For progressives: should the healthcare bill be opposed?

[Craig234]

You can try to blame the Republicans for this bill not being passed, but this is very poor logic. If they disagree with what is in the bill, it is their job to vote against it. If GWB had proposed a bill and the Democrats disagreed and voted against it, you wouldn't hear me in here blaming them for it ESPECIALLY if the Republicans, as a party, had a huge majority. While parties are not monolithic entities, it is the job of those in a particular party to work together on one of their key initiatives to come up with something palatable to all in their party. And with regards to Republican support, if the Democrats need or want it, it is their job to gain this support since they authored the bills. The Democrats have failed miserably on both counts.

I said above I'd have to repeat this several times and I have. You are confusing two issues: who is responsible for what, and what the right position is.

Let's say you and I have to agree where to go eat and you say you're hungry and want to get dinner. I say "I only will agree to McDonalds". You suggest a steakhouse, no. BBQ, no. Chines, no.

Now, can I say 'youre the one who wanted to get dinner, so it's your fault we didn't get steak, because you failed to convince me"?

You need to lear the difference between those two issues.

Each Democrat is responsible for their vote. Each Republican is responsible for theirs.

If the Democrats need one more vote, and all the Republicans say 'forget it' and Liebermann says 'only if you kill the public option' and they do, EVERY REPUBLICAN IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING THE PUBLIC OPTION AS LIEBERMANN. Just because they say as Republicans, of course they oppose the bill, doesn't remove their responsibility for doing so. Any oen of them COULD have said they'll vote yes without killig the public opition - that means they are responsible for killing it.

Then you get to the SECOND question, which is, are they right to oppose the bill and the public option? Maybe they deserve praise in your opinion. They're responsible for killing it, period, good or bad.

Let's say the Democrats put an unacceptable provision in the bill -Obama named president for life - and Republicans were otherwise going to vote yes but refuse because of that provision.

In that case who's responsible for defeating it? Yes - Republican who vote no are responsible for defeating it.

You can ALSO say Democrats are responsible for putting in the unacceptable provision and the role tha played in defeating it.

Republican't can't say they're not responsible - they CAN say, reasonably, that their postition was JUSTIFIED. That's different than saying they aren't responsible.

So, while everyone who voted no was responsible for doing so, it'd make perfect sense to say "blame the Democrats for being unreasonable on the content". Republicans are responsible and justifiable.

Is any of this sinking in? Republicans are responsible for their no votes, PERIOD. THe second question to debate is whether they're right to oppose the bill. You confused those two.

When you say the bill is bad, you incorrectly then conclude the Republicans had no responsibility for it not passing - all the Democrats fault.

No, each side is responsible for what they're willing to vote yes and no on. If y ou think the Democrats did not do well at offering the Republicans a good bill, you can say that.

But you can't say it's ONLY the Democrats' responsibility to get Republicans to vote yes. Republicans are responsibvle for their position.

 

[Darwin333]

I said above I'd have to repeat this several times and I have. You are confusing two issues: who is responsible for what, and what the right position is.

Let's say you and I have to agree where to go eat and you say you're hungry and want to get dinner. I say "I only will agree to McDonalds". You suggest a steakhouse, no. BBQ, no. Chines, no.

Now, can I say 'youre the one who wanted to get dinner, so it's your fault we didn't get steak, because you failed to convince me"?

You need to lear the difference between those two issues.

Each Democrat is responsible for their vote. Each Republican is responsible for theirs.

If the Democrats need one more vote, and all the Republicans say 'forget it' and Liebermann says 'only if you kill the public option' and they do, EVERY REPUBLICAN IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING THE PUBLIC OPTION AS LIEBERMANN. Just because they say as Republicans, of course they oppose the bill, doesn't remove their responsibility for doing so. Any oen of them COULD have said they'll vote yes without killig the public opition - that means they are responsible for killing it.

Then you get to the SECOND question, which is, are they right to oppose the bill and the public option? Maybe they deserve praise in your opinion. They're responsible for killing it, period, good or bad.

Let's say the Democrats put an unacceptable provision in the bill -Obama named president for life - and Republicans were otherwise going to vote yes but refuse because of that provision.

