Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama: "There Are Countries Where a Single-Payer System Works Pretty Well"
by Terry Jeffrey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
What was the biggest suprise of Election Day?



President Obama told the American Medical Association on Monday that he thinks single-payer health care systems -- socialized medicine -- work "pretty well" in other countries, but that he does not want to create such a system here because he wants to "build on our traditions."

In fact, the predictable endgame of the health care plan Obama is trying to rush through Congress this summer is socialized medicine.

We now know Obama does not oppose socialized medicine in principle or on practical grounds. So on what grounds does he oppose it? Just one: rhetorical.

If Obama candidly said he is trying to put America on the path to government-run health care, it would excite exactly the sort of massive national grassroots opposition needed to kill his plan.

So what Obama is doing is paving a one-way street to a socialized medicine while expressly denying he is doing so -- and while accusing those who point out what he is doing of being untruthful.

Some in the liberal press are helping Obama perpetrate this big lie.

The coverage of his AMA speech provides a stunning example specifically related to Obama's declaration that single-payer health care systems have worked "pretty well."

The full context of Obama's remark is available from the official transcript posted on the White House Website. One paragraph of this transcript reads:

"Let me also say that -- let me also address a illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest, there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe -- and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief -- that it's important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

On Tuesday afternoon, I ran a search of the Nexis "major newspapers" database to see if any major American newspaper had quoted Obama's remark that "there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well." I searched the terms "Obama," "single-payer" and "pretty well." There was not a single hit.

Then I discovered, also using Nexis, that The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times had all artfully quoted words Obama said both immediately before and after he said single payer systems work "pretty well" -- without actually quoting his statement about single-payer systems working "pretty well." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Joel I stand by my position PT 2
You make GREAT points about the mixing of men from various states with differing loyalties for the all volunteer army of today. However, that in and of itself doesn't make a standing army lawful under the constitution. Today the appropriations for the military are jammed into the budget and thereby, the two year rule is de facto ruled upon. However, when speaking to expenditures of Congress, the writers of the constitution were VERY clear on not only a need for a SPECIFIC appropriation but also for a LIMITED amount of time. This is something you don't see anywhere else in the listed powers of Congress. Of course, the third amendment to the constitution again had admonitions about an army possibly being a threat to the people. Even Eisenhower warned of this upon leaving office.

Please do not misunderstand my respect for and belief in the need for a strong military. My Dad, brother, and many friends are U.S. Marines (inactive now). Semper fi was the rallying cry for our family of seven. We stuck together through thick and thin. However, when we have a nationalized army, marine corps, and air force (not capped as I speak in general terms as all branches have some of the other) we then have a powerful force that can be ruled by only one man and today that man happens to be as unlikely a commander as I have ever seen. This power must be controlled and balanced by the states to keep BO in line.

Joel I stand by my position PT 1
You said "In your reading, did you catch the debate over the size limit for the standing army? Several delegates wanted to include language setting the size of the U.S. Army at 5000 men. George Washington stood up, and stated that he would only support that provision so long as there was also a provision limiting the size of enemy armies to 3000 men. The delegates realized their absurdity, laughed, and they dropped the idea of limiting the size of the standing army." Again, the new nation needed a "federal" army at this time in history. This did not negate the Constitutional call for limits of 2 years; the army was to be called into service when it was needed.

You asked a loaded question with the next one: "Again, if the Founding Fathers considered a standing Army to be such a threat, why was the U.S. Army never disbanded?" Come on Joel--- since when has gubmint EVER disolved any department it has created? Do you also believe the myth that Washington was "unamimously" elected to the presidency? Actually he was not. New York did not exercise its eight electoral votes in the first election! Violations and blatant ignoring of the constitution began at the outset.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.