White house ready to drop public option.

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87
Right, that is why SS reform went through without a hitch right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'll give you that one but only not full credit because of totally different circumstances. Much of that issue had to do with not wanting to alienate the AARP generation of voters

And this situation has nothing to do with voters??

 

[Fern]

Lemme see if I understand this.

Bills originate in the House, but they can't pass anything.

Filibusters apply to the Senate, not the House.

The Repubs don't actually have enough seats in the Senate to fillibusters.

But the Dems haven't passed anything in either the House or the Senate because of the (fictional) Repubs fillibuster?

Bwuhahahaha

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It is amusing to see the left throwing around, "But but but...the Republican filibuster!", when in actuality, the Republicans can't actually filibuster anything. The Democrats hold the supermajority (60 seats) and can break any attempted Republican filibuster on a bill.

"The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used)...

...As of July 7, 2009, Democrats officially hold a filibuster-proof supermajority, with the swearing in of Al Franken, Junior United States Senator from Minnesota."

Filibuster in the United States

Maybe yall should research a term before throwing it around so blindly.

The Republicans can't (successfully) filibuster anything. They don't have the votes. Any attempt to filibuster can be easily overturned by the Democrat supermajority.

If parties were monolithic, what you say would be true. Since parties where members are elected individually are almost by definition not monolithic, what you say is dumb.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

I'll give you that one but only not full credit because of totally different circumstances. Much of that issue had to do with not wanting to alienate the AARP generation of voters

You mean like alienating the medicare crowd now?

Same slime, different date, party distancing themselves from the party leader. I suspect if this were 2005 we would have the same result. Republicans had less control of both houses than Democrats now.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
When the Democrats themselves could pass any version of the current proposals without a single Republican vote, why do they continue to blame the Republicans for their own failure to unite and accomplish that task?

Personal responsibility FTW.

Because political parties are not monolithic? This whole 'the democrats can pass anything because there's 60 of them' thing is stupidity. If this were a parliamentary system, that would be correct. Since it's a single member system with people disclosing their general set of principles through only 2 parties that attempt to encompass the entire political spectrum, trying to make this sort of argument is asinine. I'm sure you know this.

That's a bullshit excuse for one party not being able to unite as well as the other party is able to do on a regular basis. The Dems are in a better position to run the entire show with little to no interference than either party has been in a long time, yet they can't get their shit together long enough to pass a bill that is likely the most critical element of their supposedly unified platform...?!

Getdafuckouttahere. :roll:

What do you mean they 'can't get their shit together long enough to pass a bill'? They will almost certainly pass a bill. Now if you're talking about a bill with a public option, as I would presume in a thread about it, let's talk about their 'unified platform'. Why would the Democrats be so uniquely unable to get their shit together to include a provision in a bill that isn't even part of their party platform? Do you even know what's in their 'unified platform'?

Might wanna tell the Democratic party then.

President Obama and our Democratic leaders in Congress have been working to pass health care reform legislation before the end of the year. Today the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) took an important step towards that goal when it released its latest version of health care reform legislation. The bill follows President Obama?s principles for reform by lowering costs, protecting patient choice and expanding access to quality, affordable care, and includes a strong public option and a shared employee responsibility provision

Bolded for reference.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let's be clear, the responsible democrats have a big part in "derailing" this. They have the numbers, just not the votes. When was the last time you heard the same thing about a GOP controlled congress and a GOP POTUS? Had this come up 8 years ago in the same form it is now and Bush were the one pushing for it, it'd been rammed down our throats months ago with little or no discussion. Thanks for reminding about the big difference between the two. Thank God one party is responsible enough to not follow their fearless leader off the cliff on every issue.

Right, that is why SS reform went through without a hitch right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'll give you that one but only not full credit because of totally different circumstances. Much of that issue had to do with not wanting to alienate the AARP generation of voters

And this situation has nothing to do with voters?? [/quote]

Apples / Oranges

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Fern
Lemme see if I understand this.

Bills originate in the House, but they can't pass anything.

Filibusters apply to the Senate, not the House.

The Repubs don't actually have enough seats in the Senate to fillibusters.

