The really amusing part is both parties will pass legislation that does nothing more than enrich the insurance companies and big pharma.
Like I have been saying for years, birds of a feather...
The really amusing part is both parties will pass legislation that does nothing more than enrich the insurance companies and big pharma.
Like I have been saying for years, birds of a feather...
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
You know Craig, I think you gave a pretty clear argument here. In fact, I agree with you; however, this comment shows us (once again) you are nothing but a partisan ass, incapable of bipartisan discussion. Your pompous better than thou attitude towards a large portion of our society also shows what an elitist you are. I hope for the sake of society people it your mindset never get elected.
Too bad. I think your intentions are good and youre probably an intelligent guy. But this shit gets boring.
They are obstructing what is almost universally agreed upon as a fucked up bill. How often does the right and left agree on ANYTHING? It is amazing that they are agreeing upon anything even remotely related to healthcare so if thats what you want to credit them with than so be it. Regardless, I wasn't speaking about healthcare in general I was speaking about this particular bill which most will agree is, save a few good points amungst the thousands of pages, pure garbage. The Democrats will, deservingly so, own this bill. They designed and crafted it, got it through the House of Reps and Senate and signed it into law. Sorry bud but the Republicans have a free ride on this one if it goes south. OTOH, if it goes well then the Dems will take full credit.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
The Pragmatists Dictionary:
Bipartisanship- When the political party in power makes a sincere offer to the other to graciously accept whatever the latter is told.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
The libertarian Dictionary:
Bipartisanship- When the party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil.
The right andleft aren'tagreeing here - in my little story, McDonalds is the status quo, not a reform plan the two side agree on.
(And for the person who asked 'where's the industry iin the story', fine, the four people who vote McDonalds are all related to the McDonad's manager who pays them if they get people to eat there.)
As far as blame, the way I see it is the Democrats have the leadership on this for better or worse, but the Republicans bear full responsibility for the position they take either way.
If the public wants a good bill and the Republicans are united against a good bill, then Republicans deserve the blame for that position whether it passes or not.
It's no different than, say, the civil rights bill. Democrats had the leadership on the issue for better or worse. Republicans were needed to pass it; if they voted yes or no, they deserve credit or blame.
If they opposed it, they deserve whatever accountability there is for preserving segregation (and the praise from the racists); if they vote yes, they deserve credit for helping the bill pass not leadership.
If the Republicans united against the civil rights bill, iand it didn't pass (for the sake of argument, ignore the history whether the Democrats needed them and pretend they did), you couldn't then say 'Republicans get zero blame'. Indeed, if th Democrats were pretty united for the bill, even if some stragglers didn't, you could say the Republicans were primarily to blame. Same on healthcare - if the Republicans endorsed a progressive bill, it'd have passed long ago, so tey get the blame for their oppoition. Their hundreds of 'no' votes deserve the blame more than the few 'no' Democratic votes.
You seem confused on this blame issue. Democrats get the primary blame or credit for being the leaders on this issue - if you like the reform it's credit if you don't itl's blame. But that's separate from the votes.
What complicates this is that we're not talking about one clear Democratic bill the way we did with the civil rights bill (ok, two bills there) - we're talking about a bill that's had things chopped over and over to try to win over the few people nearest on the right to get the votes to pass it. That doesn't change things though; all the gutting has been needed because the Republicans (and a few dems) refused to support a stronger bill.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
I've got news Craig, if the Dems had introduced a good bill addressing how to make health care better they'd have more support. As it is, they haven't.
Get back to me when they take the time to get a clue.
Get back to me when they take the time to get a clue.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
Short discussion with Taibbi and Kuttner...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/taibi-kuttner-debate-heal_n_397757.html
Listen to Kuttner's answer to why he'd vote for the bill. It's all for political reasons. Then Moyers nails him for it, and rightfully so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/taibi-kuttner-debate-heal_n_397757.html
Listen to Kuttner's answer to why he'd vote for the bill. It's all for political reasons. Then Moyers nails him for it, and rightfully so.
So basically what you are saying is, no matter what the legislation, Democrats should always receive the positive credit for something passing, and Republicans should always receive the negitive blame.
