Reader comments
Perspectives on the news:

Health care hardball

March 8, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.  |   16 comments

Henry Drummond | 5:32 p.m. March 8, 2010
Well Jay, any chance the Republicans are doing the same thing?
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Anna | 5:38 p.m. March 8, 2010
Isn't this politics as usual?
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Glenn Sugameli | 8:04 p.m. March 8, 2010
Given the facts discrediting this smear, Jay Evensen's "I don't believe the Scott M. Matheson Jr. appointment was a quid pro quo" conclusion is too weak.

Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett debunked this conspiratorial fantasy. The Salt Lake Tribune “laughed the … suggestion off the table.”

President Obama must have selected Scott Matheson a long time ago, because every judicial nominee announcement is preceded by months of FBI and American Bar Association vetting.

Paul Cassell, a very conservative former Utah U.S. District Judge appointed by President George W. Bush wrote: “Given that the ABA was evaluating Scott in roughly January, one would expect an announcement roughly six weeks later — exactly as happened here. … Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, the facts show that the Scott Matheson nomination has nothing to with the health care debate.”

[Since 2001 I have headed the environmental community's Judging the Environment project which focuses on federal judicial nominations.]

-Glenn Sugameli
Staff Attorney
Judging the Environment
www.judgingtheenvironment.org
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Comments continue below
Wes | 9:05 p.m. March 8, 2010
Jim Matheson should be furious at Obama for putting him in a no-win situation. Scott should have rejected the appointment, just to avoid even the mere appearance of evil. Nothing Obama does is by accident. That's all I know for sure.
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
marv adamson | 9:15 p.m. March 8, 2010
Sweden, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Finland!

Each of these countries has a health care program for ALL of its people.

The United States of America has as many of its citizens uninsured and ineligible for health care as the total of the populations of ALL of these countries COMBINED.

We should be ashamed of ourselves! And we should support the passage of a health care package for ALL Americans.

Even if the best we can do is to pass the same health care plan EVERY CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR HAS!

f these hypocrites are so opposed to universal health care coverage let's see them opt out of the one they have.

Let's try to emerge as a first world country and take care of our own!

Recommend
Recommendations: 0
@marv adamson. | 10:56 p.m. March 8, 2010
Sweden: Population 9 million

Holland: Population 16 million

Norway: Population 5 million

Denmark: Population 5.5 million

Belgium: Population 11 million

Finland: Population 5 million

United States of America: Population 300 million

Your math is correct; however, it works against you.

It is unfeasible and unaffordable to provide universal health care for 300 million people, especially when only HALF of them actually pay taxes for it!
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Anonymous | 1:06 a.m. March 9, 2010
If the country is going broke anyway... it would be the smart thing to spend money to provide healthcare for all...

At least the public would be helped instead of the politicians....

The brain of a country cannot function long without a heart!
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Timj | 2:27 a.m. March 9, 2010
Why does the number of people in a country have anything to do with providing health care to the people?
We make more per capita than most, if not all, of those countries, and yet they all have a better standard of living than we do--primarily due to the health care issue.
We have the resources. We just lack the brains and the political will.
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Anonymous | 11:42 a.m. March 9, 2010
"Why does the number of people in a country have anything to do with providing health care to the people?"

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. Government is better when it is closer to the people. It is very questionable whether the Federal Government even has the power to administer health care. It seems to me that would be a power reserved to the states (Please see the 10th Amendment).

Would it be so bad for those who support health care reform to at least work this out in the states? Why does this have to be a federal issue?
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Oh Please | 12:28 p.m. March 9, 2010
Hey Jay, your assumption about mysterious backstairs hardball is undoubtedly correct. And you can just guess who the big hardball players are. The White House gains nothing politically by insisting on insurance reform, but Big Insurance has a lot to lose. The only thing motivating Obama is that he cares about people. The thing motivating Big Insurance? Well, that's no mystery, now is it?
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Mom of Seven | 1:54 p.m. March 9, 2010
Obama is doing everything in his power to ram this legislation down our throats. CNN polls show that 60 percent of Americans don't want it. The language of the healthcare bill is to take away our freedoms and make the Federal Government in change or our personal lives. Everything that is happening right now is calculated turn America into a communist nation.
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
RSP | 2:09 p.m. March 9, 2010
Sweden, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Finland!

mmmm....who basically underwrites the national defense of these Countries?The USA. Who is going to provide for our national defense when all Federal tax revenue goes to pay for healthcare and interest on national debt? Canada?Mexico?
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Steve | 4:41 p.m. March 9, 2010
The President has put Jim in an impossible position. He cannot now vote for healthcare without being tainted with the brush of bribe, no matter the qualifications of his brother. That vote would be hard in any case. Now its impossible. I personally hope he votes no, but BO didn't help get Jim's vote.
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
3 Nephi: 17:7 | 2:10 p.m. March 18, 2010
Wake up Utah

Look at history and the previous vote counts. Medicare Act of 1965. Vote count Senate Democrats in favor: 57 Republicans in favor: 13. House Democrats in favor: 237 Republicans in favor: 70. 1935 Social Security Act. Vote count Senate Democrats in favor: 60. Republicans in favor: 16. House Democrats in favor: 237 Republicans: 70.
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
3 Nephi: 17:7 | 2:11 p.m. March 18, 2010
News reports then were saying a Medicare and Social Security Act would take away from the personal responsibility of the individual to entirely have his retirement funded by savings, and to get health insurance on his own. They said It would give government too much power. These bills would take away from the work hard ethic or “Pull yourself up by your bootstrap mentality”. With that in mind I would like to see all those Republicans and Democrats who voted against these two earlier bills and now turn down their supplemental retirement income as well their double coverage of health insurance now that they are in their senior years. And one big reason why social security is diminishing is because we are living longer and taking out of the pool for a much longer period.

Recommend
Recommendations: 0
3 Nephi: 17:7 | 2:12 p.m. March 18, 2010
This Healthcare reform bill is not perfect by any means, but it is reforming to something somewhat better than a very broken system. It is expensive because we have neglected changing it for decades. Both parties have been too spineless to change it. Finally now we are getting a change.

The gridlock that is going on in D.C. is ridiculous. Wake up Utah don’t just rubberstamp no because it is lead by a Democrat. Your Medicare and Social Security bills were lead by Democrats.

Sincerely,

A former Republican disgusted with his once beloved party.
Recommend
Recommendations: 0
Blog archive
In Blogs Across Site