|
What to do... what to f*cking do! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Because of the abortion issue? |
No... I mean, I know how you feel about having your entire party held hostage by the decision of one or two people. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Don't expose him until after the current legislative session is over. There are too many important issues on the table that need the medias attention. You exposing him would be disservice to the public debate and the function of our democracy, especially so in these troubled times. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
No... I mean, I know how you feel about having your entire party held hostage by the decision of one or two people. |
Ah. Well I suppose there's no surprise here, but I strongly disagree.
I think there's a significant difference between introducing an amendment to your own Party's bill for the sole purpose of creating a pill too bitter to swallow to allow progressives - the base of support for the bill itself - to stump for it with clear conscience, and simply remaining open to negotiation in order to make the bill less objectionable to other viewpoints.
Abortion is a flash-point issue, and one that didn't belong in this discussion. Ben Nelson is seeking to capture the limelight and be a champion for a "moral cause" - he doesn't care about health care in this country.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, on the other hand, aren't derailing Republican legislation - and it's important to note that they aren't handing the Democrats a political victory here either. It's only with Republican acquiescence that this bill will pass - who is going to be lauded for their bipartisan statesmanship and ability to see past partisan hackery - Reid or Snowe?
Furthermore, I think the Republican tactics to block debate are horrifying. I mean, this is a democracy where free discussion of the ideas and details of legislation is still important, right? And yet we have Senators on the floor of Congress sticking their proverbial fingers in their proverbial ears and screaming "la la la la la" in order to distract from the language of the bills in question. It's adolescent showmanship at its worst - throwing temper tantrums that the party in power has introduced a topic that is a political lightning rod isn't governance.
What's more, it doesn't allow you the chance to have a stake in the outcome. Right now this bill is either going to pass or remain on the table forever. There's no middle ground. Kudos to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for starting a discussion about how to find one.
I'm with Frum on this:
| quote: | We’re getting worse and less conservative results out of Washington than we could have negotiated, if we had negotiated.
As is, we’re betting heavily that a bad economy will collapse Democratic support without us having to lift a finger. Maybe that will happen. But existing party strategy has to be reckoned a terrible failure. Most Republicans will shrug off that news. If polls are right, rank-and-file Republicans feel little regard for the Washington party, and don’t expect much from it. But it’s the rank-and-file who are the problem here! Republican leaders do not dare try deals for fear of being branded sell-outs by a party base that wants war to the knife. So we got war. And we’re losing. Even if we gain seats in 2010, the actions of this congressional session will not be reversed. Shrink Medicare after it has expanded? Hey- we said we’d never do that. |
http://www.frumforum.com/the-cost-of-no-deal
Partisanship has surpassed statesmanship on both sides, but nowhere is it clearer than in recent Republican behavior, where it's more important to obstruct the aims of Democrats than it is to negotiate an outcome more acceptable to the American people.
Do you honestly think health care reform is not needed in this country? If you do, then surely you want to be part of the discussion in how to fix it, yes? Especially if you think that current proposals are not very good!
Nobody is expecting Republicans to be obsequious in the face of the Democratic legislative agenda, but they do expect them to come to the table with ideas deeper than obstructionism. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Ah. Well I suppose there's no surprise here, but I strongly disagree.
I think there's a significant difference between introducing an amendment to your own Party's bill for the sole purpose of creating a pill too bitter to swallow to allow progressives - the base of support for the bill itself - to stump for it with clear conscience, and simply remaining open to negotiation in order to make the bill less objectionable to other viewpoints.
Abortion is a flash-point issue, and one that didn't belong in this discussion. Ben Nelson is seeking to capture the limelight and be a champion for a "moral cause" - he doesn't care about health care in this country.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, on the other hand, aren't derailing Republican legislation - and it's important to note that they aren't handing the Democrats a political victory here either. It's only with Republican acquiescence that this bill will pass - who is going to be lauded for their bipartisan statesmanship and ability to see past partisan hackery - Reid or Snowe? |
It's no different with Collins and Snowe IMO. The utter failure that is the stimulus bill would not have passed without their votes. Like Ben Nelson, they routinely try to make a name for themselves by going against their party (McCain?)... like Ben Nelson, I also believe their motives are the same; be in the limelight and feel important. They may not be derailing Republican legislation, but endorsing legislation that goes against what the majority of their electorate wants is just as bad.
| quote: | | Furthermore, I think the Republican tactics to block debate are horrifying. I mean, this is a democracy where free discussion of the ideas and details of legislation is still important, right? And yet we have Senators on the floor of Congress sticking their proverbial fingers in their proverbial ears and screaming "la la la la la" in order to distract from the language of the bills in question. It's adolescent showmanship at its worst - throwing temper tantrums that the party in power has introduced a topic that is a political lightning rod isn't governance. |
What's worse... trying to block the vote of a bill that a vast majority of the people our senators represent do not want (you know, being an actual representative republic), or Harry Reid buying off senators at the last minute to pass cloture (Mary Landrieu)? Look what's happening now... example: Ben Nelson insisting the other day that language be inserted into the bill that exempts 3 heavily populated Democrat counties in his state of Florida from the bill's $500 billion in Medicare cuts... if those massive cuts won't hurt those on Medicare as the Dems claim, why would he want that exemption? McCain tried to include an amendmant that exempted every county in the U.S., but the Dems killed it. This is about a massive power grab and little else.
| quote: | | Partisanship has surpassed statesmanship on both sides, but nowhere is it clearer than in recent Republican behavior, where it's more important to obstruct the aims of Democrats than it is to negotiate an outcome more acceptable to the American people. |
Wrong. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are two of the most vile, partisan radicals to ever hold power. Do you not know that Republicans are routinely locked out of meetings, strategy sessions, and debate? What's so laughable about this complaint is that Democrats have something Republicans never had... 60 votes in the Senate and 75 seat majority in the House. Republicans can't stop anything the Democrats want if they unite. But, it's the Republicans who are obstructionist? The truth is that the agendas being pushed are so far left that it's hard convincing fellow Democrats to tow the line; some people actually want to get re-elected. For obstructionist happenings, look to your own party:
| quote: | | A deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry is holding up a bipartisan amendment to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from abroad, according to a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. The Senate has been debating the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), since Tuesday but has not held a vote, which is contributing to a stall in the floor action on healthcare reform. |
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ealth-amendment
Or this?
| quote: | | As a result, the Senate health care debate has come to a standstill: Carper has placed a “hold” on Dorgan’s amendment and in response, Dorgan tells HuffPost, he’ll object to any other amendments being considered before he gets a vote on his. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/...e_n_388895.html
Or maybe this?
| quote: | Democrats from states with major drug companies strongly oppose the amendment. One of them, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), offered an alternative to address the safety concerns.
In the past, supporters of easier importation have seen similar amendments as “poison pills” — effectively neutering the proposal by requiring U.S. officials to certify in advance that imported drugs would be safe and effective. |
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-...0,1002684.story
| quote: | Do you honestly think health care reform is not needed in this country? If you do, then surely you want to be part of the discussion in how to fix it, yes? Especially if you think that current proposals are not very good!
Nobody is expecting Republicans to be obsequious in the face of the Democratic legislative agenda, but they do expect them to come to the table with ideas deeper than obstructionism. |
Of course I think reform is necessary... but not in the way or to the degree the Democrats are offering and you are supporting. Do you honestly believe that the welfare of the people is at heart with Reid's current bill? Do you think more people will really get better quality health care.... lol, at little to no cost? Do you think it has nothing to do with the expansion of government scope and power over all else? If you want to talk about "democracy" and this country operating as its supposed to, as a representative republic, does it even matter to you that a CLEAR MAJORITY of the people being represented do not support this (between 56-61% are opposed in most polls, with support basically around 36-38%).
One of the biggest myths is that Republicans haven't "come to the table with ideas". The Democrat leadership loves to say the word "bipartisanship", but it means nothing; every proposal and idea put forth on Health Care by Republicans is shot down, ignored, and most ammendments are killed. "Sure we welcome your ideas"... bull. And what a crazy coincidence that the bill doesn't take effect until 2013, after that pesky presidential election (although the taxing would begin immediately). |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| Introduce him to Deep House. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Don't expose him until after the current legislative session is over. There are too many important issues on the table that need the medias attention. You exposing him would be disservice to the public debate and the function of our democracy, especially so in these troubled times. |
|
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
but endorsing legislation that goes against what the majority of their electorate wants is just as bad. |
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/rel18h.pdf
Of course I think reform is necessary... but not in the way or to the degree the Democrats are offering and you are supporting.[/QUOTE]
So engage in the process! That's all I'm saying!
| quote: | | Do you think more people will really get better quality health care.... lol, at little to no cost? |
| quote: | | However, CBO and JCT estimate that most people would avoid the cost of the excise tax by enrolling in plans that had lower premiums; those reductions would result from choosing plans that either pay a smaller share of covered health care costs (which would reduce premiums directly as well as indirectly by leading to less use of covered medical services), manage benefits more tightly, or cover fewer services. On balance, the average premium among the affected workers would be about 9 percent to 12 percent less than under current law. Those figures incorporate the other effects on premiums for employment-based plans that were summarized above. |
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434 |
|
|
| The17sss |
Republicans ARE trying to engage the process man! You just think they aren't because Democrat leadership says so and the media won't report it. Had this all been on C-SPAN as promised by Obama, more people would be aware.
For example, this was offered just last month by John Boehner: the "Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act". Read it here--> http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=414
CBO director Douglas Elmendorf scored it and found that plan, which relies on interstate competition, HSA's, and tort reform, would only cost $61 billion in the first ten years of the plan... or slightly less than 6% of what Democrats plan to spend to overhaul the entire system, while providing $68 billion in savings:
| quote: | This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.
CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results. |
Unlike the Democratic proposals, the bill would actually reduce premiums. But of course this proposal was killed by Democrats. Lets not pretend that a government run program, which would create THOUSANDS of new bureaucracies and usurp 16% of the private sector, would run efficiently, provide better quality, and be deficit netural. Expanding an entitlement program already headed for collapse and expecting a net gain?? That is a total fantasy, and I believe you are too smart to actually believe in that. The deficit neutral number Democrats like to pull from the CBO only applies if you start counting the years before the program kicks in; your boy Max Baucus admitted last week that "it depends on where you start" and Reid's bill will actually cost $2.5 TRILLION. Link here--> http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo...cost_of_rei.asp
You should read Keith Hennessey's analysis of the Joint Committe on Taxation that you mentioned before. Sure, a small percent of middle class people will spend less on their premiums, but about 68 million will spend a LOT more on theirs, meaning the middle class will be funding the bulk of it via taxation. It's quite eye opening actually:
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/12/1...l-middle-class/
Your CNN poll's sample is skewed as usual. See for yourself man... you're in the minority by a wide margin.
1) I know you hate Fox, but their poll has a dead-even sample size: 38% Democrat, 38% Republican. 57% oppose it and 34% favor it. And, 54% of the people actually prefer Congress do nothing on Health Care rather than what's being proposed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ss-health-care/
2) Here's a Quinnipiac poll from the other day. Voters disapprove 52/38 percent of the health care reform proposal under consideration in Congress, and they disapprove 56/38 percent of President Obama’s handling of health care.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1403
3) Rasmussen Poll: 51% opposed, %41% approve.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lth_care_reform
4) Gallup (with the most bias in their questioning), from Nov. 30th, still have 49% opposed, 44% for.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124496/A...egislation.aspx
It's a fact man... Congress and the Senate know the majority of Americans do not want what's being forced on them. Congress at its lowest approval ever, Obama at his lowest approval (under 50% now) and lower than any president in history this soon into a presidency... it's about power and control as evidenced by not giving a about the electorate they represent. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Don't expose him until after the current legislative session is over. There are too many important issues on the table that need the medias attention. You exposing him would be disservice to the public debate and the function of our democracy, especially so in these troubled times. |
|
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
|
Joss... lol aren't you from the UK? Why are you so invested in our health care system outcome? Anyway, it's quite the feeling to think, "Maybe I could be personally responsible for setting something in motion that could lead to even stronger public anger against two-faced politicians... especially if it could derail legislation that I'm vehimently against, and would further discredit the Democrat party which I despise."
On the other hand, doing something of that magnitude is not my style; the privacy I have in my personal life is something I really enjoy, and once the genie is out of the bottle it doesn't go back in. The more I think about the consequences involved, the less likely I am to do anything. Knowing how the media circles the wagons for Democrats, I'd have 50 reporters outside my house each day digging for dirt in every aspect of my life as if I were the one who needed to be investigated. I would probably fly off the handle at them, and be labled as a rabid, mentally unstable mouth-breathing southern right wing extremist with my face plastered all over CNN.
So, in all honesty, I probably won't this guy over. Democrat, Republican... doesn't matter; my disdain for most politicians in general and their real motives is at an all time high, and that won't change any time soon. I'll just hang out with the group that night and try to have a good time. I only wonder... if one of you liberals had serious infidelity dirt on a high profile Republican during a critical moment where legislation you were against were teetering on passage, would you keep it secret? ;) |
|
|
| Fledz |
A real change in America when it comes to healthcare doesn't rely on a bill, or a particular group or individual, it relies on the simple fact of your citizens learning that to save money you have to spend money first.
The most common comment I see from your regular Joes is "why should I pay for someone elses healthcare?". Your media either say "Good point" or "Blah blah blah (useless crap)".
The simple answer should be:
"Because, you ing uneducated, gun toting, moron, a person who ends up in hospital costs you in the long run 10 times more than they would if you had treated them early. So by not giving everybody at least a decent form of basic health cover, you're dooming your public system to years of sick and poorly treated patients that cost the country countless billions in lost healthcare. Something like a statin will cost the government a decent amount of money to treat somebodies cholesterol over the course of the rest of their life, but it will be comparatively far less than if they have a stroke/infarct, end up in hospital, need people to treat them, need more medication, possibly never be able to work again, lose core body functions etc etc etc" |
|
|
|
|
