Rachel Maddow Unmasks Dick Armey's Radical Opinion: 'Medicare is Tyranny'
By Susie Madrak Sunday Aug 16, 2009 5:00pm
On this morning's Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow backs former congressman Dick Armey (head of the Freedomworks lobbying group) against the wall and lets everyone know exactly what his radical opinion is on Medicare:
MS. MADDOW: Do you really think that there’s a major uprising of seniors wanting to get out of Medicare? I know you’re suing the government for your right personally to get out of Medicare.
REP. ARMEY: Right.
MS. MADDOW: But do you really think that’s the problem...
SEN. COBURN: Is it...
MS. MADDOW: ...that Medicare—that seniors hate Medicare and they want out?
REP. ARMEY: No, I didn’t say that. Most seniors—I was talking to my minister the other day. My minister says, “Dick, I’m so fortunate I’m in Medicare.” I said, “Bless you, my, my friend that you get to be in it if you choose to be so.” But if you give a government program and you let me choose to be in or choose to be out, that’s generosity. If you force me in, irrespective of my desires, that’s tyranny. Now, if Medicare’s $46 trillion in the red, with no idea how we’re going to pay for it, why, why do they not let people who don’t want to be in out?
MS. MADDOW: This is...
MR. GREGORY: Let me—I want to get it...
REP. ARMEY: I mean, that’s...
MS. MADDOW: Just—I—very briefly.
REP. ARMEY: This, this, this defies logic.
MS. MADDOW: This is a really important point. The anti-healthcare reform lobby thinks that Medicare is tyranny, OK?
REP. ARMEY: I did—I said...
MS. MADDOW: This is an—I mean, you said in 1995 that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”
REP. ARMEY: Right. Absolutely right.
MS. MADDOW: You said in 2002, “We’re going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.”
REP. ARMEY: And I’m going to enumerate exactly what I’m talking about. Medicare...
MS. MADDOW: Americans need to know this is your position and this is the position of the anti-healthcare reform lobby.
Login or Register to post comments.
I don't know Dick Armey that well, so maybe this is how he always sounds, but to me he appeared to be tremendously drunk throughout Meet the Press.
He is out of slanderous ideas to prevent universal health insurance.
when and if the public option is passed,
the health insurance corporations will
cull their members like pouring water
out of a glass on the ground. they will
cancel every high expense patient from
their rolls during the period before
any public option actually is available
to the public and becomes a choice by
law. just watch....it will be like
what is happening with the credit card
companies that are dropping even members
in good standing and raising rates before
the 45 day mandatory notice takes effect
for dropping or raising these rates.
i just paid off a credit card by moving
the balance to a lower set rate by another
credit card and the original (chase) credit
card company rewarded me by cancelling my
now "zero" balance card. fuck chase.
"like what is happening with the credit card companies".
Look-up HIPAA.
companies
I don't see why they would do that, given that part of the proposed legislation includes a requirment that private insurance companies are not allowed to refuse high risk customers (ie-those with pre-existing conditions.) Anybody they dumped the day before the legislation is passed could simply apply again the day after it's passed. The credit card client's protection bill made no such provisions, and does not force credit card companies to take risky clients.
The private HMOs don't have many high expense clients to begin with. That's part of the problem. They've "culled" them by not accepting them in the first place. Private HMOs do not accept "high expense" clients to begin with, and any high expense client who manages to sneak in to an HMO plan through their employer is usually not covered for any pre-existing conditions. This means the only high expense clients the HMOs have are people who got into a plan through their employer, developed an expensive condition afterwards, and managed to not get dumped by the HMO by being part of the group plan.
People who get insurance through their employer are better off than people who buy it individually because the risk is being spread over the entire group, and the entire group (of employees) is covered by the same plan as a block.
The proposed national health insurance exchange will, in effect, give that kind of risk sharing protection to everybody.
People whine that Congress is proposing a health care plan that they, themselves, won't participate in, and that's true (not to mention cowardly and hypocritical). But what they're proposing is a national healthcare plan that works exactly the same way as the Congressional plan that covers not just Congress, but all federal employees.
The health care exchange being proposed by Congress is essentially the same as the Federal Employees Health Benefits program that Congress uses.
Don't count your chickens...
I realize that, but we can see the direction the play is running. All of the attacks have been against the public option, but nobody has dared to touch the idea of an exchange. There just aren't enough emotional buttons to push for that one. Congress will (as always) take the path of least resistance.
I watched this and thought "wow, he has had a few bloody mary's this morning".....slurred speech...shaky hands...what a mess.
You'd be wrong. He talks just like his dad did. Stop making uneducated judgements.
Visited his friends on K-street for a secret meeting...
We need to cut from the democrat party they have because to much republican , and have lost their democrat principles and take their core voters for granted...
