Friday, February 26, 2010

Armstrong Reacts to Health Care Summit

The William F. Buckley of the Lehigh Valley, Scott Armstrong, reacts strongly to President Obama's Health Care Summit:

To all of my fellow conservatives who hold the opinion that there is no difference between the politicians that make up our two major political parties today’s Health Care Summit meeting at Blair House demonstrated the opposite is true. One party’s elected officials stand ready to flout public opinion, senate rules and their own previous stands against reconciliation to force through an unpopular bill that could radically affect the health care of every citizen and one sixth of the nation’s economy. The other party’s health care solutions keep in mind the rights of private enterprise and personal liberty. One party’s elected officials arrogantly presume to know what is best for us. They believe that the state should be empowered to intrude, for the greater good (?), on the liberties of the individual. This party seeks a one size fits all solution to the very complex and very personal issue of health care and it wants it right now. The other party seeks a deliberate pace and process for any reform.

The Democratic Party, under the leadership of President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi is the real threat that we conservatives must unite to defeat. Their sins pale the wanton spending indiscretions and general fecklessness of the Republican Party. Failure to acknowledge this imperative will serve to enable the enemies of the constitution. I don’t think that is a course any conservative can choose in good conscience.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

William F. Buckley was an intelligent conservative, I have read Buckley's words, I listened to his remarks. He had little patience with the new breed of Limbaugh neoconservatives of the Republican Party whom he detested. Scott Armstrong is no William F. Buckley.

Dr. Armstrong Scott

RS said...

So, when the Republicans were in power, they use to "flout . . . senate rules" via use of reconciliation. It amazes me that both sides do the same things and then criticize the other for it.

Again, when there was supposed to have been money and the Rs were in control, we didn't get health reform or even the tort reform that they're screaming about now. In addition, the Rs promised a reform position about June of last year which even they admit is needed. Any body seen it?

Gads, the country sinks and the out-of-power side can't offer any help other than name calling and obstruction. True for the last 40 years. Doesn't matter whose in office.

Anonymous said...

WFB hated the Obama health care nonsense and would have smilingly insulted and derided its supporters in such a way that they'd have no idea they were being ridiculed. 12:35 AM is a perfect example of a likely WFB play thing.

Anonymous said...

Not everything in this country has to make a profit. Our Fire Dept doesn't have to make a profit, they have to put out fires. Our Police Dept doesn't have to make a profit, they have to protect us. Our Court system doesn't have to make a profit, they have to carry out our laws. Why does the sickness and death of our loved ones have to make a profit for people we don't even know? Republicans will sell their grandmothers if they can get an extra nickel on their tax return.

Anonymous said...

anon 7:35, why do you think you're entitled to free health care at my expense?

Looking To Escape said...

Republicans will sell their grandmothers if they can get an extra nickel on their tax return.


A pretty good return in this day and age.
.
Problem is, the Democrats (outside of a few pet industries) feel no one should make a profit.
.
Courts, fire departments, schools are the result of others making a profit.

Anonymous said...

Buckley never would've published these boring talking points.

Anonymous said...

Question for Mr. Armstrong: When the Bush tax cut bill that cost $1.8 Trillion was passed via reconciliation, where you saying that the Republican Congress was flouting Senate rules, or was that ok because you agreed with it? And when (if) you answer, please document when/where you made/wrote such remarks.

One more question, as a believer in "the liberties of the individual" and the "rights of private enterprise and personal liberty," can I assume you agree that the State has no right to tell my wife what she can/cannot do with her own body? Or are you one of those Conservatives who believe in the rights in any situation you deem fit, but not all situations?

Look forward to hearing your opinion.

Anonymous said...

Let me ask this question: Who on this message board bashing Health care reform, does not have insurance and/or has a chronic illness that they are struggling to have treated, due to lack of insurance, high premiums/co-pays or not covered due to a pre-exsisting condition clause?

Answer truthfully please...

Anonymous said...

armstrong again proves to be a bitter partisan. He could care less about health care reform. he just wants republicans to win.

Anonymous said...

"Buckley never would've published these boring talking points."

Indeed. But he'd have agreed with each one, nonetheless.

Looking To Escape said...

Let me ask this question: Who on this message board bashing Health care reform, does not have insurance and/or has a chronic illness that they are struggling to have treated, due to lack of insurance, high premiums/co-pays or not covered due to a pre-exsisting condition clause?

Answer truthfully please...



This is an emotional appeal that skirts the key issue of cost and personal choice.
.
You can ask who wants a clean environment?
Most will say we do.
.
The next question should be: At the expense of your job which may cost you your home, education of your children or any hope of bettering your life and wealth?

Anonymous said...

Let's keep overpaying for something substandard compared to other countries to remain behind the rest of world in manufacturing because we have substandard overpriced insurance, with less money in our pocket, and sicker and less productive people just so a handful of people we don't know stay rich enjoying $27 million dollar retreats. I don't think that falls in line with Republican ideals.

Anonymous said...

Why are Republicans so against free market capitalism and competition? If the insurance companies are so wonderful, let them sell across state borders and compete against a public option. What does Armstrong want? Socialism? Only one system allowed? Open up the competition. Armstrong must own a lot of insurance stock.

Anonymous said...

The government should not be in either the insurance or health care businesses. It has demonstrated incompetence in both areas. People seem to have a lot of faith in a government that can't fix potholes or balance its books. I want the system fixed. But I know better than to expect anything but more failure from my government. And when did forced insurance (a.k.a. the public option) become a cornerstone of the free market as suggested previously? It all sounds great. It always does.

Anonymous said...

Obviously he nor anyone he knows has ever been sick.

Anonymous said...

The Republican position on Health care is and always has been concise and simple.

Survival of the fittest. If you get sick or have a pre-existing condition or can't afford insurance, tough, die!

End of Story!!!

Anonymous said...

Wow! What commentary. Keep the faith my Democrat friends and God speed on your voyage of faith in Obama and big government.

By the way, like everyone else I do know “people who have been sick”. That experience has served to re-enforce my belief that our current health care system is, at minimum, among the best in the world.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

It's baffling that Democrats want a big, bloated, inefficient VA system for all. Great. Aim high. There's a reason most Americans increasingly think Obamacare is a turd and Obama is incompetent.

Anonymous said...

Id Scott Armstrong is the William F. Buckley of the Lehigh Valley, then that's pretty sad. Poor WFB must be spinning in his grave with the modern Republican party which seems to have been hijacked by ignorant racist white trash troglodytes. I miss the cloth coat Republicans. Where did they go?

Anonymous said...

This is exactly why we cannot afford the likes of Pat Toomey. America is tired of being over taxed by the Health Care industry. Every year our health care premiums go up and up and up. All in the sake for Bonuses and excess profits.

Republicans act as if they want to protect Medicare. Let’s not forget the majority of the Republicans opposed Medicare. If you feel Health care reform is not for you and health care is not a right but a privilege, please stand by your principles and deny yourself any Medicare benefits when you become of age.

The summit has revealed the truth about the Republican party. They oppose the same ideas they proposed not to long ago. It has been stated publicly by elected GOP officials that if they can kill health care reform, Obama will be a one term President. To oppose healthcare for a political agenda is unpatriotic and immoral. Democrats supported some of Reagan’s ideas because at the time, it was the right thing to do. The Reagan Presidency was as much about Democrats doing the right thing for the nation as it was about Reagan.

Republicans the party of no must go go GO!

Anonymous said...

Anon 815, no we expect Healthcare services without being overtaxed for the sake of profits. Tell me what other industries can make as much as 40% profit on their services?

Tort reform will come later. No need to add $100Ms more to the lobbying efforts to fight healthcare reform.

Anonymous said...

anon, 9:23,

That's right the government will solve the problem. I love that thought, it is a great laugh line for any joke.
Although I wasn't involved in politics when Medicare and Medicaid legislation was drawn up and voted on I'm sure the Republicans voted against it because they were afraid the programs would become the bloated,budget busting, fraud ridden monstrosities they are today. Before you start with the "Republicans don't care about the old and the poor" crap let me pose the question; who decided that compassion is measured by the level of support one side demonstrates for the creation of deeply flawed government solutiuons to the problems of those in need?

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Yesterday at 9:15 am I wrote:

"Question for Mr. Armstrong: When the Bush tax cut bill that cost $1.8 Trillion was passed via reconciliation, where you saying that the Republican Congress was flouting Senate rules, or was that ok because you agreed with it? And when (if) you answer, please document when/where you made/wrote such remarks.

One more question, as a believer in "the liberties of the individual" and the "rights of private enterprise and personal liberty," can I assume you agree that the State has no right to tell my wife what she can/cannot do with her own body? Or are you one of those Conservatives who believe in the rights in any situation you deem fit, but not all situations?

Look forward to hearing your opinion."

As Mr. Armstrong has not posted here twice since I wrote this I have to assume that he just doesn't want to answer the above questions. By making the choice to avoid these questions I can only conclude that you either cannot in good conscience answer these truthfully, or the truth is you are just a partisan hack who only cares about an agenda, as opposed to finding a solution to the problems this country faces.

Your silence on these reasonable questions only tells me that you you are just as bad and unreasonable as those you rail against.

And this just makes you as sad figure.

Anonymous said...

Anon, 12:43,

May one assume that since you have posted here twice without giving your name on subject matters that require no anonymity you are a coward?

I will, however, answer your questions. I do not know the specifics on the passage of the Bush tax cut vote but doubt reconciliation was used to pass it as the Democrats would have howled as they did when Republicans considered using it for judicial appointments.

As to your other question, although I am pro-choice nowhere does the constitution grant anyone the right to terminate a viable fetus. Translation: I think it is within the bounds of the constitution to make uncomplicated late term abortions illegal.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Anon, 12:43,

May one assume that since you have posted here twice without giving your name on subject matters that require no anonymity you are a coward?

I will, however, answer your questions. I do not know the specifics on the passage of the Bush tax cut vote but doubt reconciliation was used to pass it as the Democrats would have howled as they did when Republicans considered using it for judicial appointments.

As to your other question, although I am pro-choice nowhere does the constitution grant anyone the right to terminate a viable fetus. Translation: I think it is within the bounds of the constitution to make uncomplicated late term abortions illegal.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Anon, 12:43,

May one assume that since you have posted here twice without giving your name on subject matters that require no anonymity you are a coward?

I will, however, answer your questions. I do not know the specifics on the passage of the Bush tax cut vote but doubt reconciliation was used to pass it as the Democrats would have howled as they did when Republicans considered using it for judicial appointments.

As to your other question, although I am pro-choice nowhere does the constitution grant anyone the right to terminate a viable fetus. Translation: I think it is within the bounds of the constitution to make uncomplicated late term abortions illegal.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Scott Armstrong, he loves his own words so much, he posts them three times.

Give your picture a kiss for me!

Anonymous said...

as a dem, I feel abortions should not be covered under public healthcare. Until the law changes, it should be privately funded.

I am against things like the cornhusker deal and I am glad to see them go.

I do think it is appropriate for the Government to place minimum requirements on Healthcare. If every State had their own set of standards, it would create a race to the bottom.

I am willing to pay for something so long as there are value added services. The last thing I want to do is be taxed another 30% by the healthcare industry only to find out the coverage is inadequate, has caps, or can punish you for existing conditions.

Why is it that Conservative go crazy over a 5% increase in public tax, but sit idle when for profit insurance companies continue to over charge and make excess profit?

Why is the GOP opposed to the idea of negotiating drug prices? Shouldn't the market dictate. Oh wait a minute, the healthcare lobbyists are dictating.

Healthcare reform NOW.

Anonymous said...

Can the left pass on the opportunity of an anonymous cheap insult? Judging by what we see here and other venues one would have to say no. I think that speaks volumes.
For what it is worth I don't know why my post came up three times.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Maybe because you are three times smarter than the average conservative. Keep on keeping on Scotty!

Anonymous said...

anon 5:18

Wow! You’re really scoring points, real stellar rhetoric.



Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Scott Armstrong,

So nice you read him thrice!!

Anonymous said...

The plan is very unpopular and becomes more so with each speech and town hall discussion. Democrats have overplayed their majority hand and are about to lose it. The policies and the president are simply unpopular and do not enjoy majority support. The American electorate has moved from buyers' remorse to let's just get through this, we'll kick them out soon. Charlie Dent must have to pinch himself when he thinks about how easy this is going to be again.

Anonymous said...

The expected reaction after Obama owned the Repubs during the summit.

Anonymous said...

Does Armstrong believe in the legalization of marijuana like Mr. Buckley?

Anonymous said...

anon 7:35, why do you think you're entitled to free health care at my expense?

I can't answer for 7:35, but I think YOU are entitled to "free" healthcare were something to happen in your life that precluded you from coverage. I'd expect all Americans to cover each other's back. Even in today's system, if you were to fall and hit your head and suffer a chronic brain injury and consequently lose your job and your health insurance, your lack of coverage would be covered by me and my higher premiums. Your welcome.

Anonymous said...

Problem is, the Democrats (outside of a few pet industries) feel no one should make a profit.

They do? Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

That's right the government will solve the problem. I love that thought, it is a great laugh line for any joke.

Ask 45 million Americans and their families if they are thankful for their Medicare coverage. Most elderly people I know could not realistically afford private health insurance.

Anonymous said...

Anon woter:

Let's keep overpaying for...substandard overpriced insurance...


Yes, so "substandard" that a Canadian government official left Canada (and their utopian "public" option) to be treated here.

I think the lie that our system is "substandard" has been pretty much debunked by the facts and many examples such as this.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

"In addition, the Rs promised a reform position about June of last year which even they admit is needed. Any body seen it?"


Apparently the President has. He mentioned that he has read numerous proposals by various Republican lawmakers.

You can disagree with those proposals, but I think the lie that the Republicans haven't proposed anything has been debunked by the facts - and the President's own words.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

"Not everything in this country has to make a profit."


If you want to STAY in business, you make a profit. It is how you measure results and ensure that your business is doing all it can to minimize the costs of the product/service you are providing.

The problem with health insurance is that people confuse the product that the insurance industry is selling. They are not selling health care - that's what hospitals, doctors and other health professionals do.

Insurance companies are selling security. They don't treat anyone.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:04 PM said...

"Why are Republicans so against free market capitalism and competition? If the insurance companies are so wonderful, let them sell across state borders and compete against a public option. What does Armstrong want? Socialism? Only one system allowed?"


Nice attempt to equate the "public option" with "free market capitalism and competition".

Why don't football teams allow the home team to use their players as referees? Because it would be blatantly unfair and would stifle real competition.

The government has no place to be direcly involved in the health care or health insurance business.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

The Republican position on Health care is and always has been concise and simple.

Survival of the fittest. If you get sick or have a pre-existing condition or can't afford insurance, tough, die!


So guess which US insurance provider denies the most coverage to people with pre-existing conditions?

That would be Medicare which (last time I checked) is government run.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"Tell me what other industries can make as much as 40% profit on their services?"


40%, wow, that's pretty high. Too bad you made that figure up.

Why don't you do some homework and list the five largest health insurance companies and give us their profit percentage.

Then we can all check on your figures and easily correct them.

We're waiting...

