This guy pretty well summarizes the view at the Deseret News - right wing rant
all the way. You make yourselves hard to like in any arena, including SSM.
"We Americans have rebounded before from wars, economic collapses, plagues
and both criminally opportunistic and criminally inept politicians. " Just
a point - we rebounded from the worst recession in 50 years with the help of
These articles are perfectly tailored to the GOP base.They bash
Obamacare, offer no alternatives and act as though there was no problem to begin
with.Lets look at reality. The reality that existed before
Obamacare and the reality of the future. Heck, even the Heritage foundation
website will substantiate the following.We have a deficit. We have a
budget problem. We have an aging population.Look at the projected
spending in the category "mandatory spending", which includs Medicare.
As the population ages and medical costs climb, the deficits soar. Regardless
of who is president.Regarding Medicare, which is our biggest future
budget buster, we have 3 choices.- Cut health care costs (the
highest in the world)- Raise taxes to pay for it- cut the
benefitsAnyone have an option 4? I'm listening?Another rant against the ACA is old and tired. Acknowledge there
is a problem (first step, and one the right seems to miss)Do something to
address it. Complaining is not a solution.
Lots to critique. I will just ask, what does the author mean by "a
one-party judiciary"? Take a good look at the Supreme Court and who was
appointed by whom. The statement seems unsupportable at best.
By Ken HoaglandFor the Deseret News"Harry Reid changed
longstanding Senate rules with 51 instead of 60 votes and he did it to make sure
the judicial branch stayed out of the way of the dismantling of the separation
of federal powers. All hail the king!"Good to know the DN has
officially gone of the right sided cliff. "Just to make sure
everyone understands this new kind of presidency that asserts the power of a
king, Obama has simply reversed by executive order standing laws"Does Ken know what a "king" is? This should be embarrassing to all
conservatives that the debate has become so emotional that logical and rational
discussion has all been but abandoned. I get being passionate about one's
beliefs. One of my favorites was Allan Simpson of Wyoming, he just stated
things as he saw them. There was no doubt left. But he rarely if ever fell
into the land of just pure emotion and distortion filled rhetoric that we see
from this new generation of conservative talking heads."King"... good grief. Ken needs to google the term and educate
himself if he wants to be taken even slightly serious by anyone short of
Ken Hoagland is founder and chairman of Restore America’s Voice and writes
daily at “Repeal it Now” on Facebook.=====Restore America’s Voice -- is a PAC [Political Action
committee], i.e., paid Lobby Group.And if the Deseeret News
wants to stoop to posting paid for propaganda, Why from only one side, and
never from the other?
Ken Hoagland accurately described the situation that we have in America. The
President is making a mockery of the Constitution as he legislates the
implementation of ObamaCare. No one can dispute that he bribed Senators
(Louisiana purchase, Nebraska) to get them to sign on. No one can dispute that
the rules were changed to push it through before it was read and discussed. No
one can dispute that not one Republican voted for it. No one can dispute that
he lied about the savings; that he lied about keeping doctors and insurance;
that he lied about who would be covered; that he lived about every "selling
point". No one can dispute the fact that the press has been his failed to
report what he is doing. No one can dispute the fact that he is trying to make
us believe that we don't need a Congress, that he will write the
legislation and that he will decide which laws to enforce.What we
need is for each branch of government to fully fulfil its responsibility,
including impeachment proceedings. The evidence is in. Start the process.
Prediction: Instead of debating the excellent points of this article, liberals
will personally attack the author! Can't deny the message so attack the
Ken Hoagland is founder and chairman of Restore America’s Voice and writes
daily at “Repeal it Now” on Facebook.========= Restore America's Voice PAC is a Super PAC [i.e., Political Action
Committee -- Lobby Group]as of March 31, 2013, the PAC had
$19,656.24 on hand and had made $683,511.99 in contributions during the first
quarter of 2013Restore America's Voice PAC spent $1,797,422.90
on opposing President Barack ObamaDuring the 2012 election cycle all
funding was spent in opposition of President Barack Obama rather than the
endorsement of any particular candidate.During the 2012 election
cycle Restore America's Voice solely targeted President Barack Obama with
various telemarketing, fundraising and search engine advertisements.The total spent by the Restore America's Voice PAC in the 2012 election
cycle was $1,797,419. This included $0 for Republicans, $0 against
Republicans, $0 for Democrats, and $1,797,419 against 1 Democratic candidate in
general elections.That's says it all for me....