The democrat leader figure what the h... the progressive have no place to go and they will not vote republican..
So where is the organization to select our candidates with our wishes and cencerns at heart..
That is exactly what I was thinking. Of course I guess if I lived with as much fear as the typical right winger I'd want to be drunk all the time too.
Before he headed Freedomworks, Dick Armey was House Majority Leader. According to Scarborough, Armey was bereft of common decency, a shameless liar who betrayed his colleagues. Armey worked hard to destroy the career of a young reporter. After that reporter's suicide, Armey helped spread rumors about a gay affair between the reporter and Bill Paxon, a congressman who angled to replace Armey as House Leader. Paxon immediately retired from politics, while Armey stayed on. It seemed a life-imitates-art reenactment of the 1959 potboiler, Advice and Consent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/w...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/w...
Before he headed Freedomworks, Dick Armey was House Majority Leader. According to Scarborough, Armey was bereft of common decency, a shameless liar who betrayed his colleagues. Armey worked hard to destroy the career of a young reporter. After that reporter's suicide, Armey helped spread rumors about a gay affair between the reporter and Bill Paxon, a congressman who angled to replace Armey as House Leader. Paxon immediately retired from politics, while Armey stayed on. It seemed a life-imitates-art reenactment of the 1959 potboiler, Advice and Consent.
That's the way he always talks. He wasn't drunk.
Wrong. He wasn't drunk. This is how he talks. We all have our individual ways, right?
I placed this link on an earlier post so I apologize for the repeat, but I love Rachel, and this is a great clip of her debut on Meet the Press.
Rachel on MTP in 5 minutes.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2555
I'm still getting over the shock of actually seeing a liberal on MTP. It was strange to not see John McCain on though. I got so used to seeing him on every week. Rachael made me so proud. She's polite, yet forceful. When the camera showed Rachael looking at Armey, she had this, "So this is what a political whore looks like close-up", look on her face.
Yeah, well, we're still getting Gingrich to Maddow on MTP at a ratio of at least 10 to 1.
And every time Rachael made a point, Armey's face had the chimpanzee fear grin on it.
is so GD effective, she has to be one of the sharpest arrows in the progressives quiver. That's a bad analogy in a way because it's her utter civility, politeness, and obvious good heart/intentions that are what makes people like Armey fear her. How can you be a dick (pun intended) even though your being eviscerated when's it's done with such civility?
Thank gawd she's got the platform she has, in fact I for one am sure she could handle a lot more---how about Obama/Maddow in '12?
LMAO.... yeah - that explains the quizzical look.
The people with Medicare are the ONLY people with insurance.
It is a very successful and efficient program (except for the Republican Part D), which is precisely why the least we should have is Medicare for all as in HR 676.
The Republicans and the Blue Dogs know that and are trying to scare the people with Medicare, after the years they have been trying to screw them.
-----
From 7/17/07 but apropos today
-----
Summary of HR 676:
Is YOUR Congressperson on the List of CoSponsors ?
More importantly, does anybody know if HR 676 has been run through the CBO yet?
Why does everyone now want's to know what the CBO thinks? Where was the CBO when Bush passed his $1 Trillion tax cut stimulus bill(that did nothing for most of us, especially if you're not in the 1% or 5% tax bracket), or when funding for the Iraq war and Afghanistan war came up, or when Bush Medicare part D (that helped the Pharmaceutical business rack up millions and billions of dollars in their pockets while leaving the government to pay for high priced medicine)?
Hell where was the CBO when Bush was passing any bill during his presidency?
Where was the CBO when Bush and the Republicans were doing all that?
Is that question rhetorical, or do you want an answer?
At the time the CBO was being run by Peter Orszag, who is now Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget. Yet, in spite of warnings from a sympathetic CBO, the feckless Democrats in Congress were apparently unable to throw CBO warnings about expenses into the debate like a hand-grenade, the way Republicans constantly do.
First of all Peter Orszag didn't become head of CBO until 2006. The $1 Trillion tax cut passed in 2001, the Medicare part D passed in 2003, and of course the Iraq war(started in 2003) and Afghanistan war (started in 2001). Also the Republicans where in the majority power between 2001-2006. And President Bush veto a war bill because the Democrats had added a time-line withdrawal of troops out of Iraq. So the Democrat weren't just sitting there letting this happen.
Now I will say it again where was the CBO when Bush was racking up the deficit which reminds you did nothing for the American people?
prior to the House debate/vote on Conyers H.R. 676....
unless Pelosi renegs on her promise for the debate/vote she made to Rep. Anthony Weiner.
I wonder how many of the geriatric tea-baggers will be coming after his tea-bags now?
Maybe we should start a campaign to repeal Medicare, under the Republican logo, of course. Leaflet nursing homes and senior communities, and so forth.
You know, it's a sad fact, but nice guys finish last.
...unless nice guys are very careful.
I was thinking of suggesting that at my Republicans Town Hall, and also he should give up his own health care. I mean, after all, socialized medicine, right?
That's a Republican approach to a political problem. Make the other side's position seem extreme. Probably work great, further diluting the honesty and integrity of the debate. As if any remained ...
It seems fairly obvious to me, all you have to do is take a page out of the Republican play book, make this a WEDGE ISSUE, and force a false dichotomy that's easy for the public to understand, and fits well into the ten second soundbite format.
If you claim to be against "government run healthcare" then you should be in favor of abolishing medicare. Do you want to abolish government run healthcare, in the form of Medicare, or not?
If you claim to be against "socialism" then you should be in favor of abolishing SOCIAL SECURITY. Do you want to abolish socialism, in the form of Social Security, or not?
Forcing an emotional dichotomy is a wedge that the Republicans have used against the Democrats since the 1930s! I seriously can't believe that after nearly a century of showing up to gunfights with knives, only to be shot by the Republicans, Democrats still haven't changed their tactics. That's Einstein's definition of insanity.
You should...
want all public roads closed.
want all public schools closed.
want all fire and police services stopped.
want all legislators removed.
want all courtrooms closed.
want many jails and prisons closed.
want the US military dismantled.
want all public works stopped.
I think I'll get a bumper sticker -
No American Socialism
Boycott 911
Socialism is simply stuff done for the public good.
The fear mongers lie and tell them it is like "Russia" and the USSR's or Mao's horrors. That is a lie.
Socialism is simply stuff done for the public good.
Thank you, get the message out.
Sixty years of anti social propaganda so the war mongers could be war profiteers in the endless war against
socialismeverything.It's just occurred to me that the right is also trying to pull a definitional retreat for the definition of the word "tyranny."
Now tyranny is defined as any government program that doesn't give you the choice of not participating, or any law that either forbids you from doing something, or regulates any form of commerce. By those definitions, most forms of taxes, most government programs, and most of the bans on things like prostitution and drug dealing are tyranny.
I guess this is dog whistle politics to tempt as many libertarians into the Republican tent as they can get.
(Also, Armey got his facts about Canada wrong. The Chaoulli vs. Quebec decision was not recent, it was 2005. And the decision specifically applied to the Quebec ban on private insurance plans, and how it effected the Quebec charter,not the Canadian Constitution. The whole issue is still very much up in the air.)
want most if not all, local, state and national parks closed.
Is it me or should David Gregory check his package. Seems to me he had way more nads when he was a whitehouse correspondant. "I want to move on now", just call him Mr. Millpond. No wave makers wanted.
Gregory is a dandy.
David Gregory's balls never dropped. At puberty, they floated away on a puff of integrity.
Gregory probably has a electrical device implanted on his genitals by his corporate overlords where he gets 20,000 volts when he displeases them. Give Mr. Boy Lackey a couple of jolts and nine pieces of silver and he'll say anything.
gregory threw them under the stall wall
in minneappolis airport for larry craig to fondle
while balancing with his wide stance.
I thought WE were the Maddow Army.
It's quite clear who was being given free reign during that Pannel. Everyone else had to "move on" when gregory said so except Dick.
Shakes head in shame
must have seen the future when they named him.
You mean that Medicare participants should have a CHOICE whether or not they wish to participate? Would that concept apply to taxpayers who don't want their $ going to, say, the Iraq war? just askin'.
The wing nuts should be called "Dick's Armey."
The wangetttes.
Since the Right keeps saying they don't want their tax dollars to fund abortions, why are we not hearing how my tax dollars fund Viagra? An erection may be desirable, but is it medically necessary? When old white men are in charge, yes it is.
hell, it funds Viagra but not birth control. The disconnect is miles wide (and you know what they say, "an inch is as good as a mile").
"an inch is as good as a Smile"
the stupidest comments ever coming from these Rethuglican corporate tools..."People should have a choice"...um ya...ok people, do you want a healthcare system that covers everyone, with everyone paying as a part of their taxes, or would you all prefer to pay extremely high insurance premiums where medical necessities are deemed not necessary, and you have to mortgage your house? I'm sure all Americans would jump for the insurance industry status quo Dick. And nobody in the media questions it at all, because, well, my scenario isn't even on the table. Kind of like impeachment of Bush.
Die without health insurance or live with it. That's a Dick Armey response.
Just die, please. It will be one less problem we need to deal with. It's your fault you're sick anyway.
insurance companies that now exist? No mention that the major companies have divvied up the country into regions so they don't have to compete with one another. He is one of the most practiced liars ever to have existed. I am not saying he is good, just that he has done it the most.
