blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Youre right. She needs to be taken literally, because Im SURE she wasnt stetching the truth to make point. God knows the left never does it.
My bad.
Youre right. She needs to be taken literally, because Im SURE she wasnt stetching the truth to make point. God knows the left never does it.
My bad.
She has been offered many, MANY opportunities to say 'I didn't mean that literally'. She has decided to say that exactly zero times.
Oh and I would hope that hatred of Palin's dishonesty and stupidity would transcend the left/right thing.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I understand. If Im misinterprating what she meant, then so be it. But I still stand by (apparently my) translation of what she said as being a true and correct translation of "death panels". Whatever. I dont like her for other reasons, so dont somehow think I defend her.
I start a thread about how bad the bill has become (this thread), I post more than once listing the bad things specifically, and you ask, how do I feel about them. Would you like me to drive over and yell in your ear?
eits
Lifer
eits
Lifer
if i've said it once, i've said it a hand-full of times... this bill is horrible.
obama was wrong to call this a big step or victory or whatever for the american people. this is a huge step in the wrong direction.
we just went from trying to fix a broken system to pissing our pants because a few bitch republicans didn't like the idea to, now, having a bill that doesn't fix the broken system, but makes the break bigger.
obama was wrong to call this a big step or victory or whatever for the american people. this is a huge step in the wrong direction.
we just went from trying to fix a broken system to pissing our pants because a few bitch republicans didn't like the idea to, now, having a bill that doesn't fix the broken system, but makes the break bigger.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
When can we stop calling this "health care reform"? It isn't and it never was. No one bothered to find out in advance of legislation just what could be done to improve the quality of health care the provider can give the patient. It's been a political pissing match. Rather than going back and actually approaching it from the provider/patient standpoint, which is what really matters, it's been about political bullshit, which is evidently what matters most. That the Republicans opposed this out of spite matters not. It wasn't what should have been done, and the Dems will pass this no matter how bad it is because they'd rather have anything than nothing.
If there were an amendment I could add to the Constitution it would be the elimination of any form of compensation to any politician other than what he's paid and his expense account for necessary purposes, and get rid of the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have over us. I'd like to get us back to a representative democracy rather than the kleptocracy it's become.
If there were an amendment I could add to the Constitution it would be the elimination of any form of compensation to any politician other than what he's paid and his expense account for necessary purposes, and get rid of the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have over us. I'd like to get us back to a representative democracy rather than the kleptocracy it's become.
Last edited:
eits
Lifer
Regarding the issue of republican obstruction, here is Rush Limbaugh saying that Mitch McConnell told him that the repubs were proposing amendments to the bill not in order to improve it but instead as a way of killing it:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ents-in-order-to-stop-health-care-bill-no.php
I think that this treatment of the amendment process pretty much settles the issue of republican motives here. For weeks now, the handwriting has been on the wall that the dems would make whatever compromises they had to in order to get a bill passed. In that circumstance, if the repubs wanted the best result for the American people, they would propose amendments to improve the bill. Only Susan Collins has tried to do this. She proposed a series of amendments to improve the bill, stating that even with the amendments passed she would still not vote for it, but saying that the amendments would nonetheless make it a better bill. You can propose amendments to improve a bill that you will vote against nonetheless, if you really want a better bill. That, however, is not what the repubs have attempted to do here.
I would add another point here. There is no common ideological ground between the dems and the repubs about healthcare reform. It is a fact, not even debatable, that the repubs have never attempted to reform healthcare when in power. They have proposed their alternatives only when the dems are in power and trying to get a bill passed. These alternatives are only proposed to immunize them from the charge that they don't care about healthcare, not because they actually want to reform the system. They had alternatives when the Clintons tried to get their bill through, and they never followed up on them when they had the White House and Congress later on.
The ideological divide is pretty stark here. The repubs submitted a bill in this process, and it was scored by the CBO. It would have covered about 3 million out of around 40 million uninsured. I think it is perfectly fine for conservatives to believe that insuring people is not worth the price of doing it, but that is a huge rift with the dems and it pretty much makes a bipartisan bill an impossibility. Obama should never have said he expected a bipartisan bill. It was a naive and foolish thing to say. There are areas and issues where bipartisanship may be possible, but unfortunately healthcare reform is not one of them.
- wolf
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ents-in-order-to-stop-health-care-bill-no.php
I think that this treatment of the amendment process pretty much settles the issue of republican motives here. For weeks now, the handwriting has been on the wall that the dems would make whatever compromises they had to in order to get a bill passed. In that circumstance, if the repubs wanted the best result for the American people, they would propose amendments to improve the bill. Only Susan Collins has tried to do this. She proposed a series of amendments to improve the bill, stating that even with the amendments passed she would still not vote for it, but saying that the amendments would nonetheless make it a better bill. You can propose amendments to improve a bill that you will vote against nonetheless, if you really want a better bill. That, however, is not what the repubs have attempted to do here.
I would add another point here. There is no common ideological ground between the dems and the repubs about healthcare reform. It is a fact, not even debatable, that the repubs have never attempted to reform healthcare when in power. They have proposed their alternatives only when the dems are in power and trying to get a bill passed. These alternatives are only proposed to immunize them from the charge that they don't care about healthcare, not because they actually want to reform the system. They had alternatives when the Clintons tried to get their bill through, and they never followed up on them when they had the White House and Congress later on.
The ideological divide is pretty stark here. The repubs submitted a bill in this process, and it was scored by the CBO. It would have covered about 3 million out of around 40 million uninsured. I think it is perfectly fine for conservatives to believe that insuring people is not worth the price of doing it, but that is a huge rift with the dems and it pretty much makes a bipartisan bill an impossibility. Obama should never have said he expected a bipartisan bill. It was a naive and foolish thing to say. There are areas and issues where bipartisanship may be possible, but unfortunately healthcare reform is not one of them.
- wolf
False. The handwriting has been on the wall that the Dems would make whatever compromises TO THE OTHER DEMS in order to secure the 60 votes. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins could have easily been persuaded with some modest concessions. They even voted for the "stimulus"!
The Republicans have been shut out of the entire process for months now. They are just trying to do the only thing they can do now: try and get this monstrosity killed so we can all start over. When they haven't been involved in any talks or meetings (and really, who has except for Reid and some close associates behind closed doors? Even Harkin has admitted he doesn't know what's in the bill), what else are they supposed to do, hmm? :hmm:
The wolf is showing his true clothing.
Bipartisanship and transparency, right?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614183270356274.html
"Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it's likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House's version passed by only five votes.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Budget Committee, has already warned that if the final bill "isn't close to the Senate bill, there will be no way to get the 60 votes here" to shut off debate and pass the final product. But many House members, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, are insisting on major changes in the Senate's version.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote."
In before "lol wsj is a right wing creationist blog bought out by big oil and big insurance!'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614183270356274.html
"Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it's likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House's version passed by only five votes.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Budget Committee, has already warned that if the final bill "isn't close to the Senate bill, there will be no way to get the 60 votes here" to shut off debate and pass the final product. But many House members, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, are insisting on major changes in the Senate's version.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote."
In before "lol wsj is a right wing creationist blog bought out by big oil and big insurance!'
Last edited:
False. The handwriting has been on the wall that the Dems would make whatever compromises TO THE OTHER DEMS in order to secure the 60 votes. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins could have easily been persuaded with some modest concessions. They even voted for the "stimulus"!
The Republicans have been shut out of the entire process for months now. They are just trying to do the only thing they can do now: try and get this monstrosity killed so we can all start over. When they haven't been involved in any talks or meetings (and really, who has except for Reid and some close associates behind closed doors? Even Harkin has admitted he doesn't know what's in the bill), what else are they supposed to do, hmm? :hmm:
The wolf is showing his true clothing.
You're right in one sense: the handwriting was on the wall that the dems would make whatever compromises were necessary to other dems, but that is exactly my point. Given that the bill was going to pass, the repubs should have proposed amendments to improve the bill rather than proposing amendments designed to kill it. If they oppose the bill, fine, but if you want the best result, then try to make it better even if the finished product remains unacceptable to you.
I disagree that the dems made no concessions to Snowe and Collins. They met with them continuously throughout the process. The public option was dropped in order to appease Nelson and Lieberman, but Collins and Snowe also wanted it dropped, and Reid definitely wanted their votes. They must have proposed changes which, if accepted, would have cost progressive votes and killed the bill. What went on here is pretty clear: they were either pressured by McConnell to take a position that Reid clearly could not accept because it would have killed the bill, or else they weren't pressured but couldn't find common ground with Reid and the dems for their own reasons. The fact of the matter is, if you go all the way back to the beginning of debate in the House, to the House bill, through the process in the Senate, this legislation started out way left and has moved nowhere but rightward ever since. They were trying to get moderate dems and moderate repubs (all two of them), on board.
If you really think the repubs were locked out here, then show me anything the repubs have proposed that would represent a middle ground between the historical "no reform" position of the republican party and the dem's bill. It certainly wasn't the 11th hour repub bill that would have covered 7% of the currently uninsured, so what was it? Look, I am not criticizing the repubs for opposing the tradeoff of covering the uninsured for bigger government and taxes. They are entitled to that position. But expecting repubs and dems to come up with a bipartisan bill here is like expecting the pro-choicers and pro-lifers to get into a room and come up with a comprehensive abortion bill. All the majority can do in a situation like that is try to appeal to a few potential cross-over moderates. Yet the repubs have almost no moderates in Congress anymore. In the Senate, there is Snowe and Collins and that is about it. They did not get their votes, but it wasn't for lack of trying. As for the rest, there was no common ground for discussion and anyone claiming otherwise needs to pay more attention to what the repubs have been saying not only recently, but for decades. They hate everything in this bill and are content to leave the system as is.
This whining about process is not really about process at all.
- wolf
Last edited:
wolf, Snowe and Collins were hardly pressured into doing anything. They broke rank with the Republicans and voted for the "stimulus", and Snowe even voted to advance the "health care" bill past that one committee. In the House, there was that one Republican, Chu I think his name is, from Louisiana, who voted for the "health care" bill.
Your posts are usually very good and thoughtful, but it does seem that you view everything with a certain slant. As a registered Republican, I think I know how my own party operates (not very well right now, granted).
The only brow-beating going on in this process is from the White House, Reid and Pelosi. We don't have anyone like Rahm "Rahmbo Deadfish" Emmanuel on our side.
Rush is just an entertainer. He is not an elected official in a position of political power, as he has stated time and again.
I wonder if you would be as critical of the Democrats if they worked furiously as the minority party to try and stop the majority party's initiatives? :hmm:
Your posts are usually very good and thoughtful, but it does seem that you view everything with a certain slant. As a registered Republican, I think I know how my own party operates (not very well right now, granted).
The only brow-beating going on in this process is from the White House, Reid and Pelosi. We don't have anyone like Rahm "Rahmbo Deadfish" Emmanuel on our side.
Rush is just an entertainer. He is not an elected official in a position of political power, as he has stated time and again.
I wonder if you would be as critical of the Democrats if they worked furiously as the minority party to try and stop the majority party's initiatives? :hmm:
Last edited:
wolf, Snowe and Collins were hardly pressured into doing anything. They broke rank with the Republicans and voted for the "stimulus", and Snowe even voted to advance the "health care" bill past that one committee. In the House, there was that one Republican, Chu I think his name is, from Louisiana, who voted for the "health care" bill.
Your posts are usually very good and thoughtful, but it does seem that you view everything with a certain slant. As a registered Republican, I think I know how my own party operates (not very well right now, granted).
The only brow-beating going on in this process is from the White House, Reid and Pelosi. We don't have anyone like Rahm "Rahmbo Deadfish" Emmanuel on our side.
Rush is just an entertainer. He is not an elected official in a position of political power, as he has stated time and again.
I wonder if you would be as critical of the Democrats if they worked furiously as the minority party to try and stop the majority party's initiatives? :hmm:
I absolutely would, no matter how much I opposed the legislation. I don't believe in using fillibusters on a routine basis to try to kill legislation. I also agree with some comments made earlier in the thread about the hypocrisy of dems accusing repubs of being in the pockets of corporate interests. While it isn't anywhere near all the dems who support corporate welfare for insurance companies, there are enough of them to make the smell of hypocrisy awfully pungent.
I make no secret of my political leaning. I lean left on about 3 out of 4 issues, and I vote dem about 75% of the time. I am fiscally conservative in that the only deficit spending I ever support is recession stimulus, which I support whether it is in the form of tax cuts or spending. Otherwise, I believe that every single penny of every tax cut or spending increase must be paid for by corresponding spending cuts or tax hikes. That IMO takes me off the political map, because neither party supports fiscal conservation either in deed or in the specifics of their platforms.
- wolf
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter