Skip to content

Something I have wondered…

January 18, 2010

And it is true, if the Government can MAKE you buy health insurance, is there anything else they CAN’T make you do? You have to laugh at the responses given by politicians when asked the question. I don’t think Senator Hatch is stupid, far from it, but how could people holding the same office disagree so vehemently on something they both feel is so simple?

( – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Oh and another snippet for all you Global Warming conspiracy theorists…
How is that going to be spun? The fact checkers of the fact checkers are admitting they were wrong, their data was wrong, their reports were wrong…

Oh and here’s another great one. Ya, let’s be sure and protect the rights of those extremists hell bent on killing innocent men, women, and children to further ‘their cause’, it’s the civil thing to do right?
Here’s where that’s going to get you.

36 Comments leave one →
  1. berger permalink
    January 18, 2010 10:56 am

    Don’t you have to buy car insurance???

    Obviously you didn’t read the article, which you should do before making this stupid reply

  2. Adam permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:14 am

    unprecedented. the gov’t as Big Brother making decisions for the masses. It certainly violates the constitution. the way to get around this is not to madate health insurance, but rather, if an individual incurrs medical bills he does not pay because of a lack of coverage, the gov’t would do what it does if you don’t pay back your student loans- the IRS attatches your wages.

  3. Janes N. Phillips Jr. permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:18 am

    Amazing that people think their liberty is worthless. In business if you diminish your “GOODWILL” you lose customers and perhaps ultimately your business. As Americans if we diminish our LIBERTY, we will lose our freedom. When Government imposes ANYTHING on its citizens, liberty is diminished. Go Scott! God Bless America

  4. Mike C permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:19 am

    Curt, just to set it straight, I am voting for Scott Brown.

    But why is it you can question this bill when what your man did for the last 8 years was re-write laws or went against laws that have been in place for decades. He and Cheney, mainly Cheney, re-wrote the laws to which they were supposed to abide by in office inorder to “freelance” their way thru their time in office to fix their mistakes or avoid needing acceptance form either party before proceeding. 9/11 happened under their watch,no one elses. They then re-wrote this countries laws of the presidential office to try and rectify what they were responsible for. They came as close as anyone could too putting this country into a unrepairable tail spin. We need to gain back the respect we had globally that existed prior to George Bush.
    I agree with Mr. Brown on his stance in regards to terrorists. No sympathy for the devil!
    Independent for a reason! No (2) people are alike. No (2) party members are alike.

    Hopefully Mr. Brown fairs better than your football picks too date!

  5. Beth Z permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:21 am

    You only have to buy car insurance if you drive a vehicle. We will have to buy insurance because we are not dead.

  6. Rhayader permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:25 am

    If Hatch and other Republicans were the least bit consistent in applying a test of constitutionality to their proposed legislation, I’d be inclined to listen to him here. Of course, he and his party have made quite the living butchering what was left of the US Constitution, which means his advice isn’t worth jack.

    Until Republicans are ready to defend the constitutionality of the War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, torture of foreign dissidents, secret trials, paramilitary police raids, the Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc etc etc, they have absolutely no authority regarding what is allowed by the Constitution and what is not. Pot, meet kettle.

  7. Bud permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:40 am

    YES IF you have a CAR………..your choice to have a car or not
    and some have limited coverage because of the type car they have or means to fix it.

    Health care is totaly your option, IF this was ABOUT Health care it would read one of 2 ways on one page. (NOT 2,000 pages)
    A) Every US CITIZEN from the homeless on every corner of USA to the President has the same covergage period, no EXCEPTIONS or
    B) The 30-46 Million (depending on who you listen to) that have no covergage have an INSURANCE pool just for them and everyone else
    280,000,000 PEOPLE keep there Health care coverge they have NOW !

    But the plan in the Senate leaves 21 million STILL uninsured !! With many organizations & Unions getting SPECIAL Treatment !!

  8. Nick permalink
    January 18, 2010 11:59 am

    Curt, you are right on the money! We must have the ability to make our own choices, whether or not they benefit us or society.

    Do we have a responsibility to help others? A moral one, yes, but not a mandated one. Dictated responsibilities make us beholden to the state instead of the state beholden to us.

    Perhaps if our children were taught a little more Adam Smith in school we’d be better off.

  9. Suncatcher permalink
    January 18, 2010 12:05 pm

    Curt, thank you for sharing this important article. Looks like we have 2 hopes now: Scott Brown – and a full blown Constitutional challenge to any health care crap shoved down our throats by the Dems.

    The Founding Fathers knew there would be weasels like Obama, Coakley and the MA political machine – and planned for them when writitng the Constitution.

    I think this Congress and “One-Term” Obama are finding out the hard way that they have unleashed a firestorm in shoving American voters around as they have in the past year.

    (And thanks for setting the record straight about not being a Yankee fan! DUH. Martha needs to bone up on foreign affairs, terrorism, character and Red Sox Nation – not necessarily in that order).

  10. Sean permalink
    January 18, 2010 12:05 pm

    Exactly, you shouldn’t be required to buy health insurance. It should simply be provided by the government as it is something everyone requires and will use at some point in their lives.

  11. tinisoli permalink
    January 18, 2010 12:14 pm


    The car insurance analogy is legitimate. People who do not want to pay for health insurance (and people who cannot get insurance even though they want it) still go to the hospital, they show up at the ER when their problems get bad enough, they get cancer and need treatment, and they are legally entitled to receive care, just as uninsured drivers can still physically get into cars and physically drive them. When an uninsured driver causes an accident, it ends up costing the rest of us. Yes, if someone doesn’t want to pay for car insurance then they can just not drive automobiles, as Hatch points out. That’s their choice. But not getting behind the wheel is entirely up to the individual and largely within that person’s control. Not getting cancer, however, or not getting a bacterial infection, or not having a car crash into you, or not having ALS… those dire medical straits cannot often be avoided. And that’s why it makes sense, if we’re to have a functional society, to make sure that everyone is covered so that we do not continue to pay unofficial taxes by maintaining the status quo—wherein the uninsured go to the ER and the insured pay higher premiums to cover those unpaid bills.

    If there is no health care reform, then people like you should suggest some other way of paying for the care of uninsured or underinsured. Or, you should be honest and come right out and say that the uninsured do not deserve health care unless they pay for it out of pocket. (That, by the way, will require a change to the laws, so, pick your poison.) Because right now the system is straining under the weight of A) the uninsured, and B) the insurance industry’s unreasonable profit margins. We’re all footing the bill one way or another, and insurance companies continue to rake it in thanks to the GOP’s endless love for a utopian vision of the “free market.” The Senate plan will save money. Do you realize that? Or do you think the CBO is a fraud? You’re already being taxed for other people’s care! Why not at least have a plan that’s going to save us money? Why not adopt a plan that would cost less in the long run than the status quo?

    If you think that hospitals and clinics should simply deny any care to the uninsured, then you should come right out and say that. So should all the GOPers who have been united against reform for the last 15 years. If not, then what’s your counter proposal?

    • scottzimm permalink
      January 24, 2010 8:35 pm

      The car insurance analogy is not legitmate. There is a difference between state and federal government. People seem to have forgotten the constitution was written for the federal government. The constitution lays out the powers for the federal government and if that power is not mentioned in the constitution then the power belongs in the states(10th Admendment). The states have the power to make people buy car insurance according to each individual state constitution.

      It also a myth that big business and big government don’t go hand in hand.
      I’m sure the insurance companies” hate” that everyone is legally required to buy health insurance. There is a reason why the insurance companies and corporations such as Wal-Mart are on board with ObamaCare. Big business profits from big government.

      The GOP does not have an endless love for the free market. They only preach the free market when it is convinent for them(such as now with health care reform). Nixon did away with the gold standard, Reagan didn’t practice what he preached(look at his deficits), and Bush grew the federal government more than any other president(until Obama). I don’t think most politicians, with the exceptions of Ron Paul, understand free market principles. Health care was affordable until the HMO act of 1973. As soon as we abanded free market principles in health care is when it became expensive.

  12. Geno Garza permalink
    January 18, 2010 12:17 pm

    First off, you need car insurance to cover the other party in case you’re in a collision and you’re liable. It’s not for you. Secondly, I want to say that I’m from Austin, TX and I contributed to Scott Brown’s campaign and rounded up a few friends to do the same because the outcome affects all of us. Thanks Curt for all that you’re doing.

  13. Dave W permalink
    January 18, 2010 12:27 pm

    If and when forced insurance is implemented, a huge amount of people in Connecticut and bordering Massachusetts will find themselves unemployed.
    With supply further exceeding demand, many will find themselves fighting for there own jobs, and or kissing any advances goodbye.
    The entire insurance dog and pony show is nothing but a smoke screen for the fact that, “there are no jobs being produced”. If jobs are developed, the kind where insurance is a benefit, then this whole charade can go away.
    If the government truly thinks they are capable, why don’t they start out by taking over cable TV first. If they can handle that, then they can go USSR on health care.

  14. January 18, 2010 12:40 pm


    You are a full-service Republican talking point dispenser now, I see.

    I’ll address the Global Warming issue:

    The problematic claim in question appears in one paragraph of Chapter 10 of the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 Working Group 2 report (page 493, if you’re interested). It’s not even mentioned in the exec. summary for the report (the only part non-scientists really ever read).

    The claim shouldn’t be there (mainly because the source isn’t peer-reviewed science). But pointing to it as a debunking of the whole of climate science is like arguing that you had a bad year in 2001 because you gave up 37 home runs.

    The “conspiracy” you reference has been going on for over 100 years, back to Tyndall, who first figured out the planet’s natural greenhouse effect, to Arrhenius, who first predicted that man-made CO2 emissions could impact temperatures (that was 1896).

    The fundamental premise of man-made global warming is that we’ll see ~3 degrees C (~5.5 degrees F) of surface heating if we double atmospheric CO2 levels (we’ll hit that easily in our lifetime). is a global avg. temperature increase of ~3 deg C (~5.5 deg F), is based on multiple lines of sound science. If you want to call the political response to this a conspiracy theory, be my guest, but the science is real.

    And yes, I say that with full knowledge of climategate/swifthack- if that’s the best the skeptics have (some snarky emails and a tweaked chart), I’ll keep yawning. Funny that there’s been little news about the NASA GISS emails ( Probably because they show climate scientists acting quite reasonably.

  15. gavpat permalink
    January 18, 2010 1:31 pm

    The Scott Brown supporters are out in force on the globe website, about their coverage of the MLK meeting this morning. He rose above the negative adds and didn’t stoop to begging for votes during a rally in memory of one of the greatest men in history.

    Your vote counts this time so don’t make excuses tomorrow. Go Vote! Go Scott Brown!

  16. clay barham permalink
    January 18, 2010 1:38 pm

    As a nation, we have allowed ourselves to drift too far from our roots, those established when the Pilgrims arrived and when our system was codified by the 19th century Democrats from Jefferson, Madison on to Cleveland, as cited in The Changing Face of Democrats on and We’ve allowed the Old World ideas of Rousseau and Marx to infect our politics through the 20th century Democrats, and now we are paying the price for it. Whether we will regain our proven way again remains to be seen. Whether enough of the electorate will choose the New World way or stay the course being laid down by Obama and become just another nation ruled by the few elite over the wishes of the many with individual freedom a thing of the past is yet to be decided. America proved prosperity comes from freedom, not dictatorship.

  17. Tom permalink
    January 18, 2010 2:44 pm

    Says the guy who was guaranteed money by the Sox, then decided he couldn’t play all 2008?

  18. hungry4food permalink
    January 18, 2010 3:13 pm

    Health Care and Cap and Trade all about Population Controls ?
    Is this why they won’t let the People see the Health care Bill ? Is this why they push an aggressive abortion policy ?

    What is NSSM 200 “Population Control” by Kissinger who says this Document is still active , are the designers of health care and cap and trade trying to integrate these policies together with Health care ? United Nations Agenda 21

    In this document it talks about the National security threat overpopulation is , so can the Supreme Court rule that health care and cap and Trade be Implemented and mandate the provisions of the bills ? goes into great detail on what needs to be done to implement the strategy of world population control.

  19. hungry4food permalink
    January 18, 2010 3:14 pm

    How to Fix the Population Explosion? by Paul Ehrlich adviser to the President along with Science Czar Holdren*2YAwbJKNA0ynjqNMPkAWc364um0hFryXrnCiwz7Aj0us0lz6nMDxpOErKkoOFI1yQyJxaBvmUtOCg37l0c/14211548HowtoControltheAMERICANPopulationbyPaulEhrlichThePopulationBombBrentJessop.pdf

    this from page 2 of what Paul Ehrlich says – “We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our
    system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.
    According to Ehrlich the first step to worldwide population control is the
    control of the
    American population because”:

    “We want our propaganda based on “do as we do” – not “do as we say”.

  20. PapiFan permalink
    January 18, 2010 3:27 pm

    Curt, Hatch, is 100% right on this matter. To force people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. To me this seems obvious, but many of the politicians hate the constitution.

    Curt, I thought you might want to know that a discussion involving you and Coakley was started on three different occassions and the Globe keeps deleting the threads. I guess, they don’t want a Yankee fan being discussed on a Red Sox message board.

  21. RegularGuy permalink
    January 18, 2010 3:53 pm

    Curt you do realize that hospitals cannot deny care…so someone pay’s for this. If your happy paying for those that do not have insurance then that’s an unusual stance for a Republican…most Republicans could care less about the “other guy”.

  22. MikeM permalink
    January 18, 2010 4:15 pm

    –noun, plural -cies.
    1. the act of conspiring.
    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    There are no “global warming conspiracy theorists”. By definition, the global warming deniers are conspiracy theorists; think about it.

    Everyone makes mistakes….the article published on the Himalayan glacial retreat does not invalidate all the sound science published in the report.
    What you ought to take away from that section of the IPCC report is that glaciers are in retreat and the consequences are devastating if they disappear.

  23. Richard permalink
    January 18, 2010 4:46 pm

    tinisoli, the uninsured can be paid for the same way as they are now. In order to pass the costs of their health care onto the insured, the uninsured must be bankrupt. To be blunt, you can’t get any extra money from those who are bankrupt. They gave everything they could to pay their medical bills. Whether they paid everything they could through insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays, or through direct payments until they ran out of money, you can’t get more money than someone has.

    What the mandate is really about is forcing people to support an industry that has failed us, but that is all too eager to spend hundreds of millions in political bribes every year. That industry is also allowed to collude against you without fear of antitrust lawsuits. That industry also provides no product or service which adds to health care, they are just middlemen taking a slice of the available money.

    Sorry, but the Democrats sold us all out. I’m not happy about it. I want health care reform. I want single-payer or some other system where we just pay X% of our income in taxes and provide health care for everyone. I’m not going to pay a for-profit company a single penny because the government told me I have to just for breathing though. That’s not what America should be about. I’ve had enough with the corporate handouts.

  24. Donna permalink
    January 18, 2010 8:04 pm

    Mr Shilling –

    Just heard you on the Mark Levin radio show – wow you really blew me away. Thank you very much for your fresh breath of air. I wish you much success in your personal endeavors and hopefully you get to expand your business in 2010. I’ll be rooting for you and your business ! Too bad you have so far ruled out a run for office – I think the people of MA would be lucky to have you represent them.

  25. Nick permalink
    January 18, 2010 8:52 pm

    People may believe others should be forced to purchase insurance for the good of society but it is forced morality no matter how you slice it. Why doesn’t the government simply purchase insurance for the uninsured? If that is the desired result, coverage for all, why not provide it? IT WOULD BE CHEAPER than this travesty of a bill. This is really all about ceding control to our “betters”. You know, the same betters that have brought us to this point in nation’s history.

    As for global warming, I personally would give a lot more credence to those propogating the theories if their solutions didn’t begin and end with my surrending freedoms to others. Our economic freedoms have fed more people and have provided a higher standard of living for virtually everyone on this planet.

    Oh, I forgot, green jobs. That is the solution to everything, isn’t it? As if 5 minutes after we produce that advanced wind turbine, solar panel, or specialized battery another country to our East won’t be copying it and producing it cheaply with near slave wages. Oh, and consuming more energy and producing more pollution in the production of the green “solutions”.

    Why does every solution proposed by Progressives require the denial of my freedom?

  26. James permalink
    January 18, 2010 8:53 pm

    Excellent comments, tinisoli. Unfortunately, actually thinking through an issue as complex as health care reform gets you no where in this hyper-partisan environment. It’s far easier to throw shallow labels like “socialized medicine.” Funny, the mandate to get insurance in the proposed bill or else pay a penalty is exactly what Governor Mitt Romney agreed to when he signed the Massachusetts health insurance reform bill. Where was the outrage toward “socialist” Mitt?

  27. The Silence is Settled permalink
    January 18, 2010 9:59 pm

    AGW is a dead parrot.
    Polar bears are overrunning Inuit villages.
    The Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was a peer reviewed wet dream.
    Maldives just aren’t going under.
    Al Gore is hiding.
    Copenhagen was snowed out.
    Phil Jones ‘stepped aside’.
    the CRU is under investigation.
    The context the emails were allegedly taken out of turns out to be worse than the sum of its parts.
    East Anglia rigged the data and the models.
    Michael Mann is under investigation.
    There is a congressman ready to conduct his own investigation if he’s not satisfied.
    NASA and NOAA rigged the data.
    the BBC is about to fire the MET as there is a marmot in Pennsylvania that performs far better.
    Dead parrot.
    That silence emanating from msm like the ocean in a conch- that’s the vast awesome silence of Global STFU.

  28. Nick permalink
    January 18, 2010 10:05 pm

    It is actually far easier to throw money at something without considering the ramifications. Perhaps Massachusetts is rejecting Obamacare because they have seen the gigantic hole Romneycare has blown in the budget.

    Again, it doesn’t require much thinking to understand that if universal coverage was the goal Obamacare would be about paying for, or subsidizing insurance payments for the uninsured. AGAIN, IT WOULD BE CHEAPER than the current bill which doesn’t even insure everyone! So tell me again that this is about providing care or coverage for the uninsured.

    It is about providing a mechanism by which money is transferred from one group of people to another, pure and simple. And this gives control over everyone to those responsible for the re-distribution of wealth.

    I have NO right to the fruits of your labor. I have every right to the freedoms afforded me as a citizen of this country. Including the ability to live my life as I see fit, not as you see fit.

  29. kas permalink
    January 18, 2010 10:23 pm

    Lifelong and diehard Yankee fan who stands with you and Red Sox Nation in support of Scott Brown!

  30. January 18, 2010 11:09 pm

    Nick asks – “Why does every solution proposed by Progressives require the denial of my freedom?”

    What a great question. As for global warming, well – anything that has Al Gore as a mouthpiece is a scam. (You know, the same Al that claimed to have invented the internet…?)

    Add in the programs and government funding/incentives that will be handed to GE (owned by the Obama network – NBC), how could anyone that questions the validity of man dictating climate change still be called a ‘denier’ by the left?? Who is then really the true denier?

  31. January 19, 2010 1:08 am

    Hi Curt,

    There is a basic disagreement in this country about the role of government. One side says that government is untrustworthy, absolute freedom, and the rule of the marketplace is the only truth. The other side seems to say that government is the answer to our problems. Both are obviously wrong statements.

    There has to be a place to meet in the middle. We have been arguing about healthcare reform since Teddy Roosevelt’s time and can’t come to a conclusion not because we don’t know what is right, but because a minority has decided that their way is the only way. The bad part is that there is not a clearly defined “their way.”

