For progressives: should the healthcare bill be opposed?

[jonks]

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 think the death panel debacle pretty much indicated how any bipartisan effort would be received. A harmless and benign section, which is non-partisan as far as I can tell, which would merely have compensated persons who voluntarily sought end of life care for the consultation fees, transformed into "the govt wants to kill you." Under the current bill, if you seek that end of life counseling, you pay for it, it's not covered, right? How does that help anyone exactly? The GOP had the opportunity to reject the Facebook (!) ravings of an ex-governor, instead they embraced them and fueled the fire. They demonstrated pure obstructionism and hysterics, they can hardly claim now after engaging in such antics that they weren't approached for their two cents when their previous contribution was to scare their constituents into thinking that a vote for the bill would be a vote to kill their granny.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

They (Repubs) have nothing in the bill they wanted, of course they're gonna slam it as often as possible.

It's not reasonable to expect the the other Repubs to rebuke Palin, the Dems don't do it to each other either. Besides, Palin is irrelevent. She's not in Congress, never has been (and likley never will be).

I wish I had a youtube link to Epstein's remarks. He laid out a pretty sensible sounding way to get some bipartisanship support, but it went no where.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

They (Repubs) have nothing in the bill they wanted, of course they're gonna slam it as often as possible.

It's not reasonable to expect the the other Repubs to rebuke Palin, the Dems don't do it to each other either. Besides, Palin is irrelevent. She's not in Congress, never has been (and likley never will be).

I wish I had a youtube link to Epstein's remarks. He laid out a pretty sensible sounding way to get some bipartisanship support, but it went no where.

Fern

They didn't merely 'not rebuke' Palin, elected officials IN Congress repeated her lies.

 

[blackangst1]

They (Repubs) have nothing in the bill they wanted, of course they're gonna slam it as often as possible.

It's not reasonable to expect the the other Repubs to rebuke Palin, the Dems don't do it to each other either. Besides, Palin is irrelevent. She's not in Congress, never has been (and likley never will be).

I wish I had a youtube link to Epstein's remarks. He laid out a pretty sensible sounding way to get some bipartisanship support, but it went no where.

Fern

And thats really the point. Whether the Dems strong-armed this legislation though or not, it was no secret what the GOP wanted to see. And they got nothing. So, this shows one of two things. Either 1. The Dems were giving lip service when extending their hands for support, or 2. they never planned on compromising anything. Either way, the fact that this bill is devoid of anything the GOP wanted shows that the Dems kept the GOP at bay by design. Good or bad, it is what it is.

And youre right-Palin is irrelevant. The only ones who think she is some kind of leader within the Republican ranks are the Democrats. But, she looks good on a cross, no?

 

[blackangst1]

They didn't merely 'not rebuke' Palin, elected officials IN Congress repeated her lies.

The problem with Palin's remarks werent her intentions, it was her wording. Sure, she said death panels; however, she referred to a very real thing: a panel of (sometimes) doctors and administrators who decide whether or not treatment will be given. This really isnt a new thing. Are you saying that is a lie? Hell, Medicare denies more than any other single insurer. Theyre pros!

 

[fskimospy]

And thats really the point. Whether the Dems strong-armed this legislation though or not, it was no secret what the GOP wanted to see. And they got nothing. So, this shows one of two things. Either 1. The Dems were giving lip service when extending their hands for support, or 2. they never planned on compromising anything. Either way, the fact that this bill is devoid of anything the GOP wanted shows that the Dems kept the GOP at bay by design. Good or bad, it is what it is.

And youre right-Palin is irrelevant. The only ones who think she is some kind of leader within the Republican ranks are the Democrats. But, she looks good on a cross, no?

You do realize that Palin has won quite a few straw polls among GOP members for their presidential nominee for 2012 right? While I don't think she's going to end up winning that, calling one of the most visible faces of the party who is currently (arguably) in the lead for their presidential nomination irrelevant is ridiculous to me.

The Democrats certainly could have done more to include the Republicans in things, but if you are being honest with yourself you would have to admit that the Republicans made it very clear, very early on that they were not interested in a compromise. The 'compromise' that they floated was actually a 'Republican' bill... and trying to convince the party that has overwhelming majorities in all branches of government that they should forget it and do it your way is pretty silly.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem with Palin's remarks werent her intentions, it was her wording. Sure, she said death panels; however, she referred to a very real thing: a panel of (sometimes) doctors and administrators who decide whether or not treatment will be given. This really isnt a new thing. Are you saying that is a lie? Hell, Medicare denies more than any other single insurer. Theyre pros!

Yes I'm saying it was a lie. The way she worded it was a lie. In fact, she won the lie of the year! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

So yes. A big lie. A whopper.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes I'm saying it was a lie. The way she worded it was a lie. In fact, she won the lie of the year! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

So yes. A big lie. A whopper.

ORLY? http://mediamatters.org/columns/200908200036

 

[Craig234]

Blackangsth, too often you post like a Republican apologist, even though you don't seem to realize it.

Take your argument about how the Republicans aren't obstructionist, only wanting a fair hearing.

To say that, you are ignoring tons of evidence of what's actually happened - Republican leaders saying their strategy is to kill the bill, obstructionist maneuvers like demanding the oral reading in full of Bernie Sanders amendment that would waste 12 hours, their saying things like defending that demand by saying that they are going to use every procedural gimmick they can to try to delay the bill, the written material within the GOP layig out the plan to delay saying that introducing any amendment or motion *including ones without any merit to them* is the plan, the lack of any specific offers by GOP members with any negotiating terms saying what they need to support the healthcare bill, and much more - while you simply invent things that didn't happen by the Republicans, to 'argue' for how reasonable they are.

You don't get taken at all seriously with that sort of lazy, one-sided ignoring of the facts to argue for a false position. It's as if you ar ejust conditioned to make crap up to defend Republicans sometimes.

 

[blackangst1]

You do realize that Palin has won quite a few straw polls among GOP members for their presidential nominee for 2012 right? While I don't think she's going to end up winning that, calling one of the most visible faces of the party who is currently (arguably) in the lead for their presidential nomination irrelevant is ridiculous to me.

The Democrats certainly could have done more to include the Republicans in things, but if you are being honest with yourself you would have to admit that the Republicans made it very clear, very early on that they were not interested in a compromise. The 'compromise' that they floated was actually a 'Republican' bill... and trying to convince the party that has overwhelming majorities in all branches of government that they should forget it and do it your way is pretty silly.

Yes I realize it. But she is (now was) in no way a decent contender. Everyone knew this.

And nice spin BTW on the 2nd paragraph.

 

[Steeplerot]

No, this is big trouble for the Dems and a giveaway to private insurance.

Do it right the first time and watch Reps on the run for ages.

But what else can you expect from bourgeoisie US leftists in power?

"The worst politician is a democrat, they talk left while stabbing you in the back." -VI Lenin

 

[bamacre]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/seeing-public-subsidy-not_n_399733.html

Investors are flocking to health insurance companies. Is there further proof needed that this bill is a gift to them instead of the American people? Nope.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

You are right, the Republicans will do the exact same thing next go 'round but at this point who cares?

I am not sure exactly how the process works after the Senate passes the bill and they merge it with the one from the house but are you confident that process will fix this bill? If not, wouldn't it be better for the DEMOCRATS to scrap this shitty bill and write a new one thats at least somewhat decent and not a bailout for the insurance/big pharma companies? The process shouldn't take nearly as long with the framework they have already laid and they are extremely familiar with everyones (that will vote for the bill) positions/wants/deal breakers etc...

Right now what I see are the Republicans trying to kill the bill for purely political reasons and the Democrats trying to pass the bill for purely political reason. End result = Americans get fucked.

This is why I despise the two parties of bastards that run this country. Both parties are perfectly willing to royally fuck over you and me for pure political gain. Yet people on here will say I am a fool for not supporting one or the other (their side usually) because at least their side is better than the other. ANY sonofabitch that would pass a bill like this that affects damn near the entire country, a huge portion of our economy, and literally life and death stuff for pure political gain should be shot as a traitor. I refuse to associate myself with people who are so willing to harm us for personal gain regardless if you think they are harming us a little less than the other guy.

The bastards are much more concerned with "winning" than they are doing any good for the American people (with a few exceptions of course).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You don't get taken at all seriously with that sort of lazy, one-sided ignoring of the facts to argue for a false position. It's as if you ar ejust conditioned to make crap up to defend Republicans sometimes.

Irony defined.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_399733.html

Investors are flocking to health insurance companies. Is there further proof needed that this bill is a gift to them instead of the American people? Nope.

