Malkin On Manufactured Outrage

You may have noticed that Talk Left did not even mention South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson's rude outburst in which he called the President a liar during Obama's speech. Speaking for me, it is because I could not care less that Wilson did that. There is too much fetishization of the President and faux civility anyway. But this, from Michelle Malkin, of all people, is hilarious:

The Left is in high dudgeon never letting a moment of manufactured outrage go to waste.

The Queen of Manufactured Outrage knows it when she sees it.

Speaking for me only

< Late Night: Wasted Time | President Snowe Displeased That Obama Embraced The Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    FWIW, I had your reaction (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:41:12 AM EST
    (i.e "Oh no, he was uncivil!")

    Well, there's uncivil (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:55:30 AM EST
    and then there's being rude and disruptive.  Wilson's outburst was the latter.

    Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I tend to believe in the rules of decorum for Congress, especially for major get togethers like last night.  

    Toss out some of the rules of procedure, yes (filibuster for instance).  But keep most of the behavioral ones.

    And I'm finding myself in rare agreement with Magic Bullet Man -- not only should Wilson be forced to stand before Congress in the well and apologize, but there should be some further formal sanction of the rebuke or censure variety.

    As we all should have learned by now, Repubs need to be deterred lest they feel free to make even more disruptive outbursts in the future.   And we all know how potentially violent some Rs can get.

    Plus I'd just enjoy seeing the Dems man up for a change and actually begin to prosecute some Rethugs.  Then after nailing Wilson, they can start in with new-found courage and confidence in going after some of the Bush-Cheeney criminal conduct.


    Rude? Certainly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:57:15 AM EST
    BTW - the difference between "rude" and "uncivil" is not at all clear to me.

    Disruptive? that is objectively false. Nothing was disrupted.


    Rude carries a stronger (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:15:01 AM EST
    connotation for me than merely being uncivil.  

    Disruptive?  It was.  Obama did have to stop, briefly, in delivering his speech as he clearly heard the disruptor and, iirc, answered the guy.  

    Not a felony offense perhaps, not of the type to warrant expelling or calling in security.  But a mere apology shouldn't suffice.  


    it would have (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:44:42 AM EST
    been a reason to call in security had he been something like a single payer advocate and a regular citizen......fortunately for him he's one of the priveleged class that has health care courtesy of the taxpayers and a pulpit to say random pointless commentary thanks to his position in Congress.

    Meh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    I cant help but wonder (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    what media and republican reaction would have been if that had happened to W in a joint address.

    No wonder at all (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    It would have been a wankathon for weeks.

    Guy would have been considered a traitor (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    and drummed out of congress- let's be real if say Bernie Sanders had screamed about lying in during the 2003 SOTU address he would have been roundly denounced as a traitor.

    Wilson Did Obama A Huge Favor (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by BDB on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:48:19 AM EST
    He gave progressives and liberals - who Obama basically threw under the bus along with the public option - something to rally around this morning.  Obama and the Dem leadership do so much better when they can focus people on how awful the GOP is rather than any policies they are actually promoting.  

    But in 2010 and 2012, nobody is going to care about Joe Wilson.  They are going to care about whether the Democrats delivered for the American people.  When it has come to the financial crisis, so far they've failed, siding with Wall Street over the rest of us.  Last night, Obama indicated that he was willing to do that again on healthcare.  

    Bad policy=bad politics.  That's true no matter how many jerks there are among the GOP Congressional delegation.

    Should've Added (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BDB on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:52:39 AM EST
    that, yes, we've fetishized "civility".  It's, IMO, something we've picked up from the right wing.  And I get it - they insist on it for their dear leaders, we're supposed to insist on it for ours.  But I think we'd better off in the long run if we focused on policy rather than all of these manufactured outrages.  It dumbs down our discourse, which inevitably helps people like Joe Wilson.

    No question (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:54:07 AM EST
    Wilson did Obama, and Dems, a great political favor.

    Knowing that it would be covered nonstop anyway I ignored it. I am more interested in trying to figure our what it means for the public option.


    In That Sense (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BDB on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:06:20 AM EST
    Wilson may have done the Dems a great disservice.  Because by distracting from the details of the alleged reform, it makes it more likely, IMO, that we end up with a coporatist policy that does not help average Americans but simply sucks up their money and gives it to the insurance companies.*  In the long run, that is damaging to Democrats.