Comment #1 raised this issue which is what I was wondering. Is Armey always like this, is this his normal manner or was he drunk on this TV appearance? I did a Youtube search for previous TV appearances by this guy and this is NOT his usual demeanor. He is frequently nasty, but usually much more lucid. No, he was DRUNK here. First thing Sunday morning. A church-going republican who talks about his minister... tsk tsk...
Like he cares what people think any more...
any congress Critter thinks about are the donors. We schmucks get lip service most of the time.
Well, since I am a fellow Texan, and I was drunk when I watched it, I can assure this is normal behaviour.
Maybe he's had a mini-stroke? Sometimes stroke victims seem like they are drunk. Hope his private rich-person's insurance covers it...
He's suffering from excessive Texanupis.
Yes, he definitely looks and sounds like he's been tread upon.
And another Texameme bites the dust.
unnamed people who contacted him. This is a typical fund-raising ploy used by dishonest people. Just make up stories, pretend they are true, and spout them to elicit sympathy and money. Also, I noticed he tried quite hard to not answer questions that would show what he did not want known. I think he thought he was going to burn Rachel down. Another capitalist pig soiling himself in public.
Ya, his incompetence was showing real badly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAipJYYqDqw
I just went on Medicare this month and I am amazed how cheap it is, under $100/month. Even with a good supplemental, I am paying under $300 a month, compared to an Anthem BCBS private plan where my wife and I are each $900.
Anybody who wants to opt out of Medicare can simply refuse to hand over their card when they hit the hospital. Apparently these folks are pretty wealthy. Heh. They don't have to accept social security benefits either, and until they do start to collect will be billed for Medicare (and then refuse to pay the quarter invoice), or simply not enroll at all. Lots of choices! Oops, choice is BAD.
armey et al are under FEHB plan, and even their spouses in case of a divorce.
Part A is completely subsidized, Part B (the $100 a month) is mostly subsidized.
It is a very efficient and effective system.
We should have it for everyone, at the very least.
through taxes, and will keep on paying for a few years. That's 1.35% of your income paid by you, and the same paid by your employer--that otherwise could go to you as wages. It does add to that $100/month that seems so cheap to me. Is that what Armey and medicare refusniks really want? To opt out at age 18 or so, and so starve the medicare beast and thus shut it down for everyone else?
Yes. Yes, it is.
The rich aren't like you and me.
How about a means test at 65.
If your total declared and managed assets, national and international are more than 5 million, no SS or Medicare.
Back it up with stiff penalties for fraud and who knows, you might end up with Cheney behind bars after all.
Al Capone's only crime was not paying taxes.
The supplemental insurance, purchased from private companies is a rip-off.
In an exchange a few days ago my 80-year-old sister from Sarasota wrote, "I'm afraid they're going to take away my Medicare."
Now get this - she's an asssitant nurse, for Christ sakes, and should know better!! (She's also a still-competitive ballroom dancer). Of course, it's Florida...
It makes me want to cry how the Republilcan noise machine can infect people's minds so they cannot even think coherently. Rachel Maddow may rock, but none of my redneck relatives are ever going to hear her.
I feel your pain, Elroy. To think that a health care worker is afraid of losing her Medicare coverage, simply because of the lies and misinformation from these right-wingnut shitheads is deplorable.
The Republicans know that many senior citizens like her are gullible, and some are not educated enough to understand what is at stake. How do these assclowns sleep at night?
There will be an exclusive place in hell for these fuckers!!!
I put this on an earlier armey thread that had apparently gone dead about that time, but I suppose it's still relevant here:
The idea that tort reform is needed is a joke.
They seek to get rid of the pain and suffering part of medical lawsuits, because that's where the bigger dollars come in.
But without pain and suffering one: you cannot really punish the offending corporation because the cost has to hurt.
Two: I suspect that most hospital admissions has clauses requiring mediation or arbitration if there are any disputes. If I remember aright both the mediator and the arbitrator's decisions are legally binding, but the former you can take to a court of original jurisdiction if displeased with the results, and the latter to a court of appeal, where it would be heard by a panel of three judges, with no jury prone to emotional sway. Three: Without pain and suffering what you have is essentially no long a tort at all but a business case, where a value will be assigned to your arm or leg or child's life. But indubitably the arm of a NASCAR driver would be considered more valuable than the arm of a custodian who sweeps floors.
We saw that when attempts at restitution were made after 9-11.
And on the rare case there is a big pay out to the claimant, the standard burden is what would a reasonable physician under the circumstances do? And then the damages are generally lowered by the appeals court.
determine what constitutes medical malpractice is the standard of care in each individual community. If you live in a poor community, the standard will be much lower than if you live in a wealthy one. Also, some doctors band together and form professional corporations so they can control the standards. They do that in response to extremely and unnecessarily high malpractice insurance premiums. Lawyers and doctors are not the problem. It is the insurance companies, yet again.
