43 Responses to “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Attacks Health Care Opponents As “UnAmerican””

  1. 1


    “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”
    –Hillary Clinton, April 2003

    Hey, look at that, Hillary is right for once. Six years early, but still right.

    For all the griping from liberals during the Bush years, I don’t recall Bush himself or his people ever outright questioning any protestors’ patriotism. I certainly never saw any of that to the degree that Obama, Pelosi and co. have been resorting to lately.

  2. 2


    “*unAmerican*” ….. does Speaker Pelosi actually believe that what the Democrat lead congress and ‘Team Obama’ is doing is the American way ?…

    ..Truth is that “new direction” they are trying to force on Americans aint the toll free, yellow bricked paved super highway they say it is, its a rocky road leading to a cliff and we aint lemmings.

  3. 3


    “Un-American” this flows from that pea sized brain to the pen and then paper. About time to return to “stuck on stupid” while discussing anything Pelosi.

    In my Oz memorabilia, I have a little sign that says, “life hasn’t been the same since that house fell on my sister.” Being as though the manchild is often depicted as the Wizard, it’s not difficult to associate Pelosi with the witch. Hoyer… Nikko the flying monkey.

    Now the democrats are busy astroturfing, yeah, really, who would of thought, and the townhalls are now having more violent incidents, coincidence? Un-American?

    Another of their call to arms:


    Fortunately, Tapper included the RNSC response:

    But Brian Walsh of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, “It’s interesting to see the President’s political machine calling on his supporters to use their Constitutional right to free speech when the White House spent the last week criticizing others for doing the exact same thing. Republicans agree that every American should have the right to voice their opinion in a calm, respectful manner but after the ‘astroturfing’ rhetoric from the Democrats this week, it’s hard to ignore the hypocrisy in this mass email.”

  4. 4


    Dear Nancy,
    You have solved an inner struggle i’ve been having. I will now switch my party affiliation to Independent. I have found myself in the center slowly moving right in my views and you have confirmed the D’s have jumped into the deep end. in short, F U!

  5. 6


    Oh no…couldn’t be the same democrats who “got in people’s faces”, sharpened elbows…and who have locked republicans (and anyone else with opposing views) OUT of debate in congress…ramming through one ill thought out bill after another without any input from them…because…according to the President…”they won”? And, he doesn’t want to hear from people he blames for this mess (I guess including health care?)

    Say it ain’t so!

    The President and his party had a chance to approach these issues in a “new’ light. They had a chance with something as important as these bills and the future of our nation to open debate and listen to opposing views. To get RNC and more conservative DNC members inside the debate so that their constituents felt they were being represented and heard and were part of such an important debate. Instead, they chose not only NOT to listen…but to lock the door and go on the attack against anyone who opposed them. Change indeed.

    The other day..I saw a hippie/chick with a tattoo she wore proudly like a patch…Organize, Energize, Unite. But, if her grandma does it….she’s a thug? A mob? Etc.

    Are these the same democrats that believe in taking over stages when a conservative speaker comes to their campus? The same ones that throw military recruiters off campus while giving thugs from around the world a “chance to be heard” ? The same ones that block entrances to miltary recruiting stations, paint it with red paint, and destroy property? Who gather illegally to block traffic, etc., so they “can be heard”? The same ones that disrupt proceedings, cover their hands in blood and “get in people’s faces”??

    Surely not.

  6. @jjsmoof: Good for you! And I hear thousands are phoning the AARP and canceling their memberships too as they learn how an association of retired people is backing a health plan that will put senior citizens at the back of the line.

    @Dc: Good points! Yes, these are the same “I won” nit wits who feel empowered to shut out every competing idea. And this is the same White House who instructed their side to “punch back twice as hard” shortly before Union goons went on a violent rampage in St. Louis.

    @Missy: ““life hasn’t been the same since that house fell on my sister.” “ Great line! Thanks for my first Monday chuckle! And with all this going on I needed something to laugh about.

  7. 8


    As usual Nancy Pelosi has got it wrong:

    1. People showing up at town-hall and other meetings to express their opinions and views on the health care issues are doing so because they know they have the right to do so.

    2. People opposing the Obama health care plan do so violently because they have awakened to the truth on the issues; they have been enlightened on exactly what Obama has so sinisterly planned.

    3. The people who show up at public discussions are not directed by anyone or any organization. These people are moved by what they know about the ugliness of Obama health care. That Pelosi and other Democrats say these people are being organized by others is, without a doubt, a Democrat agreed-upon strategy they planned prior to the adjourning of Congress — in an attempt to counter the huge, massive demonstrations and opposition they knew they would encounter when Congressional representatives returned to to confront their constituents.