First lesson of persuasive writing: Don't insult those whose positions you
hope to sway. You may not like the outcomes of the last two
Presidential elections, but to imply the majority of voters were uninformed or
tricked by the media is insulting and ignores the reality of the Republican
Party not offering a candidate with mass appeal. As for the Senate
filibuster rules - perhaps you should do a little research. Those rules were
not long standing and there are very few situations where the Founding Fathers
thought a super majority should be required. For everything else, a basic
majority was considered sufficient. Those who require a super
majority for the basic business of Congress are the ones who are oerverting
government and preventing the will of the people from being done.
Kind of hard to take the notion of being a place for a civil discourse when the
DN prints this kind of stuff, not only does reality have no place in your pages
neither does any sense of common decency.
Googling around with the terms "Ken Hoagland" and "Restore
America's Voice" results in some interesting information."Restore America's Voice" is a far right SuperPAC funded by
anonymous donations.Hoagland is himself a far right fundraiser who
has made a fortune by using incendiary writing to solicit donations from the GOP
base with a claim that contributions will be used to support conservative
candidates, when in fact his organizations tax returns reveal that most of the
money raised goes to himself and his SuperPAC's "consultants."
It's basically a scam operation designed to separate FOX viewers from them
money.Others have already noted that Hoagland's article is a
stew of half-truths, outright falsehoods, and offers no constructive
alternatives to the things about which he complains. What I find
fascinating is the Deseret News' increasingly uncritical willingness to
publish this type of "whip up the base" rightwing invective.
Rod Dreher, the editor of American Conservative magazine summed up my feelings
perfectly. He said that President Obama is a standard center-left politician,
and while there are many of Obama's policies that he disagrees with,
conservatives who paint him as a socialist, or a communist or a radical are
simply discrediting the conservative movement in general.
" No one can dispute......." Ahhhh, yes we can, because what follows is
all falsehoods and distortions. BTW folks Mr. Richards is prophetic
in one sense. If the Republicans win the Senate in Nov. and keep the house,
they will no longer concentrate on Obamacare they will move to impeachment.
@ LDS Liberal:It's because they have desire to be an objective news
Re: "The total spent by the Restore America's Voice PAC in the 2012
election cycle was $1,797,419.This included . . . $1,797,419 against 1
Democratic candidate in general elections."You say it like
it's a bad thing.
My view: Inflammatory rhetoric, political hackery of the worst kind.
He's right one. If we can't get Obama stopped, kiss America good
by.He stressed hope & change, and we're getting it.
People that commented herein have done a fairly good job of chastising The
Deseret News for publishing this kind of self-serving rhetoric. The writer has
a very weak grasp of what the Constitution of the United States says and means.
His dismissal of the judiciary is very telling. His opinion seems to be in a
word, "if you don't agree with me, you are wrong and there is no room
for discussion." Having spent the last half century watching politics and
politicians in the USA, this gentleman and his ilk have done more damage then
any president, any congress or any judiciary. Deliberate falsehoods don't
make a very compelling argument. This is the worst kind of propagandizing in
that in appeals to the basest of instincts, and hurts the poorest citizens of
our great nation.
Where has this person been, out to lunch? Most of what they accuse Obamacare of
doing was already happening long before it came into existence! I have good
insurance through the government and they have been telling us where we can go
for a long long time! Most insurance companies have. They have told us which
doctors we can use and they even told me which blood tester I had to use to test
my diabetes! If I want them to pay that is! I know somebody who works for
himself. The cheapest he could find insurance for his family(Before Obamacare)
was $700 a month! He had to pay from $7,000 to $17,000 before the insurance paid
anything at all!Many of the people that they use in their complaints about
losing insurance had policies that were worthless! Of course Obamacare
isn't perfect, but it beats what republicans have done, which is absolutely
nothing! Nothing! Maybe they should look in the mirror when they start pointing
Correction:My post should read: They have NO desire to be a real,
objective news paper.
Re: "Deliberate falsehoods don't make a very compelling
argument."Seems to have worked quite well, at least with
low-information America, for the liberal, trade-union and Soros-backed political
propaganda campaigns.Particularly with the enthusiastically-offered
assistance of the partisan "mainstream" media.
Whoever's dismantling America... I wish they would stop it!
Prediction "thid" will see exactly what he wants to see.
If you can, please tell the rest of us what part of this article is not true!
Because in the end, we now have the real Obamacare mess with real higher
premiums, real higher co-pays, real higher deductibles, real fewer doctors, real
fewer hospitals and real less freedom! The government is now your real doctor!
Forced up on is the dark of night with real lies and real deception! "If you
like your healthcare plan/doctor, you can keep it, period".
I laugh at the comments made by the liberals here. Few are actually addressing
the issues brought up in the article. They are going after the organization
that the writer blongs to instead. This shows that much of what was stated is
true.We have a nanny state telling us that they know better than we
do what kind of insurance we need. We do have many people who have lost their
doctors because the doctors don't want to accept the policies from the
markets. Liberals are ignoring the fact that Obama is acting like a king by not
enforcing the laws and is not getting approval from Congress to change the laws
that he put in place.Tell us, what has the letter stated that is
wrong? Obama has done everything that the writer is accusing him of doing.To "JoeBlow" the alternative to Obamcare is simple. Get the
government out of micromanaging insurance companies and let the businesses
decide what and how much to cover. People had more comprehensive coverage
before much of it was mandated.
The filibuster is a 200-year American tradition? Hardly. Senate Rule 22 was
passed in 1917 and revised in 1975. The real "abuse" of power is in its
overuse. It was rarely used in the early 20th century. Then it started to
dramatically accelerate: LBJ - 17 times, Carter - 53, Reagan's two terms -
113, Clinton's two terms - 80, George Bush's two terms 130. In the 5
years of Obama's presidency - 307 times! And Obama is "packing" the
courts? Does he not have the same right to appoint judges and executive officers
as Republican presidents? If it had not been so excessively used as a tool of
obstruction, there would have been no need to change the rule to a simple
majority. You should blame Ted Cruz, not Harry Reid.
Tell us how you really feel...
Nice. There are some points hidden in there I actually agree with, but it's
unfortunately lost in the extreme right wing angry rant that seems to be the
only way the tea party knows how to communicate.
Let's examine Mr. Hoagland's claims:“Democrats/Obama
deliberate falsehoods”Republican falsehoods:death
panels, (politifact lie of the year 2009)Congress exempt, coverage for illegal
immigrants, IRS database, govt. takeover, deny cancer treatment to elderly,
largest tax hike in history etc. etc. “5 million people who
have lost insurance” “condemned to death by their own government
“Reality:The CBO has estimated that in 2014, due to the
ACA, the number of uninsured would decline by 14 million, with 7 million joining
the exchanges, 9 million gaining Medicaid and CHIP, and 2 million fewer
Americans getting coverage through the individual market. (Factcheck)“Senate majority leader willing to throw over 200 years of
tradition to pack the courts on behalf of Barack Obama.”Reality:Congressional Research Service: "In brief, out of the 168
cloture motions ever filed (or reconsidered) on nominations, 82 (49%) were
cloture motions on nominations made since 2009." “one-party judiciary”???Reality:Four of
the current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by a Democratic president.Six of the current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by a Republican
president. Just wondering if an article next week will proclaim the
world is flat?
As usual, those in Obama's camp ignore the message and stone the messenger.
They cannot refute what Ken Hoagland wrote and they complain that enough people
in America think his message is important that contributions roll in so that his
message is heard. Those who support Obama never tell us how many billions of
dollars in Union Dues were diverted to political campaigns. They never tell us
that much of those Union Dues were coerced from the workers, i.e., you either
pay Union Dues or you starve.The message is clear. Obama lied to
us. Obama lied about ObamaCare. Obama lied about having popular support.
Obama continues to lie to us. Less than 1/3rd of the minimum number of people
have signed up. That means that there is not nearly enough cash backing for
ObamaCare to survive unless the government borrows billions and billions of
dollars to prop it up. Refute the message but leave the messenger
alone. The messenger did not force us to buy government insurance. The
messenger did not lie to us about the cost or the coverage of ObamaCare. Go to the source - Obama - and blame him.
Redshirt asks "Tell us, what has the letter stated that is wrong?"Lets start with things that involve numbers - a place I like."Although not widely reported, another 100 million Americans with
workplace coverage (by Health and Human Services’ own estimates) may be
dropped by employers and forced into far more costly coverage through
security-challenged exchanges."Lets look at the math here.
There are about 300 million. Last year 58.6 percent of those were covered by
employer sponsored health care plans… or about 175 million. If we use
your supplied numbers, that means that nearly 60% of companies would have to
stop offering benefits.Do you see any signs or evidence that 60% of
employers and dropped their health care coverage? If we want to be
real honest here, we will note that under Bush the number of companies offering
ESI was 69.2 percent, and by the time he left office, it was 59.4. Since the
passing of Obamacare that number has only slightly changed dropping from 59.4 to
58.6 - a 8/10th of 1 percent change. Under Bush that was a 9.8 percent
change.Lets stick with facts - not rhetoric. 8/10ths versus 60%.
RE: "You should blame Ted Cruz, not Harry Reid"...Yes, you
should blame Ted Cruz (not Harry Reid). Harry Reid should be blamed for
nothing!---Wait a minute... didn't Harry Reid
propose it? And campaign for it? And pass it? So why should we blame Ted
Cruz for something Harry Reid did? Just because Cruz did one
filibuster? I mean how many times has Ted Cruz himself filibustered? Is once too
many?? So we should blame this all on him... because of one filibuster?---I guess he filibustered the wrong bill. ObamaCare has become
the third-rail of American politics. Touch it... and your gone.
To "UtahBlueDevil" lets see what has been reported.In
Forbes' article "Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be
Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare" we learn that 93 million
people in the US will lose their insurance plans.So, I am still
waiting to hear about what the letter got wrong. According to the Federal
Register (published by the Federal Government) "50 to 75 percent" of
people with employer based insurance will receive cancellation notices.Still waiting to hear about anything that was incorrect in the letter.
"as many as 5 million people who have lost insurance (that they liked) have
already felt the teeth."How about the 5 million who don't
have insurance because Republican governors chose not to expand Medicaid even
with 100% federal backing? Most of the 5 million losing insurance
due to the whole "like your plan you can keep it" thing are in one of
these two categories:1. There's a similar plan for similar cost on
the exchange (it just covers one of the required categories the old one
didn't). 2. The lost plan was a cheap junk plan that covered next to
nothing so premiums are going up for these people but they're getting much
"Although not widely reported, another 100 million Americans with workplace
coverage (by Health and Human Services’ own estimates) may be dropped by
employers and forced into far more costly coverage through security-challenged
exchanges."Okay here's the dirty little secret
conservatives don't mention. The ACA actually allows all insurance plans
that were in place before the healthcare bill passed. Having one of those
doesn't get you dropped even if it's not ACA compliant (that's
where the "if you like your plan you can keep it" thing comes from, all
plans at the time of debate on the bill could be kept). The only plans that make
you get dropped is if it's not ACA compliant and was made after the passage
of the bill. That means that these 100 million Americans are on plans that
didn't exist 4 years ago so they all already changed insurance at least
once in those 4 years without any of it being a result of the ACA. Millions of
Americans are changing insurance plans every single year, because insurance
companies keep changing what they offer. Oh, and it's not more
costly... especially with all the individual and employer subsidies.
Maybe it's time to build an entirely new house instead of trying to patch
and repair the 250 year old log cabin that our family has outgrown.
