TPM LiveWire
Weiner: Every GOPer I Know Is A 'Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Of The Insurance Industry' (VIDEO)
Ben Frumin | February 24, 2010, 5:22PM
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Share
Send to a friend!
A must-watch performance on the House floor today from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).
"You gotta love these Republicans," Weiner said. "I mean, you guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of insurance companies."
One of Weiner's Republican colleagues asked that the Democrat's words be stricken from the record because they were inappropriate for debate. Weiner's comeback: I'd be glad to -- I'll just substitute other words.
Make no mistake about it, every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the insurance industry.
Here's the video:
(H/T Ezra Klein)
Comments (87) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
benintn
February 24, 2010 5:30 PM
Well, some of them are subsidiaries of the oil lobby, the coal companies, the drug companies... but I still have to ask, What is the value-add of for-profit insurance? What does for-profit insurance provide that adds value to our healthcare system?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
February 24, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to benintn
Well, SUPPOSEDLY, insurance spreads the risk between members of a risk pool. It works fine when you insure drivers because most people don't have auto accidents. So everyone -- without knowing in advance who's going to be the unlucky driver -- pays a little so the few can be protected from financial ruin. It doesn't work in health care because EVERYONE needs health care. Since the insurance companies can't spread risk, they really serve no purpose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
In other words; socialism for those who have money only.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
February 24, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to cinesimon
All corporations are collectives. They are just unfair collectives. Let's not forget, it's in their charter to make as much profit as possible. If they leave any money on the table, fail to exert political force or pay their fair share of taxes, then they're doing it wrong. Why favor corporations in the tax laws and shield their officers from liability if you're going to turn around and tell them not to gouge consumers? It's backwards. Just abolish these entities altogether. Favor co-ops instead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Damage
February 25, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to mass_murdock
Corps used to have a requirement to do a social good. Then there was a race to the bottom, I believe by a universal desire for carnegie or Rockefeller's tax revenue, by states, rewriting their state charters to remove that requirement from their incorporation laws. What is it wasn't just 'the best price' but 'the best price with the least amount of collateral damage (usually referred to as an externality)' that determined the best buy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
February 25, 2010 12:44 AM in reply to cinesimon
its called Fascism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
February 24, 2010 8:21 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
You can still "spread risk" without making the insurance industry a for-profit enterprise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
February 24, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to benintn
Huh? There's nothing wrong with companies that spread risk making money. They serve a function. My point was that you can't spread risk when everyone in the pool draws from the pool. Thus, health care insurance companies are like race-tracks that take in everyone's bet, then pay everything out after taking their cut off the top.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PSG
February 24, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
That's not quite true. Everybody does draw from the pool, but not everybody draws equal amounts, and not everybody draws at the same time. If there were an 100 person pool getting a monthly salary of 10,000, with each person having a 1% risk of getting an illness that would cost their entire salary, the fair price would be 100$ per month. Statistically the insurance company would in the long run be making no profit from that pool, but they could invest the money and make profit that way. However the more likely outcome is that the insurance company would ask for 2-3% of income, thus statistically 100-200$ of revenue per person per month. Profiteering, sure, but people would be willing to pay because they are risk averse and losing 100% of salary for one month is much worse then losing 2-3% of salary every month. Insurance companies bank on this risk aversion. This isn't what happens in the real world granted, but this is how an ideal private market would work. Good regulation, and strong oversight could create such a scenario, but that is not the one we live in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
latichever
February 24, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to PSG
But the point is that you don't need a company to do any of the figuring. You need only an actuary and a computer program.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-old-age/200908/health-care-in-exactly-25-words
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric
February 25, 2010 4:31 AM in reply to JimmyBobby
Of course everyone can draw from the pool! Some people will draw more than others, but as long as the cost is sufficiently less than the revenue everything is A-ok. Wall Street profits and adequate healthcare don't mix well. A well managed pool of capital can take care of all stakeholders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
February 24, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
Thank you. I've trying to say that for years. How am I a different risk whether I work for a large corporation, a very small company, or for myself as a consultant? We could all live on the same block, be of similar ages and habits, yet be charged drastically different rates due to the 'group'. The group should be the population of the region, not who you work, or don't work for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
February 25, 2010 4:57 AM in reply to JimmyBobby
Nonsense.
Most people are generally well. They use their health insurance only for yearly checkups, the odd case of strep throat or, for us middle-aged folks, a generic anti-cholesterol drug. The costs for this category of healthcare is negligible.
Something like 80% of ALL healthcare spending is for those of us--quite a small percentage--who are seriously ill.
So health insurance is--or ought to be--quite like car insurance, in that it spreads--or ought to spread--risk over a large pool of premium-payers, the overwhelming majority of whom cost the system little or nothing in any given year.
The difference between health and car insurance is that because car accidents are largely just that--pure accidents, the insurance companies are unable to predict which of their policy-holders will collect large amounts in any given year. This makes it difficult for them to assess risk on an individual basis, and thus to charge premiums based on the likelihood that a given individual is going to cost them more in a given year. While certain variables like age or number of driving infractions are taken into account, the differentials in car premiums are not large enough to price most people out of the market. (And even if they do, nobody HAS to drive.)
With health insurance, on the other hand, one's previous health history tells an insurance company much of what they need to know, as to the likelihood of the premium-payer's needing expensive care in the coming year. Thus, in the individual market, the insurance company can easily price premiums on an individual basis, effectively pricing premiums for those who are likely to need much care, above the average person's ability to pay.
Health insurance, to work, thus requires large pools for which insurance is priced not individually, but for the whole group. It is why the individual market in health insurance, unlike car insurance, simply doesn't work. And it is why, for those who don't get their insurance through large, employer-based pools, some other way of creating a pool--like "community rating"--where the government obliges private insurance companies to charge the same premium to every customer in a given community--or a public option, is necessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
February 25, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to Nancy Irving
Okay, so where's the "nonsense" part? You agree that "...it is why the individual market in health insurance, unlike car insurance, simply doesn't work." So where's the nonsense? That's all I said. And if a big pool spreads risk the best, then why -- if we're really interested in keeping costs down and delivering the best care in the world -- do we need insurance companies making profits when the biggest pool would be to extend Medicare to everyone. The people who have Medicare seem to love it. My original point: we don't need insurance companies in the mix; the only reason they're there is because they've owned enough congresspersons to keep themselves from being legislated out of business for the last umpteen years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
February 25, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
Sorry, must have misunderstood your original comment.
I'm with you--Medicare for all (aka single payer) is obviously the best choice, from a pure policy standpoint.
But it was a good rant, don't you think? :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
March 1, 2010 12:15 AM in reply to Nancy Irving
Yes, a real stemwinder!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
February 24, 2010 5:38 PM
Yeah like the dumbocrats aren't. Give me a fucking break. These assholes are as owned as the republicans. Look at mr. obama and his hcr that will be a bonanza for the insurance companies.
Jeez, when will the citizenry wake up and realize neither party has their interests at heart. They're both equally corrupted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ETSpoon
February 24, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to T Groan
So when are the Greens going to make a move? I've been waiting twenty years for the Green Party to make a difference.
Oh, I know, the Greens have elected people to public office: Small town mayors and council members in the Pacific Northwest and a state representative in Arkansas. Big whoop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
February 24, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to ETSpoon
I'm glad you don't disagree with me regarding the corruption of the democrat party.
Unfortunately with as docile and obese a society we have become, the efforts to act, as well as think, have become somewhat atrophied.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ETSpoon
February 24, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to T Groan
Well, I guess we'll just have to throw the oh, so pure Greens into that "docile and obese" bin, won't we?
And what about all the Dennis Kucinich supporters? I tried to volunteer for his campaign in '04 and his local office never returned my call. Guess the Kucinich '04 campaign, at least in my locale, was also among the "docile and obese"!