I find it hilarious that the liberals love to wail that the Republicans are all about big business and are in the pockets of big insurance, big banking, etc., when it is the entirely, 100% DEMOCRAT "health care" bill that is nothing more than a giant present for big insurance. :awe:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I find it hilarious that the liberals love to wail that the Republicans are all about big business and are in the pockets of big insurance, big banking, etc., when it is the entirely, 100% DEMOCRAT "health care" bill that is nothing more than a giant present for big insurance. :awe:

Even more beautiful is the fact that Democrats are blaming "Republican obstructionism" for the defeat of their pet components (public option, single player, insert other choice here) and the current makeup of the bill (ie, inclusion of private insurance companies), while in reality, Democrats will very likely be the only ones voting for this Christmas gift to the insurance companies.

So how can they blame Republicans for this "gift to the insurance companies" when no Republican will even vote for the bill?

 

[fskimospy]

ORLY? http://mediamatters.org/columns/200908200036

Uhmmm, yes. Did you read your own article? To quote the article:

Despite the coverage allotted to debunking the right-wing "death panel" smear, the bigger picture remains intact. Americans face real death panels from their own health insurance providers. Rather than simply debunking the right's false talking point, the media should have gone one step further and pointed out that health insurance companies make life-and-death decisions every day when they decide what they are willing and not willing to cover.

Your own article said 'death panel' was false and a smear. ORLY indeed.

Regardless I find it interesting that you would link a media matters editorial in support of your position. Something tells me had I linked a media matters editorial instead of a pulitzer prize winning independent fact checking site (like I did), you wouldn't have liked that one bit.

So yes. Still a lie, once again, the Lie Of The Year (tm). Do you have anything else?

 

[palehorse]

How does that sit with you Craig? How do you like be counted amongst those who are most likely to prop up insurance company interests? Why do you and the Senate dems support giving insurance companies all of our money?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Even more beautiful is the fact that Democrats are blaming "Republican obstructionism" for the defeat of their pet components (public option, single player, insert other choice here) and the current makeup of the bill (ie, inclusion of private insurance companies), while in reality, Democrats will very likely be the only ones voting for this Christmas gift to the insurance companies.

So how can they blame Republicans for this "gift to the insurance companies" when no Republican will even vote for the bill?

The Republicans have been shut out of this process from day one. Like I said before, if the Democrats had even attempted this so called "bi-partisanship" they are always yammering on about (but never practicing), then if they had thrown the Republicans a bone with say some tort reform or more state control, they could have at least gotten Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board, perhaps even Grahamnesty and McCain, and none of this drama would have occurred.

Instead, it's FULL STEAM AHEAD, OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY from the Democrats, and this monstrosity will be hanging entirely from their necks since the Republicans have literally had zero input into this nightmare of a bill.

It must really upset the "enlightened" progressive liberals that their "esteemed" heroes in DC are just maintaining the status quo and giving the "evil" insurance companies buckoo bucks.

30+ million new FORCED private insurance plans = big money, big prizes for big insurance! :awe:

 

[Ausm]

The Republicans have been shut out of this process from day one. Like I said before, if the Democrats had even attempted this so called "bi-partisanship" they are always yammering on about (but never practicing), then if they had thrown the Republicans a bone with say some tort reform or more state control, they could have at least gotten Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board, perhaps even Grahamnesty and McCain, and none of this drama would have occurred.

Instead, it's FULL STEAM AHEAD, OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY from the Democrats, and this monstrosity will be hanging entirely from their necks since the Republicans have literally had zero input into this nightmare of a bill.

It must really upset the "enlightened" progressive liberals that their "esteemed" heroes in DC are just maintaining the status quo and giving the "evil" insurance companies buckoo bucks.

30+ million new FORCED private insurance plans = big money, big prizes for big insurance! :awe:

Keep drinking the Kool aid. I am not sure what alternate reality you live in but the GOP had absolutely no intentions of debating in good faith. From the sounds of you post, you must been giving advice to President Obama because had the same pipedream of achieving a bipartisan agreement on this bill.

The reason why this bill is a pile of shit is because the way the Senate operates which has been explained numerous times in this forum. If we only needed 55 votes to get to cloture like when Medicare was passed we would have had a MUCH stronger bill.

 

[blackangst1]

Uhmmm, yes. Did you read your own article? To quote the article:



Your own article said 'death panel' was false and a smear. ORLY indeed.

Regardless I find it interesting that you would link a media matters editorial in support of your position. Something tells me had I linked a media matters editorial instead of a pulitzer prize winning independent fact checking site (like I did), you wouldn't have liked that one bit.

So yes. Still a lie, once again, the Lie Of The Year (tm). Do you have anything else?

No, the artilce I linked say they are real. How about I re-quote what you quoted from my article?

Americans face real death panels from their own health insurance providers. Rather than simply debunking the right's false talking point, the media should have gone one step further and pointed out that health insurance companies make life-and-death decisions every day when they decide what they are willing and not willing to cover.

Nothing wrong with media matters, most of the time. I prefer to get my news from both sides of the spectrum

 

[fskimospy]

No, the artilce I linked say they are real. How about I re-quote what you quoted from my article?

Nothing wrong with media matters, most of the time. I prefer to get my news from both sides of the spectrum

To quote my good friend blackangst1:

The fact is, MM is incredibly biased, not to mention as guilty of phonying up shit to make their story as most other networks.

You then followed it up with some example of media matters dishonestly editing things together, etc. The rest of your post continued to attack them as a dishonest organization.

As for what you quoted, again that's simply not what it says. The article SPECIFICALLY says the death panel bit is false, then it mentions that other things in this world (NOT the provision mentioned in the legislation) actually ARE 'death panels'. So once again yes, she is guilty of a gargantuan lie.

I continue to find it strange that you would use an editorial from an organization that you view as biased and duplicitous as an attempt to rebut my linking to a pulitzer prize winning nonpartisan fact checking site.

 

[blackangst1]

To quote my good friend blackangst1:



You then followed it up with some example of media matters dishonestly editing things together, etc. The rest of your post continued to attack them as a dishonest organization.

As for what you quoted, again that's simply not what it says. The article SPECIFICALLY says the death panel bit is false, then it mentions that other things in this world (NOT the provision mentioned in the legislation) actually ARE 'death panels'. So once again yes, she is guilty of a gargantuan lie.

I continue to find it strange that you would use an editorial from an organization that you view as biased and duplicitous as an attempt to rebut my linking to a pulitzer prize winning nonpartisan fact checking site.

/sigh

Like many things, "death panels" is a label applied to a practice. In this case, Palin was referring to the practice of a board making treatment decisions for patients that could save their lives or extend them. Call it a review board, I really couldnt care less. But do you deny this happens already? I honestly dont think you do. I was going to link more evidence of this, but only a fool would deny it. Let me know if you want links. Do you also deny the largest insurer to deny claims is Medicare? Do you need those links too? And lastly, do you honestly deny there will not be panels of doctors, bureaucrats, etc who will be making similar types of decisions when we enact welfare health care? Really? Because if so, that means you believe every life saving option will be approved.

Really?

 

[fskimospy]

/sigh

Like many things, "death panels" is a label applied to a practice. In this case, Palin was referring to the practice of a board making treatment decisions for patients that could save their lives or extend them. Call it a review board, I really couldnt care less. But do you deny this happens already? I honestly dont think you do. I was going to link more evidence of this, but only a fool would deny it. Let me know if you want links. Do you also deny the largest insurer to deny claims is Medicare? Do you need those links too? And lastly, do you honestly deny there will not be panels of doctors, bureaucrats, etc who will be making similar types of decisions when we enact welfare health care? Really? Because if so, that means you believe every life saving option will be approved.

Really?

Actually no she wasn't. It would appear that you didn't read the link that I provided. Her statement was (and I will quote you from my link so you don't need to click through):

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's ‘death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care.

That's what she actually said, and it's hilariously false. Why don't you defend her statement based on what she actually said as opposed to what you wish she said?

 

[Ausm]

/sigh

Like many things, "death panels" is a label applied to a practice. In this case, Palin was referring to the practice of a board making treatment decisions for patients that could save their lives or extend them. Call it a review board, I really couldnt care less. But do you deny this happens already? I honestly dont think you do. I was going to link more evidence of this, but only a fool would deny it. Let me know if you want links. Do you also deny the largest insurer to deny claims is Medicare? Do you need those links too? And lastly, do you honestly deny there will not be panels of doctors, bureaucrats, etc who will be making similar types of decisions when we enact welfare health care? Really? Because if so, that means you believe every life saving option will be approved.

Really?

You mean like this?

Here are all the lies in one video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI8ifA4oH4E

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26vzZo-pBDQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-2-gHCaDc