But the Dems haven't passed anything in either the House or the Senate because of the (fictional) Repubs fillibuster?

Bwuhahahaha

Fern

Don't forget, it's also the "hick Republicans'" fault that the Dems can't unite on this issue, even though UHC was a central aspect of their platforms in both the 2006 and 2008 elections.

It's ALL the Republicans' fault that the Democratic Party is impotent.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern
Lemme see if I understand this.

Bills originate in the House, but they can't pass anything.

Filibusters apply to the Senate, not the House.

The Repubs don't actually have enough seats in the Senate to fillibusters.

But the Dems haven't passed anything in either the House or the Senate because of the (fictional) Repubs fillibuster?

Bwuhahahaha

Fern

sshhh youre interrupting the GOP's dismantling of health reform!

 

[Zedtom]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Just so I'm clear with what you're saying, "accessible" to whom exactly?

Medicare records, as a for instance, are well protected from unauthorized parties.

There are many who could utilize the databases without having patient privacy compromised. The alternative is to do nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Lemme see if I understand this.

Bills originate in the House, but they can't pass anything.

Filibusters apply to the Senate, not the House.

The Repubs don't actually have enough seats in the Senate to fillibusters.

But the Dems haven't passed anything in either the House or the Senate because of the (fictional) Repubs fillibuster?

Bwuhahahaha

Fern

What are you babbling about? The Democrats haven't tried to vote on a bill in the House yet, they most certainly haven't failed in any way, shape, or form. To say that they are 'unable' to pass a bill there is laughably false and you know it.

The Senate on the other hand may end up being 'unable' to pass a bill with a public option, but it most certainly would be due to a Republican filibuster on the issue. There are nearly certainly Democrats that would not vote for cloture, but who would never try and mount a filibuster of their own party's legislation. So yes, they would be unable to pass the bill because of a Republican filibuster. Do you really think the GOP would hesitate for a second to filibuster a bill with a public option? That would be incredibly naive of you.

As I said to our good friend RyanPaulShaffer, parties do not vote in tandem with one another in America. If this isn't civics 101, it's civics 201 at best. The most likely scenario is a public option bill from the House, and one without it from the Senate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Might wanna tell the Democratic party then.

President Obama and our Democratic leaders in Congress have been working to pass health care reform legislation before the end of the year. Today the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) took an important step towards that goal when it released its latest version of health care reform legislation. The bill follows President Obama?s principles for reform by lowering costs, protecting patient choice and expanding access to quality, affordable care, and includes a strong public option and a shared employee responsibility provision

Bolded for reference.

You need to go learn the difference between a press release and the Democratic Party platform.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87
Right, that is why SS reform went through without a hitch right?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'll give you that one but only not full credit because of totally different circumstances. Much of that issue had to do with not wanting to alienate the AARP generation of voters

And this situation has nothing to do with voters??

Apples / Oranges

Please articulate how/why the two situations are like apples and oranges.

Who is it that the current Democratic Party is trying to avoid alienating if it isn't the voters? Hell, AARP voters in particular!

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Zedtom

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Just so I'm clear with what you're saying, "accessible" to whom exactly?

Medicare records, as a for instance, are well protected from unauthorized parties.

There are many who could utilize the databases without having patient privacy compromised. The alternative is to do nothing.

such as?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Might wanna tell the Democratic party then.

President Obama and our Democratic leaders in Congress have been working to pass health care reform legislation before the end of the year. Today the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) took an important step towards that goal when it released its latest version of health care reform legislation. The bill follows President Obama?s principles for reform by lowering costs, protecting patient choice and expanding access to quality, affordable care, and includes a strong public option and a shared employee responsibility provision

Bolded for reference.

You need to go learn the difference between a press release and the Democratic Party platform.

Its from democrats.org on their main page nitwit.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, and I thought that the 'public option' alongside private insurance WAS the compromise compared to what many want - a single payer system.
Without the public option, this is more just a tweaking of the current system than any real reform. So, ten years from now we'll probably be bitching about this like its 1993....again.

A "public option" aka welfare is *not* reform. Reform would be regulating health care cost, and bringing drug price negotiation to the table, both of which the Dems are not willing to do. The logic of adding another 15million people to an already bloated and expensive system is absolutely idiotic.

It *is* reform, just not reform you agree with. It would be a significant change/shakeup of the current system - so much so that it could change the entire dynamic. I call that reform. It could be for the better or worse depending on how it is set up. You can't even call it welfare necessarily as it could be just government-run through premiums for benefits instead of direct taxation. Welfare is what happens now when people clog up the ER and skip out on the bill...

I will agree that the other things you mention are reform, too....and very much needed. However, I think the point of any successful healthcare reform would be to scrap the current system. Adding more people to the current one without major structural change would be stupid....

Then we'll agree to disagree. You say adding another 15 million people is reform, but then say "Adding more people to the current one without major structural change would be stupid"....no where in the any of the most popular of bills has any structural changes AFAIK. I *do* agree welfare (in part) is when people clog up the ER and skip out on the bill...but its also getting a service from the government that isnt directly paid for, but through public funds.

Fair enough. The mere existance of a program is a game-changer. However if we do not have the other reforms, such as drug price negotiation, then a public option would be a disaster financially. You can't have one without the other is what I was getting at.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ayabe
Let them filibuster, let it go own for months. Let's see who blinks first.

Don't drop the public option, if they don't have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, then let the R's filibuster it.

Bring the Senate to a halt. The thing is nowadays the mere threat of a filibuster seems to be enough to get these jerks pissing their pants.

Let's have a real filibuster them, old school style, let's see how long it can last.

Nobody is filibustering anything. Do you know what the term means?

They are just counting votes, and coming up short due to Democrats not being in lock-step. Obama cant risk taking a vote on a bill that will fail. His second term may be riding on this.

Errr what? The D's have the votes to pass it up or down. This whole kerfuffle is revolving around drumming up 60 votes to shut down an R filibuster.

I think it's you who is missing what this is all about.

Really? So the Blue-Dogs are in line now?


This is getting pushed back and the public option is being dropped due to Democrats, end of story.

 

[Zedtom]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Zedtom

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Just so I'm clear with what you're saying, "accessible" to whom exactly?

Medicare records, as a for instance, are well protected from unauthorized parties.

There are many who could utilize the databases without having patient privacy compromised. The alternative is to do nothing.

such as?

The goal would be to improve upon how we access that information now. By "we" I refer to authorized medical personnel who need medical records to transact business or do medical diagnoses.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It is amusing to see the left throwing around, "But but but...the Republican filibuster!", when in actuality, the Republicans can't actually filibuster anything. The Democrats hold the supermajority (60 seats) and can break any attempted Republican filibuster on a bill.

"The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used)...

...As of July 7, 2009, Democrats officially hold a filibuster-proof supermajority, with the swearing in of Al Franken, Junior United States Senator from Minnesota."

Filibuster in the United States

Maybe yall should research a term before throwing it around so blindly.

The Republicans can't (successfully) filibuster anything. They don't have the votes. Any attempt to filibuster can be easily overturned by the Democrat supermajority.

If parties were monolithic, what you say would be true. Since parties where members are elected individually are almost by definition not monolithic, what you say is dumb.

So you are openly admitting that your party's leadership is so ineffective that they can't even rally the troops around their flagship issue?

:Q

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Fern
Lemme see if I understand this.

Bills originate in the House, but they can't pass anything.

Filibusters apply to the Senate, not the House.

The Repubs don't actually have enough seats in the Senate to fillibusters.

But the Dems haven't passed anything in either the House or the Senate because of the (fictional) Repubs fillibuster?

Bwuhahahaha

Fern

Bingo :thumbsup:

:laugh:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It is amusing to see the left throwing around, "But but but...the Republican filibuster!", when in actuality, the Republicans can't actually filibuster anything. The Democrats hold the supermajority (60 seats) and can break any attempted Republican filibuster on a bill.

"The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used)...

...As of July 7, 2009, Democrats officially hold a filibuster-proof supermajority, with the swearing in of Al Franken, Junior United States Senator from Minnesota."

Filibuster in the United States

Maybe yall should research a term before throwing it around so blindly.

The Republicans can't (successfully) filibuster anything. They don't have the votes. Any attempt to filibuster can be easily overturned by the Democrat supermajority.

How can I make this more clear? Any Senator can start a filibuster, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture to stop it, the Dems don't have 60 votes for cloture regardless of headcount, thus they CANNOT END the filibuster.

They CAN but they won't because the Blue Dogs aren't with them. The supermajority means nothing because D's aren't on the same page.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Might wanna tell the Democratic party then.

President Obama and our Democratic leaders in Congress have been working to pass health care reform legislation before the end of the year. Today the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) took an important step towards that goal when it released its latest version of health care reform legislation. The bill follows President Obama?s principles for reform by lowering costs, protecting patient choice and expanding access to quality, affordable care, and includes a strong public option and a shared employee responsibility provision

Bolded for reference.

You need to go learn the difference between a press release and the Democratic Party platform.

Its from democrats.org on their main page nitwit.

/facepalm

Let me show you what the Democratic Party platform is. This is the most recent platform put forth by the party that all candidates who run under the party and receive its support are supposed to endorse. When people like TheSkinsFan talk about a 'unified platform', this is it.

There are other issues that among Democrats that do garner the support of large numbers of Democrats, but not enough to be included in the platform. Things like the public option. These will be goals that the party at large will attempt to accomplish, but will not actually be part of the unified platform for the party. This is why TheSkinsFan's attempt to attack the Democrats for not doing something that is 'part of their unified platform' was simply incorrect.

Now do you understand the difference?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I haven't laughed this hard over AT in a while. Seriously? I mean really? Are you libs really that whacked that you'll continue to try to blame the GOP and excuse your lib leaders? Really eskimospy? Do you really not understand that the house didn't vote on it - BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES they wanted?

Seriously libs - you need to snap out of you HnC (hope and change) fog and start seeing reality. Sheesh.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
Lemme see if I understand this.

Bills originate in the House, but they can't pass anything.

Filibusters apply to the Senate, not the House.

The Repubs don't actually have enough seats in the Senate to fillibusters.

But the Dems haven't passed anything in either the House or the Senate because of the (fictional) Repubs fillibuster?

Bwuhahahaha

Fern

What are you babbling about?
-snip-

As is obvious, I'm laughing at posters blaming this (dropping of public option) on some mythical Repuib fillibuster.

Fact is, the Dem policy ain't so popular with the voters as it is with you diehards and the Dem politicians wanna keep their jobs.

The Dem party doesn't give a damn about what self identified Repuib voters think, but the independant type voters don't like it either and that worries them.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It is amusing to see the left throwing around, "But but but...the Republican filibuster!", when in actuality, the Republicans can't actually filibuster anything. The Democrats hold the supermajority (60 seats) and can break any attempted Republican filibuster on a bill.

"The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a 3/5ths of the Senate (60 Senators elected and sworn), brings debate to a close by invoking cloture. (For changing of senate rules the pre-1975 rule of a super-majority of senators present, i.e. 67 senators at most, is still used)...

...As of July 7, 2009, Democrats officially hold a filibuster-proof supermajority, with the swearing in of Al Franken, Junior United States Senator from Minnesota."

Filibuster in the United States

Maybe yall should research a term before throwing it around so blindly.

The Republicans can't (successfully) filibuster anything. They don't have the votes. Any attempt to filibuster can be easily overturned by the Democrat supermajority.

If parties were monolithic, what you say would be true. Since parties where members are elected individually are almost by definition not monolithic, what you say is dumb.

So you are openly admitting that your party's leadership is so ineffective that they can't even rally the troops around their flagship issue?

:Q

I've never heard of a public insurance company being the Democratic Party's flagship issue. Even if the Democratic leadership is ineffective, it doesn't make what you said any less wrong.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Fern
As is obvious, I'm laughing at posters blaming this (dropping of public option) on some mythical Repuib fillibuster.

Fact is, the Dem policy ain't so popular with the voters as it is with you diehards and the Dem politicians wanna keep their jobs.

The Dem party doesn't give a damn about what self identified Repuib voters think, but the independant type voters don't like it either and that worries them.

Fern

But then how would Obama blame the Republicans or BOOOOSH if they ram it through?