In that case who's responsible for defeating it? Yes - Republican who vote no are responsible for defeating it.

You can ALSO say Democrats are responsible for putting in the unacceptable provision and the role tha played in defeating it.

Republican't can't say they're not responsible - they CAN say, reasonably, that their postition was JUSTIFIED. That's different than saying they aren't responsible.

So, while everyone who voted no was responsible for doing so, it'd make perfect sense to say "blame the Democrats for being unreasonable on the content". Republicans are responsible and justifiable.

Is any of this sinking in? Republicans are responsible for their no votes, PERIOD. THe second question to debate is whether they're right to oppose the bill. You confused those two.

When you say the bill is bad, you incorrectly then conclude the Republicans had no responsibility for it not passing - all the Democrats fault.

No, each side is responsible for what they're willing to vote yes and no on. If y ou think the Democrats did not do well at offering the Republicans a good bill, you can say that.

But you can't say it's ONLY the Democrats' responsibility to get Republicans to vote yes. Republicans are responsibvle for their position.

I am walking out the door so I apologize for not looking it up myself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could have sworn I have read multiple sources stating that the Republicans haven't even been allowed to read the latest bill. If that is the case then, in my opinion, it would be impossible or at the very least irresponsible to support a bill that you, due to actions of the Democrats, have not even been able to skim through.

I might be a bit biased though. I am one of those crazy bastards that thinks politicians should have to read a bill before they vote on it. I am even willing to go so far as to make it a crime to vote on a bill that you haven't read. The "I didn't know that was in there but now you have to abide by the law I unknowingly passed" line doesn't sit very well with me. I can go to jail due to ignorance of the law the least we should expect from lawmakers is that they know what laws they are passing.

 

[chucky2]

I said above I'd have to repeat this several times and I have. You are confusing two issues: who is responsible for what, and what the right position is.

Let's say you and I have to agree where to go eat and you say you're hungry and want to get dinner. I say "I only will agree to McDonalds". You suggest a steakhouse, no. BBQ, no. Chines, no.

Now, can I say 'youre the one who wanted to get dinner, so it's your fault we didn't get steak, because you failed to convince me"?

You need to lear the difference between those two issues. <snip>

You know, you should've stuck with the previous analogy that you botched and I made more accurate for you...it was better.

An accurate analogy would be:

There's a group of 100 people that all need to eat (eating being some type of health measure passed). 60 people (Democrats) are tired of eating American type food (status quo) and want something different and will not tolerate eating it, the other 40 (Republicans) are OK with American, but many would be fine with trying something new. The 40 though are not going to eat sushi or vegetarian (whatever extreme's the 60/Dem's. want in a bill), and make this known ahead of time.

Before going on: The 60 can't stand the 40, and vice versa...but it's agreed they all need to go eat somewhere and the majority will decide where that is.

The 60 get together, after knowing the 40 will not eat sushi or vegetarian, don't include the 40 at all, and knowing they're in the majority, can't get a F'ing decision on where they want to eat: Italian, sushi/veggie (F the 40, we're the majority), American (status quo), Indian, Chinese, whatever.

After starving collectively, the 60, and amazingly their supporters (who could that be???), then proceed to blame the difficulty of deciding where to eat on the 40, even though the 40 were not in the majority, and the 60 didn't ever give a sh1t what the 40 wanted, as if they did, they'd have involved them in their decision making, F'd up and sh1tty as it is.

There you go Craig, now you can use that analogy as to what is actually going on.

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Greenwald...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/18/corporatism/index.html

I was going to copy/paste a few paragraphs, but the whole damn thing needs to be read.

 

[Craig234]

You know, you should've stuck with the previous analogy that you botched and I made more accurate for you...it was better.

An accurate analogy would be:

There's a group of 100 people that all need to eat (eating being some type of health measure passed). 60 people (Democrats) are tired of eating American type food (status quo) and want something different and will not tolerate eating it, the other 40 (Republicans) are OK with American, but many would be fine with trying something new. The 40 though are not going to eat sushi or vegetarian (whatever extreme's the 60/Dem's. want in a bill), and make this known ahead of time.

