
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is going a step beyond simply pledging to fight efforts to pass the health care bill -- she's openly pronouncing that people should personally declare it unconstitutional and defy it, depending on how it ends up getting passed.
At a rally at the Minnesota State Capitol on Saturday, Bachmann declared illegitimate the potential route that House Democrats could take to pass the health care bill. She was specifically railing against a parliamentary tactic by which the House could skip voting on the Senate bill by declaring it passed as part of the reconciliation bill. Bachmann pronounced this to be taxation without representation. "They have just started a revolution -- and they did it," said Bachmann.
"But mark my words, the American people aren't gonna take this lying down," Bachmann later said. "We aren't gonna play their game, we're not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don't have to. We don't have to. We don't have to follow a bill that isn't law. That's not the American way, and that's not what we're going to do."
Bachmann continued. "Because it's one-party rule now in Washington, D.C. Their Chicago tactics, their Chicago friends, twisting Democrats' arms, threatening their own team members with ethics charges and a submission. This handful of people thinks they can enforce their will on 300 million Americans? They're not gonna do that. This is dictatorial, what they are doing. We are not compelled to follow a non-law just because Obama and Pelosi tells us we have to.
"If they pass the bill legitimately, then yes, we have to follow the law -- until we repeal it. But if they pass it illegitimately, then the bill is illegitimate, and we don't have to lay down for this. It's not difficult to figure out. So if for some reason they're able to get their votes this week and pass this 2,700-page Senate bill -- if they get it, trillions of dollars is what it's gonna cost, when we didn't vote on it, we need to tell them a message: That if they get away with this, they will be able to get away with anything -- with anything. And you can't say you voted on a bill when you didn't, because it's fraud. But we are not helpless here. We are not helpless, there are things that we can do."
This approach goes beyond the conventional nullification position, which argues that states should have the power to interpose themselves against the federal government. In this case, Bachmann is calling for a individuals to commit civil disobedience against the law -- which should be very interesting to watch, if it really does come to that, and a sitting member of Congress leads citizens in breaking the law.
The key moment comes at the 20:00 mark:
Kevin Sutton
March 15, 2010 10:44 AM
How do they even not obey the law? Not buy insurance and not pay the tax penalty?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
They're going to refuse to get sick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lisa Monica1
March 15, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I am quite ready to go to jail if necessary. This is garbage. Were slaves "breaking the law" when they ran from their "masters" to join the Union? Are you kidding!?! What exactly do you think give me liberty or give me death means? I do not have health care because I cannot afford it. My children and I used to be in the public system and I did everything I could to leave the public system. There is nothing wrong with utilizing the system as an emergency measure, but it is meant to only be an emergency measure. Did you not hear what she said? An illegitimate law should not be followed. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Movement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to Lisa Monica1
You'll get government provided health care in jail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike2
March 16, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to Lisa Monica1
Well, of course she's nutters, but any person who isn't pissed off at the idea of mandatory purchase of for-profit insurance doesn't deserve to call him/herself a progressive.
I don't know what HER problem is, but I sure as hell know what my problem is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
March 16, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to Lisa Monica1
I respect your rights to stand against this coming reform. If you believe it to be unconstitutional, illegal, or whatever - by all means don't pay the added tax, don't purchase the insurance, don't pay the fines,
HOWEVER - I also respect your rights to accept the responsibilities of said rights - if you get sick, if you contract some/any ailment requiring medical care - I expect that you should graciously accept the fact that your house be put on auction block to pay for your bills, that the hospital creditors phone calls will be openly welcomed when they call to collect, that you understand the full position you are standing against - because they are your choices at that point, your responsibilities, your accepting of your situation of having no health care.
so, you are absolutely in your rights to believe and act on your beliefs - but please do accept the accompanying responsibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
March 15, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Somebody primary her ASAP..put an end to the embarrasssing claptrap!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
March 15, 2010 5:01 PM in reply to Docb
Forget that. Republicans love her. If there's an intraparty challenge, it's news to me. No, we're going to have to beat he in the general election. Unfortunately, Democrats have two candidates fighting for the nomination to challenge her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pope Ratzo
March 15, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to ericf
I like the fact that there are two Dems fighting for the chance to defeat her in November. If I lived in whatever wingnut corner of Minnesota elected her, I'd be fighting for the chance to beat her, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
March 15, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
See, they don't have to! You need to put your faith in Bachmann!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 15, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Bachmann what an asswat!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 15, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Good luck with that.
Let us all know how adding the "We don't have to" flies with the IRS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 15, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to zonk
Clearly. My understanding is that the penalty will work the same way as it does in Mass: you enter your insurance information on your income tax return, and if there is none a penalty is calculated (automatically for Turbo Tax users, manually for others). If there is no insurance information or penalty, the IRS will flag it. If the insurance information is false, that's the same kind of fraud as any other part of a tax return being false.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Bob
March 15, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to zonk
Wasn’t Bachmann a tax attorney in her life prior to politics? I wonder if she is still an officer of the court. I think the Bar would frown upon one of its members openly encouraging tax evasion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
March 15, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Joe Bob
You are correct about the tax law thing - and she graduated from Oral Roberts University around the time it made the shift to Regent. Got her tax law education at William and Mary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to benintn
US News and World Report ranks the W&M law school as the second best in Virginia, and nationally it is tied with the George Washington University law school for #28. So it's not a defect in her legal education there that is her problem. Can't speak for the legal education she received at ORU.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Minnesota Raindog
March 15, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to benintn
Bachmann is not currently authorized to practice law in Minnesota:
http://www.mncourts.gov/lprb/lawyersearchdetails.aspx?mars=0179863
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alygurl
March 17, 2010 10:27 PM in reply to Minnesota Raindog
You are so totally missing the point. What this administration is trying to do is shove this bill down our throats. By even saying they will utilize this parlimentary process is reprehensible. If the Republicans were trying to do this you would be screaming bloody murder and you know it. But it's the Dems so it's okay with you people. I don't care if it was the Republicans or the Democrats trying to do this...it is wrong. Pelosi says this bill needs to be passed we will know what's in it. What drugs is she on? The whole point is to know what is in a bill BEFORE it is passed. Yes the healthcare system needs to be overhauled but this rush to get this crazy bill passed is NOT the way!! And the point is, if they use the parlimentary system to push this bill through and we AMERICANS (Republicans, Democrats, Independants) just let it happen, then they will be able to do anything. Next step is to kiss the Constitution goodbye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
March 15, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
I thought the GOP was all about Law 'n' Order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
March 15, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to jeffgee
...when they're in control of the congress and the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lisa Monica1
March 15, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
I am quite ready to go to jail if necessary. This is garbage. Were slaves "breaking the law" when they ran from their "masters" to join the Union? Are you kidding!?! What exactly do you think give me liberty or give me death means? I do not have health care because I cannot afford it. My children and I used to be in the public system and I did everything I could to leave the public system. There is nothing wrong with utilizing the system as an emergency measure, but it is meant to only be an emergency measure. Did you not hear what she said? An illegitimate law should not be followed. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Movement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Contact Nancy Pelosi and tell her, "NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO DEM VOTES IN NOVEMBER!"
(202) 225-0100
http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
March 15, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
if all you libtards would die we wouldn't need the government to take care of you. it is all of our duty to die at a respectable age, say 70. this living to 80 and 90 is so 20th century. see 'soylent green'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 3:09 AM in reply to jjdjjd
Red stated are a net drain on the National Budget. With one or two exceptions they all take more from the national budget than they contribute and produce. Logically, if all the 'conservative' states dropped dead there would be a national surplus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
March 16, 2010 3:44 AM in reply to Sir T
yeah, california and new york are red states, look at the dollars, not the percentages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 5:12 AM in reply to jjdjjd
What part of 'with one or two exceptions' didn't you read?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 5:16 AM in reply to Sir T
Oh, and last I heard California has a Republican Governor and is run under 'conservative' economic principles, if your point was trying to point out some 'bad' blue states. Not that that would make a blind bit of difference to the record of red states, which is demonstratively awful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jjdjjd
March 16, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to Sir T
new york and california are two pretty big exceptions, 50 million live there, 1/6 of the population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
innocence is a lie
March 15, 2010 10:46 AM
She's pretty when I'm drunk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
March 15, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to innocence is a lie
That level of alcohol poisoning can be fatal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 15, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Peter Principle
Agreed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
March 15, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to Peter Principle
Nice one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 15, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to Peter Principle
Hey I like my wimmin with that wide eyed thousand yard stare. Comforting that MB sees things not visible to ordinary mortals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
minnesconsin
March 15, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to innocence is a lie
Need a really powerful set of beer goggles.
Not sure I've ever had that much to drink.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tuffanuff
March 15, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to minnesconsin
she would not be interested in you squat to pee boys anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 15, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to innocence is a lie
She might be pretty when you're drunk, but does she make any more sense?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
March 15, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to Rick Jones
For that you need to be on acid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
March 15, 2010 10:50 AM
What....ever.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
March 15, 2010 10:51 AM
Stand up for your rights, people!
If Congress doesn't let insurance companies deny you coverage, then deny it yourself! If those evil liberals won't let insurance companies jack up your rates when ever they feel like it, by golly you can just jack them up yourselves! Defy those nasty Democrats and send in 2 premiums a month instead of one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
March 15, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to chimpale
okay, thanks for the chuckle! one needs it when thinking about those like michele bachmann .... i mean truly, do these people not have any understanding of what this country is: rule of law, majority wins, a little from everyone according to their ability to pay for the good of all?
once again, we are back to the basic question. do these people really believe this crap or are they just counting on the ones they can manipulate to not know the difference for their own self interested advancement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brainpicnic
March 15, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to sbv
The people who listen to Bachmann believe it, and I think those like Bachmann see a path to accomplishing their political goals by repeating this crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
March 15, 2010 10:53 AM
Nice photo. I think they really captured that look of utter cluelessness she's been going for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to chimpale
A photo of a bag of hammers would do as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AndrewT
March 15, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to chimpale
I think this is one of the best Bachmann thumbs yet. My overall fav is still the one of Boehner looking like he's ripping a huge fart (all of them I guess).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindyLou
March 15, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to chimpale
I thought she looked kind of like a neighing horse in that picture. Maybe J.D. Hayworth likes her too...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
March 15, 2010 10:57 AM
So in Bachmann-land the bill might get enough votes to pass, but they didn't get to vote on it? Ummm...wouldn't she have voted on it at least twice by then? I wonder what color the sky is in cognitive dissonance land.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
March 15, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to counter coulter
Ugh...that should have been cognitive dissonance-free land
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Podge
March 15, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to counter coulter
She seems to think that if the Senate can't pass it with a super-majority it's not a legit law. So naturally she also supports the IRS going after all those rich people who got the benefit of the Bush era tax breaks (which only passed by reconciliation, and therefore are also 'just bills').
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
March 15, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to The Podge
Well technically the Senate did pass the bill with a super-majority back in December. So I'm guessing that maybe she's saying that any amendments done through reconciliation are the "illegal" ones that don't have to be enforced?
I too wonder if she feels the Bush tax cuts are null and void. Although I don't recall her going out and encouraging the rich to ignore the law and pay more taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
March 15, 2010 11:02 AM
Well if some teabaggers decide to refuse subsidies for their premiums and won't participate in health care exchanges, who am I to stop them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vincent F
March 15, 2010 11:05 AM
I wish Michelle had urged everyone to refuse to pay taxes when Bush invaded Iraq. I mean, we really don't have to go along with a President when they lie, right? Soldiers could have simply refused to fight with no penalty, right? It's amazing that when Democrats are in office the GOP believes the govt has been hijacked and everything is unconstitutional and they call for revolution. Then again, its not amazing, its the GOP way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
March 15, 2010 11:10 AM
Apparently, it's "taxation without representation" if your party loses the election. Does that mean I can get back all my withholding from the Bush years?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lisa Monica1
March 15, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to Matt Jones
No, what it means is that 1/6 of the economy should not be given to the government because a few politicians want to reserve their place in the history books. Wake up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
March 15, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to Lisa Monica1
I will be *so* glad when I don't have to hear that "1/6 of the economy" line any more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 15, 2010 11:23 AM
I am with bachmann (god that hurt to say)! The first person to try and make me GIVE money to a private company in exchange for shit is getting nothing but a knife in the ribs...even if I have to go find a BCBS rep to stab.
No PO No Mandate. Kill the bill rather than give a lifeline to the bloodsucking scum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
March 15, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to madmatt
So I guess that this means that you think that you do not have to purchase car insurance either because their is no public option available for that mandate. Get real.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to LeeJo
Brilliant! A very concise puncturing of the notion of the public option as the beginning, middle, and end of everything!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willdabeast
March 15, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to ondioline
Car insurance is only mandatory when I DRIVE, which in and of itself is NOT mandatory. I can get around town by bus, by bike, walking, carpooling, etc. And if I still have to drive, car insurance is still somewhat affordable.
