C-SPAN wants to televise healthcare debate

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

Yeah...it's tough to keep my lies straight anymore. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Craig234]

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.

Techboy, it's delicate, but at the moment from your other post, I'm liking you and will explain a bit.

As far as Dems rushing this, let me just saay that's mostly ridiculuos. Dems have been interested in this, but faced excessive opposition, since at least President Truman.

Bill Clinton made it a major agenda of the first Democratic President after 12 years of bad Republican presidencies, and got his ass handed to him, with burn marks, and it was silent for another 15+ years.

I was reading a book from years ago this morning on war, it was discussing how the president can get what he wants on war, and how, while the Congress has a harder time pushing its agenda. It specificially said:

Intense public controversy may prcede the onset of warfare, but the modern historical record is clear: No matter what the constitution says, in actual practice the president has the whip hand when it comesot military deployments - and if a president really wants a war, he'll get one. That can hardly be said about congressional passage of landmark domestic legislation. (A comprehensive overhaul of the nation's health-care system, for instance, is likely to be more elusive than another war.)

Again, it was wirtten before the whole current healthcare initiative - looking for any issue as 'impossible to pass because of resistance', healthcare was the one example picked.

Let's say there's a 1 trillion dollar system to perform a national function; and for the sake of argument you realize, if we were to change the system, we could take that trillion, spend only half as much, and do the function better if we redesign the system. It's clearly better! But look at the practical realities. There are real people sitting on top of the current 1 tillion dollar system, who will fight hard and spend some of that 1 trillion to stop you, while the 'greater public good' who benefit from your improvement are not nearly as active for your side, they don't have the smae war chest or even a fraction of it for spending for change.

What you find is that the political battle for your good change finds an army, well funded, for not changing, and a few poor idealists on the other side. Guess what happens? Your change goes nowhere.

Overcoming the entrenchned opposition of the healthcare industry - insurance, big pharma, if not the providers, has been effectively an impossible hurdle for decades.

Now, has this been a 'fast' process? With decades of interest blocked? As Eskimospy has written, this is already the second longest legislative effort in the history of our nation.

In any number of ways, this is not 'fast'.

Some of the perception it's fast is from the fighting of obstructionism. Some s from it being hard to understand how quickly many major initiatives move. Some is from the fact that a major marketing campaign from the opposition is that it's fast. Far be it for me to guess whether that's affected your opinion, but it's a possibility.

On whole, I can't see the argument that it's 'fast'.

Now, if I can change gears, what I CAN see is that it's been pretty disastrous.

This wasn't the ideal plan progressives thought of - new liberal president leads the nation to Medicare for all and that's it.

Along the way, liberal president became corporatist sellout president, the vote counts came up short and the bill was gutted and corrupted to buy the handful of votes needed for passage.

What's left is a bastard bill. Progressives are very disappointed with its minimal benefits, Republicans hate it just because Democrats will get credit, the industry is thrilled that it's changed the debate to 'win win' - no reform is a huge win, and passing a bill that has so many provisions favoring them is just fine, too, they've officially backed it as the price for those provisions. We're down to the core politics - Democrats want it just for any win, and Republicans are against it mostly to deny Democrats any win and hurt them next election.

Now no one gets a 'clean win', everyone holds their noses whatever happens. Much of the analysis is based on where the best chance is for the NEXT bill that does better - if this one passes or not.

The basic feeling among those who want real reform in favor of this bill is, remember the decades-long impossibility of gettiung any change through at all - that passing even a bad bill will create momentum for a better bill, that it will 'beat' the opposition, especially the Republicans, and pave the way for more better changes and help the larger effort.

This is a VERY debatable notion, and progressives are debating it.

Ignore the partisan idiots on the right who make up things about "it's all just playing politics" - there's some truth to that for the party, but we're talking about the reform proponents.

There is a real argument that passing even this damaged bill is 'good for reform', instead of just adding one more to the list of 50 years showing the government cannot improve it.

I'd rather have a bill I could be saying is wonderful and pushing for it, but the strong opposition has removed that.

Now, on your comment about Obama leveraging - I don't know the strength of Obama's promises to try for tv coverage. What I said is right, that it's not his decision; what you said is right that he CAN 'leverage'.

I don't know all the issues involved, and so it's just speculation. Maybe he just saud t because it sounded good. Maybe he had the best of intentions but Republican obstructonism means televising thretens the passage of the bill and he's chnaged his view. Or other situations. The thing is I don't know. There are a lot of factors that go into whether he SHOULD jeopardize the entire bill on this one issue. If he did, and the bill was lost because he did, was that a good choice?

 

[Craig234]

Yeah...it's tough to keep my lies straight anymore. Thanks for pointing that out.

I always love ironically inappropriate sarcasm. Ya, if I just say I agreed I lied saracstically, it'll prove that I really didn't.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

Well, looking into it further, the root problem here is that the dems decided not to have a formal hearing, which undoubtedly would have been televised. They did this for tactical reasons, so that the repubs could not delay the process. This, instead, will be a series of closed door negotiations among the dems, some of which Obama will be present for. Can he realistically insist that these sessions be televised? No. But why the hell did he even promise that every negotiation in Congress would be televised? He doesn't have the power to do it, and even if he did, the notion of it is ludicrous. People have to be able to speak freely when they negotiate. They have to be able to throw out ideas, some of them bad, without worrying that every word they say is a potential "gotcha" to be aired in the media. Hearings are a different thing of course, but you cannot have a camera in every office and corridor to track every word of every free flowing conversation between one congressman and another.

The real problem here is that Obama made promises he could never keep. Having been in the Senate himself, he should have known better. And yes, I am inclined to think he is rightfully being called on the carpet for it.

- wolf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I always love ironically inappropriate sarcasm. Ya, if I just say I agreed I lied saracstically, it'll prove that I really didn't.

Yeah...that's the ticket...you see right through me.

 

[Craig234]

Well, looking into it further, the root problem here is that the dems decided not to have a formal hearing, which undoubtedly would have been televised. They did this for tactical reasons, so that the repubs could not delay the process. This, instead, will be a series of closed door negotiations among the dems, some of which Obama will be present for. Can he realistically insist that these sessions be televised? No. But why the hell did he even promise that every negotiation in Congress would be televised? He doesn't have the power to do it, and even if he did, the notion of it is ludicrous. People have to be able to speak freely when they negotiate. They have to be able to throw out ideas, some of them bad, without worrying that every word they say is a potential "gotcha" to be aired in the media. Hearings are a different thing of course, but you cannot have a camera in every office and corridor to track every word of every free flowing conversation between one congressman and another.

The real problem here is that Obama made promises he could never keep. Having been in the Senate himself, he should have known better. And yes, I am inclined to think he is rightfully being called on the carpet for it.

- wolf

That's pretty much my take on it too. I don't have all the facts to say for sure, but that seems right.

Look at is campaign message - he advocated televised, it sounded good, he said he'd "guide the process".

Presidential candidates are often pressured to say they'll do more than they can promise, and they pretty much always fall into the version of saying they'lkl do this and that they can't really promise.

It's not a good sound bite to say "I'll advocate for televing, but it's not my decision". What is a good soundbite is, "elect me and we'll televise, unlike the lousy other party who hasn't."

Going too far is rationalized - who cares about exaggerating televising, when big issues are at stake in who wins?

It's their responsibility not to overpromise, and they deserve criticism when they do.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I always love ironically inappropriate sarcasm. Ya, if I just say I agreed I lied saracstically, it'll prove that I really didn't.

Hi Craig234, I read that long post and all in all it made a lot of sense. Like I said, I don't have the background on this whole debate, just what I observe. I know health care has been an initiative for a long time, but when I said rushed through, I was mostly thinking of this bill in particular. I know reform has been a long time coming. But I didn't really find anything I disagreed with in what you said. So :thumbsup:

 

[Patranus]

Presidential candidates are often pressured to say they'll do more than they can promise, and they pretty much always fall into the version of saying they'lkl do this and that they can't really promise.

And there is the problem. Politicians need to be held accountable for what they say they will do versus what they actually do.

Obama CAN force congress to open up the process but CHOOSES not to do so and he will suffer the political fall out because of it.

 

[Craig234]

And there is the problem. Politicians need to be held accountable for what they say they will do versus what they actually do.

Everyone agrees with this - for Democratic presidents. (Democrats agree with it for all presidents).

Obama CAN force congress to open up the process but CHOOSES not to do so and he will suffer the political fall out because of it.

He can ask. He can pressure. He can't decide.

I mean, technically, he can threaten to veto every bill passed while he's president and declare war on Congress if they say no. But he shouldn't.

 

[monovillage]

BTW At least one of Pres. Obamas promises that the debate would be on C-SPAN was after he was elected President, not when he was a candidate.

 

[Patranus]

He can ask. He can pressure. He can't decide.

I mean, technically, he can threaten to veto every bill passed while he's president and declare war on Congress if they say no. But he shouldn't.

His entire campaign was that he was going to end "politics as usual" in Washington D.C. I guess he doesn't have the balls to actually follow through.

 

[Darwin333]

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

Of course, anyone who disagrees with your idea that progressive politicians are somehow saintly are liars. Anyone who dares challenge your words with their actions is a liar.

I like you Craig, I truly enjoy some of the back and forth we have had and I, at your suggestion, have actually been reading up on your progressives. Just like what the other groups say they believe in, I agree with some and disagree with some. However, I put very little faith in the words of politicians and instead judge them by their actions.

No Craig, I am not the liar in this conversation. I am not the one claiming that progressives are not with the "corporate democrats" while they vote in favor of a health insurance and big pharma bail out bill. If that is what you progressives are selling, more of the same shit with a different spin, I ain't buying.

the progressives face a very difficult choice between two lesser evils, a corrupted bill that has some good and some bad

Nothing but excuses, status quo for your run of the mill politician. The "lesser of two evils" bullshit is just that, bullshit. At the end of the day they are still voting for evil. Maybe that is ok in your book but in mine I refuse to settle for evil, I am sorry that your progressives don't have the same fortitude.

a corrupted bill that has some good and some bad

At least you admit that they are voting for corruption.

or allowing the Republicans who are primarily committed to a political victory

And here is the reason. They are perfectly willing to push a corrupted bill that will directly affect every American in the country for political gain. Tell me again how they are different again? Go slow this time because your words and their actions aren't lining up. You just admitted what both sides are interested in at this point, a political win and yes that includes your progressives. You know damned well that if they were voting on ideology that they would never approve of this bill but they aren't voting on ideology. They are voting for a political win and for that win they are willing to harm the people and help the corporations. They are no better than the Republicans who would kill a good bill for the same political gain.

and the industry who has always been happy to see reform get killed, win and possibly set any reform back another 20 years.

Please tell me why the industry would dislike this bill? Pay attention to their actions and not their words. How has their stock price reacted to this bill? I bet all the CEO's of those companies you despise so much send those progressives thank you cards when they cash their big ass bonus checks, courtesy of legislation those progressives helped pass.

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.

So once again you are saying they are willing to compromise their ideals for no good reason. This bill has nothing to do with reform and the possibility of it leading to real reform without collapsing the system (and harming untold numbers of Americans in the process) is slim to none. Is slim to none is all it takes for the progressives to sell out, at least Landrieu and Nelson got a decent bribe out of the deal?

Your guys are no better than the rest. I don't need to prove anything because their own actions will prove it for me. You can come up with all the excuses you want to but it all boils down to a political win for one side or the other with Americans losing. They have the ability to make this bill better but they do not have the will. They wouldn't want to delay it in order to get some of the bad out and good in because of a speech. Their actions sure are in line with run of the mill politicians. I am sorry if you don't like it but all the excuses in the world can't explain why they would vote for something so completely against what they supposedly stand for.

 

[Patranus]

Nothing but excuses, status quo for your run of the mill politician. The "lesser of two evils" bullshit is just that, bullshit. At the end of the day they are still voting for evil. Maybe that is ok in your book but in mine I refuse to settle for evil, I am sorry that your progressives don't have the same fortitude.

Word.

 

[Craig234]

His entire campaign was that he was going to end "politics as usual" in Washington D.C. I guess he doesn't have the balls to actually follow through.

He hasn't met most people's hopes for that.

On the other hand, Bush's campaign was to 'restore dignity to the white house'.

When he wasn't appointing his personal lawyer who hid his drunk driving in the campaign Attorney General to rubber-stamp the corruption of the Justice Department and torture authorization.

Or appointing the lotto director who helped him pay off a crooked debt related to his corrupt admission to the national guard to the Supreme Court.

Or taping the video looking for WMD under the oval office cushions while the US fought a war he's wrongly based on WND.

Or selling off the government to the highest bidders, with hundreds of regulators being the former industry representatives.

But ya, Obama hasn't totally changed Washington, despite all the cooperation from Republicans.

 

[woolfe9999]

He hasn't met most people's hopes for that.

On the other hand, Bush's campaign was to 'restore dignity to the white house'.

When he wasn't appointing his personal lawyer who hid his drunk driving in the campaign Attorney General to rubber-stamp the corruption of the Justice Department and torture authorization.

Or appointing the lotto director who helped him pay off a crooked debt related to his corrupt admission to the national guard to the Supreme Court.

Or taping the video looking for WMD under the oval office cushions while the US fought a war he's wrongly based on WND.

Or selling off the government to the highest bidders, with hundreds of regulators being the former industry representatives.

But ya, Obama hasn't totally changed Washington, despite all the cooperation from Republicans.

Obama is in this, as in all things, an incrementalist. He has reduced access of lobbyists to the White House, but not eliminated it. He has improved transparency in many things, but hasn't achieved anywhere near full transparency. He has achieved part of his goals on healthcare, but not all of it. The same will be true with energy, financial reform, immigration, etc.

The trouble is that he didn't campaign as an incrementalist. And it is biting him in the ass. And as someone who generally supports him, I also have to agree that a lot of it is legit. He said some pretty stupid shit in his campaign, and he has to suffer the consequences of it.

- wolf

 

[Patranus]

He hasn't met most people's hopes for that.

On the other hand, Bush's campaign was to 'restore dignity to the white house'.

When he wasn't appointing his personal lawyer who hid his drunk driving in the campaign Attorney General to rubber-stamp the corruption of the Justice Department and torture authorization.

Or appointing the lotto director who helped him pay off a crooked debt related to his corrupt admission to the national guard to the Supreme Court.

Or taping the video looking for WMD under the oval office cushions while the US fought a war he's wrongly based on WND.

Or selling off the government to the highest bidders, with hundreds of regulators being the former industry representatives.

But ya, Obama hasn't totally changed Washington, despite all the cooperation from Republicans.

But...but...butt...BOOOOOOOOSH.

 

[Craig234]

Obama is in this, as in all things, an incrementalist. He has reduced access of lobbyists to the White House, but not eliminated it. He has improved transparency in many things, but hasn't achieved anywhere near full transparency. He has achieved part of his goals on healthcare, but not all of it. The same will be true with energy, financial reform, immigration, etc.

The trouble is that he didn't campaign as an incrementalist. And it is biting him in the ass. And as someone who generally supports him, I also have to agree that a lot of it is legit. He said some pretty stupid shit in his campaign, and he has to suffer the consequences of it.

- wolf

We agree again. When we talk we can say Obama, period. When I'm talking to someone who says "ya, so we should put a Republican back in!" I need to add the context.

 

[Patranus]

Did somebody say C-SPAN?

 

[Fear No Evil]

He hasn't met most people's hopes for that.

On the other hand, Bush's campaign was to 'restore dignity to the white house'.

When he wasn't appointing his personal lawyer who hid his drunk driving in the campaign Attorney General to rubber-stamp the corruption of the Justice Department and torture authorization.

Or appointing the lotto director who helped him pay off a crooked debt related to his corrupt admission to the national guard to the Supreme Court.

Or taping the video looking for WMD under the oval office cushions while the US fought a war he's wrongly based on WND.

Or selling off the government to the highest bidders, with hundreds of regulators being the former industry representatives.

But ya, Obama hasn't totally changed Washington, despite all the cooperation from Republicans.

We just need to give him 7 more years and another 20 trillion dollars or so.. oh, and maybe some more dead American soldiers because he doesn't want to profile.

 

[palehorse]

It was a sad day when I woke up and realized that Obama was just like every other scumbag politician before him, and that I was sold a bag of burning dogshit painted to resemble gold when he fought for, and won, my vote.

I won't make the same mistake twice. I no longer have faith in ANY of our supposed representatives... none.

 

[Patranus]

It was a sad day when I woke up and realized that Obama was just like every other scumbag politician before him, and that I was sold a bag of burning dogshit painted to resemble gold when he fought for, and won, my vote.

I won't make the same mistake twice. I no longer have faith in ANY of our supposed representatives... none.

 

[Craig234]

We just need to give him 7 more years and another 20 trillion dollars or so.. oh, and maybe some more dead American soldiers because he doesn't want to profile.

Idiot.

 

[rudder]

Even the MSM is starting to dig on obama...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/06/eveningnews/main6064298.shtml

 

[PJABBER]

One of the funniest aspects of the Obama Administration has to be the daily press briefs by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Not that they they are intentionally humorous, as might be expected of Tony Snow. They are pronouncements from an alternate universe.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...T-discuss-broken-C-Span-promise-80829987.html

 

[Skitzer]

"C-SPAN wants to televise healthcare debate"

Bwah ha ha ha ha. Figure the odds.