According to data from the Census Bureau and Dept of Labor, the number of people
who get their insurance through an employer has been declining for many
years--before Obamacare--and the number of uninsured has been increasing. For
example, between 2000-2010 the number of uninsured increased by 4.5%. The
number receiving health insurance through an employer declined by 7.3%.Health insurance policies frequently change and get dropped, without an uproar
by Republicans. I know several people who went without insurance or
had extremely high deductibles and poor coverage who now have better policies
due to Obamacare.
Redshirt - a Forbes projection of something that might happen does not mean it
did happen, or even will happen. That is a projection, a guess, a forecast....
not a fact or evidence of something that has happened.Big
difference. What has happened is a far cry from what is being claimed will
happen. I mean, do we take forecast of global warming as evidence
that global warming is occurring. Seems I have seen the argument here many
times over that forecast of temperature change is not enough proof that global
warming exist.How is this "forecast" of million....
different.... and now a fact? It may happen.... but hasn't yet.
A few of Mr. Hoagland's statements....."Even a lawless
President"..."the founding fathers did not forsee ...the packing of the
courts"..."All Hail the King!"...I must say that I was actually
embarrased and squirmed in discomfort while reading this logorrheic lament. The
facts do not jive with the statements made in this opinion piece by Mr.
Hoagland. The president cannot be considered lawless under any reasonable
examination of the record. Hyperbole is a skill best utilized by those who
understand nuance.As for the courts being "packed"...the judiciary
in this country is overwhelmingly Republican. That fact alone easily undermines
Mr. Hoaglands's argument. And the statement "Hailing the
King" is just too way over the top to even argue. I will say that Mr.
Obama...the President of the United States of America...occupies his privileged
office with humility and grace under fire and is anything but imperial in his
Last thought.... the whole article is full of hyperbole. The notion that we
are watching The dismantling of America’ is absurd. Are we seeing
things that will change certain elements - sure. Medical treatment for all -
even in its worst incarnation - a single payer system - does not dismantle
America. America was not dismantled when we granted the vote to
Women. The country did not fall to its knees when civil rights were granted to
all. The country survived prohibition. We survived McCarthism. We have
survived two failed wars in Asia, and two more in the middle east that led to no
net gains in security. We ultimately survived the expulsion or Mormons several
times over, and a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands. We have survived
direct threat from foreign countries, and assassinations of our leaders.We are no where near the brink - but that is what we are seeing. I am
not sure if it stems from a simple lack of knowledge behind about this nations
history, or just a tendency to the dramatic, but none of what we are seeing is
bringing our nation, nor our constitution to the brink of collapse.
To "UtahBlueDevil" Forbes didn't make the projection. That
projection was made by the Federal Government. If things go like they typically
go when the Feds make projections on healthcare issues, their numbers are
probably wrong.This is exactly like AGW, and all of the government
"scientists". They will proclaim whatever the politicians want, as long
as they continue to get paid.However, that is just a side track.
The original letter stated that as many as 100 million MAY lose thier policies.
The original letter has only included what the Federal Government has projected.
So again, tell us what was wrong with this letter. What did he say that
hasn't already been said by the Federal Government or by the Press?
What alarms me is that this angry screed was given a DN classification as being
written “For the Deseret News.” Even by standards of an admittedly
conservative newspaper, this is copy that as published shows no restraint such
as editorial desk review standardly applies. Am I to believe that this vitriol
reflects the honest sentiments of the Deseret News?
I want to provide a Colorado perspective and FACTS that point to some of the
silliness contained in the editorial about "Obamacare". In the past few
years over a thousand Colorado homeowners who "were happy with" their
homeowners' insurance watched in horror as first their homes were
destroyed, and then the insurance companies who had worked so hard to get their
business in the first place, were now working much harder to avoid making good
on the promises made. In effect, many found that policies for which we had paid
good money, were nearly worthless. Many of those people who say they lost health
insurance they were happy with due to Obamacare, might have been far less happy
had they actually needed that insurance. The insurance I now have for this year
under the Affordable Care Act is better insurance. It costs a little less than
the insurance I had. the co-pays and deductibles are lower and it's from
the same company. Colorado has planned for and demands it. Maybe Utah should.