    4. The horrific drop in Congressional and Obama’s approval ratings is the manifestation of great disagreement and discontent across the country with Obama’s health care plans, and Obama’s administration lies, destructive mass spending, lies, misinformation, disinformation, hopelessness, obfuscation on issues, lies, and lack of experience as well as a lack of substantial beneficial plans for America and it’s CITIZENS — the true masters of our government.

    I stand with the great majority of Americans, liberals, independents, Republicans, and conservatives AGAINST the Obama health care plan. America is overwhelmingly NOT socialist.

    Press and rock Obama down.

  8. 9


    Some of the health issue protesters have thrown a bucketful of stinging charges, like why aren’t politicians going to be in the same system, and why don’t they read the bill, and how can this plan possibly save money? Now the Wicked Witch of the West is melllllltinnnng down. Because the truth hurts.

  9. 10


    The elected elites in this country resemble Britain’s royal family more every day. They are a drain on the treasury, a subject of continual press coverage. . . and completely irrelevant.

  10. 13


    No, and no one has contacted me for ObamaScare resistance or any other type of “Un-American” activity either. Guess I will just have to remain an unemployed, “Un-American.” Our side doesn’t seem to be very good at this.

  11. 14


    Her Congressional clunker caucus approval rating is less than half what Bush’s was at it’s lowest. Now 14%.

    Apparently nanny Peloser isn’t very popular.

  12. 16


    Let’s see:

    Drug companies are FOR the Obama health care plan.

    Insurance companies are AGAINST the Obama health care plan.

    Who’s bigger? Is Pelosi old enough for some “end-of-life” counseling right now? Or, end of term counseling?

    What we need in America to force health care prices down is competition. Not the kind Obama speaks about. But real competition. And, protesters against ObamaCare know this now.

    If the government, instead of trying to take over health care, would serve to engender competition between and among drug companies, hospitals and clinics, and health care professionals, you would have low prices for drugs, lower hospital costs, and much lower doctor bills. I’m not suggesting that the government control prices but rather offer real incentives to businesses to get into health care; more hospitals, smaller if necessary, incentives for more physicians, or using PA’s more to lower costs.

    Is Pelosi capable of learning? I know most dogs are.

    The government take over of AMTRAK and the running of the U.S. Post Office into insolvency prove, without a doubt, that governments are not able to run businesses at a profit or benefit. Socialism, fascism, and absolute dictatorship of business, or services, are a failure before they start.

  13. 17


    Its simple. They have gone so long listening to themselves agree. Anyone that disagrees is guilty of something. They just need to figure it out.

  14. 18


    Harry Reid was supposed to lead the charge on this but they figured old Botox frozen Nancy had a much better chance of maintaining a straight face while making that statement.

  15. 20


    Can someone please explain something to me? 0bama ran on ‘hope’n’change’ and promised health care reform. People voted for him due to his promise of change and transparency in his cabinet. Well, no one is getting the transparency promise as this is one of the most cloak and dagger cabinets in history, but when it comes to health care, why does ‘change’ mean government takeover of everything people wanted changed?

    I mean, seriously. I think health care costs are too high. I think pharmaceutical costs are too high. I think that something needs to be done about it. But, and I think this is the big question mark forming over a lot of other people’s head as well, where does ‘I think the costs are too high’ translate to ‘I want the government to hijack and take over the insurance industry’? Does it need some regulation or cost cutting? Absolutely. Not one time did the voting public ask/demand the government to take over the health care industry.

    Am I missing something here?

  16. 21

    Fit fit

    Sponge, my friend, you are missing a great deal.

    There is no plan to take of the health service industry or even the health insurance industry. There is a plan to introduce an optional government insurance program to help cover those who aren’t provided insurance from their employer. Now most here at FA would insist these would lead to the demise of private insurance. However the oft quoted CBO has determined this would not happen. In fact private insurance exists in nearly every “socialist” healthcare system out there. There are plenty of legitimate issues to be discussed and tons of valid criticisms for the multiple versions of reform bills out there right now. Don’t expect to hear them here…

  17. 22


    Drop by and vote on our new poll.

    What is more un-American?

    1. Obama’s SNITCH website to rat-out your fellow Americans?

    2. Nancy Pelosi saying that Americans are un-American for debating Healthcare Reform

  18. 23


    As the details of this plan come out, Americans are more and more skeptical. The citizens of this country do not trust the government to run anything efficiently. this is a huge program our elected officials are trying to push through. Anyone who has worked with government at any level (state, city, military etc) knows that bureaus/programs never ask for less money. The goal is always a bigger budget the next year. That is why the government of this country should stick to what the constitution delegates to it and let the market take care of the rest.
    I am a private citizen who is fed up with the government spending the money I entrust to it, via taxes, on things that our free market economy handles better. Our country was not made great because the government stepped in and took care of all the problems.

  19. 24



    Fit: There is no plan to take of the health service industry or even the health insurance industry. There is a plan to introduce an optional government insurance program to help cover those who aren’t provided insurance from their employer. Now most here at FA would insist these would lead to the demise of private insurance. However the oft quoted CBO has determined this would not happen.

    Ah yes… more vaguary from the Fit. I would be oh so curious as to the CBO’s statement on the future of the private insurer in their report. Read that 17 pages many times… and I find your statement is based on some facts that are distinctly absent.

    Would you be surprised to learn, Mr. Fit, the the CBO is not in the business of predicting the future of private insurers, but to analyze the budget savings based on the bill as presented? Nope… they aren’t in the crystal ball business, but the math business. And their focus was based on what it would take to fund the public option as presented… not whether the private industry would survive it all.

    If you want to read projections of the impact of a public plan on the private insurers, as well as both physicians and hospitals reimbursement rates and declining financial health you won’t be finding it in the CBO. But you will find it in the Lewin Group report I just linked here. Start on page 7 and learn about the fiscal impacts.

    Depending on whether the public plan is open to all, or whether they will deny the public option to large corporations, the private insurer loses anywhere from 42 to 119 million current enrollees.

    Perhaps you’ll let us know how any private industry can lose up to 67% of it’s clientele, and stay a’float?

    Then you must eventually face the reality of cost shifting. As the Lewin Group reports, both hospitals and physicials (aka providers) will experience a financial loss of income by the increased load on a public plan, and considerably less higher payout from a declining private insurer. How do you expect the providers to then close the gap between their bottom line and financial survival?

    So when the private insurer loses 42 sto 119 million of their enrollees, and the hospitals and physicans start eating it big time with the low government reimbursements, this will drive the reimbursement up further to cover en more losses, and the private premiums will skyrocket.

    So, yo economic giant, tell us again how long you think this small proportion of private insurers can make up for the government underpayments before going out of business? And then tell us how the hospitals and physicians will manage to survive their profits being slashed by the government as well?

    And in case you haven’t figured it out from my last post, those slashes in payment and policy coverage will be coming from more unelected czars… called the IMAC. Some have nicknamed them the “death squad”. Considering their have no power to increase coverage and appropriations (as that is only do’able by Congress), it’s a damn safe bet to figure they’ll be earning their keep by (at least) annual recommendations on reducing payments and coverage in order to keep Medicare (and any potential public plan) within budget. I’d say, Fit, that aby the very nature of their tasks, likening the IMAC to a “death squad” is not too terribly far off the mark.

    Yup… great bill. Takes out not only private insurers, but as written will also be the demise of many a hospital and practicing medical professional. oops…

    Your problem, Fit, is if the plan doesn’t spell it out for you… ala with the ABC language of “all private insurers will be phased out over the next decade”… you don’t think that’s what meant to happen.

    I’m going to take a rough guess that you’re an employee, and not an employer. Because anyone with your lack of savvy would have some seriously troubling P&Ls at the end of a fiscal year.

  20. 25


    @ Fit fit

    Fit, I take it the fact that every democrat leader, including the messiah, has stated the end game of healthcare reform is single payer. That means nothing? They didn’t mean it when they said it? They meant it, but now they think this is a better option? Lastly, they meant it, that is their intent, they just can’t come out and say it because the people would revolt? I’m going with the last one. Libs fight a 100 year war. They openly acknowledge that their plans can’t be put in practice wholesale, everything must come incrementally.
    Here’s a little side note for ya, courtesy of Chuck Norris: Dirty Secret #1 in Obamacare

    It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

    The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

    And don’t dispute Chuck Norris. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
    There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

  21. 26

    Fit fit


    With your penchant for cooking numbers, I certainly wouldn’t trust you to do my books. Your right, the number of defectees is dependant on the details of the plan, with as little as 10 million up to a industry crushing 143 million. Obama’s plan outlined during the campaign was projected to take in around 30 million. It would definately cut into the profits of health insurance industry, but is not designed to kill it. The majority of Republicans proposal just make insurance more profitable (big surprise) with the hope that they might pass some of that on to consumers.

    I’m not a big fan of anything anyone’s proposing right now. I’d like to see the whole thing (Medicare, VA, etc) scrapped and we start from scratch on a variation of the Singapore or Swiss system.


    This is a good example of fear tatics in place of actual debate. Read page 832. It’s about a voluntary program.

  22. 27



    Fit: With your penchant for cooking numbers, I certainly wouldn’t trust you to do my books. Your right, the number of defectees is dependant on the details of the plan, with as little as 10 million up to a industry crushing 143 million.

    I see… so the Lewin Group called me, personally, to provide the data for their analyses? My my, did I get a promotion or what.

    *I* cooked the numbers? Interesting distraction, Fit. Too bad it don’t fly in reality, eh?

    Now talking about “cooking numbers”, we might want to talk about the prime purveyor of that skill, the Obama WH. They seem to erroneously assume only the uninsured will opt in to a public plan, and discount those that may move over from private plans to take advantage of cheaper premiums.

    Consider that the estimated population of the US is just over 300 million. Of that population number, the current generation of seniors is already on a public plan that costs the private enrollees and insurers on Medicare (outside of the additional public plan they want to create). As I have pointed out, the vast majority of the 78 million baby boomers will also end up on Medicare in order to preserve their SS retirement checks.

    If Obama adds his 30 million to a new public option, add the 35 million currently on Medicare, the 78 million of baby boomers, and the 65 million in Medicaid programs *and* the 10 million that are eligible for Medicaid but haven’t signed up, that puts about 218 million out of 300 or so million people on various public plans that under pay providers.

    Conversely that leaves about 82 million in theory still on private plans… if they can exist with those numbers… to support the providers by overpaying.

    So how long do you figure before all the public plans go bankrupt, Fit? And who do you think will go bankrupt first… the private insurers, or the public plans?

    Fit: I’m not a big fan of anything anyone’s proposing right now. I’d like to see the whole thing (Medicare, VA, etc) scrapped and we start from scratch on a variation of the Singapore or Swiss system.

    Fine… give me back my four plus decades of cash that has been absconded from me to pay for what you want to casually eliminate. Steal my cash quietly for a lifetime of work? Not a chance.

    But then, giving it back would be difficult, yes? They already have every working person paying for VA/Medicare/Medicaid for a small percentage of the population… ala a Ponzi scheme… and it’s still bankrupt. What makes you think adding more people to the taxpayer funded health system will work any better?

  23. 28


    @ Fit fit
    Fit, you’re not a kool-aid drinker, but let me splain this to you. Chuck sites the whole section, and the part you’re talking about starts at page 837.

    PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

    If you get busted with some mary jane for the first time, the judge may tell you that the charges will be reduced to a misdemeanor if you submit to voluntary drug counseling and voluntary drug testing. It’s voluntary only in the sense that you don’t want to go to jail. I’ve stated before on this blog that my wife worked at DFCS. They will help you get foodstamps and welfare, and often times to receive this benefit, you might need to submit to voluntary home visits by a social worker.
    So let’s draw this out to its logical conclusion. Although you state private insurers will still be out there, any time the commisioner decides your company doesn’t offer the required benefits, you’re on the public plan. As such, if a couple on the public plan finds themselves expecting a little bundle of joy, said couple would almost certainly be required to submit to voluntary home visitations.
    That is the way our government works.
    And I told you not to dispute Chuck. When an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side.

  24. @MataHarley: That is pretty amusing that Nit Wit would accuse you of “cooking numbers.” This comes days after the Obama Administration announced that hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs in July but the unemployment % went down.

    And of course we all know that their budget projections are sheer fiction.

    Obviously Nit Wit is accusing you of doing something that his fellow Dems do all the time.

    When will he learn that not all of us are as corrupt as he is?

  25. 30



    ah yes, Mike. Not to mention utterly confusing on how Lewin Groups numbers and figures become *my* numbers and figures to cook. huh?

    Actually, Lewin’s is even skewed as they still have the admin costs wrong for Medicare, using just the HHS numbers and not the total apples to apples cost. So it’s not even an entirely conservative friendly analysis, IMHO. LOL

    But then, as Fit believes, (and as he said on my post about the recession just beginning) if I don’t agree with everything in sources I cite (even on different subjects, as the author of the recession piece to his opinions global warming/peak oil opinions), I must be cherry picking.

    I don’t know there is a person on the planet that I agree with 100% of the time… except myself perhaps. LOL

  26. 32


    Any time you try and address a nationwide issue or problem by using a targeted, segmented groups positions and keypoints to do it with you are going to have problems! EVERYBODY, not just democrats, have issues related to healthcare they feel strongly about, that impact their lives directly, that they want to see addressed or at the very least..represented. Drug companies and private insurers have their own interests. The uninsured (both legal and illegal) have their own interests and supporters, etc., who lobby gov and representatives. We all have our own “pet” issues within the larger issue of healthcare reform. But, in between all that is a wide area of common ground: ie…what the issues really are that impact everyone. These are the key issues that are going to get everyone on board, garner wide support for the bill, etc.

    Given the choice of the President and congressional leadership to form this bill and ram it through without divergence from it’s targeted essence, the question on most people’s mind is..why is it necessary to create an entirely new system of healthcare to address the issues/concerns that we all have with the existing one?? And why is it necessary to ram this bill through without talking about it further? That “is” what they tried to do. They suggested the debate was over, it was time to act, etc. Now they say “we” are stopping debate (debate they previously declared closed). No…we stopped the bill from passing before recess. And are awaiting answers, statements and attitudes that bring us into this in a way that we feel comfortable supporting it. When a used car salesman tries to get you to act quickly and buy something without looking under the hood…its not really necessary to know exactly what is wrong with the car or not…to say “no” …and assume the pressure is because there is something that potentially could affect the outcome of a negotiation or sale. Used car salespersons have that rep. And so do politicians! (even moreso than used car sales”persons”). So, “just trust me”, isn’t going to cut it. And pointing out the shiny paint, and new tires…isn’t going to cut it either.

    What are the reasons, primary drivers, behind why medical care is so costly and continues to rise?
    Pelosi says…the “evil” private insurers. If you had “no” insurance..and simply paid for the same primary care…it has exploded in cost. Why? And what can we do to address this? And why is it necessary to create an entirely new/different system to address it? I’m quite sure that the private insurance sector would WELCOME lower cost medical supplies, treatments, drugs, etc. Why are “they” being locked out of this debate?

    Why is a new system needed to stop some private insurers from dropping people with preexisting conditions? Why cant’ congress work with private insurers to come up with some kind of legislation to address this in the system we already have? What is the reason this can’t be done?

    Why is a new system need to continue coverage or carry it with you unrelated to your job? You can already do this. That’s not the issue. The issue is “cost”. And the cost of insurance is directly related the astronomical rise in the cost of treatments, supplies, research, drugs, technology etc.

    This is how people are asking the questions….ie.. why do we need this and how does it address the issues.

    That’s primarily because they are also just as concerned about how this new system is going to impact the choices (past and future), that they may live under right now

    What isthe point of this new system? To simply to add more people who can’t pay, or want to buy healthcare at subsidized rates…to the system?? To lower “insurance rates”, but not to lower the cost of the treatments, drugs, research, techonology, etc. that all provide the level of care we currently enjoy? The reason insurance rates go up, is because the cost of treatment, supplies, technology, research, equipment, treatment etc., is all rising. How does subsidizing insurance “rates” to people who can’t afford it change any of that for the rest of us? And what kind of “change” is that going to be?

    What this bill looks like…is simply another liberal spending bill that does nothing to address the real issues and problems underlying it (eg., the Porkulus bill) , but simply is to reallocate somebody elses money and resources (a favorite passtime of liberals the world over) to the people they feel are more deserving of it as a “right” than you are.

    What impact is that going to have on the private sector? And the answer is they don’t really know. But, most assume that it will have “some” negative impact. Obama himself, when pushed on this issue….admitted in his own press conference that…they could not guarantee that some people would not loose some of the things they already have. But, that covering more people, and getting free health care for those who cannot afford it..was more important in the long run to lowering cost. Perhaps they should have let Bush fix Social security and Medicare back in 2006???

  27. 34


    Harry Reid is so “Chicken sh*t” on this that instead of a real town hall, he is running a “tele-town hall”

    Even the Democratic Las Vegas Newspaper commented on it:

    Other’s take on this.




    The leader of the Senate is afraid to meet the voters face to face. Doesn’t sound to good for that next election.

    His opponent Republican candidate Danny Tarkanian, will be announcing his own PUBLIC town hall on the issue:


    Tarkanian said he wants to hold the event because as he said Reid won’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *