Unprecedented Success Rate.

[bpwallace49]

He's Perch's personal little stalker. Seriously, find a Perch post that isn't followed by a BP post within 5 replies or 15 minutes...

 

Not all posts . . . only when it sets off my "unfair and unbalanced" alarm.

[westvirginia]

Not all posts . . . only when it sets off my "unfair and unbalanced" alarm.

 

Yeah, that makes sense. Since by your posts above you know the motives of every single congresscritter.

 

bp - "Why haven't the heffulumps put out plans?"

 

perch - "They have, X, Y and Z are three that I know of"

 

bp - "They don't count since they are in the minority right now and they know they wouldn't pass anyway."

 

Lemme ask you lefties this - if the cost is what's SOOO out of control right now, why doesn't this plan really do much to address it? In fact, I'd say mostly this plan does next-to-nothing to curb costs, comparatively. It seems to be about creating a new entitlement, to get more people voting for those doing the entitle-ing. The repub plans do seem to attack costs. But you really want to attack costs, let the individual get the same break for insurance as his employer, to get rid of that insulation from the actual cost. But then that would be a market solution and actually remove gov't from the equation, wouldn't it?

[bpwallace49]

WV, I agree with you that the current bill does not address the points that it was SUPPOSED to do, control costs. Nothing is being done about the delivery system or to make health care cost efficient. I do not think the current bill will accomplish the point of starting this whole exercise.

 

The point wasnt throwing out plans that have no hope of passing, but actually WORKING TOGETHER to accomplish a goal that is important to a majority of Americans. Working together is a concept that by and large is ignored in gubmnet. Is that a good thing? What is better, to work jointly towards a goal that most Americans want . .controlling health care costs . . . or just butting heads and getting to a point of right vs left?

 

Can ANYONE answer that question? Perch? WV? Why not try and accomplish a JOINT bill that actually addresses the problems instead of forcing a left vs right situation?

[Perchoutofwater]

Can ANYONE answer that question? Perch? WV? Why not try and accomplish a JOINT bill that actually addresses the problems instead of forcing a left vs right situation?

 

I don't know why Obama hasn't had a single Republican to the WH to discuss health care since last April. I don't know why the majority party is locking out the minority party in a majority of the health care discussions. I can certainly understand the minority's opposition when you yourself say this is a bad bill, and in both the house and the senate, the vote on the bill was taken really prior to anyone having a legitimate chance to read it, and since so much of it was written in secret, the minority party really didn't have a chance to see what was coming out. I would like to see some real reform done instead of just another entitlement.

[westvirginia]

WV, I agree with you that the current bill does not address the points that it was SUPPOSED to do, control costs. Nothing is being done about the delivery system or to make health care cost efficient. I do not think the current bill will accomplish the point of starting this whole exercise.

 

The point wasnt throwing out plans that have no hope of passing, but actually WORKING TOGETHER to accomplish a goal that is important to a majority of Americans. Working together is a concept that by and large is ignored in gubmnet. Is that a good thing? What is better, to work jointly towards a goal that most Americans want . .controlling health care costs . . . or just butting heads and getting to a point of right vs left?

 

Can ANYONE answer that question? Perch? WV? Why not try and accomplish a JOINT bill that actually addresses the problems instead of forcing a left vs right situation?

 

BP, I'd just as soon nothing was done because they all care about nothing more than their own power and we get screwed in the mean time. That having been said, in the case of this bill, the repubs have truly been left out in the cold. They aren't needed to get it passed, so their input is neither desired nor sought (other than Olympia's). I don't think they care about costs. They care about their power, and if costs were a HUGH issue for enough voters then it would truly get done in a way to cut costs. I think that THEY think if they create another entitlement, they can come along every election cycle and say "Democrats got you HC, and if you don't keep us in power, the other side will take it away!"

 

To specifically answer your last question - because the dems don't need the repubs, and the repubs don't have the power to do anything meaningful. Can you not see that for yourself? It's the same thing the repubs did with the patriot act and all the crap they did post-9/11. The dems screamed bloody murder RE civil rights (and were RIGHT to) but that sucker is still in power a year later. Things that make you go "hmm".

[Ursa Majoris]

Lemme ask you lefties this - if the cost is what's SOOO out of control right now, why doesn't this plan really do much to address it?

I'm a lefty and I think the Frankenstein emerging from the place we laughingly call Congress is a monstrosity. I'm a fan of the plan that Az floated a while back.

[Perchoutofwater]

To specifically answer your last question - because the dems don't need the repubs, and the repubs don't have the power to do anything meaningful. Can you not see that for yourself? It's the same thing the repubs did with the patriot act and all the crap they did post-9/11. The dems screamed bloody murder RE civil rights (and were RIGHT to) but that sucker is still in power a year later. Things that make you go "hmm".

 

WV, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 was Russ Feingold. Mary Louisiana Purchase Landrieu abstained. Everyone else voted for it. So while publicly it may have had some opposition it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The health care debacle has been extremely partisan.