Oh, and what about those ultimate right wing rebels, the tea baggers. Those cats are being herded right back into the warm corporate lap of the GOP. They too are among the "docile and obese".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
February 24, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to ETSpoon
Once again you don't disagree with me. I fail to understand your point unless you believe that voters should throw themselves into the arms of the equally corporate controlled democrat party.
And yes the docile & obese term probably includes most Americans irregardless of political affiliation.
I choose a green party affiliation due to not wanting to be part of the duopoly and simply choosing a party with beliefs closer to my own. I no longer accept the nonsense the duopoly offers that your vote is wasted if you vote for what you believe and don't 'choose the lesser of two evils'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to T Groan
And the way to advance people toward thinking Green is the use of childish name calling.
Got it. You want to be taken about as seriously as the Tea Baggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Camino
February 25, 2010 8:42 AM in reply to T Groan
We definitely need viable 3rd party. So we can fire these bastards from their jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Camino
February 25, 2010 8:46 AM in reply to T Groan
We definitely need viable 3rd party. So we can fire these bastards from their jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Damage
February 25, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to T Groan
Only things all third-partiers should be working on are;
1) Instant Run-Off voting, so votes for your parties aren't actually votes for the opponents
2) Public funding of elections, so candidates, regardless of party aren't chosen by funding but by reflecting their voting constituency.
The Greens, The Libertarians, The Communists all should get together on this, or what few votes they get become, forever, votes for their biggest opponents.
(See 'Nader, Florida, 2000'. That worked out well, didn't it, three wars and $8 trillion in debt later?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to T Groan
T groan, your childish name calling is illuminating one thing - your unwillingness to behave like an intelligent adult.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
February 24, 2010 6:25 PM in reply to T Groan
Great, just what we need, the equivalency arguement. I'm not suggesting that all Democrats are clean, some are on the take if you will. One Max Baaucus comes to mind. But some aren't. And Republicans have been the party of the wealthy and Big Business since before I was born (some 51 years ago). The bottomline is that Republicans ave been protecting Big Business against the needs of the American People for decades, and as long as they're addicted to those contributions, they will always be the bitches of Big Business.
Obama on the other hand funded his campaign thanks to the generosity of of a certain "special interest group". What were they called again? Oh yeah, voters
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Camino
February 25, 2010 9:12 AM in reply to we r all husseins
I agree majority of deems are on the take (few are honest and work for people who sent them in office).
That is why we cannot pass healthcare bill although we SUPPOSEDLY have WH, majority in the Senate and the Congress. We have lots of republicans in deems skin. That is what we have!
Fact is, both parties are in the pockets of big business.
As for Obama, he is such a disappointment, a hypocrite! He swindled people with his BS rhetoric. He has no balls, spine, honor, honesty. He is a hypocrite like most of deems and repubs. He said, when he was campaigning, he is "single payer guy". We never gave single payer a chance! What a hypocrite! I crossed the party line to vote for him. No more! He is 1 term president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Waltz
February 24, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to T Groan
"dumbocrats" "republitards", can we knock this crap off?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 24, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to Waltz
Graci. Ben detto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
February 24, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to Brownbagger
Ditto ben detto.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 25, 2010 8:51 AM in reply to Waltz
What about pricks and assholes? Does that work better. LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
February 24, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to T Groan
It may be the difference between a nickel and a quarter but it's still a measurable difference. And let's face it we aren't going to see any third parties in our lifetime make any difference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 25, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to T Groan
You repeat talking points very well. If Obama was owned by the insurance companies we wouldn't even be discussing health care reform. Go blow smoke out of your butt, it will serve the same purpose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
James
February 24, 2010 5:41 PM
I agree with T Groan. So, it's cool if the Democrats are just half-owned instead of "wholly-owned"? I'm not a purist, but the Democrats are just pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bogglesthemind
February 24, 2010 7:52 PM in reply to James
Compared to what, James? Compared to what?