If the bill doesn't regulate premiums enough, and the subsidies aren't enough, and I don't qualify for medicaid, I really may end up still not having any insurance and now paying a fee on top of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
March 15, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to willdabeast
"Car insurance is only mandatory when I DRIVE, which in and of itself is NOT mandatory. I can get around town by bus, by bike, walking, carpooling, etc. And if I still have to drive, car insurance is still somewhat affordable.
If the bill doesn't regulate premiums enough, and the subsidies aren't enough, and I don't qualify for medicaid, I really may end up still not having any insurance and now paying a fee on top of that."
1) I have no idea what your situation is, but around here, unless you have a very special condition (like being 70 years old) you drive. Or you drive. Or you drive. The public option (metro, ride on, etc) looks more and more suicidal by the week.
2) MoveOn keeps claiming that the Public Option would reduce premiums by 20-30 percent, which I consider to be highly optimistic. Now, take a look at the recent hikes. They are all in the 20-30 percent range. Public Option would just get you back to 2009 at best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike2
March 16, 2010 12:27 AM in reply to Nutter
WTF? Last time I checked driving was a voluntary activity. Being alive and needing health care is a very different matter. It is outrageous to require people to purchase a for profit insurance product (as will be the case in many markets.) Basically, this is just sub out tax collection to a for profit firm. Hey, here's a good idea, let's privatize the IRS. Let's call them "citizenship fees" and let private "citizenship fee" collection agencies take a 10 to 30 percent profit off their total collections. You do see why this is immoral? No? Well how is it any different to create a mandatory health insurance fee which results in a tax payment that is skimmed for 10 to 30 percent by the intermediary collection agency (aka, the insurance company.)
Bachman is a nut case, but I think left and right will find common cause (unbelievably) against a system that puts for profit insurers even closer to the jugular vein of health care dollar flows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike2
March 16, 2010 12:28 AM in reply to Nutter
WTF? Last time I checked driving was a voluntary activity. Being alive and needing health care is a very different matter. It is outrageous to require people to purchase a for profit insurance product (as will be the case in many markets.) Basically, this is just sub out tax collection to a for profit firm. Hey, here's a good idea, let's privatize the IRS. Let's call them "citizenship fees" and let private "citizenship fee" collection agencies take a 10 to 30 percent profit off their total collections. You do see why this is immoral? No? Well how is it any different to create a mandatory health insurance fee which results in a tax payment that is skimmed for 10 to 30 percent by the intermediary collection agency (aka, the insurance company.)
Bachman is a nut case, but I think left and right will find common cause (unbelievably) against a system that puts for profit insurers even closer to the jugular vein of health care dollar flows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 15, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to willdabeast
But it does regulate premiums - in a wide variety of ways. The 8% cap of income is just part of it.
Subsidies essentially go up to about $60-70K a year (would have to go back and look at where they landed - I don't think the final number was 400% FPL, I think it was a bit lower).
Now - yes - living in a major metro area myself, I'm well aware that $70K is actually less than it sounds, but let's be honest... we're talking about subsidies that essentially go all the way up to almost TWICE the national median income (national median is about $45K).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to willdabeast
I don't know where you live, but where I live, if your car isn't insured, your registration is automatically invalid. Driving without insurance (and/or with a suspended registration) means running the risk of incurring a penalty. Which is exactly what happens with the current HCR legislation. Again, I don't know where you live, but the argument that car insurance is relatively affordable depends on how old you are, what kind of car you drive, where you live, etc.
And that's what makes one a fairly apt metaphor for the other: Under the current system, where you live is a huge factor in what type of insurance you have available, how affordable it is, and which conditions apply to whether or not you can access it. And your example about the availability of other modes of transportation is also directly applicable to this scenario, but I don't think it proves the point YOU seem to think it does. You're able to choose from a variety of options for transportation, presumably because you live near a variety of transit methods in a relatively population-rich area (as evidence by your framing your options as the ability to "get around town")... Try selling this notion that a car isn't mandatory to someone who lives in East Jablip, USA, and that whole "I can ride a bike or a bus anywhere I want" notion falls apart rather quickly. And as Half Governor Palin is so fond of pointing out these days, if you live near Canada, you may be able to get access to their system... But proximity to another system is not the same as access to your own; if you live in Texas or Florida or Hawaii, dipping into Canada's health care system isn't a viable option for you. And if the health care options available in your state suck, that situation isn't improved by having a high number of uninsured individuals relying on emergency rooms for their health care needs, nor is it really improved by close proximity to a state with better or more affordable insurance or care options.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 15, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to madmatt
Pay the fine, then.
Think of it as your patriotic duty to support the subsidies, thousands of public clinics, and expansion of Medicaid also in the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
March 15, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to zonk
15,000 a day newly uninsured -- what's the plan, let 'em die to prove a political point?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to George C
in madmatt's mind, yes. At least he chose an accurate name for himself, cuz he's truly nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BCLance
March 15, 2010 11:31 AM
She's a little psychotic, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
March 15, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to BCLance
Yeah, kind like the northeast had some light rain this past weekend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
March 15, 2010 11:35 AM
And today in the news: Crazy Lady is Crazy. WHEEE!
However, Eric:
'of people' is a prepositional phrase (prep: of, obj: people) used adjectivally on the subject 'handful'. Subject/verb is 'handful'/'thinks'. Singular/singular. She's grammatically correct there. A tiny little thing, but if you're going to point out her error, it should be pointed out when, against all sanity, she's actually right about something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Reece
March 15, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to BillMcD
I was going to point out the same thing. That siccing was obviously incorrect, and a little vicious. What's the point in trying to show her stupidity by criticizing her grammar? Isn't it already clear how dumb she is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
athenian stranger
March 15, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to BillMcD
Geeze, if we're going to argue grammar, let's get it right. She is wrong. Very wrong. If she used "the handful thinks IT can", that would be right, but she used "the handful thinks THEY can," and that's wrong and horrible. Also she's just batsh#t insane, so it's crazy to even think about whether the word salad she brings to the tea party is English grammar or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to athenian stranger
Well, think about this - she home schools her children!!! now how scary is that???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to athenian stranger
Good point. But hey, why shouldn't she be inconsistent about the way she handles group nouns -- she's inconsistent about everything else!
Hey, Michelle! Don't you also want to get in another plug for refusing to fill out the census forms while you are at it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 15, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to athenian stranger
English is a pretty flexible language, to the point that your could indeed say "the handful thinks THEY can..." And it has nothing to do with "accepted usage".
