Coakley to voters: You're Not Smart Enough to Understand Health Care

[CurveLight]

Martha Coakley interview


This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.

In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.

“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp. She also shows she has no idea how health care works, erroneously claiming (among other things) that more medical screenings will save money. As everyone who has covered this issue knows, more screenings mean MORE money and higher costs (it’s that crazy “supply and demand” thing, Martha).

Don’t believe me? Here’s what the CBO had to say about it: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

They can also save lives, so it may be good policy. But claiming preventative care will cut costs shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So once again we’ve got an elitist, establishment liberal calling everyone else stupid, while demonstrating that she doesn’t understand even the most basic elements of ObamaCare.

Keep talking, Martha. You’re the best friend Scott Brown ever had.

She proceeds to reiterate

Martha Says You’re Not Smart Enough To Understand Health Care : The Natural Truth

I've listened to Graham way way way too much to trust that link. Yep. I'm proudly being a source snob because I know him too well. Is there a transcript of the full interview?

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you guys seen this ad from Massachusetts Miracle? I think this kind of emphasis is having an effect:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0[/ame]

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Nobody understands the massive Democrat health care boondoggle. Fellow Democrats like Coakley don't even understand it. That's the real problem. Oh well,they probably wont read it before voting on it anyway. The voters aren't the problem. The Democrats are.

 

[del]

Martha Coakley interview


This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.

In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.

“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp. She also shows she has no idea how health care works, erroneously claiming (among other things) that more medical screenings will save money. As everyone who has covered this issue knows, more screenings mean MORE money and higher costs (it’s that crazy “supply and demand” thing, Martha).

Don’t believe me? Here’s what the CBO had to say about it: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

They can also save lives, so it may be good policy. But claiming preventative care will cut costs shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So once again we’ve got an elitist, establishment liberal calling everyone else stupid, while demonstrating that she doesn’t understand even the most basic elements of ObamaCare.

Keep talking, Martha. You’re the best friend Scott Brown ever had.

She proceeds to reiterate

Martha Says You’re Not Smart Enough To Understand Health Care : The Natural Truth

I've listened to Graham way way way too much to trust that link. Yep. I'm proudly being a source snob because I know him too well. Is there a transcript of the full interview?

Martha Coakley interview

 

[CurveLight]

Nobody understands the massive Democrat health care boondoggle. Fellow Democrats like Coakley don't even understand it. That's the real problem. Oh well,they probably wont read it before voting on it anyway. The voters aren't the problem. The Democrats are.

Oh please. Both Parties are umbilical cord deep inside of us all to gouge as much as possible. We voters are the problem because we're too lazy and selfish to work together so we draw lines in the sand and throw marshmallows and somehow at the end of the day create the illusion we're doing something. We're so fucked up with double standards we will send an 18 year old 6,000 miles away from home, give him/her automatic weapons and grenades and have them kill other people but if they come home on leave and have a beer they get thrown in jail. Who the fuck can make sense of that?

 

[Annie]

Nobody understands the massive Democrat health care boondoggle. Fellow Democrats like Coakley don't even understand it. That's the real problem. Oh well,they probably wont read it before voting on it anyway. The voters aren't the problem. The Democrats are.

Oh please. Both Parties are umbilical cord deep inside of us all to gouge as much as possible. We voters are the problem because we're too lazy and selfish to work together so we draw lines in the sand and throw marshmallows and somehow at the end of the day create the illusion we're doing something. We're so fucked up with double standards we will send an 18 year old 6,000 miles away from home, give him/her automatic weapons and grenades and have them kill other people but if they come home on leave and have a beer they get thrown in jail. Who the fuck can make sense of that?

Certainly not you, not with that little rant.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Have you guys seen this ad from Massachusetts Miracle? I think this kind of emphasis is having an effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0

Fantastic ad.

 

[CurveLight]

Nobody understands the massive Democrat health care boondoggle. Fellow Democrats like Coakley don't even understand it. That's the real problem. Oh well,they probably wont read it before voting on it anyway. The voters aren't the problem. The Democrats are.

Oh please. Both Parties are umbilical cord deep inside of us all to gouge as much as possible. We voters are the problem because we're too lazy and selfish to work together so we draw lines in the sand and throw marshmallows and somehow at the end of the day create the illusion we're doing something. We're so fucked up with double standards we will send an 18 year old 6,000 miles away from home, give him/her automatic weapons and grenades and have them kill other people but if they come home on leave and have a beer they get thrown in jail. Who the fuck can make sense of that?

Certainly not you, not with that little rant.

If it may please Your Highness I bow with full humility and utter vulnerability if you would be so kind as to share just the slightest drip of your wisdom.

 

[Annie]

Oh please. Both Parties are umbilical cord deep inside of us all to gouge as much as possible. We voters are the problem because we're too lazy and selfish to work together so we draw lines in the sand and throw marshmallows and somehow at the end of the day create the illusion we're doing something. We're so fucked up with double standards we will send an 18 year old 6,000 miles away from home, give him/her automatic weapons and grenades and have them kill other people but if they come home on leave and have a beer they get thrown in jail. Who the fuck can make sense of that?

Certainly not you, not with that little rant.

If it may please Your Highness I bow with full humility and utter vulnerability if you would be so kind as to share just the slightest drip of your wisdom.

Yes, when you can't or won't respond to the post, move along. There is no way to improve your rant as it was nonsensical from the onset.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Great ad Foxfyre! Thanks. Is there a Tea Party II going on up there or what? I guess we'll see tomorrow.

 

[Maple]

1. Get in the vote before Brown is confirmed
2. Reconciliation in the Senate
3. Attempt to pass the Senate Bill in the House unaltered

1. tea parties will look like nothing if this happens - Annie's earlier point about voter anger is right on

2. every other bill Barack tries to pass will die if they do this, which might not be a bad thing, got lots of Dems in swing states who are already very nervous about their vote on this thing most of the country doesn't want

3. first bill made it through the house by 5 votes, so if just 3 of 435 start making Brown because of the Brown development, won't make it through, Pelosi already told Obama not to expect the senate bill to go through

There will be riots in the streets if the dems even attempt to do anything sneaky. Americans are on to them. As one pundit put it last night on Fox, this is not Europe where they quietly go along with something for 5 years and then quietly vote them out. Americans still have alot of spirit and when it comes to our freedom, they will defend it with their lives. As witnessed throughout history.

 

[del]

Poll: Scott Brown surges to double-digit lead over Martha Coakley

The bellwether polling, conducted Saturday, Jan. 16, and Sunday, Jan. 17, shows:



Brown (55%) leads Coakley (40%) by 15 points in Gardner. Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy polls 2%, while 3% are undecided.



In Fitchburg, Brown (55%) has a 14-point lead over Coakley (41%), with 2% for Kennedy and 2% undecided.

Peabody voters give Brown (57%), a 17-point lead over Coakley (40%), with Kennedy polling 1% and 3% undecided.

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk's bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.

Results of the November 2006 survey in the three bellwether communities closely traced the final statewide outcome.

Those 2006 results were as follows:

· Statewide: Edward M. Kennedy (D), 67%; Kenneth Chase (R), 29%; blanks, 4%
· Gardner: Kennedy, 68%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 3%
· Fitchburg: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 4%
· Peabody: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 29%; blanks, 4%

Party registration in the three bellwether communities largely mirrors statewide registration, with the following breakdown:

· Massachusetts statewide: Democrats, 36%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 52%
· Gardner: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 53%
· Fitchburg: Democrats, 34%; Republicans, 11%; unenrolled, 55%
· Peabody: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 9%; unenrolled, 56%

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Martha Coakley interview


This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.

In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.

“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp. She also shows she has no idea how health care works, erroneously claiming (among other things) that more medical screenings will save money. As everyone who has covered this issue knows, more screenings mean MORE money and higher costs (it’s that crazy “supply and demand” thing, Martha).

Don’t believe me? Here’s what the CBO had to say about it: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

They can also save lives, so it may be good policy. But claiming preventative care will cut costs shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So once again we’ve got an elitist, establishment liberal calling everyone else stupid, while demonstrating that she doesn’t understand even the most basic elements of ObamaCare.

Keep talking, Martha. You’re the best friend Scott Brown ever had.

She proceeds to reiterate

Martha Says You’re Not Smart Enough To Understand Health Care : The Natural Truth

I've listened to Graham way way way too much to trust that link. Yep. I'm proudly being a source snob because I know him too well. Is there a transcript of the full interview?

see the FIRST link on top not the one on the bottom .

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Have you guys seen this ad from Massachusetts Miracle? I think this kind of emphasis is having an effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0

chills.

nice video

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Poll: Scott Brown surges to double-digit lead over Martha Coakley

The bellwether polling, conducted Saturday, Jan. 16, and Sunday, Jan. 17, shows:



Brown (55%) leads Coakley (40%) by 15 points in Gardner. Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy polls 2%, while 3% are undecided.



In Fitchburg, Brown (55%) has a 14-point lead over Coakley (41%), with 2% for Kennedy and 2% undecided.

Peabody voters give Brown (57%), a 17-point lead over Coakley (40%), with Kennedy polling 1% and 3% undecided.

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk's bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.

Results of the November 2006 survey in the three bellwether communities closely traced the final statewide outcome.

