C-SPAN wants to televise healthcare debate

[EagleKeeper]

Pelosi Defends Health Negotiations: 'There Has Never Been a More Open Process'

:awe:

One reporter noted that during his campaign, President Obama had advocated for airing the health reform deliberations. "Really?" Pelosi responded. "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail."

lolololol

There were people here that supported Obama that stated Obama would be his own man - not a yes man to Pelosi and Reid.

This puts that idea in perspective.

The White House is currently a rubber stamp for Congress.

 

[Craig234]

Dems from the git go totally excluded Reps from the process thinking they had the political capital to bully their way through. But now it's the Reps fault that Dems have had to compromise in order to have a chance to get their legislation passed? Seriously?

If anyone screwed up the effort to reform Americans' healthcare, it was the Dems not the Republicans. They thought they could make radical changes unilaterally...and they thought wrong.

Wrong. Reps chose to oppose real healthcare reform 'from the git go' - and to be obstructionists for the dems to work around.

Yes, Repubs are responsible for their part in the healthcare issue. If they'd supported a progressive healthcare bill, we'd have one. They chose not to and it's partly their fault we don't.

The Dems are MORE in favor of real healthcare reforms than Repubs. They have many for it, while only one Republican has voted for it. But the Dems have many problem members as well.

The healthcare reform people have had a very hard time getting this done, with their base of Dems, needing 60 not 50 Senate votes, facing politicial opposition from Repubs and corrupt oppositition from some Dems.

 

[Patranus]

Wrong. Reps chose to oppose real healthcare reform 'from the git go' - and to be obstructionists for the dems to work around.

Yes, Repubs are responsible for their part in the healthcare issue. If they'd supported a progressive healthcare bill, we'd have one. They chose not to and it's partly their fault we don't.

The Dems are MORE in favor of real healthcare reforms than Repubs. They have many for it, while only one Republican has voted for it. But the Dems have many problem members as well.

The healthcare reform people have had a very hard time getting this done, with their base of Dems, needing 60 not 50 Senate votes, facing politicial opposition from Repubs and corrupt oppositition from some Dems.

Why should the GOP support a "progressive" health care bill?
This country DOES NOT WANT a "progressive" heath care bill.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

That's one of the two scenarios I raised, neither of which is good for our country or Obama, both of which involve him breaking his campaign platform.

Now, how do you think a group who badly screw up an effort to help Americans' health, who compromises primarily because of the opposition of Republicans and sellout Democrats, compares to the other group who are happy to simply completely sellout the well being of millions of Americans and cash their industry checks?

They don't have to compromise with anyone. They have the house and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. They can pass anything they want. The TRUTH is they ALL take pharma money and they don't want anyone to know that this so-called 'health care' bill is chock full of Dems (and Reps) taking their money and crafting something that makes the 'evil' corporation even more money.

And NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with why the debates are not on C-Span per Obama's campaign promises. It's pretty simple... He said over and over that the debates would be open to the public via C-Span. They're not.

 

[woolfe9999]

Obama actually does not have the power to to force Congress to televize a hearing on CSPAN. And contrary to popular perception, he is not assured that a phone call to Reid or Pelosi will get them to do with his bidding. That said, do we know what position the White House has taken on this issue? Maybe Obama really does support this being a closed hearing, in which case, yes, he has totally flipped-flopped on the issue.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Why should the GOP support a "progressive" health care bill?
This country DOES NOT WANT a "progressive" heath care bill.

I'll type slowly for you.

Let's take "Medicare for all" as a provision for example. Progressives are for it. Corporatist Dems and Republicans are against it.

Someone says "Dems didn't get Medicare for all passed, and it's completely their fault, not the Republicans at all who were shut out fo the process from the start".

I say, no, actually, Repubs said they are against it from the start.

Had Republicans been for it, it'd have passed, combining them with the progressive Democrats. So the fact Medicare for all didn't pass is the fault of everyone who opposed it - corpratist Dems and Repubs.

I point out it's wrong to say Repubs had no role in its not passing. I point out that the Democratic party was more in favor of it that tne Republican party who had at most one vote, while Dems had problems too.

You the stroll up and ask the absurd question, why should Republicans be for it, which has nothing to do with the topic.

I didn't say Republicans 'should' be for it. I was disagreeing with the claim that Repuiblicans had nothing to do with its not passing, much less the claim they were HAPPY to help it pass but got 'shut out'.

Republicans have been against any of the significant healthcare reform meant by the phrase from the beginning.

As for what the public is for - polls show the public has been for a number of more progressive provisions, and against others.

The fact the bill is so watered down is because progressives don't have the votes to get a progressive bill passed, because of opposition from corporatist Dems and Repubs.

What IS passing is a bill that has no Republican support for politics, has corporatist Dem and industry support for its sellout provisions, and just barely has progressives for the few bones thrown to them.

The public gets good and bad in the bill.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Obama actually does not have the power to to force Congress to televize a hearing on CSPAN. And contrary to popular perception, he is not assured that a phone call to Reid or Pelosi will get them to do with his bidding. That said, do we know what position the White House has taken on this issue? Maybe Obama really does support this being a closed hearing, in which case, yes, he has totally flipped-flopped on the issue.

- wolf

They didn't see the letter yet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsliZ5RW2IY

 

[Craig234]

They don't have to compromise with anyone. They have the house and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. They can pass anything they want. The TRUTH is they ALL take pharma money and they don't want anyone to know that this so-called 'health care' bill is chock full of Dems (and Reps) taking their money and crafting something that makes the 'evil' corporation even more money.

And NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with why the debates are not on C-Span per Obama's campaign promises. It's pretty simple... He said over and over that the debates would be open to the public via C-Span. They're not.

What the hell is wrong with you?

You talk about the Democratic party as if ti's one monolith with '60 votes'.

I've said from the beginning that the Democratic Party is splt between a progressive faction and a corporatist faction who do not agree, who have different agendas.

The corporatist Dems mean the progressive Dems DO NOT have 60 votes.

I've said from the beginning some of the Dems are corruptly following the healthcare agenda over th public interest. THat means the Democratic party DOES NOT have 60 votes.

I point out that the Dems have these corrupt members keeping them from having 60 votes, and you respond saying the same thing as if you're arguing with me.

Then you tell the lie that 'ALL the Dems' are industry-slave corrupt. No, they're not. There's a large faction - the only major faction - who are not slaves to the industry, the progressive Dems.

Stop the lie with your 'all Dems are for the same industry agenda' crap.

Finally as for televising it what part of my post did not you not understand? (All of it apparently).

I said I'm not that familiar with the details of the issue, who is saying what.

The bottom line is that I said Obama did say in the campaign he would 'guide the process' and that he's in favor of televised hearings. I'm not sure how much he 'promised to get them' or said he's 'for them'.

Who controls whether they're televised? The Congressional leadership. Period.

Did Obama just bail on his position? Maybe, broken promise if he did. Is he still in favor of it, but the Congress is not agreeing? THen me made the effort he said. Is he not pointing out this disagreement for the sake of not giving one mor thing to attack Democrats on and hurt the process? Maybe, I don't know. And as I said, has he made bad comrpomises because he felt he had to because big pharma is too strong? Maybe, I don't know, but if he did we have a problem with the industry dominating our politicians even more.

I'm pointing out the possible situations within the limited info available. You are blathering nonsense.

The bottom line: candidate Obama supported televised hearings. The Democrats as a party have failed to deliver what he supported, if they're not aired, whatever the particular blame situation is.

I'm hoping they are aired.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wrong. Reps chose to oppose real healthcare reform 'from the git go' - and to be obstructionists for the dems to work around.

Yes, Repubs are responsible for their part in the healthcare issue. If they'd supported a progressive healthcare bill, we'd have one. They chose not to and it's partly their fault we don't.

The Dems are MORE in favor of real healthcare reforms than Repubs. They have many for it, while only one Republican has voted for it. But the Dems have many problem members as well.

The healthcare reform people have had a very hard time getting this done, with their base of Dems, needing 60 not 50 Senate votes, facing politicial opposition from Repubs and corrupt oppositition from some Dems.

The Republicans had zero input from the git go...the bills were crafted by Democrats behind closed doors and it looks like it will continue to stay that way...and this is the Dems idea of "there has never been a more open process". Give me a break...the stench of self delusion is making me puke. Dems 'obstructed' Reps from the beginning and now act surprised that Reps don't support their approach to reform...go figure. The Dems make their bed...now they have to lie in it. So sad.

 

[spidey07]

Obama actually does not have the power to to force Congress to televize a hearing on CSPAN. And contrary to popular perception, he is not assured that a phone call to Reid or Pelosi will get them to do with his bidding. That said, do we know what position the White House has taken on this issue? Maybe Obama really does support this being a closed hearing, in which case, yes, he has totally flipped-flopped on the issue.

- wolf

Obama himself is going to be in the negotiations, absolutely he has the power and in fact obligation unless he is a bald face LIAR to do so.

 

[Craig234]

The Republicans had zero input from the git go...the bills were crafted by Democrats behind closed doors and it looks like it will continue to stay that way...and this is the Dems idea of "there has never been a more open process". Give me a break...the stench of self delusion is making me puke. Dems 'obstructed' Reps from the beginning and now act surprised that Reps don't support their approach to reform...go figure. The Dems make their bed...now they have to lie in it. So sad.

You're lying.

Repubs chose a policy of blocking this bill from the beginning, period.

The only 'input' they had to offer was for the puropse of sabotage and delay - to completely break the bill.

That's not 'input'. If the Republicans had had any willingness to support a real healthcare reform bill, they would have been welcomed by Democrats, who WANTED Republicans to go along with reform.

Indeed, Republicans could have embarrassedthe corporatist Dems, f they weren't just as corrupt.

This is like a guy walking up to a woman and punchig her in the face, and then saying it was her choice not to go out on a date because she wouldn't talk to him.

Republicans made themselves complete opponents of the bill, and then tried to play the victim by saying they were just well intentioned reform lovers who would vote for it but nasty Dems didn't ask.

i\IKt takes idiocy to take that at face value.

 

[Patranus]

Obama actually does not have the power to to force Congress to televize a hearing on CSPAN. And contrary to popular perception, he is not assured that a phone call to Reid or Pelosi will get them to do with his bidding. That said, do we know what position the White House has taken on this issue? Maybe Obama really does support this being a closed hearing, in which case, yes, he has totally flipped-flopped on the issue.

- wolf

Sure he does. All he has to do is come out and say
"If the entire process is not done in open meetings, with no back room deals, and is not entirely on C-SPAN, I will veto any legislation."

Now that is the Barak Obama and "the end of politics as usual" that many Americans voted for.

All Obama has to do is grow a set.

 

[Craig234]

Obama himself is going to be in the negotiations, absolutely he has the power and in fact obligation unless he is a bald face LIAR to do so.

He has the obligation to ask for them to be televised. He does not have the power to decide.

 

[Craig234]

Sure he does. All he has to do is come out and say
"If the entire process is not in open meetings, with no back room deals, and no C-SPAN, I will veto any legislation."

Now that is the Barak Obama and "the end of politics as usual" that many Americans voted for.

All Obama has to do is grow a set.

Get in line, behind him fighting for drug price negotiation, for single payer, and so on. Obama is compromised, but trashing the entire healthcare bill for this point isn't required to make an effort.

However, the limited evidence I've seen don't showhim making that effort. Why isn't Gibbs saying clearly that Obama supports what he did in the campaign? That's appearing to be a broken promise.

 

[Patranus]

He has the obligation to ask for them to be televised. He does not have the power to decide.

See my previous post.

 

[TechBoyJK]

He has the obligation to ask for them to be televised. He does not have the power to decide.

You are wrong, as Patranus stated, he could levy his position to force it. But he isn't. (I'm not an Obama hater, I think he's one of our better presidents). Anyways, I'm not educated in this health care thing so all I see is what a common observer sees.

To me it seems the DEMS are rushing this. I thought health care reform sounded good, but from what I read and hear, this whole operation is shady, and I get the feeling we'll be much worse off if this is passed. Not because it's reform, but because of the baggage that comes with it.

 

[Darwin333]

That's one of the two scenarios I raised, neither of which is good for our country or Obama, both of which involve him breaking his campaign platform.

Now, how do you think a group who badly screw up an effort to help Americans' health, who compromises primarily because of the opposition of Republicans and sellout Democrats, compares to the other group who are happy to simply completely sellout the well being of millions of Americans and cash their industry checks?

Yet the Democrats are perfectly willing to subject all Americans to horrible legislation for purely political reasons. Yet here you are trying to argue they are somehow better than the other side. The Democrats think your healthcare is less important than a political victory. Its ok though right? I mean they do have some really good excuses that they are practicing as we speak.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're lying.

Repubs chose a policy of blocking this bill from the beginning, period.

The only 'input' they had to offer was for the puropse of sabotage and delay - to completely break the bill.

That's not 'input'. If the Republicans had had any willingness to support a real healthcare reform bill, they would have been welcomed by Democrats, who WANTED Republicans to go along with reform.

Indeed, Republicans could have embarrassedthe corporatist Dems, f they weren't just as corrupt.

This is like a guy walking up to a woman and punchig her in the face, and then saying it was her choice not to go out on a date because she wouldn't talk to him.

Republicans made themselves complete opponents of the bill, and then tried to play the victim by saying they were just well intentioned reform lovers who would vote for it but nasty Dems didn't ask.

i\IKt takes idiocy to take that at face value.

Yeah...you caught me...I'm lying..."there has never been a more open process". Rock on Garth.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Yet the Democrats are perfectly willing to subject all Americans to horrible legislation for purely political reasons. Yet here you are trying to argue they are somehow better than the other side. The Democrats think your healthcare is less important than a political victory. Its ok though right? I mean they do have some really good excuses that they are practicing as we speak.

Don't worry.. Craig234 is nuts. I've tried to read his posts and will all due respect, he's pretty talented at writing and wording, but in the end it usually makes no sense or is misguided. I think he might be one of those so called loony libs. But I'm not sure. I can't help but try and at least think about what he says though because he is crafty with words which makes him seem right at first, but then you're like.... WTF?!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It seems to me that except for matters genuinely tied to national security or where mentioning the names of people which might be harmed, all political matters in Congress ought to be televised. I really don't care about an agenda. If it's important enough to legislate, it's important enough to let people see how the sausage is made.

 

[Darwin333]

What the hell is wrong with you?

You talk about the Democratic party as if ti's one monolith with '60 votes'.

I've said from the beginning that the Democratic Party is splt between a progressive faction and a corporatist faction who do not agree, who have different agendas.

The corporatist Dems mean the progressive Dems DO NOT have 60 votes.

I've said from the beginning some of the Dems are corruptly following the healthcare agenda over th public interest. THat means the Democratic party DOES NOT have 60 votes.

I point out that the Dems have these corrupt members keeping them from having 60 votes, and you respond saying the same thing as if you're arguing with me.

Then you tell the lie that 'ALL the Dems' are industry-slave corrupt. No, they're not. There's a large faction - the only major faction - who are not slaves to the industry, the progressive Dems.

Stop the lie with your 'all Dems are for the same industry agenda' crap.

Finally as for televising it what part of my post did not you not understand? (All of it apparently).

I said I'm not that familiar with the details of the issue, who is saying what.

The bottom line is that I said Obama did say in the campaign he would 'guide the process' and that he's in favor of televised hearings. I'm not sure how much he 'promised to get them' or said he's 'for them'.

Who controls whether they're televised? The Congressional leadership. Period.

Did Obama just bail on his position? Maybe, broken promise if he did. Is he still in favor of it, but the Congress is not agreeing? THen me made the effort he said. Is he not pointing out this disagreement for the sake of not giving one mor thing to attack Democrats on and hurt the process? Maybe, I don't know. And as I said, has he made bad comrpomises because he felt he had to because big pharma is too strong? Maybe, I don't know, but if he did we have a problem with the industry dominating our politicians even more.

I'm pointing out the possible situations within the limited info available. You are blathering nonsense.

The bottom line: candidate Obama supported televised hearings. The Democrats as a party have failed to deliver what he supported, if they're not aired, whatever the particular blame situation is.

I'm hoping they are aired.

What other reasons would the progressives have for voting in favor of bad legislation that will hurt more Americans than help?

Their votes will tell what they really stand for, party or America. Wanna bet which way they vote?

Stop pretending that passing bad legislation is somehow better than blocking good legislation. Both acts are wrong and benefit only themselves.

No, the fact is they DO have more power than you imply for the exact reasons you stated. A single progressive can prevent the passage of this bill and the Dems are not willing to accept the political consequences of that. Therefor I see no reason why the progressives can not make this bill something that will actually help Americans or they withhold their votes and we get no legislation instead of bad legislation. I wonder why it is they aren't willing to do that for the American people?

 

[cubeless]

the 'progressives' love this... when it all goes to hell you then can declare an emergency and finish the job...

 

[Craig234]

What other reasons would the progressives have for voting in favor of bad legislation that will hurt more Americans than help?

Their votes will tell what they really stand for, party or America. Wanna bet which way they vote?

Stop pretending that passing bad legislation is somehow better than blocking good legislation. Both acts are wrong and benefit only themselves.

No, the fact is they DO have more power than you imply for the exact reasons you stated. A single progressive can prevent the passage of this bill and the Dems are not willing to accept the political consequences of that. Therefor I see no reason why the progressives can not make this bill something that will actually help Americans or they withhold their votes and we get no legislation instead of bad legislation. I wonder why it is they aren't willing to do that for the American people?

You're lying, too. The progressives have backed a very different v ersion of this bill, one with single payer, one with NEGOTIATIED drug prices, etc.

The fact is not as you lie a black and white choice between the industry and the public - the progressives face a very difficult choice between two lesser evils, a corrupted bill that has some good and some bad, or allowing the Republicans who are primarily committed to a political victory, and the industry who has always been happy to see reform get killed, win and possibly set any reform back another 20 years.

If you weren't such a liar, you would recognize the progressives are in that position and not the one you said, just read the progressives' own discussions.

If they vote for this, it's for the larger cause of real reform, NOT for the corruption that's crippled this bill because this bill made comrpomise after comrpmise to get more right-wing and corporatist votes.

 

[TechBoyJK]

It seems to me that except for matters genuinely tied to national security or where mentioning the names of people which might be harmed, all political matters in Congress ought to be televised. I really don't care about an agenda. If it's important enough to legislate, it's important enough to let people see how the sausage is made.

This. Because honestly, I watch and read a lot of news, and I still feel like I have no clue on what is going on with this bill.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah...you caught me...I'm lying..."there has never been a more open process". Rock on Garth.

Hey, another lie.

Craig : You lied about X.

Doc: Hey, you caught me, Y is obviously a lie.

Quote me once where I said a word about you lying about"never been a more open process", one way or the other.

You can't, because you just replaced what I actually said witrh your new lie.