If there is a group of humans standing over there, and you refer to them as "that handful of people with red sweaters on"; and I say, "THEY think it's Christmas!"... we're both correct. I just changed the subject from singular (to denote a body of people) to plural (to denote all the individulas involved).
What Michelle did... euwww, I'm defending her!... was to change subjects within the sentence. I actually believe that's kosher. I'm sure some linguist will contribute to this scintillating discussion, soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shortstop
March 15, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to BillMcD
Yep, the correction should be of "they," not "think": "This handful of people thinks it can enforce its will..."
And there are several other errors that Kleefeld could have corrected but apparently didn't spot, "lay" instead of "lie" being the most glaring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nowhereman
March 15, 2010 11:49 AM
Why is it always Democratic politicians who are to blame in wingnuttia? I mean, never do Repubs blame actual citizens--there are tens of millions of us who want this bill but WE never get blamed. It's as if we are all pawns of some amazingly powerful cabal.
Maybe Dem politicians could talk more about how many actual, real people want the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 15, 2010 11:53 AM
Selective intelligence, selective hearing, selective patriotism, what is it? Too cold, thought she was Sarah, democracy challenged, I really don't get it. If you listen closely, Michelle actually says "buzzword-buzzword-buzzword-blah-blah-blah". She was against the government census takeover too, until, afraid of the law-just elect me anyway Michelle actually met fearful, crazier than thou rhetoric machine Michelle. Do these people know that they don't have to listen to her, & that's actually legal?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
March 15, 2010 12:06 PM
Oh, how I'd love to see her in chains for not paying her taxes!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 15, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to GTFOOH
Even more reason to pass this bill.
Wouldn't you just love to see her in a baggy orange jump suit spearing trash along the highway? Go ahead Michele, don't pay and make our day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miguelitoh2o
March 15, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to GTFOOH
You are sooo kinky!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gericault
March 15, 2010 12:18 PM
Last time someone was told not to pay his taxes....the IRS ate him alive and he flew an airplane into a federal IRS building.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
moodpost
March 15, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to Gericault
Were you the last guy in line playing the rumor game or what?
No one told Stack not to pay his taxes. He just didn't. When he didn't, the IRS did its job. I hope the IRS does it's job with the Congressperson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kth
March 15, 2010 12:26 PM
What is she going to say when (inevitably) the Supreme Court, containing 5 staunchly conservative justices, upholds the health care legislation (or better yet, declines even to hear a suit that an appeals court has already smacked down)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
March 15, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to kth
You're really making an assumption that the 4 Hacks cant bribe Kennedy to go their way. They'd LOVE to declare this unconstituional, being that it's a liberal bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
March 15, 2010 12:30 PM
She was specifically railing against a parliamentary tactic by which the House could skip voting on the Senate bill by declaring it passed as part of the reconciliation bill.
She thinks that's what Pelosi is going to do? WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike
March 15, 2010 12:35 PM
I think that it is interesting that Michelle Bachmann walks right up to the line of what the courts would consider subversive speech. I have been researching her remarks this morning, and although I don't think that she crossed the line per se I certainly beleive her toe touched it. I would be interested to hear what a constitutional lawyer would say about her speech. Certainly one would expect that their elected officials would be held to a higher standard when determining whether or not their speech crosses the line from the merely political hyperbole to the outright subversive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
J. Nobles
March 15, 2010 12:38 PM
So Bachmann has already voted on the House version of the bill, is going to vote on the upcoming Senate bill AND the reconciliation bill, and is out making these kinds of claims?
Taxation without representation: you're doing it wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bw
March 15, 2010 12:40 PM
This Loony Toon needs to go, she has one too many screws loose. Let’s hope the Democrats get’s a strong Democratic challenger to run against her. All they need to do is throw her own words back against her, and anybody in their right mind would throw this bitch out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
March 15, 2010 12:44 PM
We're not going to recognize that you're a congresswoman. We don't have to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tmccarthy0
March 15, 2010 12:47 PM
Easy for Michelle to say, since she gets her insurance through the federal employee health benefits program! Who are the rubes who elected this dumb ass anyway? Minnesota, WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jonnan
March 15, 2010 12:48 PM
Cool - Thanks Michelle.
Can I have my taxes from the Iraq war back please?
Also the change in taxes from the reconciliation a few years ago.
Cash, certified check, and all major Credit Cards - no personal checks please, I've learned not to trust Republicans on finance.
Jonnan
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
athenian stranger
March 15, 2010 12:51 PM
Did anyone watch to the end? Can you tell me why she wants them to bring dog food to the Senator's offices? Is this some kind of inside deal with Purina? I kind of wondered whether this teabag thing might have been sponsored by Lipton, now this dog thing? And didn't they want to send ice melter to Snow at one point? I'm thining they are making little deals with these companies.
But it would be nice if TPM had at least provided the turd of content that MB's batsh!t insanity blossomed from here. The most generous possible interpretation of her angry word salad is that she is talking about the tactic of passing the fixit-bill before the senate bill, so she's saying you can't have an amendment to something that doesn't exist, and if they do that, then the fixit isn't law. That is an interesting legal point. Of course, I don't think Michelle or a single person in that audience could follow that dog home, and it wouldn't really serve their angry racist revolutionary jargoneering anyway because what do they know or care abuot the fixit anyway? But that's what her speachwriter had in mind as the sand her crazy rhetorical house was supposed to be built upon I think. TPM kind of lazy here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
March 15, 2010 12:53 PM
Does TPM really need to follow Bachmann around like this? Why not just make up the craziest stupid shit you think anyone could ever say and then just *say* that Bachmann said it? You'd be accurate at least 90% of the time with that approach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 15, 2010 12:54 PM
McConnell, Bunning and Joe Wilson are very jealous of Michele stealing their ideas and their limelight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
March 15, 2010 12:57 PM
Why has this woman not been locked up for treason and sedition yet? Personally deciding what is unconstitutional is taking the Libertarian thing a bit far. Courts get to decide that, not indviduals. The resulting anarchy from everyone getting to pick and choose their own laws would destroy any semblance of civilization.
I wonder how the good Congresswoman would feel if a group of men decided that the laws for rape and murder were 'personally unconstitutional' and then performed those acts upon her and her family.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nancydenis
March 15, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Isepick
my thoughts also... she and congressman king from Iowa are continually treasonous in their speach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
March 15, 2010 1:01 PM
She's repeatedly committed treason. When is the House leadership going to stand up and expel her from the House?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rakkasan
March 15, 2010 1:03 PM
I don't like the "You have to buy car insurance don't you?" argument because you can choose not to drive; you can't choose to not get sick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fla_kracker
March 15, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Rakkasan
You just made the case for mandated insurance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to fla_kracker
You need a course in common sense. Since we all have to eat, would it be okay for the government to mandate us to eat only the healthiest food available regardless of the cost? Will naptime become legally enforceable if we don't get the requisite 8 hours / night of sleep recommended by doctors? Since we all own or rent houses (very few of us don't), is Big Brother going to force us to insure these structures even if we own them free and clear?
Mandates can take us down a very whacky path.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
March 15, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Schmed
Mandates are the crowbar(shoehorn?) to achieve cost-effectiveness and economy of scale in paying for care via the private health insurance market. It's really the only way it(efficiency) can be achieved, using private insurance as is practiced in the USA. The mandate is basically an admission that health insurance is a failed market - one that cannot do anything other than fail. But it's a sacred cow, so we've got* to feed it. Unfortunately, the feed has to be made from our sick and poor.
Single payer w/ universal coverage would lead to the largest possible pool of insured(aka everyone) which in turn would spread out costs of actual treatment as far as possible. $300,000.00 hospital stay including surgery, ICU, etc., when divided by 300 million people = 1/10 cent per person. Same bill divided by 300 thousand = $1.00 per person for the same stay. In this (admittedly poor) example, single payer is 1000 times more efficient than the private insurer. A huge private pool, say 10 million, would still be 30 times more expensive than single payer.
Costs go up as the number of people in the covered pool go down. The only way to make those private pools big enough to make the care affordable is to force people to join a pool. That's because, without single payer, there has to be more than one pool - in fact there is a different pool for every insurer in the game. And those pools are smaller than the single pool would be - they cannot hope to be nearly as large, meaning they are not nearly as efficient and costs will be higher.
*Actually, we don't have to feed it. Or at least, there is no law of physics that makes feeding it an inevitable result of some other thing.
Anyway. Anyone who is in any way seriously interested in making health care more efficient and cost-effective, MUST support single-payer.
It is the most economically efficient, best way.
It's just an unfortunate fact that the socialistic practice is better than the market-based one. But if that makes anyone sad, we can have a pity party and it will be OK.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
March 15, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to kenga
Whoops. That first sentence should read:
"Mandates are the crowbar(shoehorn?) to attempt to achieve cost-effectiveness ..."
Now, I'm not saying it's necessarily a good faith attempt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Schmed
Medicare participation is mandatory. So is Social Security. Stop being an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
1)Equivocation is not a sound argument. 2)Neither is the ad hominem fallacy.
Here's why:
1) Neither social security nor medicare are the same thing as mandated health insurance. The tax levied by the former goes either to doctors (medicare) or the tax payer himself (social security). Mandated health insurance premium goes to a private insurer who pockets a (large) percentage and then passes on the rest to medical professional AS THE INSURER SEES FIT (see your policy terms for further information). The difference between these mandates is glaring to anyone who thinks regularly.
2) Calling someone an idiot does not invalidate that person's arguement and only serves to a) distract from civil discourse; b) inflame emotion; c) indicate that the insulter has no valid counter argument to offer thereby defeating his purpose in engaging in the debate by offering a cypher instead of an argument.
Thanks for playing. Now, run along and play with someone who has the patience for your sloganeering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
innocence is a lie
March 16, 2010 1:14 AM in reply to Schmed
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1 gives Congress the authority to spend and to tax. It is on this article and derived precedents that the argument for the constitutionality of a mandate will rest. Slam dunk? No, but non-partisan constitutional law experts are generally confident in its ability to survive a challenge. Commerce clause issues are of secondary import.
SSI and Medicare, while not exact comparisons as you point out, are nevertheless based on the same fundamental constitutional principals... benefit/action follows taxation. In the case of the health care mandate its an issue of lack of benefit/action leads to taxation penalty. Two sides of the same constitutional coin.
You can't invalidate constitutionally a health care mandate as written in the Senate bill without invalidating multiple other federal entitlement programs which have either directly or indirectly already passed constitutional muster. Now perhaps that doesn't bother you.... but that isn't the point one way or the other. Precedent is reality for the time being.
As an aside, a public option would make the constitutionality of the health care bill a slam dunk. It is the absence of a public option that opens the door for the right-wing whack jobs on the Supreme Court to try and roll Justice Kennedy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 16, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to innocence is a lie
You can't invalidate constitutionally a health care mandate as written in the Senate bill without invalidating multiple other federal entitlement programs which have either directly or indirectly already passed constitutional muster. Now perhaps that doesn't bother you.... but that isn't the point one way or the other. Precedent is reality for the time being.
I haven't argued against the constitutionality of the health insurance (NOT health care) mandate. I'm arguing that the HIR mandate unjustly enriches a third party without providing the tax payer / beneficiary any guarantee that he will get the benefit for which he is paying, quite unlike the benefits of Social Security or Medicare. Consequently, any attempt to justify the HIR mandate with these two precedents fails due to the dissimilarities of the benefits that each program renders to the beneficiary and also to the larger social cost (reduced?) and good (enhanced?) that is ostensibly (and arguably) sought by the new mandate. Precedent may be an element of the reality, but the injustice of the mandate is not negated in the least by the precendents offered as justification. Injustice and greed are also the reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willdabeast
March 15, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to fla_kracker
I have no problems with mandated insurance if what the dems promise are true and I can actually afford it. Otherwise I'll still end up with no insurance and have to pay a fine on top of it. Guess we'll see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
heropass
March 15, 2010 1:07 PM
I didn't know that loons grew so large!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Bob
March 15, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to heropass
That is a grevious insult to the majestic Minnesota state bird.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Atlantajan
March 15, 2010 1:10 PM
Minor point. The (sic) after "handful of people" isn't correct. The subject is "handful"; thus, the verb should be "thinks."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
March 15, 2010 1:13 PM
Michele Bachmann is a constitutional scholar? Who knew?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 15, 2010 1:21 PM
Oooooh, I hope she doesn't pay her taxes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 15, 2010 1:21 PM
Can someone please oh pretty please shut up that bitch?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
March 15, 2010 1:25 PM
Yeah, why pay taxes for healthcare when you can get it for free in Federal prison?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:26 PM
yeah, just like she wasn't gonna cooperate with the census, until she realized her district could get eliminated. She's the dumbest of the dumb, except for the people who vote for her.
She doesn't have to care what she says about this anyway, seeing as how she already has the best "government run" healthcare in the country, with a medical staff right there where she works at the capitol. Unless she actually declined it, otherwise she's a giant hypocrite as well as a giant moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 15, 2010 1:28 PM
So... she's going to refuse to accept her health insurance as soon as the bill is passed? I mean, how the heck else is she going to resist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rakkasan
March 15, 2010 1:29 PM
I don't like the "You have to buy car insurance don't you?" argument because you can choose not to drive; you can't choose to not get sick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 15, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Rakkasan
which is why everyone should have insurance, otherwise the rest of us get screwed when the uninsured run up huge bills at the ER every time they catch a cold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willdabeast
March 15, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to human
People WANT insurance, the reason they're going to the ER is because they can't AFFORD it. Without single payer or public option we're now in limbo land as to whether this bill has enough safeguards to make sure we can afford the mandate. With how incompetent and spineless our government has become I really wonder!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to human
Part of the costs of living in a society is picking up the tab for the mistakes of others. When you start mandating behavior to avoid that part of the compact, you start down the road to totalitarianism. Giving people affordable alternatives and incentives to behave more socially acceptably is far more preferable to the Big Brother smackdown. Mandates without relief will only cause more social fragmentation and will inevitably lead to collapse and the ensuing consequences (ever hear of the Dark Ages?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to Schmed
Well, believe it or not, mandates are part of the plan to make insurance more affordable. If you want to require the insurance companies to drop pre-existing condition barriers to coverage, then you have to pull more young and healthy people into the pool to cover the additional expense. And yes, that's going to require that the young and healthy pay a little more than what would otherwise be their "fair share," but as you said, part of the cost of living in a society is picking up the tab for the mistakes (and misfortunes) of others.
Besides, the Senate bill provides a hardship exemption from the mandate if the premium comes to more than 8% of your income.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
March 15, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to slb
If we think that health care is important enough to mandate, then it's important enough for the government to provide just like national defence and an interstate transportation system. Why do we (repugs, actually) bitch so much about keeping people healthy, but have no trouble in finding new expensive ways to kill people?
Single payer is the only feasible way out of this 'balls in a vice grip" dilemma in which the insurers are holding this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to Rakkasan
And if you choose to drive, and choose to drive without car insurance, you're choosing to run the risk of incurring a civil penalty...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Onarga
March 15, 2010 1:41 PM
If the bill passes through established legal actions which the Democrats are pursuing then it will be considered legal. If Michelle Bachmann who has openly professed being a Christian (that doesn't mean she is Christ-like)she will be defying what the bible says about obeying all authority...
Romans 13:1
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God".
Christian but not Christlike men and women in government and those outside of government absorbed and led by misinformation are re-crucifying Jesus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
March 15, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to Onarga
She'd say that God didn't establish this authority. In her mind, GOP stands for God's Own Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
March 15, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to jeffgee
Doesn't that translate into Arabic as 'Hezbollah'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
March 15, 2010 1:44 PM
I can do that? I can choose what taxes I don't want to pay? Cool!
First, Military budgets and sub-contract scammers.
Then all federal revenues to MN. I see they're gonna get flooded some more. Tough, move to higher ground. Oh when another bridge fails...boats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
March 15, 2010 1:50 PM
This fraud needs to be addresed by the House of Representatives.
Censure her and her seditious talk. And if that doesn't work then start proceedings to expell this treasonous demagogue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbo92107
March 15, 2010 1:55 PM
Remember: If you're in Bachmann's district, you must refuse to fill out the e-vile Census form! ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
March 15, 2010 1:56 PM
If the right wing doesn't have to obey a health care reform law, why are they fighting it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
March 15, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to NobleCommentDecider
It's all smoke and mirrors and fear tactics. That's all they've got left. And they're getting a lot of money from the forces of the status quo, which helps them get re-elected. That's the deal. That's all they've got.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 15, 2010 2:00 PM
sick b-itch
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
March 15, 2010 2:00 PM
What is wrong with these folks? How did we get to this point?
I am so shocked at what they say and want to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
March 15, 2010 2:03 PM
Technically, Bachmann is exactly right. No one needs to get health insurance - they can pay a $750 tax if they don't want to. There are exceptions for religious reasons, allowing people to opt out of insurance and join religious cooperatives to get their healthcare through a "cost sharing" agreement like Medi-Share (a Christian conservative plan to share costs without creating comprehensive insurance).
And Bachmann is also right that people don't need to get insurance via the Exchange - just like parents don't need to send their kids to public schools. There will be plans off the Exchange that will fit the needs and wants of consumers who are trying to avoid some of the regs - but those plans will not be government subsidized.
The GOP opposition to this as a 'government takeover' and the infighting among Dems has caused this point to be ignored to a large extent. People still have tremendous freedom about how to pay for their own healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 15, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to benintn
Actually, she's technically right that you can just not buy the insurance and though to will owe a penalty to the IRS, the IRS actually has no recourse to fine or jail you to collect it. Which means they might audit the heck out of you every year and send you to a collection agency but they can't actually: increase the amount of the fine by adding penalties or get you locked up.
On the other hand, they probably add up year after year and there's interest on unpaid taxes so unless you're willing to not pay for the rest of your life and have your credit ruined, you'll be on the hook...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ajkrueger
March 15, 2010 2:06 PM
Who cares what she thinks. She is the poor man's Sarah Palin! Now, if she would like to crawl under my desk for a few minutes, that's OK... at least as long as she doesn't keep talking!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to ajkrueger
omg.....lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1audiofile
March 15, 2010 2:12 PM
I am opposed to GITMO for Muslim extremists. Bachmann on the other hand would find a very comfy home as a terrorist at Gitmo.
Can we start a petition?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
March 15, 2010 2:17 PM
Can I opt out of the real death tax? I won't pay the portion of the taxes that goes towards or Killitary Budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarkW
March 15, 2010 2:20 PM
As a Chicagoan, I am sick and tired of the smear and fear tactics used by Michele Bachman and her Republican friends. What next, Al Capone? The "American people aren't going to take this lying down"? What this dim bulb just can't understand is that it's the American people who voted for the DemocratIC majority, who voted for President Obama, and who rejected the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
March 15, 2010 2:23 PM
This is you brain on white cultural panic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
March 15, 2010 2:40 PM
Yep. Just like we didn't "HAVE" to integrate our public schools. Just like we didn't "HAVE" to abide by Roe v. Wade. Just like we didn't "HAVE" to start paying SS and Medicare taxes. Just like we didn't "HAVE" to pay property taxes.
Sure. Its all a choice. Submit to the rule of law. Or get busy organizing American Revolution 2.0
Word to the wise, however. When the ATF, FBI, and SWAT show up at your Newly minted Revo HQ, just remember. They LIVE for that shit. Whatever you do, don't fire first.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 15, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to willia451
And answer the door politely. And slowly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miguelitoh2o
March 15, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to destor23
And keep your hands in plain sight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
March 15, 2010 3:15 PM
She'll look so average in an orange jump suit... she also told sister sarah over the weekend that sister would be the first that was allowed to autograph her PRISON jumpsuit !!
It actually would be scary being her...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 3:30 PM
And her friend sailormarlowe is nowhere to be found.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Megan97401
March 15, 2010 3:40 PM
It's amnesia all over again. "One party rule?" Where have you been lady? I know, I know, spending only matters when Democrats are in power. Same with "bipartisanship," patriotism, marital fidelity, and any number of other things. How do these people sleep at night? Oh would that I were blessed with such thick blankets of delusion.
I swear Minnesota, you guys have got to get your act together and get this lady OUT of office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
March 15, 2010 3:44 PM
I would love to see this bunch try to defy the IRS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lisa Monica1
March 15, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to Hank
I am quite ready to go to jail if necessary. This is garbage. Were slaves "breaking the law" when they ran from their "masters" to join the Union? Are you kidding!?! What exactly do you think give me liberty or give me death means? I do not have health care because I cannot afford it. My children and I used to be in the public system and I did everything I could to leave the public system. There is nothing wrong with utilizing the system as an emergency measure, but it is meant to only be an emergency measure. Did you not hear what she said? An illegitimate law should not be followed. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Movement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 15, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to Lisa Monica1
It's your "civil right" to kill your kid? Okay. Just wanted to know how far you'd go, to underwrite the teabagger mentality, and now we know.
Look, lady, nobody loves the idea of being forced to pay for unregulated-cost health insurance... least of all, me. But you see... that's what the "public option" was about and frankly, if the scumbag asshole whore sonofafuckingbitch REPUBLICANS hadn't fought LITERALLY EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION ON IT'S FACE EVERY TIME PERIOS... well, you know what? Maybe you actually would be able to afford not to kill your rotten progeny.
But [sigh] such are the ramifications of scorched-Earth opposition. Maybe instead of getting schnockered every night and turning on Beck and Hannity, you should have grown a brain, and helped guide your precious R's to the Light...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 15, 2010 3:49 PM
Hollywood was Bad.
New York City* (* = home of the dread East Coast Liberaljew Elites!) was Bad.
Now... Chicago is Bad.
By the time these people are through, Real America [tm] will be geographically located somewhere in the middle of the prairie in Wyoming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Oh, but don't forget: Former bastion of all things godless and librul, Massachusetts, is now 50% Real America... That thank got a hemi in it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dickday
March 15, 2010 3:57 PM
Well at least one thing is for sure.
Minnesota aint gonna secede.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
March 15, 2010 4:27 PM
Really, she's amazing. What I always wonder is, is this B.S. an act, or is she really as crazy and genuinely stupid as she sounds?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PerfecPassion
March 15, 2010 5:31 PM
A lot of you just don't seem to get it. This isn't about Health Care. It's not about Taxes. It is not about breaking Laws.
It is about taking a stand with an over bearing federal government. It's about maintaining the Freest, Strongest Cause of good the world has ever seen. A free Capitalist America. It is about fighting against the enslavement of individuals.
You are enslaved anytime you are forced to labor for someone else's benefit. I is not charity (redistribution of wealth) if it is done at gun point. And If you think it is not done at gun point then try not paying your taxes. We need all the freedom fighters like Michelle Bachmann that we can get.
I'll agree that she is not perfect, and she may not always say the exact correct thing to say a any given time. But then I've never seen anyone that could. Even our current President who is a great orator makes many verbal gaffes now and again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
March 15, 2010 5:57 PM in reply to PerfecPassion
Then I submit, in fact, that you are a slave.
When you labor, do you labor for your own benefit? Do you work for someone else? Does the company you work for have no clients? Do you have no children?
Don't be an idiot. The entire basis of society, any society, is mutual benefit: I abdicate some of my natural rights to gain some benefit. At its simplest form, that benefit is that everyone else abdicates those same natural rights.
Ex: I have the natural right to do whatever I wish, so long as I am physically capable of it. This includes killing people and taking what they have, should I desire it. I abdicate my natural right to murder, rape, and pillage through life so that I, in turn, am protected from others murdering, raping, and pillaging through life - because they have abdicated that same right.
Nobody in society works solely for their own benefit. The very act of participating in society is the act of laboring for the benefit of others.
As far as 'a free Capitalist America' being 'the Freest, Strongest Cause of good the world has ever seen', I submit to you that actually, it's not. In fact, a restrained capitalist America has been that thing the virtues of which you extol. Restraint on capitalism is what brings us child labor laws, and workplace safety laws, and the (short, compared to what it was before the Depression and the rise of Labor Unions in the 40s and 50s) 40-hr work week - and you might notice that as corporations become more and more powerful, that last one is vanishing into the hazy mist of memory. How many people routinely work 60+ hours, between longer days at work, being on-call, working from home, and workplace environments where if you don't put in a certain amount of overtime, your performance reviews suffer?
A freely capitalist America would know none of those niceties. It didn't, by and large, before the reforms in the first parts of the 20th Century.
Michelle Bachmann offered no voice against the direct infringements of our personal liberties under the Bush Administration. She offered no protest when Congress enacted a law that states that the police can take people into custody under suspicion of being 'enemy combatants' with no evidence, no warrant, and no lawyer. The really fun bits of that law, by the way are that a)until law enforcement decides whether or not someone in custody will or will not be classified as an enemy combatant, they are under no obligation to provide that person any access to a lawyer, a phone, or to even allow that person to identify themselves as an American citizen (who, technically, are not subject to this law - but to prove they can't grab you, you need to be able to prove your identity, and they don't have to let you do that). What makes this even more fun is that unlike federal and state criminal charges, where you have to be charged within 24-48 hrs (depending on statute) or you're released, no such limitation applies to the period of determining whether or not you'll be charged as an enemy combatant.
Get that? They can hold you for an indefinite period of time under this law while deciding if they want to hold you. And until they do decide, you aren't legally entitled to prove that they can't hold you under this law.
Michelle Bachmann offered not even a single peep of protest.
She is not a freedom fighter. She is an ambitious power-monger who now enjoys government-provided healthcare for the rest of her life. No matter what, you will pay for her health insurance, until the day you, or she, dies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
March 15, 2010 6:33 PM
Marvelous, mysterious, mesmerizing Michele Bachmann: Her voice is melodious, her eyes mischievous & merry. She is magnificent!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr Lemming
March 16, 2010 12:11 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Truly inspired trolldom. The only thing you missed was a mention of the taunt nipples teasingly poking out of her patriotic shirt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
March 16, 2010 5:46 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
How gooey is your stars and stripes bible, sailorboy??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
March 15, 2010 6:39 PM
Is Michele going to pay the tax penalties for all the people that go with her words of not paying your taxes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
E_Joyce
March 15, 2010 6:52 PM
To Michelle Bachmann concerning refusing government provided HCR. YOU FIRST. I mean it; I want documented proof that Bachmann has forfeited her GOVERNMENT PROVIDED health care and is paying for her health care out of her own pocket. Her farm is already taking advantage of the subsidy she railed against. Bachmann is the height of hypocrisy, just like her sisterfriend Palin, who trotted across the border to take advantage of CANADA's government provided health care services.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weiwen Ng
March 15, 2010 7:02 PM
Bachmann may be talking about disobedience to the reform law on a state level - the Senate would leave it to the states to set up the insurance exchanges. While the Feds will have the legal authority to authorize a nonprofit corporation to run the program if they find the states haven't complied, that will be legally and administratively very tricky. I'm not worried about Minnesota doing this, but I am worried about states like Virginia, where I live, and many of the Southern states.
Part of me wonders if we'd be better off letting the Southern states secede if they wish, but I hope the rest of the US would run an open borders immigration policy for any former US citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John
March 15, 2010 8:25 PM
What a nut job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaosJohn
March 15, 2010 8:31 PM
Finally Bachmann says something I agree with. As this bill is a complete and utter travesty and will do nothing whatsoever to correct the problems we face as Americans in need of decently priced health care, I applaud her stance. I've voted solidly Democratic for longer than most of you have been alive, I'll wager, and I mean every syllable.
With any luck, I'll be on Medicare--mightily endangered by this POS bill--before it goes into effect, but if not, I pledge here and not NOT to buy insurance from the enemy (Blue Cross, Wellpoint, etc.), and I will refuse to pay the fine up until they come to take my physically to jail. It won't just be teabaggers doing this, either. Mark my words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
March 15, 2010 8:35 PM
Has Michelle Bachman given up her gummint health care? Until she does - she really ought to STFU.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
March 15, 2010 8:37 PM
where's her pitchfork?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
March 15, 2010 8:37 PM
Has Michelle Bachman given up her gummint health care? Until she does - she really ought to STFU.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Old Marsalla
March 15, 2010 11:53 PM
What. A. Freak. Is she really the legal representative of a bunch of Minne-soh-tans? Even when I am sick of being a dem she reminds me why I am not a repub. Certifiably out of touch with this planet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kittylc
March 16, 2010 1:43 AM
"So if for some reason they're able to get their votes this week and pass this 2,700-page Senate bill -- if they get it, trillions of dollars is what it's gonna cost, when we didn't vote on it...."
You did vote on it, Ms. Bachmann. You voted no, remember?
Your side lost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
March 16, 2010 5:53 AM
Gee - she can lead a district-wide strike against the federal government! OOOOUUUUWWWEEEE!
That will REALLY knock the rest of the country over!
As if she has a clue what this reform even means. Everything she has argued against with all that poisonous venom doesn't even exist - and never did!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sigridsmith
March 16, 2010 8:26 AM
Bachman should refuse her government plan and buy a plan on the open market. Here is what she now has to choose from on her public option: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalhmo2010.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tduff
March 16, 2010 8:48 AM
Sometimes I think TPM is loves Bachmann, you give her enough face time.
http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Freedom4America
March 17, 2010 9:10 PM
We will not go to jail in our state because we have already passed a bill that nullifies this BS bill.
Liberty For All and All For Liberty,
Freedom4America
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tgambill
March 18, 2010 12:01 AM
The entire purpose of the Health Care Bill HR 3200 is to legislate the microchip or implantable device. It is also to establish the basis to set up Americans for implementation of North American Union already signed into effect in 2005 by Bush JR. Paul Martin, Canada and Vicente Fox into one country union. It will be one of the 10 unions that will form the World Government finally agreed upon in Copenhagan, in December 2009. The European Union was first, South American Union, African Union, Asian Union and they will equal 10 worldwide.
The US is presently divided into 10 regions, 5 states each as set up by Nixon when he signed Executive Order 11647 in 1972 and EO 11731 in 1973. It was shelved in 1978 when Nixons plan for a coup failed in 1974 timeframe. The Trilateral Commission then saw to it that FEMA continued the plan to now include it as the organization structure they will use in the event of the President declaring a national disaster. In the FEMA disaster Plan, "FEMA Transition 2009"; page 24 and also in Tabs FEMA Locations or FEMA Regions you will find Nixons plan reinstituted. Bush, passed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2007, giving the president full authority to override the Constitution and Posse Comitatus Act in the event that a National Disaster is declared. It was on October 24, 2009 as planned using the fake flu pandemic they used to justify Obama declaring the National Disaster. He can now activate an active duty military unit to handle national emergencies in the next one that will happen. Also they will have the 100's of thousands of UN troops already here to aid in the next disaster since the police will be over used and unable to handle the crime wave that is coming. Google all this and research it in official records..you will find it true.
Once Martial law is declared you will no longer have a choice of taking the micro chip. They are counting on a civil war and violence. ITs coming.
The technology of the Verichip/Microchip is linked to the full capacity of HAARP, ELF and GWEN technology. You can also link flu vaccine and nanobots. The technology goes back to at least 1973 starting with this document.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/37/7c/52.pdf
So that was 40 years ago, you can only imagine where they are now.
"Politics was never meant to be a career, but its purpose was to present an idea"
"The Farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see".....Winston Churchill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tgambill
March 18, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to tgambill
One final point, Obama also signed the Executive Order Authorizing the 10 Counsel of Governors that will actually be appointees to the 10 Regions once the North American Union is formed. This was the real reason for the governors not to foster a close relationship between State and Feds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tgambill
March 18, 2010 12:09 AM
For further discussin about the verichip you can visit the site, at this link
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 7:31 AM
Why is it always Democratic politicians who are to blame in wingnuttia? I mean, never do Repubs blame actual citizens--there are tens of millions of us who want this bill but WE never get blamed. It's as if we are all pawns of some amazingly powerful cabal.
Maybe Dem politicians could talk more about how many actual, real people want the bill.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 11:52 AM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?