Those 2006 results were as follows:

· Statewide: Edward M. Kennedy (D), 67%; Kenneth Chase (R), 29%; blanks, 4%
· Gardner: Kennedy, 68%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 3%
· Fitchburg: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 30%; blanks, 4%
· Peabody: Kennedy, 67%; Chase, 29%; blanks, 4%

Party registration in the three bellwether communities largely mirrors statewide registration, with the following breakdown:

· Massachusetts statewide: Democrats, 36%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 52%
· Gardner: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 53%
· Fitchburg: Democrats, 34%; Republicans, 11%; unenrolled, 55%
· Peabody: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 9%; unenrolled, 56%

If our history of elections is relevant those 3 towns are EXCELLENT indicators of voting results. Where ever they have polled in the past is where the vote has ended up.

 

[Oldandtired]

Have you guys seen this ad from Massachusetts Miracle? I think this kind of emphasis is having an effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0

Excellent ad. Sent chills up my spine.
Makes me even angrier at how they ridicule the tea party attendees.

 

[CurveLight]

1. Get in the vote before Brown is confirmed
2. Reconciliation in the Senate
3. Attempt to pass the Senate Bill in the House unaltered

1. tea parties will look like nothing if this happens - Annie's earlier point about voter anger is right on

2. every other bill Barack tries to pass will die if they do this, which might not be a bad thing, got lots of Dems in swing states who are already very nervous about their vote on this thing most of the country doesn't want

3. first bill made it through the house by 5 votes, so if just 3 of 435 start making Brown because of the Brown development, won't make it through, Pelosi already told Obama not to expect the senate bill to go through

There will be riots in the streets if the dems even attempt to do anything sneaky. Americans are on to them. As one pundit put it last night on Fox, this is not Europe where they quietly go along with something for 5 years and then quietly vote them out. Americans still have alot of spirit and when it comes to our freedom, they will defend it with their lives. As witnessed throughout history.

Oh please. We have quietly gone along with invading and occupying two nations that never attacked us and spilled way more than ten times the blood spilled 9/11 and it was all avoidable. We're still doing it. This Nationalistic rhetoric is insta-vomit.

 

[edthecynic]

Martha Coakley interview


This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.

In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.

“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp.

Notice how the CON$ that continuously whine "out of context" when their programmers are quoted exactly and in detail, completely distort the very few words they quote. In this case they take 3 words and then one word that came much later to manufacture the "context" they want.

What she actually said was the 61% in the poll were wrong because CBO said the health care bill was revenue neutral. Of course, that part was completely left out.

Mind you CON$ have been themselves saying since the first version of the health care bill was posted on line that the thousands of pages were written in legalese that no one could understand, but THAT, of course, is not calling people stupid when the CON$ do it.

 

[Annie]

Martha Coakley interview


This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.

In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.

“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp.

Notice how the CON$ that continuously whine "out of context" when their programmers are quoted exactly and in detail, completely distort the very few words they quote. In this case they take 3 words and then one word that came much later to manufacture the "context" they want.

What she actually said was the 61% in the poll were wrong because CBO said the health care bill was revenue neutral. Of course, that part was completely left out.

Mind you CON$ have been themselves saying since the first version of the health care bill was posted on line that the thousands of pages were written in legalese that no one could understand, but THAT, of course, is not calling people stupid when the CON$ do it.

Exactly who was it that wrote the bill? Cons$? I think not.

 

[Oldandtired]

Martha Coakley interview


This is a fascinating interview of Martha Coakley this morning on a local TV station, focusing mostly on health care. Note how Martha Coakley dismisses the concerns that voters have about health care by claiming the voters are too “unfocused,” don’t really understand this issues involved, etc.

In particular, watch her adamant response to the question about the fact that 61 percent of voters in the Suffolk poll don’t think we can afford government-run health care. “Are they wrong?” the interviewer asks.

“They ARE wrong,” Coakley practically shouts—it’s her most passionate moment in the interview. She then suggests the issue is too “complicated” for the voters to grasp.

Notice how the CON$ that continuously whine "out of context" when their programmers are quoted exactly and in detail, completely distort the very few words they quote. In this case they take 3 words and then one word that came much later to manufacture the "context" they want.

What she actually said was the 61% in the poll were wrong because CBO said the health care bill was revenue neutral. Of course, that part was completely left out.

Mind you CON$ have been themselves saying since the first version of the health care bill was posted on line that the thousands of pages were written in legalese that no one could understand, but THAT, of course, is not calling people stupid when the CON$ do it.

The conservatives were saying the bill was too complicated to pass without disecting it and debating it.
Coakley said the American people dont understand it....sort of agreeing with the cons....but the difference is she wants them to accept it without understanding it.....you know...the NEW American way.

THAT is the difference