Video: Axelrod not comprehending what “competition” means
posted at 4:40 pm on September 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Give Wolf Blitzer of CNN credit for a hard-hitting question in his interview yesterday with David Axelrod before Barack Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress. In fact, Blitzer didn’t just ask Axelrod a tough question, he kept coming back to it when Axelrod proved incapable of answering it. The big $64 trillion question? If Obama wants competition in states where one insurer dominates, why not just allow insurers to sell policies across state lines? Er …. maybe because they don’t really want competition at all? (via Duane Patterson)
BLITZER: Including what they call the cooperative option, a series of health insurance cooperatives that wouldn’t be the public option, but would be some — something in between? Is that — is he going to get into a detail like that and say he likes that idea?
AXELROD: He will acknowledge the fact that — that there is that idea. There’s the idea of putting a trigger on the public option so that it goes into effect at some date when it’s clear that — that a market is uncompetitive. There are a number of ideas. But what is very important is that we have the kind of competition and choice that will help consumers. In many states in this country, there’s one insurer that dominates the entire market. In Alabama, one insured dominates 87 percent. In North Dakota, there’s one insurer that dominates…
BLITZER: So why not break down…
AXELROD: …the market almost completely.
BLITZER: Why not break down the state barriers and let all of these insurance companies compete nationally without having to simply focus in on a state by state basis?
AXELROD: Because we are trying to do this in a way that advances the — the interests of consumers without creating such disruption that it makes it difficult to to move forward.
BLITZER: Why would that be disruptive? If Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United Health Care or all of these big insurance companies, they don’t have to worry about just working in a state, they could just have the opportunity to compete in all 50 states?
AXELROD: But insurance is regulated at the — at this time, Wolf…
BLITZER: But you could change that. The president could propose…
AXELROD: …state by state.
BLITZER: The president could propose a law…
AXELROD: That is not…
BLITZER: …changing that.
AXELROD: That is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we’re proposing or that…
BLITZER: Why not?
AXELROD: …that…
BLITZER: Why not?
AXELROD: …we think — we’re proposing a package that we believe will bring that stability and security to people, it will help people get insurance, it will be — it will lower the costs and that can pass the Congress. And that has to be the test. We’re not into a symbolic expedition here. We’re trying to bring real relief to hardworking middle class people in this country. We believe the plan that we’ve outlined will do that.
BLITZER: Because I want to move on, but if the president wanted great competition — greater competition — he could say let’s change the law and let these health insurance companies compete nationally.
AXELROD: I’m not sure, Wolf, that that would — that that would end the debate that you asked me about in the first place. And, you know, I think that the idea that he’s proposal will promote that. Others have other ideas. But they are not central.
What’s central here is that we get fundamental insurance reforms that will protect people, put a cap on their out of pocket expenses if they have preexisting conditions, make sure they get insurance if they get sick, make sure they don’t get dropped off insurance and will a pool where people who can’t get insurance today — you know, if you don’t have insurance through your employer, it costs you three times as much to get insurance today. Most people can’t afford it. Most small — small businesses can’t afford to insure their employees. A lot of people won’t start a small business because they can’t leave their insurance.
Our plan would help cope with that.
But the White House has argued incessantly that the public option’s entire purpose is to bring “competition” to their idea of a marketplace. Why go through the expense and bureaucracy of creating a government-run insurance plan when all that needs to be done for Alabama and North Dakota is to allow insurance companies from other states to compete? Because, as Axelrod fumbles through explaining, the administration isn’t interested in competition at all, but in dictating terms to insurers, providers, and consumers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
come on Wolf – can’t you just stick with the talking points! Come on!
gatorboy on September 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Wait until they have “Competition” in the next election. They haven’t experienced that for a while.
leftnomore on September 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Good question…
If we do get a big health care boondoggle passed and it only goes into implementation in 2013 or whenever, how about removing the regulations like these immediately?
ninjapirate on September 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Competition is the goal, y’know, like Babmi vs Godzilla.
Akzed on September 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
This stupid country elected The Mob to run DC. They know only tactics, including deceit and threats to get their way. None of this has to do with helping the middle class.
leftnomore on September 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
O’Reilly asked the same question last night, but then let it slide when Axelrod did the same dodge post-speech, because Bill had other fish he wanted to try and fry (like pushed for David’s boss to come back on the show).
jon1979 on September 10, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Comprehension is not in their agenda. They don’t care about comprehending anything. Only destruction. The left are using the word “competition” only in an effort to render it unusable to anyone else. This is linguistic scorched earth. It is a tried and true leftist tactic.
I have yet to hear anyone confront of the LIARS on how they bounce, effortlessly, from “single-payer” to “comeptition and choice” back and forth without batting an eye.
progressoverpeace on September 10, 2009 at 4:46 PM
classic dodge.
weewilly on September 10, 2009 at 4:46 PM
They could at least try it for awhile. After all, they say Obama’s crappy little plan will not kick in until 2013 anyway. Gee, I wonder why he wants to wait so long, especially when one considers that innocents are dying each and every day that heartless liars refuse to see the wisdom of King Obama’s plan.
Terrye on September 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Which plan would that be exactly? One of the ones that’s been shredded by anyone who’s taken the time to decipher it? Or is there another one out there that no one’s seen?
4shoes on September 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Obama’s plan is a hermaphrodite – not quite developed
faraway on September 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
EXACTLY…Aetna, Blue Cross, etc. simply cannot compete with a government option that is available in all 50…I mean 57…states, when they are limited to a handful. The deck is stacked from the get-go.
Matticus Finch on September 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Axelrod was on Fox (O’Reilly)last night after the speech and also was so evasive it would have been torture had I been a democrap trying to support his evasiveness and circumlocutions about the very same issue of interstate competition. He even let out a howler for a democrap, claiming that state’s rights issues would prevent the Congress from changing insurance rules that bar interstate competition. So if insurance is a purely intrastate issue, then how can Obama run it under the commerce clause which deals with INTERSTATE commerce? The cognitive dissonance from this Administration is mind blowing.
eaglewingz08 on September 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Why would they even suggest that there be competition between states? Axlerod knows that the administration’s goal is a single-payer system. Why waste time even floating that idea.
fbcmusicman on September 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Mein Gott! Wolf Blizter is accidentally practicing journalism.
rbj on September 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM
This is not about health care. This is about controlling the insurance companies billions of dollars in revenue.
sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I hope Axelrod is not hinting at a takeover of private health-insurance companies
macncheez on September 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Axelrod started to argue the reason why they can’t introduce inter-state competition was because insurance was regulated by the states.
But that’s not stopping them from all their other stuff.
p0s3r on September 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Especially when the kind of reforms they are proposing are the most Orwellian, oppressive, fascist policies in the history of this nation.
The people aren’t buying the Obama BS machine anymore, which is forcing the spinmeisters into more and more contradictory positions and statements that expose the inherent stupidity of their ideas. Congress WAS LAUGHING AT the Precedent last night, during one such moment. Beautiful. Them getting exposed like this is the only reason for hope at this point.
Fishoutofwater on September 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Have you noticed that after these interviews with anyone senior in the administration BOR spends the next 2 or 3 segments telling anyone he’s talking to how good, tough, insightful and respectful he was. Very strange.
whbates on September 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Well David, it’s like when you meet Chris Matthews and Keith Olbmermann at a swanky DC bath house and they are both “competing” for your attention.
NoDonkey on September 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Everything going on is DC is about control, of the economy and the citizenry in specific.
thomasaur on September 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Not to mention they have as much as admitted that if the “public option” loses money, the govt will step in to keep it from going under.
How many private companies can compete with a company that is permitted to operate at a loss forever?
MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM
It is to co-opt and debase the language of their opposition. Very ugly game being played here.
Fishoutofwater on September 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM
“Well we can’t do that Wolf because it wouldn’t allow for a massive takeover of the U.S.”
Bishop on September 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
He’s trying to convince himself no one else.
thomasaur on September 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
What these people do not understand is ,they were elected to lead. NOT RULE
oldernwiser on September 10, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Apparently the Commerce Clause, after 100 plus years of abuse, is now so bent out of shape, that it is no longer able to carry out the function for which it was actually designed.
MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM
So now Axelrod and Obama are concerned about state law? Oh puleeaaase.
roux on September 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM
During the campaign, Michelle did say that Barry would be ready to rule from day one.
MarkTheGreat on September 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM
The simple answer, once again: The ObamaCare plan is to bailout the Unions which are going bankrupt due to their legacy health insurance costs. This will be put on the backs of the taxpayers. Don’t forget the $10B provision earmarked for the Unions that is in the current bill.
And as an added bonus, if he gets his way, he will have successfully taken over our 4 corners of Excellence:
1. Banking and Finance – Bailouts
2. Energy & Innovation – Cap and Trade
3. Manufacturing – Auto Industry Takeover
4. Health care – (hanging by a chad).
All in less than a year. This will fail. He will fail.
Key West Reader on September 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM
They want the insurance companies to fail so as to trip the “trigger” of Obamacare. They are not going to help the insurance companies by making it fair or competitive. That’s the last thing they want.
Guardian on September 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Wolf is going to get a call from the head office in Atlanta about this.
It’s news when newsmen actually ask real questions….sad.
Asher on September 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Can I propose some “competition” for my Social Security Savings?
I’d like to be able to shop around and get a MUCH better rate than what the governments going to provide :-)
HarryStar on September 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM
I saw Axelrod on O’Reilly yesterday and Axelrod was nuts.
He was immediately nuts, which was even more nuts. O’Reilly so much as started asking a question and Axelrod was already way off into Crazy Stewing Land.
Very offensive, explosive guy.
Lourdes on September 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Haven’t seen so much competition fostered since the Gambino crew told the fruit stand vendors what their prices were.
MadisonConservative on September 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Wasn’t that the dastardly Valerie Jarrett who made that declaration? I know she said as much after the election, though it wouldn’t surprise me that Michelle Obama would also say as much.
Lourdes on September 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
No, I think they’re concerned about written forms, putting anything in writing. At least BEFORE they get the money.
Lourdes on September 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Most insurers are operating at 3-4% profit margins. This is what they are after….3%.
stldave on September 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Comrade Axelrod says: Competition no good for American peoples.
darwin on September 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM
WTF, what kind of answer is that.
Greed on September 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Wow! There it is straight up. They are telling us what they are going to do.
d1carter on September 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
That’s an inconvenient question.
mchristian on September 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Is it just me, or does Axelrod look like a fat Hitler?
BitterClinger on September 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Perfectly Orwellian
aquaviva on September 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Translation: We’re not doing it because we’re not doing it.
Is that your final answer, Ax?
Daggett on September 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM
They don’t WANT competition because that would then SOLVE the problem.
They need the problem to exist so they can shove universal health care down our throats in order to create another government ponzi scheme so they can steal more of everyone’s money.
Riposte on September 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Still one of the best shorts evah!
ya2daup on September 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Axelrod is a lying sack of sh*t
Yesterday, today and tomorrow a lying sack of sh*t
bluegrass on September 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:10045196.jpg
the_nile on September 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
But the government plan will be allowed to operate across state lines. So much for fair competition.
Ronnie on September 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I heard on NPR yesterday that the public option is expected to pay 5% above the medicare reimbursement levels. If that happens it produces two problems. First the private insurance industry will have a rough time competing when because they will be bargaining from a weaker position due to the limited geographic areas they are allowed to service. Second as with medicare some doctors will be refusing to take patients using the public option because it won’t cover tier expenses.
agmartin on September 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Competition”; “profit”, these words are not part of the Marxist’s vocabulary.
Buy Danish on September 10, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Uh the CBO says private health insurance costs less than insurance provided by employers.
aikidoka on September 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Obama and Co. know all about competition.
To find out what’s in store for the insurance companies just ask Jack Ryan or Alice Palmer.
oilsoc
obama is a lying sack of crap.
deadenders on September 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Oops! Forgot to provide link to David Axelrod’s red diaper-ish upbringing.
Buy Danish on September 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I saw Gibbs on Morning Joe yesterday morning offer an anecdotal story about a fried in Alabama trying to purchase insurance. Joe Scarborough and Mika B just shook their heads in hypnotic agreement with Gibbs’s point that the public option is needed to introduce competition.
WTF? How about breaking down nonsense legal barriers to competition and breaking down state mandates?
Hello, McFly!
BuckeyeSam on September 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Wolf is off the list now, how dare he bring up something that makes sense. Stossel coming to Fox, Lou Dobbs is next, Wolf Blitzer on Fox????
MJZZZ on September 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM
And for the message on HealthCare….JUST SAY NO!
BigMike252 on September 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Kind of sad that those people in high places, places that we the people did not electe them too are so out of touch that they can’t or perhaps in this case it don’t want to understand a simple concpet like competition. Personally, I think its the latter. They want Big Government to be in charge of another facet of our lives.
Simply doing tort reform and opening up competiiton across State lines would result in a 30-40% reduction in insurance costs. Check what happened in Texas when they reformed health care by simply doing these two items.
Apparenlty its more than ever government for and by the one as it certainly is not for we the people. If it were for we the people versus those in power trying to have more power and control reform would already have occureed and this matter would basically already be done and we the tax payers would not be facing being socked with more big non-managable government. After all, if OB and crew really want reform versus grabbing more power this thing would already have been done and over with.
Rockman44 on September 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Axlerod is an example of what happens when you sniff glue as a kid
kangjie on September 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Damn you, sir. Never sully the likeness of Messrs. Stan and Ollie.
MadisonConservative on September 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I would add housing/construction to #1
But don’t forget:
The FCC to rule our internet and news.
The EPA to rule our agriculture.
barnone on September 10, 2009 at 5:31 PM
We SHOULD NOT change the state by state insurance even though it would be good for competition because once it is not under state control it falls under the commerce clause and the feds can get their hands on it. If something should happen to pass this is our only hope of getting it declared unconstitutional because it does not fall under the jurisdiction of congress. If we make them change that we are screwed. In fact that may be just what they want us to make them do.
patriotparty1 on September 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Is the proposal to require every American to purchase health insurance coverage legal?
d1carter on September 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM
BTW on Medicare fraud:
The Office of Inspector General of DHHS has a 10 to 1 ratio of monies recovered versus cost. So if you want to find more Medicare fraud, just fund them more.
I have friends that work there. They say it is like hunting at the petting zoo.
barnone on September 10, 2009 at 5:41 PM
this is just proof that Wolf Blitzer is better than his brother Norman.
FontanaConservative on September 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Is his axel or his rod broken? This guy is an idiot and is lead by breadcrumbs by anyone that will feed him. He needs to go.
workingforpigs on September 10, 2009 at 5:49 PM
disagree … he knows precisely what ‘competition’ means.
Blitzer proposes moving to a free market solution. Axelrod and the other communists won’t let that happen. The government can’t control a free market, moreover the people. Competition can only exist, if it is with the government (per Axelrod), so they can apply force and coercion to shut the free market down, raise dependency and control the masses.
must. be. regulated.
must. be. controlled.
Allow inter-state competition, remove the federal rules on insurance mandates, and bring back catastrophic insurance policies tomorrow … bet my costs could be cut in half in a couple weeks.
AZ_Redneck on September 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Wolf completely destroyed Axelrod. I couldn’t make heads or tails out of anything that came out of his mouth after the money question…
Black Yoshi on September 10, 2009 at 6:04 PM
This line sums up all they really care about:
Centralization. It’s all about that. Have all the power in a single place where it can be easily controlled. If true reform were to be implemented and true competition was allowed and left alone power would reside on each individual in this country instead of a centralized government.
ptcamn on September 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Score one for Wolf. Axelrod doesn’t have a clue. I’d like to that that Axelrod’s reply would make a few MSM sit up and take notice, but that’s like asking for the moon and the stars.
MainelyRight on September 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Wasn’t that the dastardly Valerie Jarrett who made that declaration? I know she said as much after the election, though it wouldn’t surprise me that Michelle Obama would also say as much.
Lourdes on September 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Many may find this mother of all charts interesting. This is ONLY Valerie Jarrett. Shall we begin to drill down, chattering class?
Key West Reader on September 10, 2009 at 6:23 PM
The only reason they are going through all these motions in the first place, and the key-stone upon which their game plan rests, is the creation of the “Healthcare Exchange.” To qualify to be in the “Exchange” one must 1st meet the “Exchange” prerequisites, most of which sound hunky-dory consumer-protection clauses.
First off, governmental prerequisites are de facto government control over who is even in the “exhange” and if the “exchange” represents all the allowed players in the market, how is that not the very definition of government contrled healthcare? Anyone?
Second, insurance by definition is a hedge bet by the customer with the bookie(the Ins. co.) against an unforseen outcome like catastrophic illness or trumatic injury. A pre-existing condition cannot be construed as unforseen. I don’t care how you slice it, there is no way around that. And by removing “caps” on settlements in regards to trumatic injuries it is akin to a bookie (actually, the market as all gamble know)not being allowed to set the odds or the spread.
In a nutshell it means an insurance company being run without the benefit of actuarial (read facts) tables. Gee, where have I seen that model in action before? Oh, I remember, it’s called Social Security. The very entitlement that driving us into national bankruptcy and what Obama says he is trying to avert.
But the real malice hidden the pages of all the health bills being put forth is the enforced acceptance of the SEIU by all health providers. Can anyone say payback time to Andy Stern? This effectively MANDATES all hospitals to be run like GM! Wow, hasn’t that worked out well and has not cost us not one of those dimes Obama keeps taliking about.
If the republicans don’t hold the line on this crap pie 100% I am going to freakin ballistic! As people who may be familiar with my moniker, I have steadfastly refrained from endorsing anything but within the system methodology in bucking the White House agenda.
I too, have limits.
Archimedes on September 10, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I think I just experienced a personal Epiphany while going over this Axelrod gobbledygook. Watching how hard he tried to steer away from that whole issue, I think I realized why they are pushing this whole health care government takeover thing that does not make sense to any of us. They don’t have a choice.
I’m guessing that they have the whole economy in so devastated a condition that taking the trillions of dollars that Americans spend in health care into the government coffers is the only thing they can think of to stop a total collapse. These is just no other pool of wealth large enough to offset the debt they have built, so this is what they have to take. And the only other solution, which would be to cut government to be within its means would mean to eliminate government altogether. Because its means are totally gone. They can’t do that and they can’t do nothing, and they can’t tell us the truth because they know about the pitchforks.
Welcome to Amerika.
MikeA on September 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I sense that people aren’t going to put up with these liars for too much longer. When these fools get fired we’re going to hound and disgrace them when they get back home. Stores, church, on the street – they are going to catch hell 24/7. It doesn’t stop when they get the boot. They will suffer greatly for a long time.
marklmail on September 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Some of those fools have been reelected over and over again; so maybe there are some fools out here too. I am starting to get more serious about sorting out my friends and even family over some of this. If they were part of the head-in-ass buch that foisted this disgrace on my country, I will never forgive them or trust their judgement on anything.
MikeA on September 10, 2009 at 6:37 PM
@ MikeA
I have no doubt that there is a monetary reason behind this as well. But mostly it is about power. The left likes power and knowing that you depend on them for everything. They need to pass this because they must have control over your life. Through excuses of “environmental conscience” they are telling us how to live, what cars to drive, what light bulbs to use, how much to consume, etc. Now they want to control what you drink, eat, how much you exercise, etc. After all now you are going to have a tax on sodas, there are plenty on cigarettes, and they will probably be a few on salt in the near future.
It’s all about power. That’s why they keep painting that health insurance is a right and not a privilege.
ptcamn on September 10, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Axelrod just failed the Turing test.
Sharke on September 10, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Fumble.
TinMan13 on September 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM
ptcamn on September 10, 2009 at 6:38 PM
It is indeed all about power, absolute power. The route to absolute power is Fascism. The progressive movement is, and has always been, since the 1890’s a Fascistic movement. In fact, the early American progressive movement served as a template for what we know as European Fascism today.
In the primary debates HRC admitted the early origins of the progressives as a means to try to depict it as comfortable and familiar. Of course without going into detail. She even invoked the name of Woodrow Wilson when doing so. Little did her audience probably know Wilson was such an enlightened chap as tp say…
“Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.”
Does anyone think that if Americans were fully informed as to the true nature of who these people wish to emulate, that they would be alright with it?
If the public does not wake up to where the progressives wish to take us soon, they are going to be in for an awfully rude awakening!
Archimedes on September 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Axelrod, like Valerie Jarrett and all his other cronies have their specific talent for pushing and promoting. Running a government??–NOPE! That’s why BO is foundering. He doesn’t have one friend who knows how to tell him to be a president!!!
Nalea on September 10, 2009 at 7:13 PM
David Axelrod—–The most dangerous man in America!
ndulik on September 10, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Economic ignorance, pure and simple. Or a slick game of focus-group phrasing in order to mis-represent and mislead. Either way, more than enough reason to fight turning over 16% of the economy and a huge chunk of personal freedom over to political cronies and unvetted czars.
Phil-351 on September 10, 2009 at 8:31 PM
.
TN Mom on September 10, 2009 at 9:16 PM
They must have done some focus groups and determined “competition” was a buzzword that could work. Doesn’t sound at all like something socialistic.
pesank on September 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Doublespeaking Nixonian thug.
Jim Treacher on September 10, 2009 at 10:32 PM
This idea that the government plan can provide competition is such a lie. Competition can only exist when the failure to compete will put you out of business. It can’t exist if the existence of you’re product is written into law and will continue to exist if it is successful or not.
Dollayo on September 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Axelrod is the anti-Christ.
Just sayin’ what everybody’s thinkin’.
Saltysam on September 11, 2009 at 12:49 AM
See, I thought I’d read somewhere that Axelrod came from the heritage of an old family patronage of the Richard Axelrodncrack that slipped over the border from a U-boat into Canada in the mid-30’s.
He later dropped the “ncrack” because it sounded so, well, eewwwy.
OkieDoc on September 11, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Axelrod’s such a jerk. O’Reilly was trying to kid around with him and being self-deprecating and good-natured and this orifice wasn’t playing along, but simply getting digs in at O’Reilly.
The sad thing is that even if Obama and this Demorat Congress does go away in a few years, Axelrod walks away with millions upon millions no matter what.
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 11, 2009 at 6:03 AM
I believe that a federal law forcing the states to allow interstate health insurance competitiveness is unconstitutional. Of course the SCOTUS has ruled that if such laws are tied to a federal funds cutoff, say on Medicare/Medicaid, it is constitutional since the states have a choice. Obama did it with the unemployment insurance recently and the SCOTUS ruled the 55 mph or federal cutoff of highway funds as constitutional.
amr on September 11, 2009 at 7:40 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »