I am the One you've been waiting for.

Why are Republicans so darn stupid?

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Bid...

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whether the bias in this Q&A by Walter Dellinger on the WaPo website is a reflection of the bias of the readers or the question screeners, we don’t know for sure, but based on past history, probably a combination of both.  You can click through this “live” discussion page to read each question and see Dellinger’s response, but old Frick will pick a few of his favorites and run them through BiasBreakdown’s liberal-to-conservative universal translator to let you know what’s really going through their heads.

First victim:


Universal access to health care

The concept that universal health care is somehow unconstitutional blows my mind. Those in opposition refuse the facts and will continue their rhetoric and propaganda. No wonder America has the most expensive health care system in the world! My question: How can such a system long survive?


Walter Dellinger :

I agree that we are in a bad way if we don’t have this law. It will be difficult to pass any other. And regardless of what one thinks of the social justice of extending coverage to 30 million Americans, the present system has made treatment more expensive, using emergency rooms as providers and passing the higher cost of that on to others.

The universal translator says….

Question: Obama told us the law was constitutional, so it obviously is.  Aren’t the people who disagree with us morons?  And won’t America literally tip over and fall into the sea with these morons in it?

Answer:  I agree.  If the Supreme Court drops this, our hope for a liberal utopia is done.  Not only do opponents hate poor people, they want poor people to destroy health care so they have another reason to hate poor people.

Second victim:


The Big Myth

Over and over I’ve heard opponents mislabeling the Affordable Care Act as another welfare program, as if the poor were simply going to get free health care at taxpayer expense. I’ve heard the same accusation made about the contraception coverage mandate. Given the number of Southern Strategy euphemisms used by many (not all) opponents, is it fair to suggest that many are using the health care debate as a proxy for other things?

Walter Dellinger :

It seems to be a proxie for something. Where was all this passion when Massachusetts passed Governor Romney’s law which included a tax penalty as a “mandate’ to get insurance?

The universal translator says….

Question: Why do racist, Tea Party Republicans call it a new welfare program for the poor when it’s just going to terminally expand all the existing welfare programs? Duh.

Answer:  I know.  Republicans are racist, and I don’t understand why Republicans around the country are mad now when Democrats in Massachusetts weren’t mad back then.  It’s like being mad at white-on-black crime but not black-on-black crime.

Third victim:


Commerce clause

I assume others will ask about the specifics. What are the odds that the Court will use this as an opportunity to really restrain the ability of the Federal government to regulate the economy, set policy, and direct action by the states? Many analysts see the health care law, and specifically the mandate, as well within historic use of the commerce clause, so it has been suggested that the court will have to change the traditional view of the clause to invalidate the law, if they intend to. Do you agree, and if so, do you think they will?


Walter Dellinger :

Good question. The most thoughtful conservative judged (Sutton and Silverman) think this is simply a “regulation of commerce”. The Court held in 1905 that Congress could prohibit commerce as part of this power, and later cases seem possibly to support the law. I think it would be HUGE change in constitutional law to strike down this regulation of one-seventh of the national commerce

– March 26, 2012 1:39 PM

The universal translator says….

Question: This is all very confusing, but Obama said the law was legit, so to overturn it, Republicans will have to destroy law and order as we know it, right?

Answer:  Right.  The only conservative judge with any intelligence ruled for it.  And if it was opposite day, there would be at least a hundred years’ worth of precedents that support this ruling.

Fourth victim:


Thank you for the information

For all the people who argue against this law about health insurance, do they typically have health insurance? The benefits of health insurance? Ask former Vice-President Cheney about it. I doubt he would be alive today if it wasn’t for his health insurance provided by his state and federal employer. Ironic is that Mr. Cheney would not be eligible for health insurance by many employers due to his pre-existing condition of having a heart attack in his late 30s.


Walter Dellinger :

I was tempted to include in my Outlook piece the question of why an incentive to have health insurance was so terrible and so invasive of privacy when every judge and justice who hears these cases, and every lawyer and pundit opining on this have one thing in common: they all have health insurance and would not dream of doing without it.

The universal translator says….

Question: This isn’t really a question.  I still just really hate Dick Cheney.  Oh, and only heartless conservative vampires who run Wall Street and the major corporations and don’t have to worry about health care because they’re undead ghouls could force the overthrow of this bill, which will kill thirty million Americans and assure a steady supply of fresh blood for these vampires’ insatiable appetites.

Answer:  I wanted to take a cheapshot at Cheney, too, but I still have a modicum of respectability as a commentator I need to maintain to keep getting these gigs.  And I don’t get why all these old guys with clogged arteries and diabetes can’t understand that healthy kids should be forced to pay for their medical costs.

Fifth victim:


health-care law

What do you think of Dr. Jill Vecchio’s 7 part analysis of the health care law on youtube? It sounds biased, but…?


Walter Dellinger :

I’m sorry I didn’t have a chance to see that, but I’ll take a look later.

The universal translator says….

Question: I found someone who disagrees with me and made sense.  How do I handle this?

Answer:  That sounds like an actual debate.  We’re trying to avoid that here.

Sixth victim:


health care individual mandate and interstate commerce

Is it the government’s position, in defending the individual mandate, that hospitals and other providers burden interstate commerce when they raise their prices to private insurers in order to recoup the costs they incur in caring for the uninsured? If so, how does that work? Wouldn’t a provider charge the highest price it profitably could in any event, so that any attempt to increase prices would be unprofitable? There may be a burden on the provider, but it’s far from obvious that it can be passed on to insurers (and interstate commerce). Where’s the myth here?


Walter Dellinger :

I appreciate the question but I think the short answer is that Congress’s power “to regulate commerce among the states” is not limited to removing “burdens” on that commerce. Congress can, if it wishes, in fact impose burdens. And has often done so.

The universal translator says….

Question: The legal argument for Obamacare is obviously flimsy.  How do you justify your inane myths?

Answer:  Congress can do what it wants.  Suck it.

Our final victim:


I just don’t get it

I admit that I don’t understand the outrage over the health care act. The ‘mandate’ thing is a bit dodgy, but what about the rest of it? Don’t we all agree that having some sort of coverage is a good thing? Has the “Opposition” EVER put forth anything viable to ensure that we can’t be denied coverage or dropped when we get sick? How many more decades of “analysis” are needed? When will big pharma lose it’s stranglehold on us?


Walter Dellinger :

I agree. When national health care was last considered in the 1990’s both parties agreed that SOME solution was needed. In fact, the “Obamacare” mandate was the alternative to single payer advanced by many Republicans. This uproar shows how far out politics has shifted.

The universal translator says….

Question: I gotta admit, legislative dictatorship freaks me out a little, but can’t we all agree that liberals are right, and conservatives should either change the meaning of the word insurance and the fundamental realities of economics, or shut up?

Answer:  Everyone agrees we need to do something, so hey, why not go with this?


Single Post Navigation

4 thoughts on “Why are Republicans so darn stupid?

  1. Pingback: Republicans march kids ten miles, through six feet of snow, uphill….both ways «

  2. Hello, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues.

    When I look at your blog site in Chrome, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
    I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that,
    fantastic blog!


  3. jal on said:

    First off Repulicans do many medical missions, it should be noted, many help people here and abroad and it was Lincoln a republican in case anyone forgot that freed the slaves. So why are democratics stupid? That should not be the question, it should be why does not everyone work together? This health bill will create a no pay mentality, that means no pay, doctors and nurses either quit their professions or can not afford to work, so poor quality care by those who barely pass school, or no care at all.

    The Obama care as it is called the whole over 2000 pages needs to be read and should of been read by congress before they passed it or should be repealed. There is not such thing as free care, unless it is a free clinic. Someone at some level pays for those who can not pay. This bill also does regulate who will get care by a governmental panel whom do not have medical training or billing or business backgrounds, but who are friends with Obama. So how does that benefit everyone equally, it obviously does not. And if the bill is so great then why do the senators, nor the president fall under it?

    If there is a private sector and competition there would be some competiveness in pricing, but if only the government handles it all, there is only their opinion, only their pricing, only their decision on care for those over 70 and as the population of the baby boomers reaches that age it seems the government has decided we live longer, so if they cut off care, we will not live longer, who said they should have such power? If you are young you have no place to go but that age or older, if we manage to get rid of some of these regulations, or laws. Otherwise you may never get the chance to do all and be all that you can. Even older citizens such as colonial Sanders, Picasso, etc. made contributions to us in their elder years, so think on this, do you want to see a brain surgeon, a heart doctor, a cancer doctor, an eye doctor or anyone, will they be there in the future for you, no matter what age you are, or since they can become attorneys or go into other fields, will they choose those instead, do to this law? so even the young will not receive good care.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: