Republicans losing their resolve on Obamacare, losing their votes, and losing face.

[Blackjack200]

hmm, actually governing is harder than just obstructing, isn't it you irredeemable little shit stains?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ot-have-senate-votes-to-repeal-obamacare.html

 

[Jaskalas]

The core of this issue is people know they need healthcare.
Democrats resolve to find a way, even horrible, corrupted, and compromised ones.

Republicans want "government out" of healthcare. People to fend for themselves.
That's at odds with the electorate. Delivering on it would be... unpleasant.

 

[superstition]

The core of this issue is the GOP works for the health industry, too.

fify

I hate to break it to people who enjoy being blinded by the partisan sideshow but political insiders said, way before "Obama"care was passed that it was common knowledge (among anyone with a clue — an insider) that the GOP would not actually oppose the passage of the bill. Why? Because the real goal, the true point and prize, was the mandate.

This is why the GOP stopped stonewalling against allowing it to come to a vote at 8:30 AM the day before Christmas Eve when they thought no one would pay attention. The tactic worked, of course.

The GOP's role was to whittle down demand of the inclusion of a public option (originally 73% of the public wanted it), with their death panels and their feigned total hatred/opposition. Meanwhile, the Dems could use the GOP as an excuse for not having a public option. During that charade time the president lied as well as the Dems — claiming support for a public option the NYT had eventually told us was bargained away in the secret deal he had made right at the beginning with the industry. So, we went through the "non-robust" public option incrementalism and then the Dems actually being forced to whip against that coming to a vote.

The health care Trojan Horse worked great for "both" sides. The GOP was able to use it as leverage for political appeal and the Dems could use it to claim they delivered health care to the masses and care about people — the typical liberal messaging.

 

[MongGrel]

The core of this issue is people know they need healthcare.
Democrats resolve to find a way, even horrible, corrupted, and compromised ones.

Republicans want "government out" of healthcare. People to fend for themselves.
That's at odds with the electorate. Delivering on it would be... unpleasant.

BS, the GOP loves raping healthcare the same way Cheney loved ripping off money via Halliburton.

Rick Scott in Florida has been one of the biggest con men on health care issues in Florida for a very long time now. Even before he was in office, he dodged charges like a Mafia Don, but the government basically has wiped them out and operate on about the same level these days.

 

[Jhhnn]

You mean... Repubs can no longer just obstruct & attack to deny the black usurper any victories?

That for all the promising & raving they just used the last 6 years to formulate jack shit as policy?

I'm reminded of something Molly Ivins said about Repubs- "All hat, no cattle."

 

[Jhhnn]

fify

I hate to break it to people who enjoy being blinded by the partisan sideshow but political insiders said, way before "Obama"care was passed that it was common knowledge (among anyone with a clue — an insider) that the GOP would not actually oppose the passage of the bill. Why? Because the real goal, the true point and prize, was the mandate.

This is why the GOP stopped stonewalling against allowing it to come to a vote at 8:30 AM the day before Christmas Eve when they thought no one would pay attention. The tactic worked, of course.

The GOP's role was to whittle down demand of the inclusion of a public option (originally 73% of the public wanted it), with their death panels and their feigned total hatred/opposition. Meanwhile, the Dems could use the GOP as an excuse for not having a public option. During that charade time the president lied as well as the Dems — claiming support for a public option the NYT had eventually told us was bargained away in the secret deal he had made right at the beginning with the industry. So, we went through the "non-robust" public option incrementalism and then the Dems actually being forced to whip against that coming to a vote.

The health care Trojan Horse worked great for "both" sides. The GOP was able to use it as leverage for political appeal and the Dems could use it to claim they delivered health care to the masses and care about people — the typical liberal messaging.

So, uhh, that's conspiracy theory, right?

 

[MrSquished]

I'd like to see them just repeal and not replace Obamacare. I mean not really, I use it.

But just to see the Repubs cost themselves up to 10 million votes if they do. That might almost make it worth it.

 

[ivwshane]

fify

I hate to break it to people who enjoy being blinded by the partisan sideshow but political insiders said, way before "Obama"care was passed that it was common knowledge (among anyone with a clue — an insider) that the GOP would not actually oppose the passage of the bill. Why? Because the real goal, the true point and prize, was the mandate.

This is why the GOP stopped stonewalling against allowing it to come to a vote at 8:30 AM the day before Christmas Eve when they thought no one would pay attention. The tactic worked, of course.

The GOP's role was to whittle down demand of the inclusion of a public option (originally 73% of the public wanted it), with their death panels and their feigned total hatred/opposition. Meanwhile, the Dems could use the GOP as an excuse for not having a public option. During that charade time the president lied as well as the Dems — claiming support for a public option the NYT had eventually told us was bargained away in the secret deal he had made right at the beginning with the industry. So, we went through the "non-robust" public option incrementalism and then the Dems actually being forced to whip against that coming to a vote.

The health care Trojan Horse worked great for "both" sides. The GOP was able to use it as leverage for political appeal and the Dems could use it to claim they delivered health care to the masses and care about people — the typical liberal messaging.

I'll take a citation for any of that bullshit please. You can start by showing how Republican senators cared one bit about the mandate when every single senate Republican voted against the bill. You can then show a timeline for when the public option stopped being included.

This is the second time you tried to push that bullshit, either put up or shut the fuck up.

http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

The Path Through Congress
Following President Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the U.S. Congress began its work on comprehensive health care reform. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged at the time that the House bill would include a public option.15 Indeed, a public option offered through a private insurance exchange was included in all three versions of the bill passed by House committees in the summer of 2009 (House Ways and Means and House Education and Labor on 17 July 2009; House Energy and Commerce on 31 July 2009), as well as in the bill passed by the full House of Representatives on 7 November 2009 (the Affordable Health Care for America Act, HR 3962). A public option was also included in the bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on 15 July 2009 (the Affordable Health Choices Act, S 1679).

Senate Democrats were engaged in a highly contentious debate throughout the fall of 2009, and the political life of the public option changed almost daily. The debate reached a critical impasse in November 2009, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who usually caucuses with the Democrats, threatened to filibuster the Senate bill if it included a public option.

During this period, several alternatives were considered. One compromise proposal included a Medicare buy-in for people age fifty-five and older. However, both Senator Lieberman and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) opposed the Medicare buy-in, which evoked concerns similar to those raised about the public option. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) proposed using nonprofit health care cooperatives to compete with for-profit plans, but this concept also sparked little enthusiasm.

Debate over the public option continued as additional proposals were made to narrow eligibility for the public option and to raise the rates paid to providers above Medicare levels. When those, too, failed to garner enough support, the public option was eliminated from the Senate bill.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) made last-minute attempts to introduce amendments to include a public option as the bill was about to be voted on by the Senate Finance Committee. Those failed, and there was no public option in either the bill that emerged from that committee or the bill that passed the full Senate on 24 December 2009 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HR 3590). The option was also omitted from the president’s proposal, Principles for Health Reform, released 22 February 2010 prior to a bipartisan health care summit. Likewise, it was not present in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama in March 2010.

 

[ivwshane]

So, uhh, that's conspiracy theory, right?

He hails from the same camp people like hayabusa and raildogg come from, the "both side" are the same and lives in a reality created by the right who view the only real solutions are ones that are created in Congress and perfect from the get go. Any legislation in their eyes that isn't perfect and doesn't solve an issue completely is a failed one and was created because all Congress people are corrupt.

If I had to guess, I'd guess they come from the same cloth as Bernie bros and trump supporters, aka misinformed, gullible idiots.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The core of this issue is people know they need healthcare.
Democrats resolve to find a way, even horrible, corrupted, and compromised ones.

Republicans want "government out" of healthcare. People to fend for themselves.
That's at odds with the electorate. Delivering on it would be... unpleasant.

Agreed. They know they need healthcare and they know they can't afford Obamacare. As much as the GOP resists it, I can see a public option in the not too near future. I don't think that's a bad thing either, we have to get healthcare costs under control.

 

[Ackmed]

hmm, actually governing is harder than just obstructing, isn't it you irredeemable little shit stains?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...ot-have-senate-votes-to-repeal-obamacare.html

Bernie Sanders said Senate Democratic leaders discussed Monday whether the party would flatly oppose any nomination President-elect Donald Trump makes to the Supreme Court.

www.cnn.com

Definition of obstruction.

Nice insults though. Right in line with your candidate.

 

[ivwshane]

www.cnn.com

Definition of obstruction.

Nice insults though. Right in line with your candidate.

You are about eight years too late there kid.

 

[Jhhnn]

www.cnn.com

Definition of obstruction.

Nice insults though. Right in line with your candidate.

Discussion and deeds are two different things. No actual obstruction has occurred thus far. Dems likely won't put up much of a fight against a center-right nominee but they may not get one.

 

[Ackmed]

The quote is pretty obvious they plan to obstruct at all cost. Sorry I pointed out that hypocrisy. Both sides like to obstruct, acting like only one does is silly.

 

[Sonikku]

If I were a dem I probably wouldn't filibuster and I probably wouldn't do everything in my power to stop this stunt. I'm genuinely curious what the GoP will replace Obamacare with that is better and cheaper. The American people voted for this, I say let them have it.

 

[superstition]

So, uhh, that's conspiracy theory, right?

Go back to reading that story about George Washington and the cherry tree.

 

[superstition]

the "both side" are the same

They're not the same. They're different brands for the same company. They have different messaging and tactics.

They do work for mostly the same rich people. You can include the Harvard and Northwestern researchers in your list of "idiots". Those "idiots" are conspiracy theorists, too. The data that they just made up out of thin air showed that Congress completely ignores 90% of the public.

You can also include Matt Taibbi's data, the data that showed that McCain and Obama's Top 20 "donors" list included mostly the same entities.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The quote is pretty obvious they plan to obstruct at all cost. Sorry I pointed out that hypocrisy. Both sides like to obstruct, acting like only one does is silly.

It isn't clear at all. He described a discussion, not the result of that discussion. He also said that he hopes that the Democrats don't go that route.

"Still, Sanders said he hopes Democrats don't use the "obstruct, obstruct, obstruct" tactics against Trump that congressional Republicans deployed against Obama.

"I don't think that's what we do," Sanders said. "I think where Trump has ideas that make sense that we can work with him on, I think we should."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/politics/bernie-sanders-town-hall/index.html

 

[MrSquished]

It isn't clear at all. He described a discussion, not the result of that discussion. He also said that he hopes that the Democrats don't go that route.

"Still, Sanders said he hopes Democrats don't use the "obstruct, obstruct, obstruct" tactics against Trump that congressional Republicans deployed against Obama.

"I don't think that's what we do," Sanders said. "I think where Trump has ideas that make sense that we can work with him on, I think we should."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/politics/bernie-sanders-town-hall/index.html

Bernie for Prez

 

[Jaskalas]

Bernie for Prez

I'd go for a younger model.

 

[superstition]

Bernie for Prez

More like comedian. The idea that Trump is going to float even one good idea.

I'd go for a younger model

Agreed. If you're going to have corruption it may as well look good.

 

[Sonikku]

It isn't clear at all. He described a discussion, not the result of that discussion. He also said that he hopes that the Democrats don't go that route.

"Still, Sanders said he hopes Democrats don't use the "obstruct, obstruct, obstruct" tactics against Trump that congressional Republicans deployed against Obama.

"I don't think that's what we do," Sanders said. "I think where Trump has ideas that make sense that we can work with him on, I think we should."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/politics/bernie-sanders-town-hall/index.html

So in other words, "obstruct, obstruct, obstruct".

 

[glenn1]

Obamacare will be repealed no matter what even if the replacement is 99.999% the same. This is more about about who gets to take or deny credit for something than the policy details. Witness the drug benefit for seniors the GOP passed a few years ago - had the Dems passed that instead the GOP would have likewise declared all-out war on the law.

 

[pauldun170]

The ACA will be repealed and then replaced by an almost identical framework, conveniently labeled something compassionately freedom loving and soothing by the Republicans.
This way they get the best of both worlds.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Republicans need to have their plan in hand before gutting ACA imo.