Yea, you're a fair-minded person.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Ahh, the true Progressive. It may embody everything he stands against, the Public may suffer, but his party will remain in control and since they are wiser than everyone else that's the most important thing. No doubt that's why this was a piece of crap from the onset. Get something in and claim credit. Once again Party Uber Alles.
sciwizam
Golden Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 1,953
- 0
- 0
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 31,576
- 9,958
- 136
wow, that's friggin unbelievable. wait, actually it's not.
"let's pass shitty legislation just so we can keep our party in power, america be damned."
D
:
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Taibbi is a hell of a writer but sounds like he just stepped out of Chich and Chong's VW bus. Stay off Camera, dude.
The original bill was a good bill that did the things you claim it didn't and it was gutted from there.
This statement reeks of hypocrisy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/coburn-we-are-trying-to-k_n_397151.html
You're being an idiot again Hayabusa. Someone who ignores progressive values to do the opposite for a corrupt reason, as you imply is the case, is the opposite of a 'true progressive'.
Now, there is a question whether your implication of some conern for the part's well being is corrupt is correct. What pie in the sky place do you live on where you don't need to get elected to do any good?
Show me the politician who doesn't have any concern for such things and I'll show you one who very likely isn't in office.
About the only one who seems to fit your ideal is one you are probably not a fan of, my favorite Senator Bernie Sanders, who is probably unelectable in 49 states, why there's only one of him.
Apparently you can't make a coherent argument against progressives' position since you use dishnest attacks like this one instead of such an argument.
And it's not some betrayal of principle for a poliitician to say "I'd like X and will work for X, but the nation will accept at most .5x, and the other party would pass -2X, so I'm going to compromise on the .5x and not let the -2x guys get in power by refusing to compromise." Who are you, Hayabusa, if the voters choose to reward some phony bill more than they willl support a better bill, to say that politicians can't respond to that by giving the people what they foolishly want and demanding they lose the next election by doing what you say they should?
And you're awfully selective it seems to criticize dems for sucha compromise but not so much Republicans for the last several years.
Which is it - are you hypocritical by only attacking Dems and not Republicans for concern for winning elections, or are you equally condeming both and just ridiculous for demanding they lose elections?
If you feel the compromise is wrong, why don't you direct your criticism to the voters who are the source of the misguided things they're demanding of the politicians?
We can always debate whether a particular compromise is too much or not, but for you to imply politicians should not have any concern for the politicis of the issues is sillly, your party won't get elected.
I haven't seen the clip yet and am not defending the compromiser here, I'm responding to your comments.
But you may get a hint of my sympathies from the fact this discussion is taking place in my thread about whether the progressives should kill the bill because it *is* so much an empty 'trophy bill'.
Eskimo makes the case for the good provisions that do remain. That's the discussion I'm having here, not one for encouraging the 'trophy bill', but your misuse of 'true progressive' needed to be corrected.
A true progressive, like a true anything, is free to ask, are progressive values best served by supporting an imperfect bill, or by not supporting it, and the impact on their party's ability to win elections is a factor.
What you're demanding is that Democrats never compromise on something like capital punishment or guns no matter the public opinion, or that Republicans come out againt popular Social Security and Medicare programs instead of pretending not to oppose them, ignoring the public opinion, that these people just lose elections to make you happy. That's silly.
You know, during California's 'golden age', there was an excellent governor, Pat Brown. But he was against capital punishment (as am I) and the public was for it. He had an election, and some say the deciding factor was the public's strong preference for capital punishment, which his opponent strongly supported. Brown stood firm - and it cost him the election. You may approve of this. But I think a case can be made that he could say he disagrees, but will respect the public's wishes on the issue for the sake of the rest of the issues - because his not doing so kicked off the political career of Ronald Reagan who hurt our country so much.
Many more people lost their lives because Reagan was elected and had his administration back torture and terrorism and government murder of people who resisted the corrupt power than his capital punishment position would protect - and out of office he coudln't even do anything about capital punishment either. You can argue either side of that, but you don't seem to understand the other side of the issue, the reasons for compromise.
Having made that case, it's inevitable someone will misunderstand my position by taking it further, to the point that the politicians don't comprfomise, they pander to anything to win elections.
No, I'm not saying that. There are lines to draw. But it's not a violation of being a progressive to weigh the politics as one factor in whether to vote for a bill that's mixed with good and bad.
There are 'true progressives' on both sides on this issue.
Ausm got it right. The Republicans were never about the good things in te bill, they were about playing politics by opposing any good bill to hurt Democrats next election. You're wrong again Hayabusa.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,656
- 687
- 126
You fail to realize that the only people who need to vote for reform to get it passed are the Democrats, since they have a supermajority. Now who is it that is getting "bought off?"
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,656
- 687
- 126
Yippee, "bipartisanship" now means you woo a couple of Senators from the opposing party!
The last time I checked, the Democrats had a supermajority and could do whatever they pleased. Why waste time on a single Republican Senator for the sake of "bipartisanship" when your pet project is at risk and you need to convince members of your very own party? Expecting Republicans, who have voiced their objections to key provisions along the way, to vote for the bill and then blame them and call them "obstructionists" when they don't is pure, 100% fail.
And now that the current propsal is on the table, I'm enjoying seeing some Democrats (particularly on this forum) saying "Well, we need to take more time and maybe rework this in committee and debate more." That is really funny because when Republicans and moderates said the same thing at the end of the summer/early fall, many of these same people were saying "We don't need to take more time! You are obstructing us!" It's funny because when you guys like a bill, anyone opposing it is "an obstructionist" but when you dislike a bill, you are suddenly entitled to more debate and time.
The Democrats are trying to pass something, anything, to save face because when they gained these supermajorities, they talked a big game and many in this forum toed the party line and repeated the same bravado. An example, for your own viewing pleasure, is this gem of a thread. Allow me to post an excerpt:
Oops! Fools are made when talk is big but action is small!
ALL of you guys need to knock off the "let's see how we can blame the opposing party" game and take off your partisan blinders. The indisputable fact is that your very own party has had every opportunity to pass reform regardless of what the Republicans said or did, and they have failed MISERABLY.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,656
- 687
- 126
It did not have adequate cost containment. It was not a good bill, though you are entitled to your own opinion, as am I.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,656
- 687
- 126
Talk about over simplifying the issue.
Oh, really? Are you admitting that Democrats are also being bought off? If so, we have no disagreement then.
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Since you can say definitively that it addressed the concerns health care workers have, why don't you explain to the members here just what they are and cite the legislation which was responsible for them? I mean when whole departments are created for regulatory compliance and you can explain just what the trigger was for that. You can tell us just why and how we'll have less headaches not more as is the norm.
If you tell them just what happens and why then you'll be able to point to specific parts of the bill and say why it is a solution not an additional problem. What language prevents witch hunts that have happened in the past by those with virtually unlimited and unchallenged power as has happened before? What ensures that there won't be hundreds or thousands of regulations which are confusing and conflicting?
How does this make a resident's life in a hospital better?
Lastly you can explain how people in Congress know as much as we do about actions and consequences of regulation when the first priority was passing something without bothering to find out just what was needed? No "well we all know", or "there are a number of people who know". That's what Bush did with Saddam. We saw how that worked. This? This has far more serious and lasting influence than Iraq ever will when it comes to the American citizen.
If a claim is made that any legislation is "good" then the evidence of that rests on an understanding of what lies beneath.
If you went before a top level executive with a solution to an extraordinary problem with the explanation of "well we have to do something. Let's implement it and see how it goes" you would be laughed at or fired. Yet with the most complex system of human and technological interactions on the planet we're going to do just that. We did that with Medicaid, an abject failure. The only reason it works at all is that obscene amounts of money are thrown at it, and when was the last time that was revamped to address the issues? Never. Window dressing doesn't count.
Disagree? OK. Show us, and for heaven sakes don't refer to Republicans. I have my own problems with them.
This is about the patient and practitioner despite what politicians would have us think, and saying it's been handled doesn't make it so.
If you hate the other partisans, then I'm good with that. I don't like any of them on either side. They get in the way what matters.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter