Lars Larson: Our Congress has sold us out again

I’m no lawyer, but I’m reasonably certain that the vote to raise taxes, cut Medicare, fund 16,000 new IRS agents, and force Americans against their will to buy health insurance isn’t legal, isn’t constitutional, and it isn’t what the American people want.

Members of Congress told their employers “drop dead”. I’m sure this new ObamaCare that the President signed is the product of his slimy Chicago style politics””Gatorade, Louisiana Purchase, and all the rest of the graft that he helped pass out.

This plan will literally help kill people. Ask the family of Oregonian Barbara Wagner who was refused cancer treatment and offered State Assisted Suicide. That’s the kind of thing I would expect to see under ObamaCare.

This November we can remind our so-called representatives how we punish Turncoats like this. Some members of Congress have already got the message and bowed out early. But, some of them stuck around to throw a few Americans under the bus on their way out the door. Well, I’d say good riddance.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 19 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    One of the more startling aspects of this whole thing is how the attempt to demonize the insurance One of the more startling aspects of this whole thing is how the attempt to demonize the insurance companies really hasn’t worked too well.

    Now no one really thinks of insurance companies as all that great, but lets face it, dealing with one is a dream compared to dealing with the government and I think that’s what most people sense here.

    Are most people aware that government denies people for health care at a higher rate than insurance companies? I doubt it. I think there is just an innate sense that as bad as calling the insurance company may be it is a far sight better than most of their dealings with the government in similar situations.

  • RUpert in Springfield

    Oh good lord – Are the Democrats seriously doing this whole waaahhh waaahhh hate speech thing?

    This is getting so old.

    • valley p

      “One of the more startling aspects of this whole thing is how the attempt to demonize the insurance companies really hasn’t worked too well.”

      On this we agree. Insurance company stocks have soared since Obamacare passed.

      As for Lars….if you think most Americans are going to be pissed off that they now have better health care security then fine, run on that point. And while you are at it try and repeal that government administered socialist Medicare program. Lets see who has the last laugh.

  • bill in the burg

    How can ANYONE take Lars seriously anymore? First he buys into the Saxton campaign, now he buys into the Dudley campaign. His “sheep” listeners then do what he says.
    $50,000 to the Dudley campaign? You gotta be kidding me?
    C’mon Lars, fess up, you’ve always been a RINO and always will be.

  • David Appell

    > force Americans against their will to buy health insurance isn’t legal, isn’t constitutional,

    The preamble to the US Constitution calls upon govt to “promote the general welfare.” Health care reform clearly falls within that scope.

    > and it isn’t what the American people want.

    Wrong. A poll covered by USA Today yesterday (3/24) says Americans support the health care bill by 49-40%. You can look it up.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >The preamble to the US Constitution calls upon govt to “promote the general welfare.” Health care reform clearly falls within that scope.

      Sure, so long as it falls under the enumerated powers which the federal government is given.

      However requiring you to buy insurance is not enumerated so the constitutional challanges will probably proceed on that basis.

  • Anonymous

    A few points: “I’m no lawyer” no, you can’t drop out of collage and be a litigator, but you possess that mean sprite to have been a good Civil one though.
    Lars they cut Medicare, a socialist program like that had to make you smile some.
    No, they didn’t tell their constituents to drop dead, the constituents voted out the congress that would vote as you wanted. If the Reptilians hadn’t been so bad they would still been in office.
    Not doing health insurance reform mean a lot of people would keep dying from lack of medical service.
    Winning in November; Counting your chicken a little early aren’t you, just like that Mission Accomplished banner.
    On a positive note for me, your nasty, bitter and untruths will by November have alienate even more voters; keep up the good work.

  • David Appell

    According to the 11/29/08 Oregonian, Barbara Wagner was a lifelong smoker. According to Wikipedia, those who respond positively to Tarceva are primarily nonsmokers.

    In a boundless world, Wagner would of course be given all possible therapies.

    But we don’t live in a boundless world, do we. Wagner’s solution, of course, was anti-smoking therapy 40 years ago. We need to emphasis preventative care much more than we do, and the recently passed health care reform bill begins to do that.

    But the entire premise of Larson’s presentation is a shameless lie. By focusing on one particular individual, he is ignoring the hundreds of thousands of people in Oregon who have no access to the health system at all, who can’t afford even basic treatment, and who suffer and die in silence and with no ratings-seeking radio host mentioning their name on the air.

    Until people like Larson look at the big picture and cover it truthfully, most people will see him for what he is: an ideologue. And, primarily, a liar.

    • retired UO science prof

      The good old death panels approach?

  • David Appell

    You can read the grim details about Wagner’s potential treatment here:

    https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sensationalizing_a_sad_case_ch.html

    “Research indicates that 8 percent of advanced lung cancers respond to Tarceva, with a chance to extend life from an average of 4 months to 6 months. The likelihood of no response to the drug is 92 percent, yet 19 percent of patients develop toxic side effects like diarrhea and rash. Based on the low indicators of effectiveness, Oregon Health Plan denied coverage.”

    Now, who wants to argue that we should have spent all the money necessary on Barbara Wagner’s last days when about 50,000 people/yr die in the US from lack of health insurance?

    Worst of all, Wagner DID receive the drug she sought, from the drug company, though admittedly it took longer than should be possible in a boundless world. It did not help her, and she died shortly thereafter.

    Imagine if, at age 25, she had access to the therapies we know of today to stop smoking.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Huh – Well, SS will pay out more this year than it takes in.

    Gee, and I thought that wasn’t supposed to happen until a few years from now.

    Oh well, lets hope the estimates for all these great savings for BO care are a little more accurate.

    If they are, great, we all get a bunch of free stuff. If they arent, well then BO has just dug us in a deeper hole than we are currently in.

    Given the scam accounting that was used to estimate the costs of BO care, and given the track record generally, my bet is on the latter.

    • David Appell

      Huh – Well, SS will pay out more this year than it takes in.

      > Huh – Well, SS will pay out more this year than it takes in.
      > Gee, and I thought that wasn’t supposed to happen until a few years from now., and I
      > thought that wasn’t supposed to happen until a few years from now.

      Which merely demonstrates the stupidity of trying to project out 10-yrs or more, which both R’s and D’s do. Too many things happen in 10 yrs. It’s an abysmally stupid policy, done by both sides.

      > If they are, great, we all get a bunch of free stuff. If they arent, well then BO has just dug
      > us in a deeper hole than we are currently in.

      Like you care, Rupert, about the hole we’re in. GW Bush doubled the size of the federal debt, to #10T, so as to reduce the tax burden of the rich. Did you whine about this? Did you care then? Did you give a shit? If so, prove it.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Too many things happen in 10 yrs. It’s an abysmally stupid policy, done by both sides.

        And yet you have no problem setting a countries policies according to temperature projections 100 years out.

        Interesting.

        >GW Bush doubled the size of the federal debt, to #10T, so as to reduce the tax burden of the rich.

        Might want to check your facts. Bush also lowered the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 10%

        >Did you whine about this?

        No, since I dont whine. Whining is a word you guys use when you want to belittle someone when thats all you have as an argument.

        But yes, I and plenty of other conservatives complained both here and nearly everywhere else about Bush’s spending.

        >If so, prove it.

        Prove what? That I complained about Bush’s spending?

        Its all over this blog.

        • valley p

          “Prove what? That I complained about Bush’s spending?”

          Heck Rupert…a few days ago you were defending the abysmal economic record of George Herbert Hoover Bush. Make up your mind.

          Anyway, according to you surpluses and deficits just drop in president’s laps irrespective of policies, so why complain about their spending at all? Can’t we just wait for more magic to happen?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Heck Rupert…a few days ago you were defending the abysmal economic record of George Herbert Hoover Bush. Make up your mind.

            Ok, well, first of all you might want to check what you are responding to.

            We are talking about spending Dean, not the economic record.

            Got it?

            Spending and whether or not I “whined” about it, as David Appell puts it.

            you are trying now to divert to the economic record, because you know damn well I and just about every conservative out there was quite vocal in complaining about Bush’s spending.

            But, with the economic record – You are seriously back to get pounded on that one again?

            Ok, God knows why you like doing this to yourself but lets go over it again.

            I mocked you for bragging about BO’s being in the 5’s

            You then went on to cite Bush’s average growth rate of 2%

            Well, that’s when you stepped in it, because apparently not only was that growth rate perfectly average when compared to other countries at the time, it was actually ahead of other industrial countries.

            I really cannot believe you would bring up a losing issue yet again, but if you insist, I will gladly keep rubbing your face in it.

            This is kind of a two fer – first you try the diversion thing, going from spending to the economy – but you also divert to a point that was a demonstrable failure for you the first time around.

            Yeesh, good God guy, try a different strategy.

            The not being able to stay on topic and trying to divert is weak enough, but diverting to a point that you lost?

            Does it ever occur to you not only is this strategy a bad one, but you don’t even play it particularly well?

            I mean me and plenty of other people mock the whole diversion thing at this point. Its getting ridiculous.

  • David Appell

    Also, let’s be very honest about this, though it’s difficult: why was Wagner on the OHP to begin with? I though you conservatives emphasis self-reliance and the free-market?

    Why didn’t Barbara Wagner purchase health insurance through the free market? Perhaps then she would have obtained the Tarceva she sought.

  • Anonymous

    Appell,

    Try and focus pal.

    The problems with this left wing 100% partisan bill are many.
    Your delusions of it being a workable, affordable and sustainable remedy is surpassed only by your lunatic and unethical advocacy of AGW.
    Both are near equal in their methods of perpetrating fraud so at least you are consistent.
    But what jerk you are.

    Perhaps you can add a tall tale about the CBO actually finding the $1/2 Trillion in medicare savings? Or some other wild embellishement you like to fabricate.

    There’s nothing genuinely workable in this Bill.

    Not from the funding side or the health care delivery side. It’s a 2700 page story book amounting to the progressive chaos you dishonest fools always enamor over.

    • valley p

      “The problems with this left wing 100% partisan bill are many. ”

      If the *left wing* includes 60 senators representing about 70% of the American people, then the right wing is in big trouble no?

      Rupert writes: “But, with the economic record – You are seriously back to get pounded on that one again?”

      Yes Rupert. I expect to be pounded mercilessly every time I point out to you the statistical fact that George Bush has the worst aggregate economic record of any president since Herbert Hoover. I expect you to continue to defend the indefensible. After all, anyone who thinks balanced budgets simply drop into a president’s lap irrespective of actual policies is of course willing to confidently make unsupportable arguments about economics and believe he is winning. So by all means pound away. It is part of your apparently life long dedication to pound your poor battered head against reality. Anything to make it stop.

  • Anonymous

    Look at the Appell pal V-dean.

    You made my point.

    You could care less about the many poblems with this left wing 100% partisan bill.

    Instead you delude with a claim your 60 democrat senators represent those who who oppose the bill and did not vote for them. The country is split on the health care reform and that only because supporters lie about it’s viability, effect and funding.
    But that’s what you foolish and dishonest progressives do with your mission to make the new face of America look like Portland.

    Portland ranked the unhappiest city
    https://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/02/0226_miserable_cities/2.htm

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)