I knew the insurance companies were a problem with malpractice insurance, but I didn't think of the different standards in a poor community and a wealthier one; however, that is how it's done in education, so it sounds right to me.
But wouldn't doctors who band together in corporations have the test of other reasonable doctors who band together? But short of leaving their wristwatch inside a patient they would have each other's back of what constitute malpractice.
Another problem is it's so hard to get rid of incompetent doctors. If one is so bad, his licensing board no longer will license him due to excessive malpractice, nothing prevents them from relocating, taking the state's medical board exam and setting out a new shingle. There's no tracking system that I'm aware of.
"But wouldn't doctors who band together in corporations have the test of other reasonable doctors who band together?" In my experience, which is limited to my own community, the vast majority of the doctors have banded together in one umbrella corporation with multiple offices with different staff in each. The only time they actually function like a corporation is when it benefits them. As they are the majority in my community, they set the tone, so to speak.
Than wouldn't that be an argument against medical malpractice tort reform?
What you say makes doctors sound as regionalistic as insurance companies.
But I think I know what you're saying, more often than not you see signs in doctors office like Proctologists of Northern Texas.
YS,
Over the last quarter century, payouts for medical malpractice have remained flat, while MP premiums have fluctuated (mostly upwards). That's because the premiums are largely determined by economic factors, such as how the premiums are invested.
http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses.pdf
In the cases of hospital based practices (anesthesiologists, pathologists) we have seen any drop in MP premiums. For the gas passers, their rates have dropped because of impoved intraoperative monitoring techniques. There is always safety in numbers.
That would coincide with my surmise.
I don't recall hearing of any major payouts since the ray gunn era.
And it may've been exagerrated even then, like welfare queens.
that’s tyranny."
Can anyone name any government programs that we're forced into?
Having your government invade other countries against your wishes and/or better judgement?
interview of the wingnut congressperson last week
this is what happens when the host allows a wingnut fuck to filibuster sans response
dear mr armey,
please show me the senior on a fixed income who can afford private health insurance
no sir, we are not worried about the rich, who can pay with or without insurance
fucking ahole
off SSDI and from whom the government is now demanding $21,000.
I won't vouch for the amount, but Medicare is actuarially unsound, according to the Comptroller General.
"The federal government has made financial promises over the next 75 years at an estimated value of $50 trillion dollars. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), medicare obligations alone represent almost $39 trillion of that amount and have increased 197% since 2000"
There's no way to pay those amounts. There's going to be rationing, and death panels that will consign grandma to the gas chamber and so forth. And that's the sad fact unless....
...unless we develop cures. We need cures for cancer, alzheimers, cardio-vascular ailments and so forth. Expensive maintenance regimes aren't going to do it. And I don't see the free market producing cures because cures are bad for recurring revenue flows, damaging shareholder value. Maintenance regimes are good for enhancing shareholder value. In fact, the best thing to enhance shareholder value is to drive up costs, which the health corporations have been successfully doing for years.
This is why economic ideology is so dangerous. We're to accept free market solutions based on ideology and ignore the data. We're rejecting single payer on the ideological grounds that it's "socialism" and ignore the data that says that it's cheaper. This latest health debate is about keeping the data off the table along with single payer, and conducting it with ideological histrionics.
Free market solutions aren't going to fix the actuarial problem with Medicare. The only fix I see is to find cures for the ailments listed above, and that is going to require government funded research.
http://www.highlighthealth.com/healthcare/an-...
If they haven't cured cancer by now, they're holding back. If they cured diseases, people wouldn't continually need drugs. How will you ever get your eyelashes thicker without drugs? How will you boost your antidepressants without more drugs? How can old men who should be worrying about their lawns get boners without drugs? Duh!
The point of what I wrote was the private marketplace solutions *won't* produce cures. We're going to have to embrace a "socialist" government-run initiative to have any hope of cures.
That might work. Do not allow drug companies to advertise their wares. The cost will decrease dramatically without advertising costs added to the price we pay. Require inspection of all chemicals that are imported into this country for manufacture or distribution in medications, vitamins, and so forth. Does anyone know where the chemicals or even the drugs themselves come from? Anyone? They won't even tell us where our food comes from. Just because they are "distributed" or "manufactured" here does not mean they contain substances that are made from chemicals made in the US or even inspected by the FDA.
The myth that the drug companies do all of the research is just that. A myth. The vast majority of pharmacological research is funded by, wait for it, the federal government. The drug companies throw in at the last moment to claim the patents. It's a matter of where you put your eggs.
universities. How can they claim patents if they do not own the research and development?
They play it like the market. They track the research and throw in if they think it will pan out.
?
The drug companies only do the marketing, not the actual research. For this they get patent rights.
Never mind.
Additionally, the Pharm companies are very secretive about how much they invest in R&D. Also, R&D expenses are tax deductible. Add to that the enormous tax credits that these companies receive, and it adds up to about a 17% overall tax rate for Pharm companies, as opposed to 27% for other R&D companies. They also invest much of that R&D money instead of actually funneling it to labs.
You said "The myth that the drug companies do all of the research is just that. A myth. The vast majority of pharmacological research is funded by, wait for it, the federal government. The drug companies throw in at the last moment to claim the patents. It's a matter of where you put your eggs." Now you are agreeing with me. Seriously, I don't know if you agree with me or not.
Not trying to agree or disagree. I'm just putting out information.
The Fed spends chump change at the National Cancer Institute, about $5 billion. We're not spending the kind of money that needs to be spent here, considering the mortality rate, and the costs to treat cancer.
The GAO is now making estimates going out 75 years? What a crock!No way any responsible agency of the government would or should give out outrageous estimates of that kind. I can only wonder what the projection for military appropriations would be, going out 75 years.And what does that have to do with that ass-hat Armey saying that medicare IS 46 trillion in the red? From the moment that he opened his mouth, accusing Move On of calling George W., Hitler, not one speck of truth came out of it.Kudos to Rachel for not smacking him.
Rachel was great. Armey is an A-hole and it showed. He appeared defensive, and couldn't really answer questions when actually challenged. So glad Rachel called him out. He was so smug.
What those smug assholes need is a good bar fight to beat some sense into them. I don't do Sunday bobbleheads to keep my peace of mind, but I trust your assessment.
I watched all of it. Why did they give Dick Army so much time? He slams his hand on the desk and they'd give him two more minutes to ramble on.
It makes for good MTP fodder.
MTP is not your friend.
The dick never should have been there in the first place.
Rachel is brilliant, fair, and does her homework. She doesn't resort to hollering over her guests or debate partners to get her point across. Dick Armey clearly considered her a lightweight and was not prepared for her thorough and well-researched comments. His distain for her was visible, as one might expect based on his recent statements (after stepping down from the DLA Piper law firm) in which he impugned the "competence and professionalism" of the media (mostly Rachel) who called him out on his association with Freedom Works. Bravo, Rachel, bravo.
Just remove the cap on SS and Medicare taxes. People that make over $90K or so have been getting away with untaxed income. Look at it this way, people that make under $95K are taxed on 100% of their income. People that make $1 million, are taxed on 10% of their income.
http://www.irs.gov/govt/tribes/article/0,,id=...
The employer is subject to the same social security tax rate and wage base limits as the employee. The wage base limit for 2008 is $102,000. When the employee reaches their limitation, the employer also reaches the limitation and no longer has to pay social security taxes for that employee. See Publication 15, Circular E, Employer's Tax Guide, for the current wage limit for social security wages. There is no wage base limit for Medicare tax; all covered wages are subject to Medicare tax.
Instead, I would subject dividends, interest, and capital gains to medicare tax also.
slip that through. I worked for IRS and SS I know this stuff. Yes, Medicare tax is on all wages. Good idea to tax all income, even unearned. I think removing the cap on employees SS tax is a good idea, even if it is just for people over $250K. Why should my wages for working be treated differently than wages where there is no work done. Tax fairness would help to fund alot of govt programs.
And people are forced to take Medicare when they are 65, no way to refuse it. Why cant we have a health care tax like this? Who would mind $100 out of their pay if they did not have to pay health insurance premiums?
I also noticed that Gregory said 'I have to stop it now' when Rachel was making a great point, but then let Armey ramble on for 3 more minutes.
How many whiskey sours did Armey have in the green room? (7am)?
Someone should email Rachel and ask her if she smelled booze on Armey's breath.
Class for that one. But..... she was right next to him. Maybe we'll find out in 30 years when she writes her tell all book," A Rose Among Thorns".
Sorry....
Call me ignorant, but I'm trying to find out where a health care "Town Hall" is meeting in Maryland will be taking place in the future....
If anyone could help me, please e-mail me at [deleted]
Thanks,
Nick
To save you from email harvesters and spammers. Trust me on this one.
FDL has a widget on the right side of their page that allows you to see all the health care events within a certain radius of your zip code.
Go to firedoglake.com to test it out.
.............Health Care for America Now. They have a search you can do for your state.
Of course none of the pro-reform groups would dare to run a clip of Dickhead Army mouthing these toxic words. I know the reformers don't have the $$$ of the pharma-insurance complex, but someone has to get off their ass and do something before it's too late, if it's not already. Emails are not going to be enough.
Actually, I think Dick has a marvelous idea. I know a lot of folk that would like to voluntarily remove themselves from the defense industry, or subsidies to corporations.
Armey's smile made me think of Shakespere, 'Smile, smile and be a villan" -- Richard the turd
of belts myself, and re-evaluating the conversation, I reached two conclusions and a comment.
conclusion 1. Dick wasn't just drunk, he was in discomfort because of David Gregories head stuck up his ass.
conclusion 2. David Gregory's hair looks great considering where it had been.
comment; for all who are disheartened by the days events, don't give up. If you are willing to just concede to the ghouls, f'yall
Is a liar and a fool. and like all good republicans he is mentally ill.
republicanism is a mental illness!
pig and a misogynist, has been accused of sexual harassment by his univ. students, - he has nothing but disdain for women. And, you may remember this from a few months ago when he was losing an argument in a discussion with Joan Walsh (on MSNBC - I think):
"I'm so damn glad you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day," Armey told Walsh, editor-in-chief of Salon.com. "That's what I'm talking about -- she's making a political malarkey here."
Who the hell would want to be his freakin' wife!!??
internal memo BS.
But Rachel, as usual, made the point.
If you hate your Social Security and find your Medicare to be tyranny, Dick Armey is on your side.
So, how about the 100 or so of you who meet that condition, move to a small cold island in the Aleutian chain and Palin can be your leader in a tyranny free society.
Wow, Dick Armey really does want to screw seniors as well as all other Americans.
I'm glad Rachael Maddow gave Dick enough rope to hang himself with.
Dick Armey just declared himself a member of the Republican Vampire Club.
My mom and her husband are both over 70, and they have private insurance. They don't have Medicare (or if they do, they don't use it). I had no idea that everyone over 65 is forced to apply for Medicare - is this true?
reach the age of eligibility. This is what Armey calls being forced to enroll. I can see his point, but only with half my brain tied behind my back. Why would your mother and her husband have Medicare and not use it? It sounds like they have Medicare and private supplemental insurance, and the insurance company they are being used by, I mean they are using has them believing that Medicare is paying nothing. Are they collecting Social Security? If they are, about $96 a month is deducted from it to pay for Medicare. I had BCBS send me their propaganda packet so I could read it. It is a huge loose leaf binder that lays it out like they are going to take very good care of you. Especially if you are easily confused, or not used to double talk. It is advertising, and it is misleading. They want your money, and they give you back only minimal coverage. It is unnecessary, as plain Medicare will take good care of your mother and her husband without any tricks. And, they are already paying for it.
I hope they are rich. Otherwise they are getting ripped off. Besides, in many cases I believe that if they have a major illness, their private insurance will defer all billing to Medicare before they pay out. I hope that maybe they have supplementsl and you just missed that.
For the good of the over all public , we the people = socialism , terrible isn't it ? Socialism verses this lovely sacred capitalism , the rich capitalizing on the average man and on the ones struggling every day and every month to get by and to have a half decent life . Ah yes , that terrible socialism , much better GD capitalism , the free market and the same SOB's who just ruined my life and the lives of many many others and destroyed the entire world's economy in their absolute unbridled greed . Capitalism , all for the friggin rich , the drug companies , Insurance companies and their mega casino for the wealthy that we call Wall Street , profit over the life , the health and well being of their fellow man . Army you are nothing but a low life ,just a scum bag with out conscience .
companies, drug companies, etc. They make laws to benefit themselves through Wall Street. Nice, huh?
Like most republicans and blue jerks (I like dogs) it is profits over people. These baggers and birthers don't care about the health of our nation. From day one these big money shills and their media mouthpieces have lied from everything from birth certificates to death panels. Take back our country from these liars.
Fuck Dick Armey
My wife and I pay $250/month for our employer provided insurance. Now I would much rather pay that amount each month to a single payor plan and have everyone covered. The problem is that with the rising under and unemployment situation, funding the single payor plan with payroll taxes that would otherwise go to private insurance plans (or HMO's) probably would not work.
As No Buddy said up thread:
"Instead, I would subject dividends, interest, and capital gains to medicare tax also."
This would dovetail nicely with an expanded Medicare for all. But the politicians, the insurance execs and Armey and his rich anti-Medicare friends will never allow it.
Armey I hope you get the worst case of rhoids imaginable , preferably inoperable ... if there are such critters .
The Canadian Supreme Court cannot and will not prevent anyone from buying private insurance but... they will still have to pay their share of taxes to support Medicare.
That's it that's all.
Dick Armey is an apt name.
The way he was wringing his hands and smiling freaks me out. He sounded drunk, I bet he just came from the local VFW. What a shmuk. Organized relogion has been blowing me away since I became aware at about 20 years old, for 16 years now. So whats their next move, after this are they gonna start trying to abolish medicare, social security, and unemployment. Are our elderly, sick, unemployed supposed to live on the streets with cardboard signs waiting for the nice fundamentalists to throw them a half eaten sandwich or some change? Ok attack them NOW. Expose those religous organizations for what they are, a heaping pile of steaming crap.
With all due respect to Rachael Maddow (I love this woman) she did not do that great of a job at exposing Army for the phony he is. She was too generous with those who chewed up HER TIME with their interruptive rebuttals. She was too tethered to her notes and not enough free creative time to rip that guy a new ass.
I completely agree. just saw your post after I posted mine.
Late,
QSE32
I totally agree with you on this. Rachel failed and let Dick Armey own the discussion.
Dick Armey is slime. Anybody debating him needs to shut his lying mouth by talking over him and banging on the desk louder than he does.
Dick Armey is a corporate whore. He is another old white fart who is behind the current derailing of reform.
They don't get any dirtier, any uglier than Dick Armey. I'd spit in his face if I had the chance.
I disagree. Rachael was articulate and made some excellent factual points and exposed Armey for a lying cretin. You do not need to be rude and talk over someone to make your point. Had she been overbearing like Armey, her new viewers would have been told that she was an agressive lesbian b*t*h. Instead, viewers saw a well educated articulate Dr. of Political Science making some excellent points and holding her own against an obnoxious corportist.
One DOES need to be rude to people like Armey.
I'll tell you what: I adore Rachael and I'm as liberal as they come. I watched the video, and I don't remember a single thought she was trying to convey. But I do remember all the lies coming out of Armey's s***-hole...or was that his mouth?...I couldn't tell.
Nobody is saying that she should have screeched over him, but I would have shut him up somehow; he owned the conversation. Why do you think the nation is having such a struggle over reform? It's loudmouth, lying SOBs like Armey that are accomplishing it.
Rachel got to speak maybe three times the whole program and I don't think she ever got to finish her point or even sometimes start one with out being verbally run over by a fat guy in a little coat!
Late,
QSE32
I'm a huge Rachel Maddow fan, and I kept waiting for the junkyard dog I know she can be. However, Dick Armey kept his cool, for the most part, and except for the morning-martini smirk he wore, he actually seemed prepared for Rachel's attack. Add that to Gregory's rule about having a civil discussion, and the fact that others interrupted her before she could get going -- I think ultimately she got the short end. Armey proved himself a real bonehead, but I wonder how many MTP viewers actually saw it that way.
I hope someone in that discussion knew that it is only Part A, hospital insurance, that is mandatory in Medicare. Part B, which covers most of the medical care that people receive under Medicare is voluntary and requires payment of a monthly premium. Of course, a person can pay for their medical care out of their own pocket if they really want to, whether they have Medicare or not. So maybe it's only Part A that is "tyranny", but it's a very, very strange definition of tyranny, which probably only makes sense to the people who think property rights are the only legitimate rights and that they should not have to pay their share for anything at all as members of a society.
that you put what Rachel said in bold, because she damn near whispered it. You could barely hear her because she was run over by Dick! Damn near everytime she opened her mouth Dick cut her off or talked over the top of her. Very disappointing performance from rachel today. I'm not suggesting she yell and scream but at least some level of assertiveness woulda' been nice. Daschle was very meek as well. Just disappointing very sad!
Late,
QSE32
A previous commenter stated that Pharma does not test drugs or do most of the research. That is wrong. The FDA and National Institute of Health do not do a lot of new drug research. Pharma and Universities funded by Pharma do most of the research. Even drug testing is now mostly done by third party labs funded by Pharma and then THEIR DATA is reviewed by FDA. Independent drug research and testing by the government has mostly disappeared since the 90's. Additionally outragous behaviors have FDA employees, directors and consultants also on Pharma payrolls resulting in big time conflicts of interest. It is little wonder that a whole new array of dangerous drug side effects do not become apparent until a drug is actually marketed to the public. Often, manipulation of data and data withheld results in serious side effects in the first year or so of mass market exposure. Our FDA and drug system is as broken as all other areas of healthcare. Additionally, drug research for diseases and conditions that affect small numbers people that do not have great profit potential are now almost never researched because they aren't big money markers so little progress is made in helping these people.
Old guy sits in his seat yelling after too many drinks.
If he were at a baseball game, he would've been tased.
"... if you give a government program and you let me choose to be in or choose to be out, that’s generosity. If you force me in, irrespective of my desires, that’s tyranny."
So, I presume this means he'll be sponsoring legislation to kill the IRS as soon as possible.
I can hardly wait.
The Republican Party along with the CORPORATE CONTRILED MEDIA have have for years have been trying to get rid of SS now they may have there chance to get rid of all three SS, Medicade, and Medicare. So the right wingers and the CCM win again.
So what benefits does Dick Army recieve or recieved from his years of vacation and recess in congress?
What connection and friends did he make by passing legislation for his buddies? Doesn't he use his congressional Gov't job to promote his profiteering by lobbying now?
Then it must of been tyranny that paid Dick Army's salary all those years of recess and favors to the wealthy when tax payers paid him?
Login or Register to post comments.