    * Funny how any time we try to have any kind of meaningful policy discussion in this country, there's always some distraction for everyone to obsess over.


    Depends on what the Progressive Block does (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:10:09 AM EST
    They'll Cave (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:16:35 AM EST
    Or will get a bone thrown to them so small it won't matter.  Obama has, IMO, signaled all along that Baucus was his guy.  He signaled it again last night, IMO.  The Baucus plan is the Obama plan.  Today he is reportedly meeting with "moderate" Democrats.

    The fix is in.  All that power Obama has over individual congressional members?  It's going to be used to roll the progressive caucus.  That's Obama's MO on every issue that I've seen and so far all of his signals indicate he's going to follow it here.

    Obviously, I'd love to be proven wrong.  It's now or never for the progressive caucus.  If they roll on this, they're done as players until at least 2010 and probably 2012.


    We'll see right? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    I was less dissappointed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:36:14 AM EST
    in the speech than I honestly expected to be.
    at least he called out some of the crazy.

    and I was surprised you gave him a "F" for the speech.
    I thought it was a solid C-


    Someone gave him (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:47:32 AM EST
    an F???  OMG.

    C- is pretty ridiculous too.

    Give the man his due -- a solid A.

    I think it may have served to expose a few Blue Dogs and Corporatist Dems with his remarks about the hypocrisy of some on cost, and possibly get them behind some halfway decent though not perfect bill that serves as a beginning.

    As usual though the important thing is what Obama does in the follow through.  And after last night, Obama can't afford politically to ask for very weak tea.


    On the public option (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    which I see as the critical provision of HCR, an F is the only grade you can give him.

    The test had one question woth 90 points and 10 worth 1 point.

    Give him the 10 points and a 0 on the 90 point question, and what do you get? An F obviously.


    I think he would have had (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    to be a lot more specific to get an A.
    I will stick with my C-.  and if public opinion really turns as it seems like it might I would turn it into a C.

    He can't get much more (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    specific since the Obama plan, however misguided, was to allow Congress this time to write up the bill.  

    He's all along been giving himself some wiggle room on key items like a PO.  Unfortunate that was the beginning bargaining point, but there you are, and there's no going back.  

    He's got to ride the current process all the way to the end of the line.  And after last night's fine presentation, I tend to doubt that the ride will end up at the political cemetery.


    With an extra credit public health (none / 0) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    option that actually includes people. I'd be willing to bump him up to a B. Without it though I'd agree with you C-(as in he was able to convince at least SOME he was being an advocate). The speech wasn't a total fail because he didn't toss the PO out entirely but he definitely didn't do the advocating that would have been helpful. The speech was typical Obama, you took away from it pretty much what you wanted to. Some saw it as advocacy for the PO while others saw his saying it wasn't essential as signs he was caving. Go figure. I really don't care one way or another about his talk anymore if he wants a good grade from me, that's gonna require action.

    Curiouser and curiouser .... (none / 0) (#37)
    by prittfumes on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:57:40 AM EST
    * Funny how any time we try to have any kind of meaningful policy discussion in this country, there's always some distraction for everyone to obsess over.

    Was Wilson simply carrying out an assignment? Nah ...

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:03:48 AM EST
    if it was some kind of "plan" it was a pretty stupid and crappy one.

    Well what is the big news item today (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    Wilson or how Obama's plan will or will not benefit the American people?

    just because its in the news (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    does not mean it will help republicans.
    quite the opposite I think.  of course he will be the hero of the crazy 25% but I really think they are starting to wear thin with most people.

    I am more interested in what (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    helps or hurts getting something that provides good affordable health care. I would much rather have the media discussing the pros and cons of what Obama is offering even though that would not probably happen. They and others would probably discuss the quality of Obama's speech and how well he uses his oratory skills than actually if the plan he outlines will actually work.  

    Republicans are irrelevant to me.  It would be a slam dunk for the Dems to portray the Republicans as politicians who are preventing people from getting affordable health care if they chose to do so rather than continuing to include Republican agenda items into the legislation.


    Nah (none / 0) (#73)
    by BDB on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    If it hadn't been this, it would've been something else.  Our elites (both parties) and our media are determined never to permit any serious discussion of any issue - be it the bailouts (TARP must past NOW! NOW! NOW!), healthcare, or anything else.  Serious discussion could lead to the public knowing the facts and holding political leaders and the media accountable.  Whatever else Democrats, Republicans and the media believe, they all seem to agree that being held accountable is unacceptable.

    Not hopeful (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:16:50 AM EST
    Outrage would be great if it did work as a catalyst for the Democrat's and HCR. But based on the Dem's track record in handling this whole role out, it's more likely to shoot them in the foot:

    Dem's will allow the Rep to strengthen the anti immigrant part of any HCR and Wilson will be hailed as the hero who called out Obama.

    We are squandering (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:23:47 AM EST
    a once-in-a-generation chance for real reform, and it is Wilson that gets us outraged?

    I give up.

    IOKIYAR. (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:18:11 AM EST
    Or a stark raving mad loon.

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    Wilson should be censured.  

    BTW... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    ...Addison Graves Wilson, Sr. is no Southern gentleman.  If he were, he would have added "bless your heart" to the end of his outburst.  

    Further proof of the GOP dragging down civil discourse in this country.

    He failed (2.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:59:42 AM EST
    He provided no details as to cost. And the Right is all over the claims that we can pay for this with eliminating fraud and waste. They point out, and rightfully so, that if we can save all this money, why haven't we been doing it?

    Obama is afraid to propose a single payer plan and tell us what it will cost. Too bad because that is the only way to unite people. Now we have everyone protecting their turf.

    Heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 11:06:23 PM EST
    There is nothing there about the cost of the system.

    And his solution for a trillion dollar deficit is a four trillion dollar deficit.



    Joe Wilson (2.00 / 1) (#79)
    by bfranklin on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    Joe Wilson, like all members of Congress, must represent their CONSTITUENTS.  Congress is not subordinate to the President.  Members are not subordinate to "party leaders" under our Constitution, contrary to what party leaders believe.  Wilson's instinct was correct to speak out as a representative OF THE PEOPLE.  The President abused his office by calling a joint session of Congress to lobby for a special interest agenda on national television.  Under our Constitution, the President's responsibility is to EXECUTE the laws; not advocate for laws.

    Always an outrage. (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by storytime on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    This seems to accompany BO where ever he goes to read from his teleprompter.It doesn't make any sense to me why he will not show us the facts and figures to his healthcare takeover.The only sense it could possibly make is if he is lying. If not lying, then please tell me why!I am a simple tax paying American hurting from the recession like other tax paying citizens are.Enough with the outbursts, the lies, the teleprompter,etc., just tell it like it is. That is what we will get when it is all over, we will get the bottom line.I have not figured out how anyone could trust a man whom hasn't even read the bill, or bills, at all. This man relies on someone else to tell it like it is, while he has plausible deniability on his side.I just want some truth from a politician, not campaign rhetoric, about this bill and the cap and tax energy bill. This could go on and on, but I digress.The news now will say nothing bad about BO. The news a year ago would say nothing good about W. True journalism is dead in America

    That's rich coming from the Rachel Ray/Dunkin (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:41:38 AM EST
    Donuts/keffiyeh queen.

    The Left is guilty (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 07:43:11 AM EST
    of manufactured outrage.  I've certainly seen my share of it.  But Malkin and that ilk not only manufacture outrage, they fabricate it.  Here's one result from googling on "Michelle Malkin lies".
    Malkin's lie about the SPLC:

        The SPLC, you see, has designated the venerable American Legion a "hate group" for its stance on immigration enforcement.

    mandatory link

    man (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:09:43 AM EST
    you arent kidding. She is the absolute Queen of this crap. I get lots of satisfaction when i post on my bipartisan blog about this stuff. I tell the GOP they are now getting a taste of their own medicine and nobody deserves it more than them! HA!

    It's not just Wilson... (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:26:31 AM EST
    ...but all the GOP.  I remember Clinton crushed the GOP in a budget showdown by letting the GOP humiliate themselves in a joint session, and Obama might have done the same by choosing to make this speech in the same venue, as opposed to the Oval Office.  Whatever can be said about the content of the speech, the visuals alone will bump the Dems, remind the country why they voted the GOP out, and may help get legislation out of congress.

    It's now up to the progressives to hold the line.

    The speech was for the public & blue dogs (none / 0) (#16)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    He spoke to be more specific what his plan would do and not do and how much it would cost.  I personally think he should have given this speech quite some time ago when he had more political capital.  When he was at the height of his popularity.   Last night he took ownership of the plan when he called it his plan.   He should have defined his plan from the get go rather than having the democrats define it as well as the Republicans

    The speech was not for the republicans who only cheered one time when he mentioned tort reform.  

    I would be amazed  if he got the support of one republican.

    As far as the public option it can be there but the whole care reform plan is on the shoulders of the democrats.  Forget the republicans.

    Maybe Rahm pd. Wilson to throw (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    Up a smokescreen?

    Krugman's Verdict on The Speech (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    It was awesome.

    He seems to be focused on its (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:48:14 AM EST
    political effectiveness. In that respect, the speech probably will help Obama get whatever he wants passed.

    Krugman seems to be just a little tired of this topic - he's stopped pointing out the differences between what he wants and what Obama wants.

    From a quick look at his commenters, there seems to be a cottage industry in Obama oratory collection and critique. Not surprising I suppose. they did find this effort rather short on anecdotes. lol.


    He's wrong (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:39:15 AM EST
    and interestingly does not mention the public option in HIS post. Very telling.

    I dont think it was aswum (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    but I also dont think it was an "F"

    I explained my grade (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    If you do not agree with me that a public option is the critical provision, then of course give him an A if you like.

    If you do think what I think, then an F is the appropriate grade.


    I did not hear him abandon (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    a public option.  as far as "moves them to what"

    Obama's Speech Moves Swing Voters to Support Reform

    honestly reading responses I would be worried about my retention ability if not for people like Krugman who seem to agree with me.


    Then you were not listening (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:54:47 AM EST
    with all due respect.

    But I am onboard with pretending that he drew a line in the sand and said that a public option is an "essential element" of his plan.


    ok (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    what I  heard was him trying to offer reasons why the public option is needed without turning it into the central purpose and meaning of reform and allowing republicans to demonize it as a government takeover by doing that.  honestly I think doing what you suggest might have been a kind of trap that would have helped the opponents of reform with their demonization.
    I gave  him a C- instead of an A like above because its what happens NOW that will decide what the really believes and where it will go.
    I think there is still hope.  more actually than I thought there was yesterday.
    all should know I am no Obamazombie.  I am just calling it as I saw it.
    time will tell.

    Krugman also points (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:45:11 AM EST
    to some numbers that suggest he may have moved some people.

    also CNN (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:46:44 AM EST
    Reading further (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:48:28 AM EST
    ...the figures are almost identical to Bill Clinton's 1993 healthcare speech....

    this is not 1993 (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:54:00 AM EST
    in so many ways.

    MSNBC says the same (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:33:23 AM EST
    with their polling, something like a 25-point jump not just for HCR generally, but for things like it not increasing the deficit, not being a gummint takeover, etc.

    That's immediately post-speech, however, and won't stay that high in the cold light of day and after the R's have screamed some more.


    Well, Dems in the past (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    -- Clinton 93, Carter 79 (malaise speech), Gore 2000 (Debate 1) got their big bumps and utterly failed to use that momentum to stay aggressive and seal the deal.

    We know that Rs and their MSM friends will fairly quickly try to change the subject or distract with more nitpicking nonsense.

    When your team has just gone from being backed up near your own goal line on 3d and 25 late in a close game, and has completed a long pass that gets you into the opponent's territory and a new lease on life, you don't follow up that fresh momentum with safe and predictable running plays up the middle that allow the other side's defense to assert itself.

    We'll now see whether team Obama can play it aggressive and smart and keep the opponents on their heels, or revert to nice, polite and overly cautious.


    I think republican screaming (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    is producing diminishing returns.

    Moved them to what? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    exactly (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    My Republican roommate (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:49:19 AM EST
    graded the speech an A.  Which should tell you something.

    I think it's important that Obama's staff from now on takes the same tone he did tonight.  If they can be consistent in expressing "a public option is a good idea" that would be helpful.

    I still don't understand why Obama has not made the argument for why a public option would work, and how it would work.  As I said last night, I would have preferred the Clinton "charts and graphs" approach to defending a health care plan.

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:58:44 AM EST
    If BTD gave it an "F" and your GOP 'mate gave it an
    "A", who was the target audience?

    I got a huge kick over the discussion after the speech turning into a giant WORM - what DID Obama mean?  


    WORM works for us now (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    Sherrod Brown is a smarter man than I am.

    andlast night he (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    like Krugman seemed hopeful.  not ecstatic.

    Work that spin, Sherrod! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:12:53 AM EST
    Why not?  The Bush administration spun like no one had spun before, manipulated news cycles and it worked for them!  

    Now what's the progressive version of the "coalition of the willing" and how can we monopolize the Sunday Talkies?


    arbitrary caps (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    does anyone know what it means?  They can no longer set arbitrary caps sounds like they will be able to set caps as long as they have good legal advice.

    My wife loved the speech and he lost me completely.  

    I loved Barney Franks' take on the lie shouter.  Obama can ill afford the narrative to be seized again and as I told my wife last night, it is a statement that should be completely ignored.

    Bush had a lot more cajones than Obama.  Unfortunately, brawn beats brain in DC and Obama is looking like the kid who got sand kicked in his face at the beach. It's no wonder the right doesn't trust us with the war on terror, we can't even stand up to them and they are a hell of lot more harmless than kooks in caves.

    9 months into his administration and I am gone.....

    He let the narrative be seized... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    when he didn't call the heckler out right then and there on national tv...its all they're talking about this morning, the heckle heard 'round the world.

    I would have liked to have seen Obama call the heckiling rep up on stage and had it out.


    Quite a few, if not all, insurance (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    policies place a $1 million lifetime cap on coverage. Once you go over that cap for whatever reason, you no longer get coverage. Long term or recurring illnesses (cancer) can place people over that cap.

    I read that some policies have annual caps also. Not familiar with that practice so I have no further information on it.


    yes i know (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    i have a 2 mill cap on mine. I am curious as to what the definition and net out is of "arbitrary".  I don't believe that gets rid of caps, only arbitrary ones.  I see the insurance industry setting standards on "reasonable expectation of profitability" toward caps thus adjusting and not eliminating.  Am I reading this wrong?

    Unfortunately, too many things are (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:54:12 AM EST
    open to interpretation and Obama is very skilled at using words to hedge his bets. This was also a part of his speech:

    As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. 

    Hopefully, that combined with the rhetoric about eliminating the arbitrary caps actually means that caps will be prohibited. I would not be willing to bet my house on it though.


    B*tch??? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:26:39 AM EST
    Excuse me. Keep the sexism out.

    It's not sexist. It's accurate. (none / 0) (#62)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    I dislike her and wish I could say she was another species but her irrationality doesn't make her canine.

    Like the rest of Obama's audience read his speech, (none / 0) (#68)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:23:46 AM EST
    you are reading your own prejudices and preferences into something I was deliberately vague about when I wrote it.

    Or, said another way, how you respond to my comment says more about you than about me.

    One could insert at least four different vowels into the sentence I wrote and come up with four entirely different meanings and, thus, answers.  And I haven't even begun to count the permutations of meaning which are possible when one goes beyond inserting a single vowel in the place of the single asterisk in my sentence.

    If anything, this should tell you about Obama's support for the public option.  Sherrod Brown's decision to say "Obama wants the public option and it's our job to give it to him;  that will be supporting the President's plan." is equally as valid as Harry Reid wanting to set up a new corporate form to do the public option work - in so many words to create a new insurance company.


    There's nothing the slightest bit (none / 0) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    vague about the term b!tch. The only people who would consider that term vague are dolts.

    it violates this site's comment policy (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 11:10:28 PM EST
    please refrain from that kind of name-calling and personal attack on anyone.

    thank you! (none / 0) (#78)
    by suzieg on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    I've deleted that comment (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 11:09:23 PM EST
    it's inappropriate name-calling.

    line in the sand (none / 0) (#55)
    by diogenes on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:33:23 AM EST
    Wilson should be censured, but Obama's line is in the sand.  What will anyone say if/when illegals show up on the insurance rolls or if someone wants to amend the bill in 2011?  Wilson either can say a big "I told you so", or illegals will be frozen out.

    I doubt most people (none / 0) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    will care one way or another if the actual reform is helpful enough not to be picked apart too much at a later date. As far as Wilson.......pffffft.....his opinion matters because.....oh that's right it doesn't...he is and was going to vote no anyway. Why? It's what partisans do.