Show us your political sagacity. Tell us why they are pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gordonot
February 24, 2010 5:42 PM
Weiner for president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
northern virginia
February 24, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to gordonot
I second Weiner's nomination for president. If he was my representative, he'd have my vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
February 25, 2010 12:45 AM in reply to northern virginia
fucking third that move for unanimous consent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ETSpoon
February 24, 2010 5:43 PM
House Democrats get it. Why don't Senate Democrats?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheerahkahn
February 24, 2010 5:54 PM
Opensecrets.dot.com shows that a lot of dem's are owned by financial institutions as well...so, really, I'd say that the Dem's and the GOP are two sides of the same coin carried in the pocket of American business.
"People who live in glass houses..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheerahkahn
February 24, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to sheerahkahn
Kind of embarassing responding to my own...but when I said people who live in glass houses...oh yeah...
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001110&cycle=2010
I guess Mr. Weiner has excluded financial institutions from his accusations.
Perhaps...he should address his own patrons involvement in his political decisions making.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to sheerahkahn
"Perhaps...he should address his own patrons involvement in his political decisions making."
Actually, you're making the accusation, but I see without any actual accusation. Just a false equivalency with, typically for those making such false equivalencies, no actual substance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
February 24, 2010 7:49 PM in reply to sheerahkahn
From the link you provided, I see that for 2009-2010, 83% of Representative Weiner's funds came from individual contributions.
And, keeping in mind that Mr. Weiner represents part of New York City, should the top five industries that contributed to his campaign ring any specific alarms?
1. Real Estate
2. Lawyers/Law firms
3. Securities & Investment
4. Health Professionals
5. TV/Movies/Music
So, what am I missing that you are seeing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to BlindBat
cheap false equivalencies - the right wing political economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to sheerahkahn
There's a difference between receiving donations from a company then working for the people as Weiner has and does, and receiving donations from a company and working for that company's interests.
No glass house - just a false equivalency. Can you show the part where Weiner is working directly for the interests of those he received donations from?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to sheerahkahn
How sad.
The old conspiracy theorists' chestnut: the Dems and Repubs are the same!
Vastly different policies and behavior - but because they receive donations, they're the same!
No actual substance to my accusations - but they're the same!
No actual thinking, just repeating an easily disproved cliche made by the Alex Jones cult - but they're the same!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
February 24, 2010 6:12 PM
Yes Anthony, and I'm liking yours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 24, 2010 6:33 PM
Mr. Weiner is from Queens.
In his head, the word he was really thinking of was:
["Every Republican I've ever met is a..."]"WHOO-uh"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vodkatwist
February 24, 2010 6:50 PM
Sock it to 'em Tony!
I'm very proud to see the god congressman from NYC take a stand and call out the corporate whores who flip flop positions in order to stall and obstruct progress the overwhelming majority of the people of this country are in favor of.
I wish they hadn't wasted time listening to the Republicans, catering to their whims, wasting valuable time only to have the GOP stab em in the back, change positions and end up not voting for the bills they helped craft- then lying to the American public that they were ignored. Enough is enough.
It's obvious these guys are only interested in bi-partisanship when it means they can stall as long as possible, certainly not when it comes to voting.
I say not only pass the bills in reconciliation but abandon the Republican ideas that weaken the bills since they're never going to vote for the final package anyway.
The insurance lobby does contribute to both sides. It's their right to do so. One side is fighting for regulation and reform to give every citizen a fair shake and the other is fighting to obstruct, stall and kill reform in favor of the industry.
It's one thing to accept a gift and do what you were planning anyway- it's another to be so blatantly whorish about it and do whatever the corporations tell you to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dickday
February 24, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to vodkatwist
AMEN VODKA!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
February 24, 2010 6:52 PM
Hey! congressman Weiner you would have sound for credible if you had mentioned that some Democrats are part of the mix too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 24, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to Juble
That's right: if he doesn't say every obvious thing about politics within every single speech he makes, then he has no credibility.
UG UG
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
February 24, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to Juble
He said "wholly owned". The GOP is in fact wholly owned. Being a lying shill for Big Healthcare is one of the GOP purity tests. Obviously! Did any of them do anything but obstruct the process in any way? No. pwned.
But you have a point: a lot of people masquerading as dems have had their disguises penetrated by all this. It's a good thing. It was entertaining to see them squirm as the 59 vote thing put the spotlight on them. They're unable to sell HCR to their constituents because they're really GOP con men in dem clothing. Would you like it better if Weiner had said that too? Would that make it seem less incredible?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
engelra
February 24, 2010 6:52 PM
Agreed, anthony weiner for president. It's good to see a democrat go on the offensive. I'm freaking pissed about republicans blocking health care. I want my representatives to be the same. Do not negotiate with republicans, they're not negotiating with you. Yelling and going on the offensive is completely in order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JJNelson
February 24, 2010 7:02 PM
i love weiner!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 24, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to JJNelson
lol.....yes, say it loud and proud
I Love Weiner!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
February 24, 2010 7:12 PM
GOP: “We’re shocked … shocked that Weiner would dare to accuse us of being in the pocket of corporate lobbyists!”
Congressional aide to Mr. Boehner: “Sir, your check from WellPoint has arrived…”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
February 24, 2010 7:23 PM
Man so much for freedom of speech
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vodkatwist
February 24, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to 3star2nr
What do you mean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
February 24, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to vodkatwist
The video shows Representative Weiner's remarks being halted and stricken from the record twice. Some feelings were hurt by his speech, apparently. But, the beauty part is that we got to see and hear it even though it was stricken from the official record.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pope Ratzo
February 24, 2010 7:55 PM
Good for Rep Weiner.
I love it when the Republicans have to run to the fainting couch because someone said something bad about them.
Then, they turn around and act much worse. The GOP is reprehensible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
February 25, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to Pope Ratzo
They dish it out but none of them seems capable of dealing with having the same type of rhetoric turned back on them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
February 24, 2010 9:08 PM
AWESOME!!!
Anthony Weiner for President!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
February 24, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to elle a
thats some change I can do laundry with!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Camino
February 25, 2010 8:51 AM in reply to elle a
Second it! He is not like current ball-less guy. Oh I forgot, current guy can swindle you with empty rhetoric and BS which gives you warm feeling and does nothing for you. :(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maher4Pres
February 24, 2010 9:50 PM
that was the best thing i've seen on C-Span, ever. What I wouldn't give to see this man challenge Obama in the next primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 24, 2010 10:05 PM in reply to Maher4Pres
I guess you won't be giving much because that has as much of a chance happening as me getting to be 21 again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DarcyDancer
February 24, 2010 10:20 PM
And it's too bad. Weiner doesn't have the money to run against the Pres in 2012 but he has far more integrity, leadership ability, and courage than this pathetic Pres could ever put together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 24, 2010 10:45 PM
I'd vote for Weiner in a heartbeat in a primary against the failure Obama. And of course President Milquetoast doesn't even invite this guy to his HCR summit. The insurance industry wouldn't allow it and Obama does what his paymasters order him to.
If you're wondering why he is killing the public option just read the NYT Aug. 13th story about Obama's role in the HCR process. It reports:
"Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said.
Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services."
And there you have it.
The contrast between a real fighter like Weiner and a sell-out, wimpy loser like Obama wouldn't make the appeaser-in-chief look too good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PSG
February 24, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to tommyo
Really? I mean really? I really like Weiner, and interned for him over one summer, but the man didn't go against Bloomberg because he was afraid of getting drowned in a sea of money. Weiner is Schumer-esque in his ability to get publicity, but is more a showman then doer. He didn't get invited because he is not a serious policy wonk, nor is he part of the house leadership or the CPC leadership. He is doing a great job raising his profile, and I hope he runs for mayor in 2013, but I don't see him as a hard-core fighter. After all he dropped his Single Payer amendment because the leadership said it was causing them problems. He is willing to take the bullhorn, but isn't willing to lay it down when it counts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 25, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to PSG
Shouting out the problem does count.
And the leadership that asked him to drop Single Payer was lead by whom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PSG
February 25, 2010 1:22 AM in reply to AJM
Shouting out the problem only counts if after you shout a while, you actually do work to fix it. A publicity stunt will raise your profile, or your issue's profile, but what you do with the raised profile is what counts.
The leadership was led by Pelosi, who was doing whatever she could to get 217 votes for passage. His Single Payer amendment was complicated that effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 25, 2010 9:28 AM in reply to PSG
And he withdrew it.
Shouting out also counts if it gets other people working on the problem and/or shifts the "overton window" by making positions closer to the middle than yours look more acceptable.
Not every politicians needs to have all the skills -- we need people great at doing the policy planning, people goodgetting it passsed and people good at getting the publicity so that the public understands what the situation is or could be.
A glory hound can be intensely irritating if more could be accomplished with some additional dull work but having a glory hound is useful if the glory hound is well deployed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leolabeth
February 25, 2010 5:07 AM
Love how he offered to replace his words, then replaced them with the same words. Seriously. Great.
@PSG Sometimes you need a shouter to get the doers off their bottoms. Weiner's done a great job keeping the volume up. Yes, it's more complex, but Dems have got to stop worrying about nuance. People are dying out here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
February 25, 2010 5:12 AM
Love Anthony Wiener. True public servant and very knowledgeable on this topic. No wonder he wasn't invited to Obama's summit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
February 25, 2010 5:54 AM
Weiner is a wiener. What a fraud. Read Gov. Sarah Palin's Facebook page to learn all pertintent facts about the health-care & insurance scams of the Obama gang.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MiloNY
February 25, 2010 7:35 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Oh, Sailormarlowe. You loveable scamp, you. Your nonsensical comments always give me a chuckle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 25, 2010 8:40 AM in reply to MiloNY
Loveable scamp? Are you fricking kidding me. You must be new here. Loveable scamp is hardly the way we describe him in here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 25, 2010 8:50 AM in reply to MiloNY
Loveable scamp? Are you fricking kidding me. You must be new here. Loveable scamp is hardly the way we describe him in here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 25, 2010 8:38 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Wow, you so now we know where you get your information from for sure - Sarah Palin's Facebook page. ROFLMAO!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Camino
February 25, 2010 9:21 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Palin's Facebook!? Than your source of info must be so called "fair and balanced" TV comedy station! No wonder you nuts from the fringe are so ignorant! ROFLMAO!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
February 25, 2010 9:28 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Little man in the boat!! You're back!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iris
February 25, 2010 9:05 AM
Remember the stakes.
Citizens and survivors of insurance abuse arrived in DC yesterday. They had walked from Philly through a week of snow and rain, in honor of a deceased activist with cancer whose insurance problems were deadly. Along the way they collected over a thousand carnations, each one standing for a person dying that day from lack of insurance. A thousand people a week. There's a stench in the land, and it is largely maintained by the very folks who say they value life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Whenwillthisnightmareend
February 25, 2010 9:08 AM
I like my representatives to have balls and to tell it like it is. So what if he offends the offenders, someone needs to be in your face to the obstructionists and call them on their BS. Otherwise it will be only their message that is heard and repeated. If a man such as Weiner ran in my district, I would not only vote for him, I'd be on the streets knocking on doors. It's people like him , scrappers, that fight against the arrogance of power, not wimps who wait in vain for bipartisanship. The greedy wealthy and criminal power brokers are not going to relinquish one iota of what they have unless you pull it from their dead fingers. When are we going to realize this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dadzo
February 25, 2010 10:18 AM
Another hour of nothing getting done in Congress. Excellent. How many carnations did that represent?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
April 30, 2010 6:04 AM
Okay, so where's the "nonsense" part? You agree that "...it is why the individual market in health insurance, unlike car insurance, simply doesn't work." So where's the nonsense? That's all I said. And if a big pool spreads risk the best, then why -- if we're really interested in keeping costs down and delivering the best care in the world -- do we need insurance companies making profits when the biggest pool would be to extend Medicare to everyone. The people who have Medicare seem to love it. My original point: we don't need insurance companies in the mix; the only reason they're there is because they've owned enough congresspersons to keep themselves from being legislated out of business for the last umpteen years.
kamagra m65
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?