Before going on: The 60 can't stand the 40, and vice versa...but it's agreed they all need to go eat somewhere and the majority will decide where that is.

The 60 get together, after knowing the 40 will not eat sushi or vegetarian, don't include the 40 at all, and knowing they're in the majority, can't get a F'ing decision on where they want to eat: Italian, sushi/veggie (F the 40, we're the majority), American (status quo), Indian, Chinese, whatever.

After starving collectively, the 60, and amazingly their supporters (who could that be???), then proceed to blame the difficulty of deciding where to eat on the 40, even though the 40 were not in the majority, and the 60 didn't ever give a sh1t what the 40 wanted, as if they did, they'd have involved them in their decision making, F'd up and sh1tty as it is.

There you go Craig, now you can use that analogy as to what is actually going on.

Chuck

No, Chucky, yoir changes inroduce falsehoods.

For example, where does your analogy show any problem with the 40 Republicans who just want to 'eat American'? Where is any indication ot the unsustainability of the current skyrocketing prices?

Nice bit of rhetoric, though, not sure if you intended it, implying the Republicans are 'all American' while the Democrats are foreign lovers who probably are not patriotic.

So, to represent let's make the 40 Republicans insist on eating only at the $150 per plate restaurant, which people are having to borrow month to pay for,and which is raising its prices all the time.

And then there are the 30 to 40 million uninsured with your American restaurant - so let's also note that 10% of the people will just starve, either for money or the restaurant just refuses to serve them.

You FURTHER badly misrepresent the situation in pretending that the 40 are perfectly willing to accept other reasonable options - when in fact Republicans havbe adopted *killing this bill* as a political strategy.

So you paint them as "Indian, Chines, whatever - just not going to eat eyeballs you crazy Democrats".

Wrong.

A public option the public supports by a 30% margin, Medicare for all supported by a majority IIRC, are not eating eyeballs. And let's not even get into the corporate sellout issue of the Republicans.

Then let's note, as you did not, that 60 have to agree where to eat, and 52, say, of the Dems are all saying 'Chinese is ok! Indian is ok!"

Now who of the 48 no votes - 40 Reps and 8 Dems - do we blame for not agreeing to make 60?

All of them, all 40 Reps and all 8 Dems. Now which party is more to blame for not getting to try Indian food - the Dems at 52-8 yes, or the Reps at all 40 no?

So the 52 Dems start compromising with the 48 to get to 60. The 40 Reps say 'no negotiating, only the $150 place - oh, ok, we're flexible - if you can find somewhere more expensive we'll consider it.'

So when the Dems then concentrate the negotiating on their own 8, where they wouold be happy to negotiate with the 40 Reps but the Reps said forget it, the Reps then say "they aren't negotiating with us!"

When the negotiations let the 8 holdouts get bad concessions like "OK, we'll find eat at the $150 restaurant, but in exchange, they can't turn anyone away at the door; but the people who can't afford it have to sell their belongings and go or we'll hurt them", the Republicans turn around and say "look at that bad plan, the Dems are the only ones to blame".

You made the analogy misleading. The above fixes your changes somewhat.

 

[palehorse]

Basically saying you're willing to support crap just to try and score political points

Sadly, he's not alone when it comes to that philosophy.

 

[Craig234]

I am walking out the door so I apologize for not looking it up myself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could have sworn I have read multiple sources stating that the Republicans haven't even been allowed to read the latest bill. If that is the case then, in my opinion, it would be impossible or at the very least irresponsible to support a bill that you, due to actions of the Democrats, have not even been able to skim through.

I might be a bit biased though. I am one of those crazy bastards that thinks politicians should have to read a bill before they vote on it. I am even willing to go so far as to make it a crime to vote on a bill that you haven't read. The "I didn't know that was in there but now you have to abide by the law I unknowingly passed" line doesn't sit very well with me. I can go to jail due to ignorance of the law the least we should expect from lawmakers is that they know what laws they are passing.

You'd be right, if Dems had just shut out the Repubs for no reason.

But when the Repubs make it clear they're not going to agree to pretty much anythig the Dems and, and are choosing a strategy of trrying to kill it for the political benefit of hurting Obama, that's different.

In that case they are responsible for that choice and the Dems are reasonable to shut them out if all they're going to do is use the info to better attack the Dems, not work withthem.

I think the whole 'have to read the whole bill' thing is a red herring. They have staffs. It works fine.

I can think of maybe one example where there was an issue of it being claimed something was 'snuck in' but that was a breakdown that can be fixed other ways. There are practical issues.

 

[Craig234]

Sadly, he's not alone when it comes to that philosophy.

First of all, wrong to the cubby post being responded to, and second, then Palehorse, I take this as your condeming the entire Republican group of Congressmen for OPPOSING a bill for 'political points'.

 

[palehorse]

First of all, wrong to the cubby post being responded to, and second, then Palehorse, I take this as your condemning the entire Republican group of Congressmen for OPPOSING a bill for 'political points'.

Unlike you, I haven't chosen "sides;" so yes, I condemn anyone who makes decisions or votes for political expediency or purely partisan purposes... Democrats and Republicans alike. I will continue to loudly condemn both groups for the drafting and/or passage of shit legislation whenever I see it.

In this case, however, I just so happen to agree with those who oppose any/all versions of the health bill to date. While reform is certainly needed, I have yet to see a piece of legislation that is worthy of support. Not one draft health bill, from either party, is worth a fuck. Period.

 

[senseamp]

Yes, unless mandate is dropped. No public option, no mandate.

 

[Craig234]

Unlike you, I haven't chosen "sides;" so yes, I condemn anyone who makes decisions or votes for political expediency or purely partisan purposes... Democrats and Republicans alike. I will continue to loudly condemn both groups for the drafting and/or passage of shit legislation whenever I see it.

In this case, however, I just so happen to agree with those who oppose any/all versions of the health bill to date. While reform is certainly needed, I have yet to see a piece of legislation that is worthy of support. Not one draft health bill, from either party, is worth a fuck. Period.

Let's be clear here: my loyalty is to principles for the good of the world, not party - the Dems by far better represent my principles getting enacted, so I support them. If Republicans better represent them, I'll switch.

I don't accuse you of being a blind Republican loyalist.

But you do not seem to understand the same thing about others.

You did dodge my point though.

It's one thing for you to oppose the bill on its merits.

But the Republican party has made it clear that its opposition includes the reason simply because it will hurt the Democratic party. Republican leaders have said so.

They talk about the need to try to kill the bill because it will be Obama's "Waterloo" if they can kill it - a motive all about politics and not about the good of the country on this bill.

No, you are claiming some sort of 'zero tolerance' for any poliktical concerns, while I allow for some, but I'm seeing if you can be held to follow your own standard.

Whil you may oppose the bill, do you condemn the Republicans for the part of their opposition that is for political reasons, to give Obama a 'Waterloo'?

This isn't a trick question, you should be able to say 'yes'.

 

[Modelworks]

Unlike you, I haven't chosen "sides;" so yes, I condemn anyone who makes decisions or votes for political expediency or purely partisan purposes... Democrats and Republicans alike. I will continue to loudly condemn both groups for the drafting and/or passage of shit legislation whenever I see it.

In this case, however, I just so happen to agree with those who oppose any/all versions of the health bill to date. While reform is certainly needed, I have yet to see a piece of legislation that is worthy of support. Not one draft health bill, from either party, is worth a fuck. Period.

I agree 100%. I don't support parties. I support ideas. If the ideas are good I don't care who is behind it. Reform is needed , but this isn't reform. If someone in the private sector did what the politicians are doing they would be arrested under organized crime laws, and lots of others.

 

[chucky2]

So Craig:

When Democrats are crafting the bill behind closed doors, and it's changing as it evolves...

...just how exactly are Republicans supposed to participate in a process that they're decidedly not invited to participate in?

If they're not allowed to participate, then how can it be their fault?

Would you vote for a bill you've not seen, and have no clue what's really in it? I wouldn't. In fact, if I didn't have the final form in front of me, in enough time for me to work my through it in an orderly manner, my vote would always be No, just on principle.

You seem to have formed some kind of idea that because Republicans are not going to blanket vote Yes on whatever POS the Dem's conjure up (Surprise! The Dem's have crafted it alone, and guess what??? It's a POS!), that the Republicans are in the wrong.

The Dem's are the ones that want to do this behind closed doors, not invite the Republicans, and as the Majority party, should be making sure the Minority party is included.

You should not even be mentioning Republicans...the Dem's entirely own this massive F up, pure and simple.

It is unreal that you are so blindly partisan, you cannot grasp this, when everyone else here can see that - many that are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Think a while on why that (you not grasping this) is...

Chuck

 

[sciwizam]

From the progressive Jane Hamsher: 10 Reasons to kill the Senate Bill

Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Click the link to view the background info on each point.

 

[bamacre]

Obama vehemently opposed mandates. But that was when he was running for president. Now that he's elected, well, change you can believe in.

 

[Darwin333]

You'd be right, if Dems had just shut out the Repubs for no reason.

But when the Repubs make it clear they're not going to agree to pretty much anythig the Dems and, and are choosing a strategy of trrying to kill it for the political benefit of hurting Obama, that's different.

I do find this entire conversation amusing but onto the post at hand. Lets not kid ourselves, the bill sucks. We can argue about why the bill sucks but that doesn't change the fact that it does indeed suck. So the Dems are perfectly willing to pass a bill for almost pure political reasons and the Republicans are willing, but not able, to kill the bill for purely political reasons. Like I keep saying, birds of a feather my friend.

In that case they are responsible for that choice and the Dems are reasonable to shut them out if all they're going to do is use the info to better attack the Dems, not work withthem.

I don't necessarily agree with that. They are shutting out elected representatives and preventing them from representing their constituents. I have a problem with that on principal alone but at the same time I do understand why they do it. The Reps are equally irresponsible and I am happy to call out their bullshit too but thats not the discussion.

I think the whole 'have to read the whole bill' thing is a red herring. They have staffs. It works fine.

I can think of maybe one example where there was an issue of it being claimed something was 'snuck in' but that was a breakdown that can be fixed other ways. There are practical issues.

1. Wallstreet bonuses guaranteed by law and the lawmakers whose name is on the amendment knows nothing about it? The bastards can't even read the parts that THEY added. I would think any rational person would see that as a huge problem.
2. Recently we have the Amtrak "lock people in a box" law.
3. A while back an entire 35 page chunk was left out of a bill that was passed and then vetoed. It wasn't until they tried to overturn the veto that anyone noticed that 35 pages were left out.

That is just off the top of my head. These are laws that govern my life and yours. In a court room I can not use ignorance as an excuse so I am expected to know the law or I risk losing my freedom. I don't think its too much to ask that lawmakers know and understand the laws before they vote on them just as I am required to know and understand them after they pass. If they want to pawn it off on their staff that is their prerogative but I still think they should be held personally responsible for any screwups, just like I am. I know they are extremely busy courting their masters for more money but it would be nice if they are at least held to the same standard that I am.

I have another one of those batshit crazy ideas that they should, by law, be required to write every piece of legislation themselves as well (type, dictate, write, whatever). I know its an odd position to have but I sorta don't trust the lobbyists who are writing a large portion of our legislation that our legislators aren't even reading before they pass it.

While some may think this is too much to ask of our elected officials I personally think its the least we should expect.

 

[Darwin333]

From the progressive Jane Hamsher: 10 Reasons to kill the Senate Bill

Quote:
Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Click the link to view the background info on each point.

Excellent read.

The re-importation thing really gets me. I had a dream that I knew 3 people who currently import (illegally) drugs from Canada right now. They are the same brand named drugs they would get at Walgreens with the only difference being they are up to 70% cheaper. Something that could actually bring down costs and it is defeated for no other reason than to protect big pharmas profits. Can we just start calling this bill the Insurance Co./Big Pharma bailout bill already? Throw in a healthy dose of bribery and extortion and people wonder why I have little faith or respect for either party. It is getting clearer by the day exactly who the vast majority of those bastards in DC are trying to help and it ain't the American people.

At least they are going to pass it by Christmas. We sure wouldn't want them distracted from raising money for their campaigns next year.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

It will take many years and many pieces of legislation to fix our healthcare system, and the repbulicans, blue dog dems and corporate interests will fight it like the plague at every opportunity. This turd of a watered down bill will pass and will be strengthened in the future.

And the American public understands exactly who is trying so desperately to preserve our perverse profit driven healthcare system, and they will punish them mercilessly in the next couple of national elections. All the congressmen who have lined up at the insurance company payola window better get while the gettin is good, because payback is a bitch

 

[Craig234]

So Craig:

When Democrats are crafting the bill behind closed doors, and it's changing as it evolves...

...just how exactly are Republicans supposed to participate in a process that they're decidedly not invited to participate in?

By sayiing to the Democrats, hi, we're changing our position from wanting to kill this bill period, to one where we're eough in agreement that it makes sense to talk because with some changes that aren't completely out of bounds of what the Dems want, we could support it. We promise not to yell "NO NO NO NO" while pounding the table if you let us in the meeting.

As long as they are simply opposing the bill, that is the discussion - they don't need to be in the meetings where the people are actually negotating the bill to support it.

They do have a rigfht to be in the main process, like the many committee hearings, and they were. But when Democrats sit down with a blue dog to negotiate, Republicans don't need to be there.

Now, let's remember, Republicans made the standard operating procedure to block Democrats from participating even things lke hearings on a regular basis - not telling Dems where the meeting was, so the Dems had to have staffers create a watchout system; locking the door sometims when the Democrats on the committee found them. If you show me one post wherre you criticized Republicans for that when they did it, I'll give you $20.

If they're not allowed to participate, then how can it be their fault?

They are participating. Dems: So, Repubs, are you interested in supporting this bill, with changes short of "take out all the words"? Repubs: "No, suck it, we're going to kill it any way we can."

That was there participation. Along with all the hearings and such. If they change their mind the Dems will talk to them. They're the ones who don't want to work on supporting the bill, but pretend they're persecuted.

Would you vote for a bill you've not seen, and have no clue what's really in it? I wouldn't. In fact, if I didn't have the final form in front of me, in enough time for me to work my through it in an orderly manner, my vote would always be No, just on principle.

No, I wouldn't, but I would say, "gee, look at that 11,000 paghe bill. Staffer who reviewed it in more deatil, who is very familliar with my positions, summarize the bill for me", and vote on that.

You seem to have formed some kind of idea that because Republicans are not going to blanket vote Yes on whatever POS the Dem's conjure up (Surprise! The Dem's have crafted it alone, and guess what??? It's a POS!), that the Republicans are in the wrong.

Wrong. First of all, you can't point to one time I've said anything about Republicans voting yes no matter what the Dems come up with. Be more honest in making your argument than to lie in quoting me.

Republicans can negotiate if they want - they've chosen not to. Second, I didn't say 'in the wrong', I said 'responsible for their choice and the effect it has on not passing the bill, right or wrong.'

The Dem's are the ones that want to do this behind closed doors, not invite the Republicans, and as the Majority party, should be making sure the Minority party is included.

Man, do the right-wing talking points come with a syringe for you to inject them? You are so frickin fixated on a non-issue.

Republicans are the ones who have made it clear that they don't want to negotiate to support any bill anything on the same planets as Democrats want. They have the Democrats phone number if they want to.

What difference would it make, with Republicans having that position, if they were in the room every time Harry Reid calls up Ben Nelson to haggle? How would that change anything?

They're in the committee hearings and the processes they should be as far as I'm aware - I suspect they're just making up a phony issue to attack about abnd you are falling for it.

You should not even be mentioning Republicans...the Dem's entirely own this massive F up, pure and simple.

For the fifteenth time, the Republicans have a lot of votes, enough to pass a bill if they wanted to, and they're responsibvle for their position againt the bill, whether you think they're right or not.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of typing over and over to people who lost their ears how the issue of their being responsible for their position, and whether they're right in their position, are two issues.

It is unreal that you are so blindly partisan, you cannot grasp this, when everyone else here can see that - many that are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Think a while on why that (you not grasping this) is...

Chuck

I've also about had it with idiots name calling with lies as you did. You are the one not getting it. I'm not going to waste a lot more time repeating to you. If you get my post here, great. If not, ok too.

 

[Craig234]

It will take many years and many pieces of legislation to fix our healthcare system, and the repbulicans, blue dog dems and corporate interests will fight it like the plague at every opportunity. This turd of a watered down bill will pass and will be strengthened in the future.

And the American public understands exactly who is trying so desperately to preserve our perverse profit driven healthcare system, and they will punish them mercilessly in the next couple of national elections. All the congressmen who have lined up at the insurance company payola window better get while the gettin is good, because payback is a bitch

Your post is right on the threat topic.

Progressives are split. Some say, as you do, this vote is a step in the right direction. Not passing lets opponents of any healthcare reform - the corporations and their representatives, the Republicans - win and block the good provisions in the bill. They say this bill is the first and more good bills will come, but losing on this bill means no reform.

Others say that this bill is so compromised, with the Obama approach to get the ccorporations AGREEING to the bill by asking what they want and giving it to them and screw the citizens - that if it passes, it's a signal that the public interest, represented by the progressive Dems, has no say - and the corporatist sellout approach goes full steam ahead, as this bill provides great profits to the corporations and hurts citizen interests in many ways for what good it does. They say we need to kill this bill to stop the sellout Democrats from getting their way and to give the progressives more say.

The first group predicts passing the bill will help more good bills, and killing it will block reform; the second group predicts the opposite.

It's a tough call.

The industry has set things up so they win either way. No bill is good, this bill is good.

I'd vote for whichever helps reduce the corporate sellout of our government and is more lkely to lead to real form - whether it's subsuquent bills to this one or killing this one and then writing a bill.

I'm just not sure which will do that. A number of people I listen to on this like Howard Dean, say kill it. Let's see what the conference process does.

 

[blackangst1]

Craig, you have stated talks have gone something like this:

They are participating. Dems: So, Repubs, are you interested in supporting this bill, with changes short of "take out all the words"? Repubs: "No, suck it, we're going to kill it any way we can."

Can I ask how you know this? Are you positive they didnt go something like this:

Dems: So, GOP, are you interested in supporting this bill we think is acceptable, with changes short of...well....anything you might have to offer?

Because Im not. Reading this article http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...e-debate-and-well-be-here-until-christmas.php kind of shows that this "our way or the highway" mentality the Dems have.

------------------------------------------------------------
Going into this week, Reid, and McConnell had agreed to proceed slowly by trading off amendments, first one for the Democrats, then one for the Republicans.
Last night, after a long, full day of debate on these first amendments--including a motion offered by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) intended to kill the reform bill--Reid said, let's hold a vote tomorrow afternoon, just on these amendments.

McConnell said no.

"I have to object," said the Kentucky Republican. "We have a number of speakers who are interested in speaking on the Medicare issue and the McCain amendment, so I will not be able to lock in the McCain amendment, or the side by side."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Why wouldnt the Democrats be willing to discuss this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, Reid and the Democrats are considering their options for moving the debate forward, and actually holding votes. The main possibility being considered is that Reid could move to table irrelevant Republican amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant? To who? Ah yes. The Dems. You call it obstructionist, I call it worthy of debate. Why the fucking rush? Why not make sure it gets done right?

The Dems are in no way innocent here. And the statements that the GOP isnt trying are laughable. This is being strong armed through the senate, pure and simple.

 

[Fern]

For Liberals: should the healthcare bill be opposed?

Since I'm a Conservative I won't answer directly, but would like to mention that I have doubts about some things that are being passed off as 'gospel'.

1. Many seem absolutley certain that failure to pass a bill would harm Dems. I'm not so sure that passing an unpopular bill is better than killing a POS bill. Passing a crappy unpopular bill may be worse, far worse, especially as the effects (higher premiums etc) are felt.

2. The whole "if we don't pass something now we'll have to wait another 20 yrs" thingy is a bunch of BS, IMO. People are concerned about HC in way I don't ever remember. The momentum is not going away if they scrap this POS and start over. But IMO, the Dems have run up against a political problem of their own making - they pushed HC reform ahead of jobs. I suppose some may say they thought they had that problem in hand with the passage of the Stimulus bill, but clearly they didn't. So either crafting a crappy stimuls bill was a mistake, or pushing HC reform ahead of jobs is the mistake. Now looks like they wanna pass any HC bill so they can move onto jobs, which is the #1 concern among Americans. Settling for a crappy HC bill, so they can go back and fix the crappy stimulus bill seems an electoral diaster in the making.

3. Reconcilliation isn't really an option as I understand it. I see people pushing for it as though it's the answer to Dem's problem with health care legislation. If I understand the rules correctly, the reconcilliation process is only for budgeting. So, unless those procedural rules are changed, the HC bill would have to be stripped down to nothing much more than a budget bill. IMO, you just can't get at HC reform with nothing but budget maneuvers.

4. Re: blamming the Repubs. I haven't seen any legitimate effort by the Dems to include them, or give them a reason to vote for the bill. Even if you believe in HC reform, and most of us do, you've got to give the Repubs a reason to vote for it. They've got to have something to tell their constiuents when they get back home. They wanna get re-elected too. Most seem to accept and understand that for the Dems, but it's the same for the Repubs too.

I heard Julian Epstein some months speak on getting the Repubs involved. I thought he had pretty good advice. Give them tort reform and a few other 'bones' so they can vote for HC reform. They need some reason to support it. But so far there's been zero effort.

Obama has spoken of bipartisanship and a new era of cooperation. While I can't say I've seen him making any efforts towards that, it doesn't really matter. I don't see where he's had any substantive input into HC (similar to the stimulus bill). So far, Perlosi and Reid are running their repsective 'shows' on HC reform with little-to-no visible input from the WH. Obama hasn't even come out and insisted on anything with regards to HC reform, not even the public option - nothing, zip, nadda & zero.

Neither Pelosi nor Reid have made any attempts to be bipartisan. Heck, the whole process in the Senate has been so exclusive (as opposed to inclusive) that only Reid and some staffers know what's in the Senate bill to this day. Dick Durbin, the #3 Senator has admitted not even he is privy to what's in the bill. You can't do things behind closed doors, keep the bill a secret and then reasonably complain when the other party won't support it. Heck, I don't think anybody else not reading the bill should support it either.

Personally, I think they should start over. I think the American people would like that and the Dems would benefit in the long run. Maybe we'd even get a decent bill.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

They shouldn't start over, they would just end back up at the same point. The two parties' views on health care are irreconcilable, it's simply a sad truth... they want many things that are mutually exclusive. The people of the US elected the Democrats to an overwhelming majority... a simply overwhelming one. The people spoke, and they will get what they spoke for.

The Democrats DID attempt to include the Republicans. Remember the much celebrated bipartisan gang in the Senate Finance Committee? That worked well until Chuck Grassley, the lead Republican negotiator said that even if he found a good compromise on what was important to him... that he still wouldn't vote for the bill. They are not negotiating in good faith and you know it.

It also doesn't help when one of the most powerful senators (from your state no less) says from the get-go that he intends to use Obama's effort to reform health care as a means by which to destroy him. How and why would you negotiate with a frothing nutcase like DeMint?

I honestly think that the Democrats will do just fine in 2010, largely due to the fact that the stimulus bill looks to be effective and the economy looks to be picking up. You guys are rooting for failure, never a winning strategy.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
It also doesn't help when one of the most powerful senators (from your state no less) says from the get-go that he intends to use Obama's effort to reform health care as a means by which to destroy him. How and why would you negotiate with a frothing nutcase like DeMint?

I assume this is directed to me. If so, nope, we (North Carolina) don't have any powerful senators. They're both too new to have any power.

IIRC, DeMint is from South Carolina.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I assume this is directed to me. If so, nope, we (North Carolina) don't have any powerful senators. They're both too new to have any power.

IIRC, DeMint is from South Carolina.

Fern

He is from SC. My mistake, I thought you were too. Regardless, I do not believe the Republicans by and large are negotiating in good faith, nor have they ever... even when they have been included in them. They have little to gain from this bill being passed no matter what is in it, and much to lose.