PDA

View Full Version : White House Signaling "Ready To Drop Public Option" for Healthcare


bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 03:15 PM
Good job Republicans. <_<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/politics-white_house/

I wish Obama would ignore them completely sometimes. I'm all for bipartisan negotiations but this is ridiculous.

I've heard on NPR that co-ops are a good plan but I'm not happy with this news.

freeny
Aug 16, 2009, 03:37 PM
I doubt I will ever vote Republican again.

mgguy
Aug 16, 2009, 03:55 PM
I doubt I will ever vote Republican again.

Is this because you liked the original democrat plan and are unhappy that the republicans may get it scaled back, or that you hate the original democrat plan and are unhappy that the republicans may end up negotiating a middle ground rather than trying to stop the whole thing?

I don't see this as any kind of victory for the republicans, since the plan will still massively increase government spending on healthcare by subsidizing the cost of private or coop coverage (if I understand this correctly).

leekohler
Aug 16, 2009, 04:06 PM
Without a public option, this is meaningless. Scrap it, and start over. This time, ignore the Republicans. Like I said in another thread- if you try to please everyone, you please no one.

Iscariot
Aug 16, 2009, 04:06 PM
Is this because you liked the original democrat plan and are unhappy that the republicans may get it scaled back, or that you hate the original democrat plan and are unhappy that the republicans may end up negotiating a middle ground rather than trying to stop the whole thing?

I don't see this as any kind of victory for the republicans, since the plan will still massively increase government spending on healthcare by subsidizing the cost of private or coop coverage (if I understand this correctly).

I don't think the end is anywhere near as important as the incredibly dishonest, partisan and morally bankrupt means.

leekohler
Aug 16, 2009, 04:10 PM
I don't think the end is anywhere near as important as the incredibly dishonest, partisan and morally bankrupt means.

Exactly- the Republicans really outdid themselves this time. The have once again proven that fear is powerful motivator, even if that fear is based on utter and complete lies. The only people who will suffer for this is us.

killerrobot
Aug 16, 2009, 04:27 PM
Exactly- the Republicans really outdid themselves this time. The have once again proven that fear is powerful motivator, even if that fear is based on utter and complete lies. The only people who will suffer for this is us.

I would love to see any senator go without health insurance for a year - then make a vote using reason/personal experience instead of with their pockets being stuffed by lobbyists.
No public option is a total fail and all Americans, regardless of their political ideologies, will continue to suffer the high costs of health care.
Thanks, Congress, for nothing (if this sticks).

Eraserhead
Aug 16, 2009, 04:43 PM
I would love to see any senator go without health insurance for a year

Thomas Veil's actually has (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=764087).

Eraserhead
Aug 16, 2009, 04:49 PM
The only people who will suffer for this is us.

And everyone else in the world. If the US can't get a healthcare bill passed where then evidence is so black and white in support of public healthcare given how much cheaper it is (and its just as effective); then how in the world are they going to get a climate change bill passed which is massively more controversial.

I suppose we'll have to wait for the Chinese to save the world there.

obeygiant
Aug 16, 2009, 04:57 PM
Exactly- the Republicans really outdid themselves this time. The have once again proven that fear is powerful motivator, even if that fear is based on utter and complete lies. The only people who will suffer for this is us.

Republicans? lol

I think the dems really do need UHC-- to get a spine replacement! Or come up with something better.

mgguy
Aug 16, 2009, 05:31 PM
I don't see why dropping the public option is considered a complete failure of the democrats proposal. Wasn't the goal to ensure everyone (with subsidies as needed), place restriction on insurers (e.g., must take those with preexisting conditions), get rid of waste in Medicare, and take other cost cutting measures? Can't this still be done without a public insurer in the mix? If this passes, I would consider it more a failure for republicans than for democrats, especially provisions that would provide free care to those who are not disabled and should be able to earn enough to pay for their own coverage. If this passes as proposed sans a public option, it will still be a big foot in the door that would embolden UHC proponents to make further expansions of the system in the future. It is possible that the democrats realized they couldn't get a public provider option to begin with, but put it out there so that when it got blocked, they could then give it up in order to get everything else they wanted and pave the way for adding the public option later on after things calm down. The main thing for Obama, I believe, it to win politically regardless of what he actually ends up signing.

Thomas Veil
Aug 16, 2009, 05:33 PM
From the article:

Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.Um...both right and wrong. Right that it will enrage liberals like me...wrong in that it will not be a win. It'll be a clear loss. Like lee says, these co-ops are meaningless. They won't do much if anything to reign in costs.

This is really, really stupid. Five out of six House/Senate committees are committed to the public option. The Dems can ram this through if they really want to. All they are doing is emboldening the Republicans. Now that they know they can run roughshod over the White House, Obama is in a much weaker position.

PcBgone
Aug 16, 2009, 06:07 PM
Hooray For a Smaller Government!

MyDesktopBroke
Aug 16, 2009, 06:11 PM
Well, Republicans, give yourselves a pat on the back. Somehow you managed to swing the debate into your corner. Despite losing the presidential election and most of congress, and losing huge support among minorities and youth demographics, you managed to win against the democrats. Super majority? You beat all the odds.

Somehow they thought that if they made a bill that catered to their liberal base, they could not clinch the all important reelection in 2010. So Blue Dogs, give yourself a pat on the back, too. You convinced yourself that the way to reelection was to vote against the party you ran under, while alienating the people who voter for you. You found that when you looked deep inside yourselves, it was with the southerners who called Obama a Nazi that you really agreed. Also, job well done on putting your comfy congress seat before the tens of thousands of American voters and taxpayers who will inevitably lose their jobs or, lord forbid, their lives, because you didn't want to tick off the minority. You got the lifeline to most important part of America: the status quo.

Overall, a great job from congress that will probably leave us will a huge spending, pork barrel bill that will not take effect until 2013, by which times the private health insurance companies will have read it hundreds of times, finding all the loopholes and workarounds they can, and exploit those loopholes. Keep on denying as many customers as possible with no fear of them falling back on a public option that no longer exists.

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 06:17 PM
Hooray For a Smaller Government!

If we gave up the military we would have a MUCH smaller government.

PcBgone
Aug 16, 2009, 06:22 PM
If we gave up the military we would have a MUCH smaller government.

And then when we are attacked by the Iranians or the N Koreans what then? We cant defend ourselves?

Oh wait, your a liberal tree hugger that lives in a world where everyone lives together in perfect harmony, and there are no wars.:rolleyes:

fivepoint
Aug 16, 2009, 06:26 PM
:) Don't be sad guys, here are some inspiring alternatives (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html) from Whole Foods' CEO John Mackey:

• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

smwatson
Aug 16, 2009, 06:41 PM
And then when we are attacked by the Iranians or the N Koreans what then? We cant defend ourselves?

Oh wait, your a liberal tree hugger that lives in a world where everyone lives together in perfect harmony, and there are no wars.:rolleyes:

The last attacks by foreigners on US soil were Pearl Harbour and 9/11.
Neither of which your huge defence budget did particularly well with.

Obviously this is ridiculous because this doesn't even begin to take into account the behind the scenes work pre-empting attacks and whatnot. But it's still a fact - of the major attempted attacks on US soil, both have been successful.


**DISCLAIMER : I know that this does not even come close to covering everything associated with this issue. I don't know enough about it to even begin to talk about it. Flame if you wish**

fivepoint
Aug 16, 2009, 06:44 PM
And then when we are attacked by the Iranians or the N Koreans what then? We cant defend ourselves?

Oh wait, your a liberal tree hugger that lives in a world where everyone lives together in perfect harmony, and there are no wars.:rolleyes:

The last attacks by foreigners on US soil were Pearl Harbour and 9/11.
Neither of which your huge defence budget did particularly well with.

Obviously this is ridiculous because this doesn't even begin to take into account the behind the scenes work pre-empting attacks and whatnot. But it's still a fact - of the major attempted attacks on US soil, both have been successful.


**DISCLAIMER : I know that this does not even come close to covering everything associated with this issue. I don't know enough about it to even begin to talk about it. Flame if you wish**


If you guys want to talk foreign policy, start a thread and do it. But please... don't hijack this thread. I'll even offer to share my ideas regarding lessening our presence abroad and how it could save billions of taxpayer dollars.

smwatson
Aug 16, 2009, 06:50 PM
If you guys want to talk foreign policy, start a thread and do it. But please... don't hijack this thread. I'll even offer to share my ideas regarding lessening our presence abroad and how it could save billions of taxpayer dollars.

No problems.

Though why this isn't on the massive healthcare thread anyway I don't know.

Thomas Veil
Aug 16, 2009, 07:01 PM
I am so sick of Obama's kumbaya routine. No, let's not all get along. Did Bush give a good goddamn about either public opinion or the Constitution when he was in office? Of course not. And while I'm not suggesting that Obama ignore the latter, I am suggesting he ignore the whack jobs who holler and shake their fists about death panels and socialism. If you start letting the lunatic fringe tell you what to do, you've lost all credibility, period.

I see there being only two good options left:


You want compromise? Fine, let's talk about compromise. In exchange for the government giving up the public option, the government not only gets to mandate that commercial insurance companies can't turn anyone down for any reason, but the government gets to set their rates. For those people who can't afford insurance, the insurance companies will have to cover them for free.
Painful as it may be in the short term, the sponsors of the bills withdraw them and try again in 2010. And the Democrats start strategically targeting their own Blue Dogs.
Of course, the insurance companies would cry blue murder at #1, and it's a long, long shot, but if you presented them with something that looked, to them, even worse than the public option.....

PcBgone
Aug 16, 2009, 07:06 PM
You want compromise? Fine, let's talk about compromise. In exchange for the government giving up the public option, the government not only gets to mandate that commercial insurance companies can't turn anyone down for any reason, but the government gets to set their rates. For those people who can't afford insurance, the insurance companies will have to cover them for free.
Painful as it may be in the short term, the sponsors of the bills withdraw them and try again in 2010. And the Democrats start stratetically targeting their own Blue Dogs.
Of course, the insurance companies would cry blue murder at #1, and it's a long, long shot, but if you presented them with something that looked, to them, even worse than the public option.....

Just out of curiosity, what gives the right to the government to dictate how a business operates?

Government should protect the borders, build infrastructure, and negotiate trade. The rest should be left up to the people.

KingYaba
Aug 16, 2009, 07:22 PM
The last attacks by foreigners on US soil were Pearl Harbour and 9/11.

Do you consider embassies as U.S. soil? That's besides the point I know. Military budget needs to be reduced.

leekohler
Aug 16, 2009, 07:25 PM
Just out of curiosity, what gives the right to the government to dictate how a business operates?

Government should protect the borders, build infrastructure, and negotiate trade. The rest should be left up to the people.

It should also protect its people from irresponsible businesses like insurance companies..

quagmire
Aug 16, 2009, 07:31 PM
Just out of curiosity, what gives the right to the government to dictate how a business operates?

Government should protect the borders, build infrastructure, and negotiate trade. The rest should be left up to the people.

In order to protect the American people. Time and time again when the gov't deregulates business because they trust them to do the right thing, guess what? THEY DON'T DO THE RIGHT THING!

Brien
Aug 16, 2009, 07:41 PM
Public opinion isn't even that big of a deal. The "public" wants everything free but doesn't want to pay taxes for it. This is why we elect people who are "supposed" to do things for us.

But really we need the governmental equivalent of Snow Leopard - go in and just redo everything. 200+ years of crap to clean out.

mkrishnan
Aug 16, 2009, 07:42 PM
Painful as it may be in the short term, the sponsors of the bills withdraw them and try again in 2010.

Just to play devil's advocate (I'm undecided on this issue, although I lean in the same direction as you, and ultimately what I want is essentially 100% of the population with reasonably good or better coverage)...

There's a political casualty in dropping the push for a government option right now. And from what I've seen the co-op plan is largely vapourware. However, if a less toothy reform bill gets signed now instead of pushing back a real improvement, is there a net loss to the long term goal? Would the compromise bill tie our hands in a way that would prevent us from creating a government option in a year or two?

designgeek
Aug 16, 2009, 07:50 PM
It should also protect its people from irresponsible businesses like insurance companies..

Absolutely, it protects us from harmful products like the Chevy Corvair, there have been laws that take the sharper teeth out of credit card companies, and they used to inspect food and toys. They're here to protect us all around.

beatzfreak
Aug 16, 2009, 07:55 PM
Just to play devil's advocate (I'm undecided on this issue, although I lean in the same direction as you, and ultimately what I want is essentially 100% of the population with reasonably good or better coverage)...

There's a political casualty in dropping the push for a government option right now. And from what I've seen the co-op plan is largely vapourware. However, if a less toothy reform bill gets signed now instead of pushing back a real improvement, is there a net loss to the long term goal? Would the compromise bill tie our hands in a way that would prevent us from creating a government option in a year or two?

The way I understand it is implementation will take a few years and I'm pretty sure I saw 2013 as an estimate at when it will all come into place. Obama said yesterday, it would take a few years. So, I would say that's not possible.

It's a real shame that a group of people can lie and scare others out of something that this country desperately needs. I hope somehow we can get affordable coverage for everyone.

It's not right that there are people working full time who can't get coverage.

Eanair
Aug 16, 2009, 08:03 PM
Just out of curiosity, what gives the right to the government to dictate how a business operates?

To protect the safety of the American people. OSHA, GMP, GLP, DEP (etc) are all for this reason.

So, you're okay if a private water company was not regulated by the DEP and provided you with water tainted with dangerous levels of fecal coliform bacteria and E. coli? It should be the people's responsibility to randomly spot test their own tap water for microorganisms? It should be the people's responsibility to have random checks of privately owned sewage treatment plants to ensure that the plant is operating according to protocol, and hasn't, oh, turned off several of the UV lamps to save money (which has actually happened before)?

You would be okay if the FDA didn't regulate and inspect manufacturing plants of biotech and pharma companies, to make sure that the plant is being operated according to GMP and GLP standards? It should be the people's responsibility to do this?

You would be okay if the FDA didn't require all new drugs to have gone through extensive clinical challenges demonstrating drug effectiveness and safety before the drug is administered to patients? This should be the people's responsibility?

What about lead in paint? Unsafe toys for children?

Thomas Veil
Aug 16, 2009, 08:04 PM
Just to play devil's advocate (I'm undecided on this issue, although I lean in the same direction as you, and ultimately what I want is essentially 100% of the population with reasonably good or better coverage)...

There's a political casualty in dropping the push for a government option right now. And from what I've seen the co-op plan is largely vapourware. However, if a less toothy reform bill gets signed now instead of pushing back a real improvement, is there a net loss to the long term goal? Would the compromise bill tie our hands in a way that would prevent us from creating a government option in a year or two?That's the way I see it. Anything else that claims to be "reform" will become entrenched for the next decade or two, until things get so bad again that we'll all be right back here. Following health care "reform" in 1993, managed care (instead of a public health plan) was supposed to save us. And where are we now? Back where we started.

So yeah, if some sort of half-assed "reform" passes, its proponents will simply say, "Why do we need to look at health care reform again? We've just taken care of that." Better to withdraw completely and fight another day, with a hopefully improved army.

NT1440
Aug 16, 2009, 08:07 PM
I really hate this country sometimes. :mad:

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 08:21 PM
Just out of curiosity, what gives the right to the government to dictate how a business operates?

Government should protect the borders, build infrastructure, and negotiate trade. The rest should be left up to the people.

The government is more involved in our everyday lives then you seem to know. They already control alot of business. We do not have a free market. It only looks that way.

opinioncircle
Aug 16, 2009, 08:35 PM
What I don't get is that the big fuss around all of this. I mean the Dems have the Houses, the White House. Couldn't they just impose this reform without the Reps? I mean in terms of numbers they should be able to push it without doing this bipartisan BS, right?

leekohler
Aug 16, 2009, 08:37 PM
What I don't get is that the big fuss around all of this. I mean the Dems have the Houses, the White House. Couldn't they just impose this reform without the Reps? I mean in terms of numbers they should be able to push it without doing this bipartisan BS, right?

The should, but they aren't. They're trying to include everyone's opinions. But that doesn't always work, as we are now seeing.

designgeek
Aug 16, 2009, 08:38 PM
I really hate this country sometimes. :mad:

I do too.

What I don't get is that the big fuss around all of this. I mean the Dems have the Houses, the White House. Couldn't they just impose this reform without the Reps? I mean in terms of numbers they should be able to push it without doing this bipartisan BS, right?

There are conservative democrats called "Blue Dogs" and they're part of the problem. It would only work if all democrats were on board.

NT1440
Aug 16, 2009, 08:39 PM
What I don't get is that the big fuss around all of this. I mean the Dems have the Houses, the White House. Couldn't they just impose this reform without the Reps? I mean in terms of numbers they should be able to push it without doing this bipartisan BS, right?

And then the GOP keeps up with its ******** attacks but this time with some legitimate reasons. Of course they wouldnt be honest about WHY the dems would have to push the bill through alone.

Its getting to the point where it really seems like the GOP, on a national level, is doing absolutly nothing other than being a blockade. No new ideas (theyre stumped everytime on talk shows when asked for specifics about their "plans" AKA ideals with nothing behind them). If the party were to vanish forever off the face of the earth, well, good riddance.

GOP, come up with some damn ideas, or seriously just get the **** out.

Yes, Im beyond pissed right now.

Eanair
Aug 16, 2009, 08:41 PM
What I don't get is that the big fuss around all of this. I mean the Dems have the Houses, the White House. Couldn't they just impose this reform without the Reps? I mean in terms of numbers they should be able to push it without doing this bipartisan BS, right?

I may stand corrected, but I believe the fiscally conservative blue dog Democrats make it so that they just can't pass it through by sheer numerical strength alone.

Additionally, I also believe the Democrats are trying to cater to too many opposing views.

designgeek
Aug 16, 2009, 08:42 PM
Yes, Im beyond pissed right now.

It's not hard to get to that point when stuff like this happens.;) They seriously need to get their stuff together if they think they have a future.

NT1440
Aug 16, 2009, 08:48 PM
It's not hard to get to that point when stuff like this happens.;) They seriously need to get their stuff together if they think they have a future.

Obviously they have enough pull with their lies to shape legislation, so they do have some sort of future.

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 09:34 PM
Looks like this may have been a false alarm. Supposedly the WH press sec came out and said the president still supports it.

Hmm.

Tomorrow
Aug 16, 2009, 09:53 PM
Additionally, I also believe the Democrats are trying to cater to too many opposing views.

What's going on is similar to what happened after September 11, 2001. Bear with me, I'm going somewhere with this.

After the attacks, lawmakers felt like they had to do something - anything - to make planes safer, and they have to do it right now. The problem with that mentality is that you start spinning your wheels trying to get some sort of resolution or legislation passed, and you haven't really thought over what the problem is that you're trying to solve.

As a result, we ended up with a bunch of machines in every commercial airport on U.S. soil. Two different kinds; one was a fancy x-ray for checked baggage, the other was a "sniffer" that could detect drugs, explosives, whatever type of substance you like, before the checked bag made it onto the plane.

Lawmakers just about threw their shoulders out patting themselves on the backs after they got this passed, but there was one major flaw in the plan: the terrorists used knives, not explosives, to take over the planes. The machines the government put in place do absolutely nothing whatsoever to make sure a knife isn't brought onto a plane as a carryon.

Yes, you walk through an x-ray, and your carryon is x-rayed - but that was already going on before the attacks.

I had the "pleasure" of working in these airports with airport administrators, the FAA, and the newly-formed TSA on how to implement these solutions, and at every single airport I worked (over two dozen), we would always shake our collective heads at the idiocy of all the money the government spent to fix a problem that didn't even exist.

Not saying we don't have a problem with healthcare, but right now those people are so caught up in themselves trying to fix it, that they haven't spent enough time really trying to evaluate what the problems really are.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 16, 2009, 10:50 PM
You have control of the white house and have the majority in congress. Blame yourselves, jesus christ its getting a little old.

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 11:05 PM
You have control of the white house and have the majority in congress. Blame yourselves, jesus christ its getting a little old.

Yeah I know!

It's too bad we don't do what the GOP did for the last 6-8 years and call people unAmerican when they don't go lockstep with our views! Would be so much easier! :D

Zombie Acorn
Aug 16, 2009, 11:07 PM
Yeah I know!

It's too bad we don't do what the GOP did for the last 6-8 years and call people unAmerican when they don't go lockstep with our views! Would be so much easier! :D

Didn't Pelosi just accuse people of being unAmerican for not going along with the health plan? :rolleyes: At least when the republicans did it, it worked.

NT1440
Aug 16, 2009, 11:08 PM
You have control of the white house and have the majority in congress. Blame yourselves, jesus christ its getting a little old.

Yea we should just go ahead and pass the right bill, but the GOP with raise hell with it screaming bloody murder when they are the ones using dirty tactics to kill this thing instead of bringing actual negotiations to the table.

Theyre making a stunt out of this whole thing. A government should fight for the well-being of its people, not against it.

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 11:09 PM
Didn't Pelosi just accuse people of being unAmerican for not going along with the health plan? :rolleyes: At least when the republicans did it, it worked.

Oh god not this again. She said that PROTESTERS were the ones calling people unamerican. Please find the quote of her saying this in its full context and I'll concede the point.

This was some BS rumor going around a couple weeks ago... It didn't work because it didn't happen.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 16, 2009, 11:12 PM
Yea we should just go ahead and pass the right bill, but the GOP with raise hell with it screaming bloody murder when they are the ones using dirty tactics to kill this thing instead of bringing actual negotiations to the table.

Theyre making a stunt out of this whole thing. A government should fight for the well-being of its people, not against it.

If the people were truly for the health care changes that have been proposed they wouldn't have a problem getting it passed in congress. Americans aren't idiots, they don't believe everything they see from either side. They know our economy is in the ****, we are going to be ****ed if we keep borrowing, and they are tired of massive government we've had to support over the last 8 years.

Thomas Veil
Aug 16, 2009, 11:13 PM
Looks like this may have been a false alarm. Supposedly the WH press sec came out and said the president still supports it.

Hmm.Jesus, I hope so.

I still feel better that I've already sent e-mails to President Obama and my Democratic Representative and Senator expressing my outrage at the idea that they'd wimp out on this. I hope they wander into the office Monday morning and find a slew of e-mails from angry liberals.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 16, 2009, 11:14 PM
Oh god not this again. She said that PROTESTERS were the ones calling people unamerican. Please find the quote of her saying this in its full context and I'll concede the point.

This was some BS rumor going around a couple weeks ago... It didn't work because it didn't happen.

She wrote an op-ed in USA today. :confused:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Boehner_Pelosis_UnAmerican_claim_reprehensible.html

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 11:15 PM
If the people were truly for the health care changes that have been proposed they wouldn't have a problem getting it passed in congress. Americans aren't idiots, they don't believe everything they see from either side. They know our economy is in the ****, we are going to be ****ed if we keep borrowing, and they are tired of massive government we've had to support over the last 8 years.

Have you SEEN a poll on this? It's almost silly one sided with 70+% wanting a public option in the bill. Lots of angry people shouting and screaming and disturbing a real debate trying to happen is not a majority, not even close.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 16, 2009, 11:18 PM
Have you SEEN a poll on this? It's almost silly one sided with 70+% wanting a public option in the bill. Lots of angry people shouting and screaming and disturbing a real debate trying to happen is not a majority, not even close.

In the same poll 33% of respondants said they thought Obama's plan was a "good idea" and 32% were against it completely.

Its like asking people if they want ice cream without knowing any of the details.

Tomorrow
Aug 16, 2009, 11:19 PM
It's too bad we don't do what the GOP did for the last 6-8 years and call people unAmerican when they don't go lockstep with our views! Would be so much easier! :D

Nah, you guys just call us other things - I've been called cruel, barbaric, inhumane, and an idiot. I've never stooped to that when talking to someone who disagrees with me politically.

Yea we should just go ahead and pass the right bill, but the GOP with raise hell with it screaming bloody murder when they are the ones using dirty tactics to kill this thing instead of bringing actual negotiations to the table.

Get your facts straight first, please.

First of all, here's a news flash - it's not just Republicans who don't like this whole thing:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A key Senate negotiator said Sunday that President Obama should drop his push for a government-funded public health insurance option because the Senate will never pass it.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said it was futile to continue to "chase that rabbit" due to the lack of 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad said on "Fox News Sunday."

His comment signaled a shift in the health care debate, with Obama and senior advisers softening their support for a public option by saying final form of the legislation is less important than the principle of affordable coverage available to all.

<snip>

However, the two parties generally agree on a number of provisions contained in the Democratic bills, including increased efficiency in Medicare and Medicaid and focusing on preventive health programs.

<snip>

Conrad is one of six Senate Finance Committee members -- three Democrats and three Republicans -- who are negotiating a compromise health care bill that would be the only bipartisan proposal so far.

Instead of a public option, the negotiators are considering a plan proposed by Conrad to create nonprofit health insurance cooperatives that could negotiate coverage as a collective for their members.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/16/us.healthcare/index.html

So, in a single article, you have a Democratic Senator saying there's never been enough support for the President's plan, the President himself is softening his support for his own plan, and Republicans are working with Democrats on a compromise.

So you see, no dirty tactics, no screaming "bloody murder." Get the facts before you get mad at something that isn't happening.

Have you SEEN a poll on this? It's almost silly one sided with 70+% wanting a public option in the bill. Lots of angry people shouting and screaming and disturbing a real debate trying to happen is not a majority, not even close.

Evidently I haven't seen that poll...

In the same poll 33% of respondants said they thought Obama's plan was a "good idea" and 32% were against it completely.

This one I have seen.

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 11:24 PM
Nah, you guys just call us other things - I've been called cruel, barbaric, inhumane, and an idiot. I've never stooped to that when talking to someone who disagrees with me politically.




If someone did that, they deserve the lack of respect as any Republican that's done it.

If we do want "the liberals" want and have a public option, it means lower costs for everyone. In less that < 10 years, few people will be able to afford the cost of healthcare. Is that ok with you? Is it ok as long as it's still affordable for you?

There's been plenty of dirty tactics, both in the 90s with Hilarycare and this time. The same companies doing the same thing. Just because that one CNN article didn't mention any doesn't mean they aren't happening.

What about all this Death Panel stuff? It's 100% untruth and the same exact thing was proposed by the very people against it now. If that's not dirty tactics I don't know what is.

killerrobot
Aug 16, 2009, 11:32 PM
Thomas Veil's actually has (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=764087).
He´'s on his wife's insurance - a far cry from being without insurance at all. For all we know, his wife's insurance is actually better than the Congress'.


There's a political casualty in dropping the push for a government option right now. And from what I've seen the co-op plan is largely vapourware. However, if a less toothy reform bill gets signed now instead of pushing back a real improvement, is there a net loss to the long term goal? Would the compromise bill tie our hands in a way that would prevent us from creating a government option in a year or two?

I think any plan that does not offer a public option, actual competition, will be a giant hindrance to any real progress. First, because it will take years to implement and years to show it hasn't worked. Second, because it will be used as an excuse to show that the government tried and failed. Third, because fear-mongering will control US citizens more than reason. Fourth, because insurance companies will be making so much money they will be bank-rolling the US government and telling it what it can and can't do by that time. Fifth, because the world will end 12-21-2012 according to the Mayans.

Okay, that last one was tongue in cheek, but mainly I believe in the second and third, that it will show that the government has failed, yet again, to help the people and the slippery slope argument that it can't do anything right will be used again anytime health insurance reform comes up.

Tomorrow
Aug 16, 2009, 11:37 PM
If someone did that, they deserve the lack of respect as any Republican that's done it.

Well, someone did that - this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8296077#post8296077) should look familiar. I've now been likened to a murderer.

bobber205
Aug 16, 2009, 11:42 PM
Well, someone did that - this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8296077#post8296077) should look familiar. I've now been likened to a murderer.

Lol. As I've said before those sentiments are denying people in this country care they could (this future hypothetical person) have and are dying because of it.

There's a reason a emergency room can't deny patients care. Leaving someone to just die is about as close to a crime as you can get. :( And for a pure financial reason to boot. Money isn't the most important thing in the world.

it5five
Aug 17, 2009, 12:57 AM
Good job Republicans. <_<


I doubt I will ever vote Republican again.

You're both blaming the wrong people. Which party has an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress? Which party does a President who was recently elected with a strong mandate belong to?

No, you should be saying that you will never vote Democrat again. The Republicans weren't the ones who completely botched this. It was Obama and Congressional Democrats. Obama is to blame because he originally planned to put reform in the hands of Congress (are you kidding me?), then Congress botched it because they are incapable of doing anything.

Anyway, I keep seeing conflicting reports that the public option is still considered an essential part of reform, then another one that says its out. I guess we'll just have to wait a few days to get some real clarification on this.

But if it is out, it should come to no surprise. The public option probably won't be in the final version of the Senate Finance Committee bill, as a thread I created a few weeks ago stated. It will probably be in the final version of the House bill, but I seriously doubt a public option could get past the Senate.

toaster_oven
Aug 17, 2009, 12:59 AM
And then when we are attacked by the Iranians or the N Koreans what then? We cant defend ourselves?

Oh wait, your a liberal tree hugger that lives in a world where everyone lives together in perfect harmony, and there are no wars.:rolleyes:

you forgot canada - we keep their inherent aggression at bay by hockey fights, but we all know that if the CIA/military didn't prop up the NHL, we'd have a whole army of mullet-haired, partially toothless canucks invade buffalo and forcibly institute socialised healthcare in upstate new york.

thank goodness almost half of my taxes goes towards stemming this tide of northern communism.

it5five
Aug 17, 2009, 01:04 AM
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/16/gibbs-white-house-still-supports-public-option/

Like I said, we're hearing different things from different people in the administration. Gibbs says Obama "supports" a public option, but he does not say to what degree Obama supports it. It may very well be that Obama will drop the public option if it means his bill will pass. Unfortunately, any healthcare "reform" without a public option would not be a victory.

Macky-Mac
Aug 17, 2009, 01:31 AM
I would love to see any senator go without health insurance for a year.Thomas Veil's actually has (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=764087).

when you re-read what the senator said you'll find he's been getting his healthcare insurance through his wife's employer....he's not so reckless as to go without

opinioncircle
Aug 17, 2009, 01:50 AM
And then the GOP keeps up with its ******** attacks but this time with some legitimate reasons. Of course they wouldnt be honest about WHY the dems would have to push the bill through alone.

Its getting to the point where it really seems like the GOP, on a national level, is doing absolutly nothing other than being a blockade. No new ideas (theyre stumped everytime on talk shows when asked for specifics about their "plans" AKA ideals with nothing behind them). If the party were to vanish forever off the face of the earth, well, good riddance.

GOP, come up with some damn ideas, or seriously just get the **** out.

Yes, Im beyond pissed right now.

All right thanks for the answer fellas, I understand now. I definitely agree with you on that one. I mean, best case scenario for the GOP they'll win some votes and that's about it. The only HUGE downside is that the dems are compromising, that ain't good at all

Eraserhead
Aug 17, 2009, 03:15 AM
Not saying we don't have a problem with healthcare, but right now those people are so caught up in themselves trying to fix it, that they haven't spent enough time really trying to evaluate what the problems really are.

The difference is that the healthcare problem has existed for over 20 years (as Clinton tried to solve healthcare as well), and lots of other countries have already solved the problem satisfactorily.

when you re-read what the senator said you'll find he's been getting his healthcare insurance through his wife's employer....he's not so reckless as to go without

He´'s on his wife's insurance - a far cry from being without insurance at all. For all we know, his wife's insurance is actually better than the Congress'.

Well actually:

I currently pay to participate in my wife’s health care plan.

Implies that he pays to participate - all that probably gives him is the tax break.

Eraserhead
Aug 17, 2009, 03:17 AM
And then when we are attacked by the Iranians or the N Koreans what then? We cant defend ourselves?

Obviously you still need a small army, but the defence budget probably could be cut significantly.

The main penalty would be that you'd have to allow the Chinese to help in Afghanistan - but it'd probably be a good thing as the Chinese army would have to behave themselves.

NT1440
Aug 17, 2009, 04:31 AM
All right thanks for the answer fellas, I understand now. I definitely agree with you on that one. I mean, best case scenario for the GOP they'll win some votes and that's about it. The only HUGE downside is that the dems are compromising, that ain't good at all

Dont get me wrong, compromise is a good thing but in this case one side is fighting dirty with its lies and two-facedness. It's clear they want no part of this thing to pass and do whatever it takes to ensure things continue as they have for years.

blackfox
Aug 17, 2009, 04:41 AM
I'm going to have to agree with it5five here - most of the blame here lies with the Democrats.

Sure, some on the right have employed some divisive and dishonest tactics - but if the Democrats would just have some balls and take a stand - they certainly have the power to push through a public option.

Perhaps this just puts the power of lobbyists in a starker contrast when it is the Democrats being co-opted for a change...

freeny
Aug 17, 2009, 06:10 AM
Is this because you liked the original democrat plan and are unhappy that the republicans may get it scaled back, or that you hate the original democrat plan and are unhappy that the republicans may end up negotiating a middle ground rather than trying to stop the whole thing?

I don't see this as any kind of victory for the republicans, since the plan will still massively increase government spending on healthcare by subsidizing the cost of private or coop coverage (if I understand this correctly).

It is because i dont believe for one second that this was nothing more then party politics. Republicans for the most part are robots, and bitter ones at that. And no one likes a bitter robot ;)

this was the political equivalent of the republicans taking thier ball and going home because they wanted to be shirts when they were voted as skins.

bergmef
Aug 17, 2009, 06:10 AM
I'm not sure about this, but I don't think they are doing this FOR or because of the republicans. If I counted correctly, they do not need a single one of them. If they drop it, it's because of the democrats. Republicans can't even filibuster if the count of democrats to republicans is correct. It surprises me the news networks don't come out and say the fact that if all the democrats vote for it, it will sail right on through.

For my opinion part, with as much as people change jobs (you should change companies every 5 years to keep current with salary rates), page 16 of HR 3200 should be torn out and thrown away.

.Andy
Aug 17, 2009, 06:14 AM
I'll give this a reserved vote of spineless. Will have to see what alternative they come up with but I'm not optimistic that it'll be anything but a weak tinkering of the current system.

Shivetya
Aug 17, 2009, 06:17 AM
Good job Republicans. <_<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/politics-white_house/

I wish Obama would ignore them completely sometimes. I'm all for bipartisan negotiations but this is ridiculous.

I've heard on NPR that co-ops are a good plan but I'm not happy with this news.

Typical, all for bi-partisan but only if you win?

Kind of like "lets have a conversation" that both Hillary and Obama used when trying to ram their health care initiatives through without adequate review. Conversation being "listen and don't interrupt".

freeny
Aug 17, 2009, 06:19 AM
What I don't get is that the big fuss around all of this. I mean the Dems have the Houses, the White House. Couldn't they just impose this reform without the Reps? I mean in terms of numbers they should be able to push it without doing this bipartisan BS, right?

Yes, but democrats are free thinkers who prefer to have everyone involved, the way democracy is supposed to work. Republicans vote for their side for the "win".

Shivetya
Aug 17, 2009, 06:19 AM
On a side note

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

I guess that system isn't such a great model after all.. duh

.Andy
Aug 17, 2009, 06:25 AM
On a side note

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

I guess that system isn't such a great model after all.. duh
You're purposefully misreading it. All health systems need to be dynamic as the needs of the population changes. Currently all health systems are heading towards being under significant strain from aging baby boomers. They will all need overhauling. Including the one employed by the US.

The way to ensure equitable basic healthcare needs are met is not to restrict care from millions of your fellow countrymen by placing financial barriers.

To butcher Churchill;
Public health care is the worst kind of healthcare. Except for all other kinds.

bergmef
Aug 17, 2009, 06:29 AM
Yes, but democrats are free thinkers who prefer to have everyone involved, the way democracy is supposed to work. Republicans vote for their side for the "win".

This got a chuckle ... thanks.

"I WON" "We Won"

fivepoint
Aug 17, 2009, 07:11 AM
The should, but they aren't. They're trying to include everyone's opinions. But that doesn't always work, as we are now seeing.

Not true. The Dems have been unable to get each other on board. They were originally going to pass the bill before Aug 1. but thanks to the Blue Dog Dems and those in the Senate Finance committee, it didn't happen. It was the Dems' inability to control their own part and overwhelming public distaste for the bills that caused the downfall.

It had nothing to do with liberals wanting to integrate conservative viewpoints.

leekohler
Aug 17, 2009, 07:33 AM
Not true. The Dems have been unable to get each other on board. They were originally going to pass the bill before Aug 1. but thanks to the Blue Dog Dems and those in the Senate Finance committee, it didn't happen. It was the Dems' inability to control their own part and overwhelming public distaste for the bills that caused the downfall.

It had nothing to do with liberals wanting to integrate conservative viewpoints.

To some degree, it's both. If the Blue Dogs didn't care what their fiscally conservative constituents thought, this would already be over.

NT1440
Aug 17, 2009, 08:36 AM
I'm not sure about this, but I don't think they are doing this FOR or because of the republicans. If I counted correctly, they do not need a single one of them. If they drop it, it's because of the democrats.

Come on, are you serious, if they drop it its to appease the GOP so that they might (of course they won't) stop with the ******** parade they always use. Unfortunately they can get all they want, 160+ parts of the bill, and STILL say with a straight face on national TV that the Dems are taking over and not letting them have any input, and they will continue with their fear tactics.

It may be the anesthesia talking, but it seems like one party is much more heavily filled with lying bastards.

bergmef
Aug 17, 2009, 09:05 AM
Come on, are you serious, if they drop it its to appease the GOP so that they might (of course they won't) stop with the ******** parade they always use. Unfortunately they can get all they want, 160+ parts of the bill, and STILL say with a straight face on national TV that the Dems are taking over and not letting them have any input, and they will continue with their fear tactics.

It may be the anesthesia talking, but it seems like one party is much more heavily filled with lying bastards.

Both are filled with lying bastards. But that debate is for another day.

If the public option works great, then can't the people point back and say look, it works. Isn't that the best way to show that they were wrong? You might get even more of them out of office. I personally don't think they are appeasing the GOP, because the next question has to why.

killerrobot
Aug 17, 2009, 10:26 AM
Implies that he pays to participate - all that probably gives him is the tax break.

In the US, if a partner (married in all states, gay in a few) has insurance, they can decide whether they also want to cover their partner or their entire family under the same plan, and their employer takes out a little more money from their pay check to do so every month.
I'm sure the Senator paid 4-5 times as much when he bought individual insurance - and probably got less benefits than now.

MyDesktopBroke
Aug 17, 2009, 10:31 AM
Typical, all for bi-partisan but only if you win?

Kind of like "lets have a conversation" that both Hillary and Obama used when trying to ram their health care initiatives through without adequate review. Conversation being "listen and don't interrupt".

1: Most people here don't give a fig about bipartisanship. Americans overwhelmingly voted democrats into office in 2008, and then those elected officials don't put their ideologies and reforms they campaigned on into action because the side that lost didn't want them to?

2: Republicans have had a major role in shaping every major bill Obama has signed, from the energy bill to the stimulus. Almost every bill passed has been written in a bipartisan manner, but passed without republican votes. It's very clever. Republicans stay on board in congress, but claim that they are trying to fight against liberal take overs in public by voting against bills that they helped write or supported when Bush was president.

Anyway, dems will probably loose some major seats in the 2010 election due to their p*ssing off of their own voting base, and the fact that death panels serve effectively to unite the republican party again.

opinioncircle
Aug 17, 2009, 10:34 AM
Dont get me wrong, compromise is a good thing but in this case one side is fighting dirty with its lies and two-facedness. It's clear they want no part of this thing to pass and do whatever it takes to ensure things continue as they have for years.

Definitely but it's cool to try and all, but when you got as much power as the Dems right now, you should be like "y'all dont wanna do it with us? fine" and woops it's all said and done (if the conservative dems are with them).

mkrishnan
Aug 17, 2009, 10:40 AM
I'm sure the Senator paid 4-5 times as much when he bought individual insurance - and probably got less benefits than now.

The rub about individual insurance is that relatively high deductible plans are cheap as long as you don't have pre-existing conditions... I developed conditions that qualify over the past year, for the first time in my life. In all cases, they're well managed by medication and don't require that much extensive or costly care. When I applied for individual insurance as an alternative to COBRA for the two months between leaving the University of Chicago and starting at my new hospital, I was just completely rejected. It was humiliating (as well as raising the, well, what am I supposed to do now? question. COBRA in this case was $500/mo and the plan was one of those ones where non-emergency services have to be delivered through the U of C hospital, which is in Chicago, 180 miles away).

Rodimus Prime
Aug 17, 2009, 10:44 AM
To some degree, it's both. If the Blue Dogs didn't care what their fiscally conservative constituents thought, this would already be over.

Like it or not those same blue dogs are demanding some very basic things and one BIG thing.

The one big thing is

HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

currently the bill has no way to pay for it. Just reduce the borrowed spending it creates.

3 question need to answered by the bill before it has any hope and before I will even consider it

Rank from most important to least of the 3.

1. How are they going to control the run away rising cost of health care
2. How are they going to plan for future increase cost in health care and keep paying for it?
3. How are you going to pay for it with out going more in debt?

Answer those 3 question in that order and I will be a happy camper. I can understand raising taxes on everyone to help pay for it but it has to be paid for. I am tired of the debt growing at an insane pace. Obama is making Bush look cheap already and from what I have seen it does not exactly get better. At some point we have to pay down that debt and it can not keep growing.

MacNut
Aug 17, 2009, 10:52 AM
1. How are they going to control the run away rising cost of health careThat is the biggest issue that is not being addressed with this plan. All it does is pass the buck not fix the problem.

Rodimus Prime
Aug 17, 2009, 10:55 AM
That is the biggest issue that is not being addressed with this plan. All it does is pass the buck not fix the problem.

I know. That issue is the largest issue and over all I think would do the most good right now on helping people out. It would not raise taxes and really very little public out cry about it.

All the planning on how you are going to pay for it is completely worthless with out addressing the runaway cost problem. Hell the current bill if anything makes the problem worse not better.

Shivetya
Aug 17, 2009, 10:58 AM
2: Republicans have had a major role in shaping every major bill Obama has signed, from the energy bill to the stimulus. Almost every bill passed has been written in a bipartisan manner, but passed without republican votes. It's very clever. Republicans stay on board in congress, but claim that they are trying to fight against liberal take overs in public by voting against bills that they helped write or supported when Bush was president.



What a load of hooey. the stimulus bill had no Republican House votes because they were excluded.

Just like every excuse dealing with this health reform scam. The Democrats needed ZERO votes from Republicans to pass it.

Since it has not passed, there are five versions, it means DEMOCRATS ARE THE FAILING PART OF THE PROCESS.


Alas, just like the last time they were in power, when they have a safe majority every special interest group turns on itself rendering their majorities painful and erratic

MacNut
Aug 17, 2009, 11:02 AM
I know. That issue is the largest issue and over all I think would do the most good right now on helping people out. It would not raise taxes and really very little public out cry about it.

All the planning on how you are going to pay for it is completely worthless with out addressing the runaway cost problem. Hell the current bill if anything makes the problem worse not better.They will never fix it because the insurance companies have all the politicians in their back pocket. A plan that cuts the profits while helping the uninsured is the only was to fix it. Make healthcare affordable to everyone and don't drop patients once they get sick.

bergmef
Aug 17, 2009, 12:01 PM
I'd like to see exactly what is driving the cost of health care. Why is a day in the hospital, not counting doctors or treatment, anywhere from 400 to 600 dollars? Why does my doctor order a standard set of test when he has a good idea of what's wrong? What drives the cost of drugs? Is it the research? FDA testing? Do we get hosed because others can get them cheaper?

What's the 'low hanging fruit'? I'm one of the 74 percent that said I like my health care. Doesn't mean it can be way better, less expensive and therefore, be offer to more people.

CorvusCamenarum
Aug 17, 2009, 12:07 PM
They will never fix it because the insurance companies have all the politicians in their back pocket. A plan that cuts the profits while helping the uninsured is the only was to fix it. Make healthcare affordable to everyone and don't drop patients once they get sick.

I've been saying all along that a good step in the right direction would be to regulate the insurance companies the same way we did the telcos before deregulation.

MacNut
Aug 17, 2009, 12:15 PM
I've been saying all along that a good step in the right direction would be to regulate the insurance companies the same way we did the telcos before deregulation.Regulation would be real reform, the plan we have now is just a new paint job but not fixing anything. Until we get to the root of the problem the industry will still be just as corrupt.

Macky-Mac
Aug 17, 2009, 12:25 PM
.....

Well actually:



Implies that he pays to participate - all that probably gives him is the tax break.

yes, probably he does pay something to be covered his wife's plan.....but that's a whole different thing than not having health insurance. It's an very typical situation for a family getting their health insurance through the employer of one member of the family. They'll pay a monthly fee and her coverage will be extended to the spouse and any kids they have.

freeny
Aug 17, 2009, 12:27 PM
Regulation would be real reform, the plan we have now is just a new paint job but not fixing anything. Until we get to the root of the problem the industry will still be just as corrupt.

Republicans would never allow regulation. Its unamerican and needs government involvement.
They would prefer the health insurers to just do the right thing... Im not holding my breath.

Full of Win
Aug 17, 2009, 12:46 PM
HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?

Easy, just like how Obama has paid for the trillion dollar deficits (which is multiples of those under President Bush, as per the CBO), is to do some "quantitative easing" or in other words print money out of thin air and forward the bill to our children and grandchildren.

Just to show the difference, this is from the CBO figures, you be the judge!

http://zdavatz.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bush_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpeg

Now that is the change we needed! I'm sure our kids will think us for the change of more crippling debt and all.

Rodimus Prime
Aug 17, 2009, 01:14 PM
Easy, just like how Obama has paid for the trillion dollar deficits (which is multiples of those under President Bush, as per the CBO), is to do some "quantitative easing" or in other words print money out of thin air and forward the bill to our children and grandchildren.

Just to show the difference, this is from the CBO figures, you be the judge!

http://zdavatz.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bush_deficit_vs_obama_deficit_in_pictures_2.jpeg

Now that is the change we needed! I'm sure our kids will think us for the change of more crippling debt and all.

best part is when ever some one points out those numbers they other side completley glance over it and does not even try to combated it. Yet that same group screamed bloody murder over bushes huge spending

leekohler
Aug 17, 2009, 01:19 PM
best part is when ever some one points out those numbers they other side completley glance over it and does not even try to combated it. Yet that same group screamed bloody murder over bushes huge spending

That's definitely bad- no doubt about it. But something tells me there's more to the story.

bergmef
Aug 17, 2009, 01:29 PM
Republicans would never allow regulation. Its unamerican and needs government involvement.
They would prefer the health insurers to just do the right thing... Im not holding my breath.

I don't think I'd say never, the question is what to regulate? Congress getting their hands in kinda scares me. Do they establish fixed prices for everything? Do they write a law that allows me to go out of state to get insurance? Do they regulate tort reform? Not all regulation is good, ask the banking industry and their co-conspirators in congress.

Thomas Veil
Aug 17, 2009, 01:55 PM
Republicans have had a major role in shaping every major bill Obama has signed, from the energy bill to the stimulus. Almost every bill passed has been written in a bipartisan manner, but passed without republican votes. It's very clever. Republicans stay on board in congress, but claim that they are trying to fight against liberal take overs in public by voting against bills that they helped write or supported when Bush was president.True enough. Which is why bipartisanship is, for lack of a better term, vaporware. You give in something, and you get nothing back for it.

Anyway, dems will probably loose some major seats in the 2010 election due to their p*ssing off of their own voting base, and the fact that death panels serve effectively to unite the republican party again.This part I don't know about. I don't think the GOP can unite around crapola like "death panels". Responsible Republicans don't want to be associated with that stuff. Murkowski and Voinovich don't, for example.

As for the Dems losing seats in 2010, that's really dodgy. I don't think their base will leave them, but free-floating independents might.

Still, I don't even expect large numbers of indies to stop backing the Dems. After all, look at the alternative.

it5five
Aug 17, 2009, 02:09 PM
Still, I don't even expect large numbers of indies to stop backing the Dems. After all, look at the alternative.

The only things I'll be voting on in 2010 are any ballot referendums.

Rodimus Prime
Aug 17, 2009, 02:13 PM
That's definitely bad- no doubt about it. But something tells me there's more to the story.

Well it is really hard to see how it is not good. Obama currently is going to spend this country in to bankruptcy. That cost is with out healthcare added in.

this country needs to get control over the debt. Hell if they could just bring it down to a point where only thing making the debt grow was the interested that would be a good thing.

Full of Win
Aug 17, 2009, 02:17 PM
True enough. Which is why bipartisanship is, for lack of a better term, vaporware. You give in something, and you get nothing back for it.

This part I don't know about. I don't think the GOP can unite around crapola like "death panels". Responsible Republicans don't want to be associated with that stuff. Murkowski and Voinovich don't, for example.

As for the Dems losing seats in 2010, that's really dodgy. I don't think their base will leave them, but free-floating independents might.

Still, I don't even expect large numbers of indies to stop backing the Dems. After all, look at the alternative.

Voting 101: Don't worry about people 'leaving' your party, worry about them staying home.

Eraserhead
Aug 17, 2009, 02:58 PM
best part is when ever some one points out those numbers they other side completley glance over it and does not even try to combated it. Yet that same group screamed bloody murder over bushes huge spending

That's partially because you have to spend a lot in the recession to keep the economy going. The British are doing the same.

The thing is after the recession you have to scale back government spending to break even again. If Obama doesn't do that he isn't being responsible, and his plan looks like it isn't going to do that :(.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 17, 2009, 03:03 PM
That's partially because you have to spend a lot in the recession to keep the economy going. The British are doing the same.

The thing is after the recession you have to scale back government spending to break even again. If Obama doesn't do that he isn't being responsible, and his plan looks like it isn't going to do that :(.

You could spend a lot less before you go into a recession also, we know how that went though.

Rodimus Prime
Aug 17, 2009, 03:10 PM
That's partially because you have to spend a lot in the recession to keep the economy going. The British are doing the same.

The thing is after the recession you have to scale back government spending to break even again. If Obama doesn't do that he isn't being responsible, and his plan looks like it isn't going to do that :(.

Do you care to explain the rest of the projected years. Not just the 2 dealing the the recession. Looking over 8 years. Obama is going to increase the national debt more everything single year than Bush did in his last year in office.

Sorry but I will cut Obama slack for the first 2 years in office but that fails to explain why the next 6 years are so bad in over spending.

Eraserhead
Aug 17, 2009, 03:37 PM
Sorry but I will cut Obama slack for the first 2 years in office but that fails to explain why the next 6 years are so bad in over spending.

Maybe I didn't explain it properly above, but I think we pretty much agree here :).

CorvusCamenarum
Aug 17, 2009, 06:30 PM
Regulation would be real reform, the plan we have now is just a new paint job but not fixing anything. Until we get to the root of the problem the industry will still be just as corrupt.
Yeah it's quite simple really. You must cover these people, you must cover these procedures, you're allowed this percent profit. Extra profit = lower premiums for all next cycle. Hell, we could even do it like auto insurance, a bare bones policy that covers state minimums, and better policies depending on how much extra you want to spend. If we didn't have so many cooks trying to spoil the proverbial broth we could probably get it done in 6 months.

best part is when ever some one points out those numbers they other side completley glance over it and does not even try to combated it. Yet that same group screamed bloody murder over bushes huge spending

That's because this time around the right people have their hand out. Last go round, it was the wrong people.

Thomas Veil
Aug 17, 2009, 09:02 PM
House Democrat: Health care bill in doubt without public plan (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/17/house-democrat-health-care-in-doubt-without-public-option/)
Posted: August 17th, 2009 06:44 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A liberal Democrat in Congress told CNN Monday that President Obama will have a difficult time pushing his health care plan through the House if a government-run insurance program isn't included in the legislation.

Asked if he would vote against a final House bill that doesn't include a so-called public option, Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that House Democrats "wouldn't even bring it to the floor."

"In the House of Representatives, without a strong public plan, even stronger than the one we reported out of committee, I think it would have a very difficult time getting 218 votes," Weiner said.

"Look, the president has to lead on this, and he has to say very clearly a public option is important," Weiner said. "That we hold these insurance companies accountable and provide some competition. I would love to be the one carrying the ball for him, but unless he says a public option is the way to go, I'm going to be a No [vote], and so are a lot of people."Glad to hear it.

No bill is better than a bad bill (one without the public option). At least the House Dems are siding with the people on this one.

leekohler
Aug 17, 2009, 09:09 PM
Glad to hear it.

No bill is better than a bad bill (one without the public option). At least the House Dems are siding with the people on this one.

I agree. We don't need a bill with no teeth.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 17, 2009, 09:26 PM
Glad to hear it.

No bill is better than a bad bill (one without the public option). At least the House Dems are siding with the people on this one.

53% of people polled are against the plan. How is that siding with the people?

Thomas Veil
Aug 17, 2009, 10:11 PM
Don't confuse the percentage that support the public option (52% vs. 30% against) with Obama's approval rating on the issue (43% vs. 45% disapproval). There are plenty of people who are pissed that Obama is not being aggressive enough. That's not at all the same thing as being against the bill.

And it was not that long ago that support for the public option was as high as 72%. I do think we can thank the GOP for the drop. About the only trick they left out was suggesting that aliens would drop in from space to do nightly rectal probes on us.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 17, 2009, 10:19 PM
Don't confuse the percentage that support the public option (52% vs. 30% against) with Obama's approval rating on the issue (43% vs. 45% disapproval). There are plenty of people who are pissed that Obama is not being aggressive enough. That's not at all the same thing as being against the bill.

And it was not that long ago that support for the public option was as high as 72%. I do think we can thank the GOP for the drop. About the only trick they left out was suggesting that aliens would drop in from space to do nightly rectal probes on us.

Dems have the vast majority, unless they were scared of the aliens also this shouldn't have been that tough.

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 12:15 AM
And it was not that long ago that support for the public option was as high as 72%. I do think we can thank the GOP for the drop. About the only trick they left out was suggesting that aliens would drop in from space to do nightly rectal probes on us.

And it wasn't that long ago that support for Bush was over 75%. Too bad those mean democrats put an end to it by getting all pissy about Iraq and other Bush policies. Imagine that, an out-of-power political party trying to bring the party in power down.

bobber205
Aug 18, 2009, 12:42 AM
And it wasn't that long ago that support for Bush was over 75%. Too bad those mean democrats put an end to it by getting all pissy about Iraq and other Bush policies. Imagine that, an out-of-power political party trying to bring the party in power down.

Wow... how facts escape your memory.

The war in Iraq was founded on lies, that's a solid fact at this point.
Denying that is denying reality. I wont' go into all the details as that's not what this thread is about but suffice to say the Dems were protesting a man that killed thousands of american soldier's live and many times more of innocent civilians over what was lies. That's something to protest. This "Death Panel" and company nonsense is complete lies again from the GOP.

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 12:57 AM
Wow... how facts escape your memory.

The war in Iraq was founded on lies, that's a solid fact at this point.
Denying that is denying reality. I wont' go into all the details as that's not what this thread is about but suffice to say the Dems were protesting a man that killed thousands of american soldier's live and many times more of innocent civilians over what was lies. That's something to protest. This "Death Panel" and company nonsense is complete lies again from the GOP.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we still at war in Iraq (under a democrat president I might add)?

NT1440
Aug 18, 2009, 12:59 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we still at war in Iraq (under a democrat president I might add)?

Yup, we were gonna just leave on inauguration day and let the place blow up.


That darn Obama trying to leave an irresponsible war, responsibly.
:rolleyes:

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 01:07 AM
Yup, we were gonna just leave on inauguration day and let the place blow up.


That darn Obama trying to leave an irresponsible war, responsibly.
:rolleyes:
Let's see; Obama has been president for over 200 days and we're still there. This is far more time than democrats were willing to give Bush to get the hell out. I've got to wonder whether politics have something to do with people's recent apathy over this war.

quagmire
Aug 18, 2009, 01:09 AM
Let's see; Obama has been president for over 200 days and we're still there. This is far more time than democrats were willing to give Bush to get the hell out. I've got to wonder whether politics have something to do with people's recent apathy over this war.

All the Democrats wanted was a timetable for a pullout.

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 01:17 AM
All the Democrats wanted was a timetable for a pullout.
85% of democrats in congress wanted Bush out of Iraq within 6 months, according to this poll: http://www.democrats.com/iraq-poll-2

Applying this standard to Obama means that his time is up. But for some reason (politics?), no complaining from democrats now.

quagmire
Aug 18, 2009, 01:22 AM
85% of democrats in congress wanted Bush out of Iraq within 6 months, according to this poll: http://www.democrats.com/iraq-poll-2

Applying this standard to Obama means that his time is up. But for some reason (politics?), no complaining from democrats now.

No where did it say Democrats in congress wanted the troops home in 6 months. It said that 85% of Democrats want congress to require to have the troops home in 6 months. And I hardly call that poll credible seeing how it is an extremely left leaning site to begin with.

NT1440
Aug 18, 2009, 01:22 AM
85% of democrats in congress wanted Bush out of Iraq within 6 months, according to this poll: http://www.democrats.com/iraq-poll-2

Applying this standard to Obama means that his time is up. But for some reason (politics?), no complaining from democrats now.
Its been clear for years that a phased pullout is the only way to go, we cant just jump the hell out and watch the entire region implode on itself.

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 01:24 AM
Its been clear for years that a phased pullout is the only way to go, we cant just jump the hell out and watch the entire region implode on itself.

That's what Bush said. Very wise of him, as was his decision for a surge in troop levels.

NT1440
Aug 18, 2009, 01:28 AM
That's what Bush said. Very wise of him, as was his decision for a surge in troop levels.

I'll give him that, yes. But finally getting a winning strategy in an illegal war you started doesn't quite make up for it.

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 01:30 AM
No where did it say Democrats in congress wanted the troops home in 6 months. It said that 85% of Democrats want congress to require to have the troops home in 6 months.
You are right. Don't know that it makes much of a difference in the point I was making that democrats wanted the war to end within 6 months then, but don't seem to want it now.

bobber205
Aug 18, 2009, 09:03 AM
You are right. Don't know that it makes much of a difference in the point I was making that democrats wanted the war to end within 6 months then, but don't seem to want it now.

Most Dems want our troops home today if that was a possibility.

yg17
Aug 18, 2009, 09:05 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we still at war in Iraq (under a democrat president I might add)?

It's Democratic. Why do so many people on the right get that wrong? It's just disrespectful to not call someone by their correct name, I don't go around calling all of you republics.

MacNut
Aug 18, 2009, 10:32 AM
I agree. We don't need a bill with no teeth.This bill never really had teeth. It didn't go after insurance companies the way it needed to.

hulugu
Aug 18, 2009, 01:43 PM
Its been clear for years that a phased pullout is the only way to go, we cant just jump the hell out and watch the entire region implode on itself.

That's what Bush said. Very wise of him, as was his decision for a surge in troop levels.

The primary argument between Bush and the Democrats in Congress was whether there should be a time-table that would allowed for a planned, phased withdrawal. No serious thinkers on the issue expected that troops would be withdrawn instantaneously.


I'll give him that, yes. But finally getting a winning strategy in an illegal war you started doesn't quite make up for it.

Considering the strategy up until General Petreaus took command was doomed to failure, I agree. Rummy nearly lost two wars and Bush gave him the power do so. Just because they might have pulled it out of the fire at the last minute does not make them wise, it makes them lucky.

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 07:03 PM
It's Democratic. Why do so many people on the right get that wrong? It's just disrespectful to not call someone by their correct name, I don't go around calling all of you republics.

Tough; live with it.:D Perhaps we should say democratics as a parallel to republicans.

The primary argument between Bush and the Democrats in Congress was whether there should be a time-table that would allowed for a planned, phased withdrawal. No serious thinkers on the issue expected that troops would be withdrawn instantaneously.

True, but the mantra of democratics was that we should get out within 6 months. Well, that has long passed and we are still there under Obama. At what point will you start protesting against the war again?

Macky-Mac
Aug 18, 2009, 08:04 PM
....True, but the mantra of democratics was that we should get out within 6 months. Well, that has long passed and we are still there under Obama. At what point will you start protesting against the war again?

Obama ran for election with a proposal of withdrawing the troops within 16 months, not 6 months....no use trying to misrepresent that.....and indeed the pull out of troups has already started

bobber205
Aug 18, 2009, 08:16 PM
Looks like our liberal whining has gotten the public healthcare back in, or so says Maddow. :)

Eanair
Aug 18, 2009, 08:18 PM
Looks like our liberal whining has gotten the public healthcare back in, or so says Maddow. :)

I've known many people who emailed the White House. :)

bobber205
Aug 18, 2009, 08:18 PM
Tough; live with it.:D Perhaps we should say democratics as a parallel to republicans.



True, but the mantra of democratics was that we should get out within 6 months. Well, that has long passed and we are still there under Obama. At what point will you start protesting against the war again?

Adjective = Democratic
Noun = Democrat

:)

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 08:20 PM
Obama ran for election with a proposal of withdrawing the troops within 16 months, not 6 months....no use trying to misrepresent that.....and indeed the pull out of troups has already started
That's my point. Democrats are giving Obama far more time to withdraw than they gave Bush. Why?

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 08:25 PM
Adjective = Democratic
Noun = Democrat

:)

Not fair; you are using republican as both an adjective and noun. ;)

Macky-Mac
Aug 18, 2009, 08:43 PM
That's my point. Democrats are giving Obama far more time to withdraw than they gave Bush. Why?

actually you have that backwards, the democratics gave Bush years of support on the war.....they made obama give them a withdrawal proposal even before they would elect him

bobber205
Aug 18, 2009, 09:16 PM
Not fair; you are using republican as both an adjective and noun. ;)

Lol didn't even think about that. But hey at least you guys get a good pun with the rat at the end. ;)

mgguy
Aug 18, 2009, 10:59 PM
actually you have that backwards, the democratics gave Bush years of support on the war.....they made obama give them a withdrawal proposal even before they would elect him

Fair rebuttal.

Thomas Veil
Aug 19, 2009, 05:46 AM
I've known many people who emailed the White House. :)Soon as I heard about it, I e-mailed Obama, my rep and my senator. My note to Obama wasn't abusive, but it was very strongly worded.

Both my rep and senator are on board with the public option, so I just threw my support behind 'em again and told them to threaten a NO vote on anything that looked like a wimp-out.

My senator, Sherrod Brown, was in the paper a day later with another strong defense of the public option. I love it. That's the kind of thing I remember in the voting booth. :)

mkrishnan
Aug 19, 2009, 08:13 PM
So now there's this split bill thing apparently...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

The White House and Senate Democratic leaders, seeing little chance of bipartisan support for their health-care overhaul, are considering a strategy shift that would break the legislation into two parts and pass the most expensive provisions solely with Democratic votes.

The idea is the latest effort by Democrats to escape the morass caused by delays in Congress, as well as voter discontent crystallized in angry town-hall meetings. Polls suggest the public is losing support for the overhaul plans, giving Republicans less incentive to go along.

Democrats hope a split-the-bill plan would speed up a vote and help President Barack Obama meet his goal of getting a final measure by year's end.

Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a piece of parliamentary sleight-of-hand called reconciliation.

In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.

...

mgguy
Aug 19, 2009, 08:19 PM
So now there's this split bill thing apparently...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

Pretty slimy.

bobber205
Aug 19, 2009, 08:59 PM
Pretty slimy.

Ahahahahahaha.

Please. This is something the country needs. Republicans obviously (and have said this) want NO healthcare reform at all. Any. At all.

That is not acceptable. Have they presented a plan? If so, please link it.

leekohler
Aug 19, 2009, 09:28 PM
So now there's this split bill thing apparently...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

Good. It's about time they grew a pair.

bobber205
Aug 19, 2009, 09:48 PM
Good. It's about time they grew a pair.

We're lucky if they show one cajone.

Speaking of which, I was very happy to hear Barney Frank's "Which planet have you been living on comment" today.

Link (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/176884.asp)

diamond.g
Aug 19, 2009, 09:57 PM
We're lucky if they show one cajone.

Speaking of which, I was very happy to hear Barney Frank's "Which planet have you been living on comment" today.

Link (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/176884.asp)

His voice bothers me, dunno why, but that retort was full of win!

mkrishnan
Aug 19, 2009, 10:02 PM
His voice bothers me, dunno why, but that retort was full of win!

I like him... he's entertaining. :) F'in Nazis, forcing the Jews to accept health insurance. :confused:

mgguy
Aug 19, 2009, 11:34 PM
Republicans obviously (and have said this) want NO healthcare reform at all. Any. At all.

This is not true. For example, here is a republican plan offered in July:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml

Whether or not you agree with it, it is a reform plan, disproving you statement that republicans want no reform at all. Perhaps what you meant to say was republicans don't want Obama's health care plan with a public option.

I know you are a little carried away with the public coverage option, but this doesn't excuse your false statement. If you have any evidence beyond rhetoric that supports your statement, please share it here.

Sayhey
Aug 20, 2009, 12:20 AM
Republicans held the Presidency for the last eight years; they held both houses of Congress for most of that time. During that time they did nothing to reform health care insurance to prevent the growing number of uninsured, the immoral refusal of companies to cover the cost of insured based on excuses such as "preexisting conditions," and the rampant runaway greed of the health insurance companies as they destroy the US health care system. Nothing, nada, zip. That is the GOP's real program to deal with the health care crises in the US. Do nothing and stop anyone else from doing anything. Not some phony program they came up with at the last minute as a smoke screen.

Add to that dismal record the record of obstruction for over the last 50 years since Truman pressed for national health care reform - including the attempt to stop medicare - and what you come up with is a clear record of acceptance of the status quo and hostility to reform. The Republican Party has shown it is much more interested in the continuation of record profits for insurance companies than the are dealing with the needs of the American people for comprehensive, quality national health care.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 20, 2009, 12:27 AM
Republicans held the Presidency for the last eight years; they held both houses of Congress for most of that time. During that time they did nothing to reform health care insurance to prevent the growing number of uninsured, the immoral refusal of companies to cover the cost of insured based on excuses such as "preexisting conditions," and the rampant runaway greed of the health insurance companies as they destroy the US health care system. Nothing, nada, zip. That is the GOP's real program to deal with the health care crises in the US. Do nothing and stop anyone else from doing anything. Not some phony program they came up with at the last minute as a smoke screen.

Add to that dismal record the record of obstruction for over the last 50 years since Truman pressed for national health care reform - including the attempt to stop medicare - and what you come up with is a clear record of acceptance of the status quo and hostility to reform. The Republican Party has shown it is much more interested in the continuation of record profits for insurance companies than the are dealing with the needs of the American people for comprehensive, quality national health care.

The dems hold majority now, where are they at?

bobber205
Aug 20, 2009, 12:33 AM
This is not true. For example, here is a republican plan offered in July:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml

Whether or not you agree with it, it is a reform plan, disproving you statement that republicans want no reform at all. Perhaps what you meant to say was republicans don't want Obama's health care plan with a public option.

I know you are a little carried away with the public coverage option, but this doesn't excuse your false statement. If you have any evidence beyond rhetoric that supports your statement, please share it here.

The Republican plan had no substance and therefore wasn't a plan. Wasn't it just a handful of pages with no numbers or how to pay for it? (I am assuming, jokingly, that it was going to be paid for by tax cuts like everything else ;) ).

Edit:
Read the article again and found the amount of pages. 4.
The four-page Republican health care outline....

That's sad.

mgguy
Aug 20, 2009, 01:14 AM
The Republican plan had no substance and therefore wasn't a plan. Wasn't it just a handful of pages with no numbers or how to pay for it? (I am assuming, jokingly, that it was going to be paid for by tax cuts like everything else ;) ).

Edit:
Read the article again and found the amount of pages. 4.


That's sad.

The house proposal has over 1,000 pages containing many flawed or misleading proposals that according to CBO would add a third of a trillion dollars to the deficit. A plan isn't necessarily better just because it is longer and more complex. The democrat government single payer plan has to be longer and more complex because it is based on a massive governmental bureaucracy running things. It may also have been made longer and more detailed to make it easier to shove down the public's throat.

NT1440
Aug 20, 2009, 01:16 AM
The dems hold majority now, where are they at?

they are trying to do the right thing and comprimise, but thats not what republicans want to do so they just get in the way of things.

Zombie Acorn
Aug 20, 2009, 01:23 AM
they are trying to do the right thing and comprimise, but thats not what republicans want to do so they just get in the way of things.

I wasn't aware that the democrats were in consensus and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. hmm.. excuses?

Iscariot
Aug 20, 2009, 02:26 AM
they are trying to do the right thing and comprimise, but thats not what republicans want to do so they just get in the way of things.
I wasn't aware that the democrats were in consensus and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. hmm.. excuses?

I'm inclined to agree with Zombie Acorn. The American people did not give them a majority to watch them sputter and do little more than churn the waters. The inefficacy of the Obama administration is extremely disappointing.

Macky-Mac
Aug 20, 2009, 02:27 AM
The dems hold majority now, where are they at?

on vacation it seems :rolleyes:

freeny
Aug 20, 2009, 07:16 AM
I wasn't aware that the democrats were in consensus and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. hmm.. excuses?

Not an excuse. Democrats are mixed on this. One would think Republicans would be the same, mixed, but theyre not... They are, as they have been for many years, not against this reform, but "anti Democrat". Putting party before people.

I could see how the wealthy would oppose this reform, but the poor who cant afford health insurance are not all democrats, its statisticly impossible. Somone isnt representing...

Sayhey
Aug 20, 2009, 08:17 AM
The dems hold majority now, where are they at?

Seriously? The Democrats have passed a bill out of all the House committees, which is now being consolidated into one bill, and which will be voted on after they return from the August recess. They have one more committee in the Senate - the Senate Finance Committee - waiting to act on a bill. That committee has been tied up in fruitless negotiations with a handful of GOP senators, but has set a deadline of Sept. 15th to pass out a bill. In short, the Democratic majority is closer to passing major health care reform, in the short time it has held both chambers, than in any time since medicare was passed. The major stumbling block is that the Republican minority in the Senate wishes to take advantage of Senators Kennedy's and Byrd's health problems and stop any action through filibuster. That's where this is "at" right now.

bobber205
Aug 20, 2009, 06:29 PM
The house proposal has over 1,000 pages containing many flawed or misleading proposals that according to CBO would add a third of a trillion dollars to the deficit. A plan isn't necessarily better just because it is longer and more complex. The democrat government single payer plan has to be longer and more complex because it is based on a massive governmental bureaucracy running things. It may also have been made longer and more detailed to make it easier to shove down the public's throat.

Again, missing the point.

A 4 page document is not a plan. Yeah the current bill is probably too complex, but a good part of that is from "compromises" with the Republicans.

Cleverboy
Aug 20, 2009, 06:39 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Zombie Acorn. The American people did not give them a majority to watch them sputter and do little more than churn the waters. The inefficacy of the Obama administration is extremely disappointing. I think its a fairly significant distortion to think that Democrats have not attempted to become a "tent-pole" party, absorbing both conservative and liberals. The American people, giving the Democrats the majority was not a single-act and wholesale license for said Democrats to push through an agenda that may or may not represent the wishes of America as a whole. Part of that, is making sure people are contacting their congress people and making sure the Democrats push forward meaningful changes... but don't absolutely disintegrate (ie. conservative Democrats being painted as liberal, thereby losing their seats in the mid-term elections, and bye-bye Democratic majority).

I still think the Obama administration is being VERY effective, but that there is a LOT more to governing than simply ramming legislation down America's throats sans discussion. The White House's earlier push for fast-passage was rebuffed, and while the tone has changed, the opposition has stirred calls of Fascism and such. I think we can press on the administration AND the congress without spitting on their efforts as being completely "ineffective". We're really trying to learn from what happened with the Clintons. Not repeat history.

~ CB

Zombie Acorn
Aug 20, 2009, 06:46 PM
Not an excuse. Democrats are mixed on this. One would think Republicans would be the same, mixed, but theyre not... They are, as they have been for many years, not against this reform, but "anti Democrat". Putting party before people.

I could see how the wealthy would oppose this reform, but the poor who cant afford health insurance are not all democrats, its statisticly impossible. Somone isnt representing...

The reason they are mixed is because some of the dems are conservative, most of the republicans are conservative (or at least go by that name) so they are on the side the people who voted for them are on.

Cleverboy
Aug 20, 2009, 07:24 PM
The reason they are mixed is because some of the dems are conservative, most of the republicans are conservative (or at least go by that name) so they are on the side the people who voted for them are on.Exactly. I get the impression many liberals would love to think a Democratic majority simply means a rubber stamp, and that the Democrats, or the administration are STUPID not to use that stamp as much and as often as possible. That's a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

~ CB

Iscariot
Aug 20, 2009, 09:41 PM
I think its a fairly significant distortion to think that Democrats have not attempted to become a "tent-pole" party, absorbing both conservative and liberals. The American people, giving the Democrats the majority was not a single-act and wholesale license for said Democrats to push through an agenda that may or may not represent the wishes of America as a whole. Part of that, is making sure people are contacting their congress people and making sure the Democrats push forward meaningful changes... but don't absolutely disintegrate (ie. conservative Democrats being painted as liberal, thereby losing their seats in the mid-term elections, and bye-bye Democratic majority).

I still think the Obama administration is being VERY effective, but that there is a LOT more to governing than simply ramming legislation down America's throats sans discussion. The White House's earlier push for fast-passage was rebuffed, and while the tone has changed, the opposition has stirred calls of Fascism and such. I think we can press on the administration AND the congress without spitting on their efforts as being completely "ineffective". We're really trying to learn from what happened with the Clintons. Not repeat history.
Exactly. I get the impression many liberals would love to think a Democratic majority simply means a rubber stamp, and that the Democrats, or the administration are STUPID not to use that stamp as much and as often as possible. That's a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

There's a marked difference between "rubber stamping" and having a unified front. I'm not suggesting that the Democratic party has free license to run amok passing legislation willy-nilly, but I think a lack of unity on such an important issue can be viewed as little other than a failure to govern effectively.

Cleverboy
Aug 20, 2009, 10:31 PM
There's a marked difference between "rubber stamping" and having a unified front. I'm not suggesting that the Democratic party has free license to run amok passing legislation willy-nilly, but I think a lack of unity on such an important issue can be viewed as little other than a failure to govern effectively. Well, "unified front" and "rubber stamping" aren't different just by saying so. Good governance, in my personal opinion, really can't be about a bunch of Democrats nodding and saying, "We agree with Obama, because he's a Democrat". They'd be voted out on the next round. It's about cumulative results, transparency, response time, and an open dialog.

The most unifying regimes in the history of the world have been genocidal and/or fascist with people feeling a distinct and real disconnect from the political machinery. I'm not sure you can celebrate individual life and liberty while complaining about the lack of unity amongst the dominant party in power.

There's a sizable difference between "lack of unity" and "confusion". I do not think we're experiencing confusion. I agree that there is a lack of unity. I also think this is part of the way forward, and not (yet) an indicator that "something is wrong".

It's just really annoying... because being human and being around other humans, can be really annoying. The opposition party is trying to steal the debate by riling people up. "Rushing" fed into that, so it was slowed down. Lack of details and disinformation fed into that, so information and discussion is being promoted.

I see people fighting to not let healthcare die again. I listen to Nightside with Dan Rea hear in Boston, and he's a conservative trumpeting how much (despite what he says) Obama wants "Single-Payer", and never misses an opportunity to play a clip of Obama talking about single-payer. I'm impressed that the arguments haven't yet plunged into the gutter yet. I think that's a tribute to good governance and an evolving, yet effective gameplan.

~ CB

Iscariot
Aug 20, 2009, 11:00 PM
Well, "unified front" and "rubber stamping" aren't different just by saying so. Good governance, in my personal opinion, really can't be about a bunch of Democrats nodding and saying, "We agree with Obama, because he's a Democrat". They'd be voted out on the next round. It's about cumulative results, transparency, response time, and an open dialog.

The most unifying regimes in the history of the world have been genocidal and/or fascist with people feeling a distinct and real disconnect from the political machinery. I'm not sure you can celebrate individual life and liberty while complaining about the lack of unity amongst the dominant party in power.

All of which is a straw man. If you find the distinction I'm making to be confusing, you're better off asking.
There's a sizable difference between "lack of unity" and "confusion". I do not think we're experiencing confusion. I agree that there is a lack of unity. I also think this is part of the way forward, and not (yet) an indicator that "something is wrong".

I'm not so confident we are not seeing some level of confusion. At the very least, if there was going to be this much division within the party at the time of the bill, we all would have been better served by a greater amount of internal discussion before the bill was presented. Lacking either the foresight to be adequately prepared or the patience to discuss matters internally is ineffective governing. At this juncture the party seems disjointed, and Obama appears to be lacking political will.

Eraserhead
Aug 21, 2009, 04:46 AM
Just thought it might be interesting to post this:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14258740&source=hptextfeature

Cleverboy
Aug 21, 2009, 06:33 AM
All of which is a straw man. If you find the distinction I'm making to be confusing, you're better off asking.
Unfortunately, saying there is a distinction doesn't illuminate the distinction, nor give reason for anyone disagreeing with the statement to feel confused about it. Devil's Advocate: A couple is disciplining their child, and one adult details a point in a way the other adult disagrees sharply with. In keeping a "unified front", they do not disagree with the issue in front of the child, but speak about it privately, but can't come to an agreement. The next day, the child again raises the issue with the dissenting parent, at which point the adult highlights the disagreement while noting something polite about their partner. At what point do you sacrifice voicing individual opinion to the "unified front"? Moreover, when your voting constituency is looking for clarification of your dissent, is unanimity as feasible as its assumed to be?
I'm not so confident we are not seeing some level of confusion. At the very least, if there was going to be this much division within the party at the time of the bill, we all would have been better served by a greater amount of internal discussion before the bill was presented. Internal discussion. Like how the Clintons did. I'm just saying there is a "gotcha" on either end of this, and portraying "a better way" (tm) seems more than a bit overrated. Lacking either the foresight to be adequately prepared or the patience to discuss matters internally is ineffective governing. At this juncture the party seems disjointed, and Obama appears to be lacking political will. I was reading an article the other day about how the Obama administration had an interesting choice in front of them. They could have drafted a framework and sent it to congress, thereby having specifics to talk about and being criticised for dictating legislation to Congress, or they could do what they did and have little specifics (only "principles") to sell the idea to the public, and meekly wait for Congress to draft compromise legislation with a hope of passing.

When Harry Reid got word back from the Blue Dogs, that "rushing" through the legislation was encountering push back, he had to speak up about it. It would have been far more damaging in either model, to have a significant group of Democrats (feeling heat from their constituency) oppose legislation that had been colored in public opinion.

The Democrats seem like they're attempting to get it right, but if the task wasn't difficult, even with a majority, it would have been done by now.

I was listening to the clip from Rachel Maddow, comparing the health care debate to ordering pizza. While its an amusing and sobering point, I think a more accurate example would have a certain amount of people in the room wanting the pizza, and being OPEN to pepperonis, but needing to simply discuss it, if only for the perhaps vital pretense that they were involved in the decision and understood the implications of adding meat.

The next round of demonizing, will be the hysteria over digitizing health records (and how such data is transferred to other hospitals). This is a VITAL part of lowering the expense of healthcare, but in the face of data breaches like TJX, the public may rightly be dubious about the security of a national health network. One off the Democrat's biggest REAL challenges with this bill is "where is the money coming from"?

Where is the funding?
Does the public option disrupt competition?
I'm not sure we can just sail past these issues through "better governance". It's going to be a dialog, or it will be a series of foot shooting incidents without dialog (ie: I disagreed because I didn't know what it was). The ironic thing is, I think the "pressure" is important from all angles on this issue.

Mark my words though... BOTH liberals and conservatives can be fear-mongered on electronic records. If you eliminate many of the cost-saving measures, when the cost of the health reform goes well above estimates, worst fears will be realized as self-fulfilling prophecy. It's an integral Achilles heel built right in.

U.S. grants $1.2 billion for electronic health records
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE57J21J20090820?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

~ CB

diamond.g
Aug 21, 2009, 07:05 AM
IMO, for digitization of records they should put the stuff on an encrypted network. Shoot TACLANES are only like what 10k? That should be chump change when dealing with security.

Iscariot
Aug 21, 2009, 09:36 AM
Unfortunately, saying there is a distinction doesn't illuminate the distinction, nor give reason for anyone disagreeing with the statement to feel confused about it. Devil's Advocate: A couple is disciplining their child, and one adult details a point in a way the other adult disagrees sharply with. In keeping a "unified front", they do not disagree with the issue in front of the child, but speak about it privately, but can't come to an agreement. The next day, the child again raises the issue with the dissenting parent, at which point the adult highlights the disagreement while noting something polite about their partner. At what point do you sacrifice voicing individual opinion to the "unified front"? Moreover, when your voting constituency is looking for clarification of your dissent, is unanimity as feasible as its assumed to be?

That is, again, a straw man, and frankly a ridiculous one at that. My comments are topical and in context, and extend to no other situation besides the issue of this particular healthcare reform bill.

mgguy
Aug 21, 2009, 11:09 AM
Again, missing the point.

A 4 page document is not a plan. Yeah the current bill is probably too complex, but a good part of that is from "compromises" with the Republicans.

I disagree. Four pages are more than adequate to lay out the foundation of a good health care plan. The details can come later once the basic principles are established and agreed upon. If you include the details of implementation in the initial plan, it tends to obscure the basic structure of the plan and results in not being able to see the forrest for the trees. Good programs often start with just a few ideas jotted down on a napkin.

In fairness, don't you think you need to give reasons why you think the republican plans are bad rather than attacking them just because they are short?

Cleverboy
Aug 21, 2009, 11:32 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Zombie Acorn. The American people did not give them a majority to watch them sputter and do little more than churn the waters. The inefficacy of the Obama administration is extremely disappointing. The American people gave them a majority for a number of reasons. Saying this in the reverse doesn't automatically mean everyone is onboard for every Democratic initiative from the jump.
Lacking either the foresight to be adequately prepared or the patience to discuss matters internally is ineffective governing. At this juncture the party seems disjointed, and Obama appears to be lacking political will. In the end, I believe I must be a cynic, because I believe that this "unity" you've mentioned is generally an illusion hinged upon passing emotions. The Democrats HAVE been discussing matters internally for a while. Working hard at attempting to bridge the gaps between conservative and liberal Democrats who will soon be up for re-election is a basic political reality. In the effort to grasp the illusion of "unity" or a "united front" (that disintegrates during the next election cycle), my deep concern is that we are in actuality choosing to forgo any notion of cumulative progress.
That is, again, a straw man, and frankly a ridiculous one at that. My comments are topical and in context, and extend to no other situation besides the issue of this particular healthcare reform bill. Ultimately, I think the reason the term "ineffective" isn't fair, is that I think things are being actively worked on, and more importantly, that the "range of time" by which to judge the effort extendshalfway through September. There have been both highs AND lows in the last few months, and if the discussion is controlled by the GOP... its all downhill from here.

~ CB

Iscariot
Aug 21, 2009, 06:23 PM
The American people gave them a majority for a number of reasons. Saying this in the reverse doesn't automatically mean everyone is onboard for every Democratic initiative from the jump.

This is still a straw man. Considering my post was ~100 deep in a thread specifically about "White House Signaling "Ready To Drop Public Option" for Healthcare" I think my comments are pretty clearly in the context of the original post, and regarding the "White House Signaling "Ready To Drop Public Option" for Healthcare" and not general Democratic party behaviour.
Ultimately, I think the reason the term "ineffective" isn't fair, is that I think things are being actively worked on, and more importantly, that the "range of time" by which to judge the effort extendshalfway through September. There have been both highs AND lows in the last few months, and if the discussion is controlled by the GOP... its all downhill from here.

I think "ineffective" is a fair assessment of the current state of affairs. If Obama's strategy proves effective in the long-run then I will be more than willing to change my opinion, but as of the state of the current plan in conjunction with the handling of the opposition I stand behind my statement that I am extremely disappointed in the inefficacy of the Obama administration [on this topic].

NT1440
Aug 21, 2009, 06:28 PM
=
In fairness, don't you think you need to give reasons why you think the republican plans are bad rather than attacking them just because they are short?

Because bullet points are not a plan. And they are empty ones at that. Does anyone really expect change not to cost something here and now?

Sacrifice now, reap the rewards and then some later.

mgguy
Aug 21, 2009, 08:22 PM
Because bullet points are not a plan. And they are empty ones at that. Does anyone really expect change not to cost something here and now?

Sacrifice now, reap the rewards and then some later.
Which of their bulleted points do you think are empty or bad? Do you oppose letting states, associations and small businesses pool together to offer health insurance? How about giving tax credits to low and modest income Americans to help them buy health insurance? What about letting dependents under twenty-five stay on their parent's health insurance? What about making it easier for Americans to keep health care coverage regardless of a change in or loss of a job? Granted, these ideas need to be vetted and sketched out in more detail, but in concept some of them appear to have some merit. In fact, aren't some of their ideas also in the house democrat's plan. If Obama's Grand Opus health plan or some version of it doesn't pass, can't we still make incremental changes to improve the system?

Cleverboy
Aug 21, 2009, 11:19 PM
This is still a straw man. Considering my post was ~100 deep in a thread specifically about "White House Signaling "Ready To Drop Public Option" for Healthcare" I think my comments are pretty clearly in the context of the original post, and regarding the "White House Signaling "Ready To Drop Public Option" for Healthcare" and not general Democratic party behaviour.Ok. I think I get it. There's a premise issue. I didn't buy that headline completely at any time. I think Sebelius misspoke in that saying something isn't "essential", isn't the same as saying its not health care reform's central theme (but a desirable component). One thing implies a directional change, while the other implies that the White House isn't dictating the details being hammered out. When the story shifted to a message that the White House is dumping the public option, to me, it represented a semantic cock-up. The White House is put in the unenviable position of attempting to gain consensus, without coming across impassive (disengaged), while not sounding domineering (fascist).

Many Republicans voted for Obama because they felt he truly cared about a civil discourse. I'd have liked the Obama administration to release a health care roadmap, but like a chess game, showing your playbook gives the opposition an easy strategy (make that not happen). Here's a nice article from the CSM:

A road map to healthcare reform
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0203/p09s01-coop.html
1. Use the budget. There is but one high-speed train that leaves the Capitol Hill station each year: the budget. The budget cannot be filibustered by an obstructionist Senate minority of 41. It is how George W. Bush obtained his massive tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003. And it is how the foundation for reform must be laid in 2009. Not everything can be done in the budget, of course, but the key features of reform – new subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans obtain coverage, and changes in existing tax policies and health programs – can and should.

2. Move it or lose it. The history of major presidential initiatives shows that Obama cannot afford to wait until 2010, as some suggest, to achieve healthcare reform. To take advantage of his "honeymoon"-heightened influence and the public desire for change that emerged during the campaign, he should undertake the heavy lifting this year – the sooner, the better. President Clinton delayed releasing health legislation until late 1993, almost a year after entering office. His plan went down in flames for many reasons, but it didn't help that members of Congress had stopped worrying about the 1991 recession and started worrying about the 1994 midterm elections.

3. Make Congress own it. Mr. Clinton's other big political mistake was to craft his 1,342-page bill within the White House and executive agencies, rather than move quickly to spearhead congressional action. That left members of Congress free to grandstand and stall, and made Clinton's plan a huge bulls-eye for his conservative critics. Mr. Obama should not make the same mistake. He should supply the vision; Democrats in Congress should write the legislation.

4. Keep it simple. Finally, that vision should be simple and unthreatening. Clinton's plan had too many moving parts and too many red flags: regional purchasing cooperatives spread across the country, efforts to encourage people to enroll in tightly managed HMOs, caps on private premiums if they grew too fast. Obama resisted this temptation during the campaign, and he should resist it now. I think he's been doing great on strategic points like these, and he's actively tried to keep things on message. --It's herding cats though. I sware. You close out the Republicans and have numerous White House closed-door meetings with Democratic congressman to hammer out inter-party cohesion, and you've got an image problem. We can't really know the wisdom or folly of the roads not taken, just the results at the end of the process.

~ CB

Iscariot
Aug 22, 2009, 10:21 AM
I think he's been doing great on strategic points like these, and he's actively tried to keep things on message. --It's herding cats though. I sware. You close out the Republicans and have numerous White House closed-door meetings with Democratic congressman to hammer out inter-party cohesion, and you've got an image problem. We can't really know the wisdom or folly of the roads not taken, just the results at the end of the process.

That was a good article, so thanks for that. I think a fundamental difference of viewpoints here is that you are a self-professed optimist, and I a self-professed skeptic. I still do not believe that this was handled in an effective manner, but you have made some good points that I'm willing to consider, and I am perhaps a little more optimistic about the potential for a healthcare win for doing so.

NT1440
Aug 22, 2009, 11:22 AM
Which of their bulleted points do you think are empty or bad? Do you oppose letting states, associations and small businesses pool together to offer health insurance? How about giving tax credits to low and modest income Americans to help them buy health insurance? What about letting dependents under twenty-five stay on their parent's health insurance? What about making it easier for Americans to keep health care coverage regardless of a change in or loss of a job? Granted, these ideas need to be vetted and sketched out in more detail, but in concept some of them appear to have some merit. In fact, aren't some of their ideas also in the house democrat's plan. If Obama's Grand Opus health plan or some version of it doesn't pass, can't we still make incremental changes to improve the system?

Until these plans are actually written into something more tangible than mere footnotes, I don't consider this anything but talking points.

mgguy
Aug 22, 2009, 11:39 AM
Until these plans are actually written into something more tangible than mere footnotes, I don't consider this anything but talking points.

I believe the democrat UHC plan based on a government-run insurance option started out in 2008 as just a page or two of concept notes. That plan has evolved into the monstrosity of the house plan that is now being rejected by many because it is too complex and convoluted to make any sense of (and because they rightly, in my opinion, see many flaws in the proposal itself).

leekohler
Aug 22, 2009, 12:09 PM
This is still
I think "ineffective" is a fair assessment of the current state of affairs. If Obama's strategy proves effective in the long-run then I will be more than willing to change my opinion, but as of the state of the current plan in conjunction with the handling of the opposition I stand behind my statement that I am extremely disappointed in the inefficacy of the Obama administration [on this topic].

I would agree. They need to much more aggressive and stop giving a rat's ass what conservatives think. Conservatives ********* this country for 8 years. They don't deserve the time of day, especially with the way they've been behaving. When they come to the table with some ideas that actually might make a difference, then we'll talk. Until then, they can screw themselves. They don't deserve to even be heard after what they've done to the US.

BTW- when you gonna put a ring on my finger and make an honest man out of me? ;)

Zombie Acorn
Aug 22, 2009, 02:09 PM
I would agree. They need to much more aggressive and stop giving a rat's ass what conservatives think. Conservatives ********* this country for 8 years. They don't deserve the time of day, especially with the way they've been behaving. When they come to the table with some ideas that actually might make a difference, then we'll talk. Until then, they can screw themselves. They don't deserve to even be heard after what they've done to the US.

BTW- when you gonna put a ring on my finger and make an honest man out of me? ;)

There are no vocal conservatives, only politicians.

Iscariot
Aug 22, 2009, 09:13 PM
BTW- when you gonna put a ring on my finger and make an honest man out of me? ;)

Ha, I need to make an honest man of myself, first!

NT1440
Aug 22, 2009, 10:16 PM
I believe the democrat UHC plan based on a government-run insurance option started out in 2008 as just a page or two of concept notes. That plan has evolved into the monstrosity of the house plan that is now being rejected by many because it is too complex and convoluted to make any sense of (and because they rightly, in my opinion, see many flaws in the proposal itself).

So are we going to sit around and wait for the republicans to come up with something?

We know thats not going to happen.

opinioncircle
Aug 22, 2009, 11:54 PM
So are we going to sit around and wait for the republicans to come up with something?

We know thats not going to happen.

no what's going to happen is that they'll just fuel the feud, and then nothing will get done. next thing you know, it'll be 2010 and 2012 and we'll hear that "democrats can't do anything when they're in control"...

NT1440
Aug 22, 2009, 11:59 PM
no what's going to happen is that they'll just fuel the feud, and then nothing will get done. next thing you know, it'll be 2010 and 2012 and we'll hear that "democrats can't do anything when they're in control"...

Thats the whole plan. The GOP isnt anti progress, they do get some things done in power, they are just 100% anti democrat and will do anything to make them seem feeble, when in doing so the American people see the truth. Well, they did this election anyway, these things are a cycle.

mgguy
Aug 23, 2009, 12:25 AM
So are we going to sit around and wait for the republicans to come up with something?

We know thats not going to happen.
But the republicans have already have come up with a plan (see above posts). My guess is that democrats are so insistent about getting a plan passed by September that they really don't want to even consider any of the republican's ideas. In their desperation to pass UHC, they may even split the legislation into pieces and try to pass major components of it through reconciliation, thus avoiding the need for 60 votes in the Senate. Sneaky little bastards.:D

NT1440
Aug 23, 2009, 12:34 AM
But the republicans have already have come up with a plan (see above posts). My guess is that democrats are so insistent about getting a plan passed by September that they really don't want to even consider any of the republican's ideas. In their desperation to pass UHC, they may even split the legislation into pieces and try to pass major components of it through reconciliation, thus avoiding the need for 60 votes in the Senate. Sneaky little bastards.:D

Which is why republicans have over 160 parts of bill added, and still wont vote for it at all, so when it passes they got to take the teeth out of the bill, and if its a disaster they can say they didn't vote it.

Sneaky little bastards :rolleyes:

How long are you guys gonna keep saying that the republicans aren't being allowed in the process? They've been given every chance, gotten their way, and still refuse to actually help out. Instead its all about playing to the cameras.

mgguy
Aug 23, 2009, 12:46 AM
Which is why republicans have over 160 parts of bill added, and still wont vote for it at all, so when it passes they got to take the teeth out of the bill, and if its a disaster they can say they didn't vote it.
OK. But if this is true, why did you say this earlier?: So are we going to sit around and wait for the republicans to come up with something?

We know thats not going to happen.

You seem to have been implying that the republicans aren't offering anything from their side, which isn't true.

NT1440
Aug 23, 2009, 12:52 AM
OK. But if this is true, why did you say this earlier?:
You seem to have been implying that the republicans aren't offering anything from their side, which isn't true.

I'm saying, while quietly tucking in their goodies, they are publically playing with the people by opposing this entire affair, denying this plan while not PUBLICALLY bringing anything to the table. This way, they get what they want but have future ammo to bitch about.

Its strategy, and its sickening that they care more about their games than trying to actually help anyone.

mgguy
Aug 23, 2009, 12:54 PM
I'm saying, while quietly tucking in their goodies, they are publically playing with the people by opposing this entire affair, denying this plan while not PUBLICALLY bringing anything to the table. This way, they get what they want but have future ammo to bitch about.

Its strategy, and its sickening that they care more about their games than trying to actually help anyone.

So you think they really agree with you that Obama-UHC would actually be better for everyone, including their own family and friends, but are so obsessed about winning back power that they would want it to get voted down? Now that is cynical. My guess is that they may actually not agree that it would be that good of a system and might result in greater cost and less quality and quantity of care to themselves and their families.

leekohler
Aug 23, 2009, 01:11 PM
So you think they really agree with you that Obama-UHC would actually be better for everyone, including their own family and friends, but are so obsessed about winning back power that they would want it to get voted down? Now that is cynical.

Sadly, I have to agree with NT. Given all the evidence that points to the success of UHC around the world, I can only assume that this is the case.

NT1440
Aug 23, 2009, 01:34 PM
So you think they really agree with you that Obama-UHC would actually be better for everyone, including their own family and friends, but are so obsessed about winning back power that they would want it to get voted down? Now that is cynical. My guess is that they may actually not agree that it would be that good of a system and might result in greater cost and less quality and quantity of care to themselves and their families.

No, i think they are putting in their own things to either get little things they wanted anyway, or to take any bit out of this bill. Its all about getting their power back, thats why they are so two faced about this.

opinioncircle
Aug 23, 2009, 07:22 PM
No, i think they are putting in their own things to either get little things they wanted anyway, or to take any bit out of this bill. Its all about getting their power back, thats why they are so two faced about this.

Washington politics like Palin called it :D (not the best reference though ahahah)

Macky-Mac
Aug 23, 2009, 11:39 PM
looks like healthcare reform may be a boon to insurance companies....more profits than ever perhaps

LA Times story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-insurers24-2009aug24,0,2392720.story)

Healthcare insurers get upper hand
Obama's overhaul fight is being won by the industry, experts say. The end result may be a financial 'bonanza.'

Reporting from Washington - Lashed by liberals and threatened with more government regulation, the insurance industry nevertheless rallied its lobbying and grass-roots resources so successfully in the early stages of the healthcare overhaul deliberations that it is poised to reap a financial windfall.

The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums.

"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.

Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"....

......"The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and . . . they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide -- plus their administrative costs."....