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

"One more question, as a believer in "the liberties of the individual" and the "rights of private enterprise and personal liberty," can I assume you agree that the State has no right to tell my wife what she can/cannot do with her own body?"


The state is already telling you (and your wife) what you can/can't do with your body.

Are you (or your wife) able to consume illegal drugs? Are you allowed use your body to set up a meth lab in your home? Can you use your body to suffocate your one-year old baby?

The answers would be no, no, and no.

Since you are probably talking about abortion, perhaps we can find some middle ground. I'll grant you the "morning after pill" and even first trimester abortions. In exchange, you'll agree to stop the killing of living babies (who only partially remain inside their mother at birth during an abortion) and other third trimester abortions.

Anonymous said...

Anon, 7:18,

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, it does however reflect poorly on the one who attempts it.Little wonder why you chose not to sign your name.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Re:

"...can I assume you agree that the State has no right to tell my wife what she can/cannot do with her own body?"


Two more points:

We can also agree on abortions in the case of rape or incest.

If all that seems unfair, perhaps your wife should have thought about what she can/cannot do with her body when her decision (of who to sleep with) only affected her.

Anonymous said...

anon 7:18,

If you were quoting a previous post then quotation marks would be helpful to separate a stated opinion and a response.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

SA @ 12:43

I guess you and Bernie are alike in more ways then I would have guessed. Just like Bernie, when you are really pressed on an issue and facts start to get in the way you call someone who blogs/ comments a "coward." So here is a little history lesson for you.

Back in the 1787s there was a big political argument going on amongst the people (read: WASP Men who owned land) about this little document called the Constitution. Being that this was before the computer age, those who made arguments for or against were published in places like the newspaper. There were two sides to teh argument, now known as teh Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

While we know today the men were, teh Federalists published under the name "Publius" and teh Aniti-Federalists as "The Federal Farmer." Long story short, the argument that shaped our country was argued by ANONs. We now know that these ANONs were men like Hamilton, Madison and Patrick Henry. I guess you would call tehm "cowards" as well.

Now for another history lesson: Reconcilliation has been used 22 times since 1974 and has been used used in 2001 AND 2003 from the Bush tax cuts AND in 1996 to pass Welfare Reform.

And I agree that "it is within the bounds of the constitution to make uncomplicated late term abortions illegal." But, just because "nowhere does the constitution grant anyone the right to terminate a viable fetus, doesn't mean it is should be assumed Unconstitutional. Just as you have a Constitutional right to own a gun, you don't if you are a convicted felon. Just as we have a right to convict people of crimes, no where is the death penalty mentioned in the Constitution.

And that is exactly why the document that we live by has been so successful. Times change and Jefferson knew that the world he lived in would be different then the world he lived in. Remember, he was a slave owner.

I suggest you take some time and actually think through your ideas before you write them here or anywhere else. The fact that you hide behind calling me a coward while your ideology comes off as impractical, unworkable and probably self serving in some way is just plain sad. Instead of reading the BS of Michele Malkin, might I suggest you get some facts and think for yourself.

ANON 12:43 aka Publius.

Anonymous said...

God Bless Scott!

Anonymous said...

5;27,

Dress it up all you want, you are still just a coward. Sign your opinion if you want people to respect it. Other it is what it is.

Scott Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Yes, so "substandard" that a Canadian government official left Canada (and their utopian "public" option) to be treated here.

I think the lie that our system is "substandard" has been pretty much debunked by the facts and many examples such as this.


What does substandard insurance coverage have to do with substandard care?

Anonymous said...

The truth is the left will do what they have to do (lies, insults, reconciliation…) to get their long cherished dream of national health care enacted into law. The elected officials of the Democratic Party have decided to rule as benevolent dictators rather than as representatives of their electors and their interests. For this arrogance the Democrats will be held to account by those they have chosen to ignore and impugn. Further insults directed at me will not change this equation.

Scott Armstrong