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm a lefty and I think the Frankenstein emerging from the place we laughingly call Congress is a monstrosity. I'm a fan of the plan that Az floated a while back.

 

I didn't have any major problems with it either.

[bpwallace49]

BP, I'd just as soon nothing was done because they all care about nothing more than their own power and we get screwed in the mean time. That having been said, in the case of this bill, the repubs have truly been left out in the cold. They aren't needed to get it passed, so their input is neither desired nor sought (other than Olympia's). I don't think they care about costs. They care about their power, and if costs were a HUGH issue for enough voters then it would truly get done in a way to cut costs. I think that THEY think if they create another entitlement, they can come along every election cycle and say "Democrats got you HC, and if you don't keep us in power, the other side will take it away!"

 

To specifically answer your last question - because the dems don't need the repubs, and the repubs don't have the power to do anything meaningful. Can you not see that for yourself? It's the same thing the repubs did with the patriot act and all the crap they did post-9/11. The dems screamed bloody murder RE civil rights (and were RIGHT to) but that sucker is still in power a year later. Things that make you go "hmm".

 

Therein lies the rub. If a majority of Americans are concerned and worried about the escalating price of health care, why wasnt ANYTHING done when one party wasnt put in the position of dominating another? Becase the parties only giva a crap about re-election, and keeping the country polarized against itself plays into their hands. It is VERY rare that one party dominates both houses with a super majority and the White House. It is a massive over-swing of the politcal pendulum as a reaction to the last admin. Soo the people arent happy with the right in charge (as proven by the Dems controlling everything) and they areent happy with the left in charge (depending on thje election cycle the next several years). So who gets screwed over yet again? The American people.

 

Can anyone name ONE Repub congressperson that actually tried to work with the left and their majority on health care? Simply throwing out something and saying "we tried" versus actually proposing amendments? I like a lot of Paul Ryan's health care proposal (conservative Republican from SE Wisconsin), but it was DOA without enlisting some other supporters that are more MODERATE that would listen (like Snowe).

 

Politicans that actually care about the people died off a long time ago . . if they ever existed.

[bpwallace49]

I'm a lefty and I think the Frankenstein emerging from the place we laughingly call Congress is a monstrosity. I'm a fan of the plan that Az floated a while back.

 

I concur

[bpwallace49]

WV, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 was Russ Feingold. Mary Louisiana Purchase Landrieu abstained. Everyone else voted for it. So while publicly it may have had some opposition it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The health care debacle has been extremely partisan.

 

Attacks against the US tend to galvanize popular support. Reflective of the will of thier constituents.

[westvirginia]

WV, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 was Russ Feingold. Mary Louisiana Purchase Landrieu abstained. Everyone else voted for it. So while publicly it may have had some opposition it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The health care debacle has been extremely partisan.

 

 

Attacks against the US tend to galvanize popular support. Reflective of the will of thier constituents.

 

Right - as no one wanted to be painted as "against punishing these evil terrorists" or however they would have been painted in the next election cycle. But a bunch of them screamed bloody murder about the application of that law - and IMO rightfully so. But when those screaming about it can actually do something, they don't. The point I'm making is that this same deal happened 7 years ago - just about a different subject.

[bpwallace49]

Right - as no one wanted to be painted as "against punishing these evil terrorists" or however they would have been painted in the next election cycle. But a bunch of them screamed bloody murder about the application of that law - and IMO rightfully so. But when those screaming about it can actually do something, they don't. The point I'm making is that this same deal happened 7 years ago - just about a different subject.

 

And the cycle of both parties screwing the rest of us merrily continues on . .

[tosberg34]

bp, you are up on your high horse and there is no reason to argue with you when you get like this. You basically called me a liar in the last post, then said well you really didn't lie, but your guys through something out there that was disingenuous to placate their weak minded supporters. How very open minded of you bp. Unfortunately you only see the fault in one side, and ironically you fault the side that isn't in power and that isn't invited into the room to discuss it. So, I'm an unthinking idiot and you know all. You wonder why you end up in so many flame wars here on the boards.

 

See mine and BP's exchange in our posts from yesterday (this same thread). When you don't agree with BP he tends to go straight into insult mode (i.e. you're a troll, you're stupid, you're just a right-wing robot, etc...). I told him to come down from his ivory tower yesterday which is why he continues to insult me.

 

Again, a typical liberal snob. "You stupid, me smart" attitude. He's exactly what he accuses everyone else of being yet tries to play himself off as balanced and fair. He's a complete fraud.

[westvirginia]

And the cycle of both parties screwing the rest of us merrily continues on . .

 

Right - which is why (among other reasons) I'm almost totally a 3rd party guy. That in and of itself isn't a panacea, to make it stick we'd always have to be willing to vote those people right back out again if they started going back to a "ruling class" mentality.

[bpwallace49]

Right - which is why (among other reasons) I'm almost totally a 3rd party guy. That in and of itself isn't a panacea, to make it stick we'd always have to be willing to vote those people right back out again if they started going back to a "ruling class" mentality.

 

I agree. Under the current system (of course designed by the two parties in power) 3rd party candidates have very little chance most of the time.

[westvirginia]

I agree. Under the current system (of course designed by the two parties in power) 3rd party candidates have very little chance most of the time.

 

Again, correct, but Ross Perot got something like 17% of the vote and he almost managed to scare the gov't straight. Slick willie didn't get any of his liberal dreams (HC, taxation of retirement) done and then that fostered the repub revolution in 94. Now, it didn't last long, but I think the current climate shows people are pizzed. They really thought the obamessiah was different and now many feel they were sold a bill of goods (just like many did with shrub's drunken spending). You never know...

[bpwallace49]

Again, correct, but Ross Perot got something like 17% of the vote and he almost managed to scare the gov't straight. Slick willie didn't get any of his liberal dreams (HC, taxation of retirement) done and then that fostered the repub revolution in 94. Now, it didn't last long, but I think the current climate shows people are pizzed. They really thought the obamessiah was different and now many feel they were sold a bill of goods (just like many did with shrub's drunken spending). You never know...

 

What I would REALLY like to see more is more independent CONGRESSPEOPLE as a precursor to a independent President. Without COngress, it doesnt matter what party is in the White House. That way instead of having legislation like this come down to buying off a Senator from Nebraska, an independent without a party boss chirping in their ear could be the deciding vote.

 

Considering the right and left now tend to vote in lockstep with each other, more independents running for House and Senate would truly be best for the country, IMHO.

 

But that comes down to gerrymandering districts and campaign finance reform.

 

BTW, I think most people are fiscally conservative, but liberal on socail issues. Unfortunately neither party can represent that, so people pick what is more important to them between the two when it is voting time (if they even bother to vote).

[Perchoutofwater]

What I would REALLY like to see more is more independent CONGRESSPEOPLE as a precursor to a independent President.

 

They are out there. I believe you and many on the left refer to them as tea partiers.

[bpwallace49]

They are out there. I believe you and many on the left refer to them as tea partiers.

 

While some of them "may" be independent, most of them are further right than the GOP. That isnt very moderate and representative of a lot of districts. But since they are sponsored by Faux News I guess that makes them "independent".

 

Perch . . a perfect example was in upstate New York. The GOP nominnee lost after a TEA party guy split the conservative vote and handed the seat to the Democrats. One plank platform just dont survive and just tend to split the vote of the party they emerged from. IE- Nader took votes from the left, and TEA people take votes from the right.

 

Real independents would take votes from BOTH parties . . right? To appeal to moderates from BOTh parties?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Real independents would take votes from BOTH parties . . right? To appeal to moderates from BOTh parties?

Well that would just make to much sense.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I don't know why Obama hasn't had a single Republican to the WH to discuss health care since last April. I don't know why the majority party is locking out the minority party in a majority of the health care discussions. I can certainly understand the minority's opposition when you yourself say this is a bad bill, and in both the house and the senate, the vote on the bill was taken really prior to anyone having a legitimate chance to read it, and since so much of it was written in secret, the minority party really didn't have a chance to see what was coming out. I would like to see some real reform done instead of just another entitlement.

 

Because the minority has no intention to act in good faith in any negotiations? Because their stated goal is to damage Obama and the Democrats at every turn, playing politics instead of doing their job as legislators? You think that just MAY have something to do with it?

[bushwacked]

Because the minority has no intention to act in good faith in any negotiations? Because their stated goal is to damage Obama and the Democrats at every turn, playing politics instead of doing their job as legislators? You think that just MAY have something to do with it?

 

No no, Perch and the Republicans are clearly the victim here.

[caddyman]

See mine and BP's exchange in our posts from yesterday (this same thread). When you don't agree with BP he tends to go straight into insult mode (i.e. you're a troll, you're stupid, you're just a right-wing robot, etc...). I told him to come down from his ivory tower yesterday which is why he continues to insult me.

 

Again, a typical liberal snob. "You stupid, me smart" attitude. He's exactly what he accuses everyone else of being yet tries to play himself off as balanced and fair. He's a complete fraud.

Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark. My favorite BPism is when he states that a post was well said...you know, like he gives his approval of the post. Somehow he has decided he is the moderator of the tailgate. Self apointed moderator. But of course, that is what liberals do...we all know they are smarter than the ones that don't agree with them. Just listen, they will tell you every day.

[tosberg34]

Because the minority has no intention to act in good faith in any negotiations? Because their stated goal is to damage Bush and the Republicans at every turn, playing politics instead of doing their job as legislators? You think that just MAY have something to do with it?

 

Kind of reminds you of the Democrats when Bush was in office, doesn't it? So I fixed it for accuracy.

Edited January 18, 2010 by tosberg34