Comments on: Fox News Anchor will Not Put Up with Being Disagreed With!!!11!!

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:24:36 +0000

The “cheap shot” was referring to the “fair and balanced” comment Rep. Rob Andrews made — which came in turn after he was repeatedly talked over by both Gregg Jarrett and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. I haven’t found the Republican side of this clip yet, but knowing Gregg’s MO, the Republican (who was asked a “tough question”) probably answered to Gregg’s satisfaction and he felt no need to talk over and argue with her.

By: Joshua Zelinsky

Joshua Zelinsky — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:05:09 +0000

I’m confused. The Fox correspondent thinks that it is a cheap shot to compare the legislation to Medicare?

Or is he saying that it was a cheap shot to make a joke about Fox being fair and balanced? If that’s the complaint then this guy has a seriously thin skin.

Either way, doesn’t come across very well.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:50:50 +0000

Fox News: Cheap shot central. Lies by the bucket load. Story at 11.

By: Russell

Russell — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:38:18 +0000

Insurance regulation easily passes muster under interstate commerce. The issue being raised is taxing individuals who fail to purchase insurance. Because the mandate is implemented as a tax, rather than by making illegal failure to comply, I suspect there is a strong argument for it under the 16th amendment. How is a medical irresponsibility tax Constitutionally different from, say, a luxury tax on boats? They both impose an extra tax on selected behavior. That latter was passed and signed by George H W Bush. No one ever questioned its Constitutionality, though thankfully, it was repealed during the Clinton administration.

By: DPSisler

DPSisler — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:23:23 +0000

How is the Medicare analogy bogus? What is Congress just removed the age cap on Medicare from 65 to BORN? Would that not effectively be single payer coverage? At age 18, or 22 after finishing College, you could opt to either stay in Medicare, or go onto your Employers private health care plan. There is more to it, but in a simple blog post comment, I see this as an easy solution.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:15:34 +0000

Nemo: But, having not heard the original question I'm not sure, but isn't he asking if, essentially, insurance regulation is not in the constitutional powers of the congress? In which case I would point to two facts: a) We are in the21st century and there is an emerging model of what a modern nation state does, and it is not the 18th century version of the US, but rather, what many western European countries are doing and b) health care in the 18th century was the same as the Republican plan. Die fast.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:00:01 +0000

I hate to say it, but, tone aside, I actually kind of agree with the Fox guy. He’s talking here about the individual mandate, which is plain reprehensible without a public option, and questionable even with one. I don’t know about passing legal muster, but the analogy with driving insurance mandates is indeed a bad one, both because they’re state-based and because you can opt out of them simply by not driving. The analogy with Medicare is also bogus.

Of course I’d prefer we just adopted a single-payer system and be done with it.

By: Katharine

Katharine — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:50:05 +0000

You know, it’s amazing how childishly some adults can act. Particularly Republican ones.

By: H.H.

H.H. — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:46:14 +0000

“I spent a lot of time thinking up a question to stump you! I will not have it answered so easily!”

By: planetspinz

planetspinz — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:30:29 +0000

FUX NOISE now that was fair and balanced – NOT