to be in the White House, it is time for a qualified person to be there.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Ronald Reagan

Halperin sez: "this country is not for a single payer"

August 21, 2009 - 09:12 ET by SickofLibs

Correct. He admits it. So WHY, WHY, WHY must the majority's wishes continue to be insulted, ignored and dismissed as insane? Or is Halperin suggesting that we change 'House of Representatives' to 'House of Dictators'?

We've already traded in the presidency in favor of a divine infallible Emperor ala early 20th century Japan.

Idiots!

August 21, 2009 - 09:51 ET by LastKnownOne

So let me get this straight. If I don't pay(forced through taxes) for someone elses health care to help get them better, I am immoral.

Interesting... I guess GOD and Jesus are immoral too since they could easily have gotten rid of all of the diseases. Better yet, they could have taken money from the rich and helped out the poor. Oh, but wait, they believed in Free Will (aka: Freedom)- stupid immoral me!!!!!!!!!

Baboons and idiot dolts in the media.

~ Liberals don't see themselves as God anymore. They see themselves as better than GOD.

Gee Mark...

August 21, 2009 - 09:59 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson

If it's such a good idea, when did Time start covering all medical expenses for all their employees and their families?

http://gjresult.com

Really Immoral

August 21, 2009 - 10:34 ET by Spoker

What is really immoral is the willingness of the Congress and the White House to recognize and deal with institutionalize tort abuse and profiteering, runaway excessive costs, lack of universality of "universal" health care, abortion, failure to assure seniors that neither defact or actual rationing will not occur, forced taxpayer burden to cover non-taxpaying non-citizens for political gain, to name but a few issues under the false mantle of morality. Nero exhibited far greater moral fiber as he watched Rome burn.

Obama will

August 21, 2009 - 10:40 ET by misterbill

Obama will burn our Rome and as the fire rages and people die--his man Gibbs will tell us it is all due to the previous emperor. Big help, eh??

Always ask...

August 21, 2009 - 10:37 ET by JPR1

To which moral code do you refer? Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindi, Buddhist?

The honest answer would be…

The Modern Progressive Single Principle Code:

“What we say is moral is moral and what we say is immoral is immoral. Please adjust your thinking and behavior accordingly but check back frequently because things change.”

It's a simple code for simple minds.

I take a similar approach to allegations of racism or hatred by asking, “Perhaps I’m unclear, could you define that term for me?” The response usually devolves into a string of “well buts”, “you’re not being objectives’” and general hummnna hummnna hummnna. Sometimes it’s funny, sometimes it’s depressing.

immoral, eh?

August 21, 2009 - 12:14 ET by AJB

So, forced labor is OK, but not getting 'free' healthcare is not. Taking money by force to give to someone else is honorable. You DO know that the IRS agents are empowered to carry weapons and will put you in the gulag if you don't 'voluntarily' comply with their requests for your 'voluntary' contributions, right?

OK. We really have reached Orwell's 1984.

" Has anyone noticed that

August 21, 2009 - 13:45 ET by ckc1227

Has
anyone noticed that the ones who complained about the federal
government's response to Katrina the most are the same people who can't
wait to put the federal government in charge of health care?