    The Republicans have been in charge of the federal government in 44 of the 65 years since Harry Truman first suggested national health insurance. With the exception of a truthful attempt by, of all people, Richard Nixon there has been no real attempt to solve this problem.

    All the yelling about malpractice and tort reform is a lot of bull. The cost of malpractice insurance and of malpractice awards is .58 percent of the spending on health care. What is true is that many doctors are afraid of being sued and they are recommending more tests than are needed to protect themselves.

    Malpractice premiums vary wildly between the states. An internist in Minnesota pays $4000 for his insurance. The same internist in Florida pays $100,000.

    In places where tort reform has been passed, the doctors do pay less in malpractice premiums, but health care costs are no lower. They pocket the difference.

    There is continual yelling about socialized medicine. The truth is it works pretty well in England. In most of the rest of Europe and the developed countries it doesn’t exist. Doctors and Hospitals are private businesses. And it still works pretty well.

    The cost is roughly half what it is here. And people live longer and better than they do here. The only area where people do better in the United States on average is in Cancer detection. And American’s mortality from Cancer is still a little bit higher than it is in other, similar countries.

    Whichever way the election comes out tomorrow in Massaschusetts, I want a commitment from either side that they will attack health care challenges and bring the overall cost down to what it is in similar countries.

    Special interests are in this thing for their own particular best interests. They don’t care about the nation as a whole.

    Now we get back to the role of government. Government shouldn’t run health care. But it should set the framework so that competing interest operate for the public good rather than the individual company’s good.

    Banks and financial institutions should be transparent so that we can see what they are doing. Hedge funds in particular are essentially mutual funds set up by a quirk in the law so they don’t have to report what they do and so the managers can take a bigger slice of the profit. They are based on the idea that failure is easier to predict that success. And they are right, failure is inevitable eventually in all businesses. Government should set the rules so the hedgers have some skin in the game.

    On energy, again its pretty simple. It is in the national interest that we find a way not to have to buy oil from folks who don’t like us very mcuh. Cut off their money and they go away.

    On manufacturing, build stuff in the good old USA and people go back to work.

    Our troops should come home as soon as possible. You cannot defeat an idea, but you can starve it out, make the people who believe in it – criminals, and make those people disappear.

    Government shouldn’t run any of this stuff except perhaps the military. It should provide the framework which makes all the rest possible.

    The idea that the electorate should blame the Democrats for being unsuccessful in beating down the unified obstructionists of the Republicans is absurd. It produces only gridlock and eventually gridlock.

  32. Jason Whatley permalink
    January 19, 2010 4:23 am

    Not sure if you read these or not but I’ve been reading you and I heard you on Levin today and you are well spoken and passionate about your views. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I’ve always gotten the idea that most athletes are pretty liberal but it’s great to see someone like yourself that educates them about the situation and gets across their view in a though out and direct manner. Also, we have so much ‘noise’ coming from both sides and it’s refreshing to hear someone who stays on point and doesn’t get stuck on the offensive like others. It adds a lot of legitimacy to your statements. Go Sox!

  33. January 19, 2010 4:40 am

    Hey Curt! How’s your health insurance? Pretty good, I’d say. Millionaire ball players pontificating – let’s all listen to what a ball player has to say about health care. So you are against health care – wow – you got yours, so everyone else can just die, I guess.

  34. jrdrum25 permalink
    January 20, 2010 1:58 pm

    You are case in point why people with limited intelligence, no scientific or economic training, ideological motivation and a pulpit from which to speak are some of the most dangerous in the world.

    Go Sox.

  35. justautilityinfielder permalink
    January 22, 2010 9:46 am

    Ultimately I don’t care about the so-called global warming. If some people think it’s a problem and want to alter their lifestyles because of it, that’s fine. Sadly that’s not what they want to do. They want the government to step in and force the rest of us to comply. I’d prefer that they didn’t try to force their morality on the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

38 Pitches

Curt Schilling's Official Blog

%d bloggers like this: