Dems intend to bypass GOP on health compromise

[shadow9d9]

Its not like the vast majority of the American people are against it or anything like that....

Yes, we should reinstate slavery, bar women from voting, make inter-racial marriage illegal, reinstate segregation, remove unions, and reinstate former monopolies. Vast majority were for them.

What a great hick idea! You could get back the old south! Yeehaw!

Hell, the vast majority of the US were for Afghanistan and Iraq! Let's stay there forever.

Vast majority were against intervening in World War 2! We should never have joined in! We'd have a unified Europe under the Nazis right now!

What a GREAT idea! Let's let the moron majority decide!

 

[Patranus]

60 democrats? Keep repeating that lie.

Try 58, with 2 independents, one of which backed McCain and forced the democrats to drop the most important part of the legislation.

Don't forget the hick democrats that back the republicans when it comes to anything but social progress. Don't forget the "democrats" that filibustered civil rights 60 years ago that are still considered democrats.

The democrats are not a unified group. The hick republicans are.

Should have let those shitholes secede after emancipation. Then, instead of receiving double the federal dollars of the blue states while making the US look like a bunch of fucking hillbillies, you'd still have your slavery and third world status.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it truth.

Go fuck yourself. You and all your fellow hick shill partisan hacks.

LOL - Those hick republicans are trying to stop the government from sending you to jail if you choose to not buy a product from a private company.
Buy insurance or go to jail.
Sounds like a great solution to me....

 

[Vic]

Its almost like the democrats are trying to lose in 2010.

They're following your pals' example from 2006.

 

[Patranus]

Yes, we should reinstate slavery, bar women from voting, make inter-racial marriage illegal, reinstate segregation, remove unions, and reinstate former monopolies. Vast majority were for them.

What a great hick idea! You could get back the old south! Yeehaw!

Hell, the vast majority of the US were for Afghanistan and Iraq! Let's stay there forever.

Vast majority were against intervening in World War 2! We should never have joined in! We'd have a unified Europe under the Nazis right now!

What a GREAT idea! Let's let the moron majority decide!

Nice straw man based on factually inaccurate assumptions.

 

[Vic]

Heh... the last few posts... I love it when 2 opposing extremists meet and they like to pretend that they're both mainstream.

 

[Patranus]

Heh... the last few posts... I love it when 2 opposing extremists meet and they like to pretend that they're both mainstream.

Pick up a poll. The opinions I express ARE mainstream.
This bill is a joke.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, we should reinstate slavery, bar women from voting, make inter-racial marriage illegal, reinstate segregation, remove unions, and reinstate former monopolies. Vast majority were for them.

What a great hick idea! You could get back the old south! Yeehaw!

Hell, the vast majority of the US were for Afghanistan and Iraq! Let's stay there forever.

Vast majority were against intervening in World War 2! We should never have joined in! We'd have a unified Europe under the Nazis right now!

What a GREAT idea! Let's let the moron majority decide!

We're holding a fund raising to buy you a ticket to China. Soon all your dreams will be realized. In the meantime Here's your complete playbook.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd suggest that the waning public support has more to do with the ongoing FUD campaign by Republicans and the watering down of the whole idea. With their total Nyet! stance, repubs put a few so called conservative Senate Democrats into the catbird seat, who forced the kind of change Repubs could actually agree with- giveaways to big healthcare. But they don't have to. They get the best of both worlds- favors to their usual contributors and plausible deniability all in one.

Current methods of healthcare delivery cost more and more all the time while covering fewer and fewer people. If we hold the current course, we'll experience systemic failure in not too many more years. Just the way it is. And that's apparently fine by Republicans and their supporters- they had no problem at all allowing near collapse of the banking system, after all...

With some luck, the compromise version will be more like the HOR bill, with a public option and actual cost controls. If, as Righties claim, that private enterprise can do it better, it seems to me that they'd jump at the chance to prove it, drive the public option into the dirt with their much vaunted better way of doing things... But they're not, not at all. Why is that?

Maybe it's because they're knowingly peddling lies and have been for decades...

 

[FerrelGeek]

Winner of the 'Useful Idiot Award'. No wonder Obama got elected.

More wahmbulances, I guess...

It's not like repubs had anything constructive to add to the legislation- their answer has been no, no and no! all along... their efforts have been entirely obstructionist, their goal to Beat Obama! on something, anything, doesn't matter what...

It's not quite like trying to slam wingnut judges though the Senate with threats of a nuclear option, either... or denying amendments to an anti-abortion bill that would have made interstate bus drivers culpable for the conduct of their passengers...

How quickly we forget the arrogant shenanigans of the once republican legislature... this is tame by comparison. The whining, hair pulling, gnashing of teeth and uncontrollable raving are less than becoming, that's for sure...

 

[Patranus]

I'd suggest that the waning public support has more to do with the ongoing FUD campaign by Republicans and the watering down of the whole idea. With their total Nyet! stance, repubs put a few so called conservative Senate Democrats into the catbird seat, who forced the kind of change Repubs could actually agree with- giveaways to big healthcare. But they don't have to. They get the best of both worlds- favors to their usual contributors and plausible deniability all in one.

Current methods of healthcare delivery cost more and more all the time while covering fewer and fewer people. If we hold the current course, we'll experience systemic failure in not too many more years. Just the way it is. And that's apparently fine by Republicans and their supporters- they had no problem at all allowing near collapse of the banking system, after all...

With some luck, the compromise version will be more like the HOR bill, with a public option and actual cost controls. If, as Righties claim, that private enterprise can do it better, it seems to me that they'd jump at the chance to prove it, drive the public option into the dirt with their much vaunted better way of doing things... But they're not, not at all. Why is that?

Maybe it's because they're knowingly peddling lies and have been for decades...

What does the current legislation do to reduce health care costs?
Why should every American be forced to buy something to be considered a citizen in good standing?
Who was in control of congress during the "near collapse" of the banking system?

 

[sciwizam]

I'd suggest that the waning public support has more to do with the ongoing FUD campaign by Republicans and the watering down of the whole idea. With their total Nyet! stance, repubs put a few so called conservative Senate Democrats into the catbird seat, who forced the kind of change Repubs could actually agree with- giveaways to big healthcare. But they don't have to. They get the best of both worlds- favors to their usual contributors and plausible deniability all in one.

Current methods of healthcare delivery cost more and more all the time while covering fewer and fewer people. If we hold the current course, we'll experience systemic failure in not too many more years. Just the way it is. And that's apparently fine by Republicans and their supporters- they had no problem at all allowing near collapse of the banking system, after all...

With some luck, the compromise version will be more like the HOR bill, with a public option and actual cost controls. If, as Righties claim, that private enterprise can do it better, it seems to me that they'd jump at the chance to prove it, drive the public option into the dirt with their much vaunted better way of doing things... But they're not, not at all. Why is that?

Maybe it's because they're knowingly peddling lies and have been for decades...

The White House made the backroom secret deal with Pharma back in early 2009, iirc.

 

[Vic]

Pick up a poll. The opinions I express ARE mainstream.
This bill is a joke.

Your opinions exceed the parameters of any of those polls.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe it's because they're knowingly peddling lies and have been for decades...

But what about the Reps?

Seriously, you sold the original bill just like the Reps pushed Iraq and with comparable ignorance on the subject.

Can you give a good reason why your party members felt they understood the health care system so well that they didn't have to bother to consult with people who actually DO health care?

I beat the crap out of the Republicans for Iraq when they crewed the fail-boat. Now it's your turn. You never bothered to find out precisely was needed. No one wanted to be confused by facts. It was the agenda, and the agenda is paramount.

Whores and liars. That's BOTH parties. Why the hell didn't you guys bother to find out what the hell was going on before the fact? If you did that you could have clubbed the Reps like baby seals.

That would have required two functioning neurons and to cut the political testosterone.

It's like watching two drunks fighting in a bar. It would be more amusing, but you are dragging the country down and do not really care.

Stop being a partisan and kick YOUR party in the nads to get things right, not dick around, and don't dare bring up the Reps. They need to do the same thing, but as I've said there's not a dimes worth of difference between any of those political sharks.

If there's a hell, there's a special place just for politicians, and their ass kissers.

 

[Vic]

But what about the Reps?
If there's a hell, there's a special place just for politicians, and their ass kissers.

Agreed.

 

[spidey07]

They're following your pals' example from 1994.

Fixed that for you.

Burn in hell senate/congress. You're done, you are outta here. We The People DO NOT WANT and we WILL defeat you.

 

[theeedude]

What is the point of this "compromise" if GOP has decided they will vote against this no matter what?

 

[spidey07]

What is the point of this "compromise" if GOP has decided they will vote against this no matter what?

You're not paying attention, read the OP again and try to stay current with events please.

This is an AP article so you can't really attack the source on this one.

 

[theeedude]

You're not paying attention, read the OP again and try to stay current with events please.

This is an AP article so you can't really attack the source on this one.

There are no meaningful negotiations left to conduct. Lieberman pretty much is dictating that Senate bill goes unchanged, and GOP is basically trying to block things and not contributing. So there is no point in this conference.

 

[spidey07]

There are no meaningful negotiations left to conduct. Lieberman pretty much is dictating that Senate bill goes unchanged, and GOP is basically trying to block things and not contributing. So there is no point in this conference.

Yes, pure tyranny in your opinion.

 

[woolfe9999]

You're not paying attention, read the OP again and try to stay current with events please.

This is an AP article so you can't really attack the source on this one.

How is his point not related to the OP? The AP article says that the dems are excluding them so that they cannot delay the bill or cause "politically troubling votes." The tactic of the repubs is to force issues that are divisive among the dems, in order to split them and kill the bill, and also to delay the process. The point is 100% valid: it is pointless to include in the process a group that will never vote for this bill, and which has a singular agenda of killing it. Including them would be sheer idiocy.

This is, once again, a party which takes a position in total and complete opposition to a bill, then whines about a supposed lack of bipartisanship. It is a total and complete lie, a piece of rank and cynical rhetoric meant to disguise what is really going on here. ANd it's getting really old. The repubs do not want a bipartisan bill here. They want a dead bill, plain and simple. The least they can do is be honest about it and quit pretending that there is a supposed lack of bipartisanship.

- wolf

 

[spidey07]

How is his point not related to the OP? The AP article says that the dems are excluding them so that they cannot delay the bill or cause "politically troubling votes." The tactic of the repubs is to force issues that are divisive among the dems, in order to split them and kill the bill, and also to delay the process. The point is 100% valid: it is pointless to include in the process a group that will never vote for this bill, and which has a singular agenda of killing it. Including them would be sheer idiocy.

This is, once again, a party which takes a position in total and complete opposition to a bill, then whines about a supposed lack of bipartisanship. It is a total and complete lie, a piece of rank and cynical rhetoric meant to disguise what is really going on here. ANd it's getting really old. The repubs do not want a bipartisan bill here. They want a dead bill, plain and simple. The least they can do is be honest about it and quit pretending that there is a supposed lack of bipartisanship.

- wolf

How can those evil republicans kill a bill in either house or senate when they don't have the votes to do so? Is this action not totally bypassing representative goverment by having the head of both houses being the only representation?

Of course the repubs want to kill it.

THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[woolfe9999]

How can those evil republicans kill a bill in either house or senate when they don't have the votes to do so? Is this action not totally bypassing representative goverment by having the head of both houses being the only representation?

Of course the repubs want to kill it.

THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Their strategy is to try to kill the bill by forcing votes on issues that they know are divisive within the democratic party. They have openly admitted that this has been their strategy, that the amendments they have proposed were not intended to actually improve the bill, but rather to split certain dems off from it and kill the bill.

It's fine for repubs to want to kill the bill, either because of opinion polls are for any other reason. But you have just made my point by acknowledging that this is eactly what they want to do: there is no reason to include them in a compromize process when all they want to do is kill the bill. Compromize sessions are for those who want to compromize. Nothing constructive could ever come of their participation.

- wolf

 

[spidey07]

Their strategy is to try to kill the bill by forcing votes on issues that they know are divisive within the democratic party. They have openly admitted that this has been their strategy, that the amendments they have proposed were not intended to actually improve the bill, but rather to split certain dems off from it and kill the bill.

It's fine for repubs to want to kill the bill, either because of opinion polls are for any other reason. But you have just made my point by acknowledging that this is eactly what they want to do: there is no reason to include them in a compromize process when all they want to do is kill the bill. Compromize sessions are for those who want to compromize. Nothing constructive could ever come of their participation.

- wolf

EXACTLY! Because the people do not want!

 

[Craig234]

Winner of the 'Useful Idiot Award'. No wonder Obama got elected.

You're the useless idiot, but I Jhhnn is one of our best posters.

On this legislation:

Oppoents MIGHT have a constitutional challenge that will stick.

Where is the constitutional power for the federal government to require citizens to buy insurance?

The government has pulled it off for auto insurance, linked to the 'privilige' to drive. It's never had this power uncoditionlly that I know of. This could mean the government pays.

 

[Craig234]

EXACTLY! Because the people do not want!

No, because they're sellouts to the healthcare corporations and it helps them politically.

The public was overwhelmingly in FAVOR of a number of provisions the Republican opposed.