Of course Mika loves the Koch Bros. She love Joke Scarborough too so it easy to persuade when you rolling in the sack.

This is why Mourning Joe is in last place of all talk shows on MSNBC. Notice how Mika tries to calm him down by grabbing his arm? This guy is a sexist, the way he treats her and a bully and it's time they dump him.

And they reward the frat boy by putting him on MSNBC at night . " Mourning" Joe has got to go for the good of the chaannel . Just what the MSNBC nightime audience wanted " Mourning " Joe .

Joe has a bad scary temper...that was just so unprofessional.

THAT's not a scream ...

THIS is an ignorant, immature, childish, juvenile putz screaming ...

Link:https://www.youtube.com/wat...

It's a weird day when Scarborough is right and Eugene Robinson is wrong, but this is one time. The Affordable Care Act is not, repeat not, the health insurance plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1993. It is far more liberal, with the employer mandate and Medicaid expansion and many other highly progressive features, than anything Heritage would have dreamed of accepting. It is similar to the Massachusetts law (designed by the Democratic state legislature with plenty of assistance from Edward Kennedy, who was also the prime architect of the ACA) because the legislature overrode Romney's eight vetoes (including of the employer mandate; Romney takes credit for it now because it's popular but he fought it tooth and nail). It's not the greatest health program in the world but liberals should start taking some pride in it. For more see Scott Lemieux http://www.lawyersgunsmoney...

I guess I just wasn't writing very clearly, if I sounded to you like a conservative. I would prefer a true European-style universal health insurance system, but given political realities I enthusiastically support the ACA and its Massachusetts ancestor. I think in spite of its inadequacies it is the best legislation since the 1960s.

I just don't think we liberals should say it is a Heritage Foundation idea, because it isn't. It is orders of magnitude better than anything they could have come up with.

Specifically, the Heritage aim was to make employers richer, letting them get away without contributing to workers' health insurance at all, while the ACA is meant to preserve employer contributions as the basis of the system, requiring it from most employers. In this sense it is the *opposite* of the Heritage proposals (which are still being offered, by the way, every time some so-called "Reformicon" suggests a "replacement" for Obamacare, the first thing on their list is getting rid of the employer mandate).

Conflating the ACA with any Heritage document encourages people to call Obama a conservative and claim there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and this is the way to get Republicans elected. To me the difference is huge and I want people to take pride in being Democrats AND VOTE.

In the same way I don't think we should call the Massachusetts plan "Romneycare" . Why give that liar credit for something he fought against?

I didn't know that the 1989 Heritage proposals for Medicaid would have led to its serving a larger number of people, although I thought eligibility was always linked to poverty, and after the so-called "reform" to AFDC took so many client off the rolls the whole thing is irrelevant. In any case, the 1989 proposals certainly would not have been the tremendous expansion to 133% of poverty that we see under the ACA, which is my favorite part of the Act.

I admit that Heritage was more "legitimate" back in the day than it is now, when the whole organization is little more than a fund-raising gimmick, but it was always wrong.

Pity you missed the Heritage foundation plan from 1989.....it IS available on the interwebs sparky.

Calls for taxation of all employer provided health benefits, individual mandate for 100% and no mandate on employers, turning Medicaid into HMOs without expansion, cutting Medicare There's a kind of "subsidized risk pool" equivalent to the Exchange, but the aim of the whole plan is clearly to eliminate employer coverage, not supplement those who couldn't get it. No reforms to insurance industry such as coverage with preexisting conditions or kids under 26 or fair billing, no programs to move doctors from fee for service or no-copay wellness care, etc. etc. It's a typical piece of Republican shit with virtually nothing in common with ACA, which strengthens and extends employer insurance coverage and will levy fines on companies that refuse.

http://www.heritage.org/res...

Again pity it's not interesting enough to waste time reading it.

So you're going to go on spreading lies about Obama because it's too boring to find out what the truth is. Nice. You and Glenn Beck.

Are YOU mental? I voted for Obama twice and I'd vote for him again if I could. I have ONLY voted for Democrats for almost 50 years....NEVER ever once for someone who wanted to trickle down.

I'm NOT interested in reading anything authored by the Heritage/Koch Foundation......learn how to discern meaning in a sentence by referring to the previous reply!!

It's not a question of who you vote for but your cognitive process. In clinging to an irrational belief ("ACA is a Heritage program") and refusing to look at the evidence you are acting like Beck even if your beliefs are different. Or like the Trotskyists who said there was no difference between FDR and Hoover. It bothers me because it plays into the politics of hopelessness that says "Don't vote, they're all the same", and then the conservatives, who always vote, win.

Obama is no leftist, and the ACA is not socialism, but it's still the most progressive,working-class-oriented legislation we've had since Johnson was president. If people don't stop calling it conservative, it could be the last. You need to appreciate it for what it is and think about how to improve it, not call it names.

Kindly point out where I called 'it' names......talk about cognitive process! I posted it's origins as coming from the Heritage foundation in 1989.

Seems to me you are MORE concerned about my pointing out your '1993' assertion than anything else.

Project much?

1989 or 1993 (the 1993 version seemed more relevant as it was a direct counteroffer to the "Hillarycare" proposal), the ACA has no relation whatsoever to any proposal from the Heritage Foundation, as you would see if you were willing to do the reading. It is based mostly on work by Edward Kennedy and is a solidly liberal program. Scarborough happens to be right for once and Robinson happens to be wrong. That is all I wanted to say.

Joe's eyes are too close together .. denoting a brain collision often formed in the womb. It occurs when the mother uses her belly to support TV tray meals consistently during pregnancy.

After watching that clip, I'm very glad I'm not up early enough to watch this POS or his show. What a tool! Why is he on MSNBC? I think the clip points out why to great effect, it's to fold, twist, and mutilate the true beyond all recognition and sit back while the hornets buzz around trying to set him straight. And reading anything by that POS Jonah Goldberg and passing it off as sane leaves one speechless.

What a GASBAG!!!

Joe, as usual, you are full of SHIT.

Sorry Joe Squinty Eyes and the Meat Puppets, no one is buying your BS or watching you.

Hey Joe, here are the facts.... Republican response... "we'll just have to agree to disagree".

Is Joe distancing Romney from Obamacare because he supports Romney 3.0?

There we have it, an anchor(ish) on a news network declaring that a true statement came from an alternative reality. He couldn't be worse at his function in life if he tried, but I bet he sleeps just fine.

Scarborough goes off the deep end all the time. I am surprised that Eugene took him on, disputing some of the things he said. Pundits on Scarborough show know to hold their tongues and not argue with him.

A couple of days ago Scarborough said he would never react like Chris Christie. I think he wants to run for president, but no one in his party is recruiting him. He has been talking about how ultraconservative he is for a year or more.

There are rumors going around that Bloomberg and Scarborough are going to run as an Independent ticket in 2016.

Does anyone really watch Joe for intelligent conversation or just to see if that long shot odds bet line that Mikamouse will bitch slap the geek and walk off stage is still "holdin"?

Poor Joe he is unhappy because CNN get more viewers than him

https://pbs.twimg.com/media...

LOL. Jonah Goldberg is a "must read". Sheesh. Squinty Joe is a dumb asshole bagger.

really....Jonah Goldberg and must read....f**king crazy.

Ohmygod, we have a president who understands abstract ideas! How much worse can it get?

Who watches Joe? Why?
Mika is useless... but nice shoes.

Shoes?
Great rack!
The only reason to watch the show.

Rethugs can't handle the truth, about anything. case closed

republicans having trouble accepting facts on a republican TV program.
Useless and harmful.

Well, the current healthcare law is based on Republican ideas. Joe hates history and facts.

What a crybaby Joe is. "I want to hear people agree with me!!!" Got to Faux and take that Koch loving Mika with ya.

she is not her dad!!!

Amen

Joe Scarbuncle says what?

That's the way most conservatives react when presented with the truth.Some even pull a tantrum.

Oh all those liberals at MSNBC.