bpwallace49 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 . The Republicans were never legitimately invited to the table on drafting the HC bills. According to the Republicans . . . . . SEC, amendments could have been offered, legit proposals could have been issed in time for adoption. NONE of these were done, which is why th Republicans look like the "party of no". If they actually TRIED to do something about health care reform in the first place, they would look like heroes to their base if the Democrats dismissed their efforts to work in a manner that would benefit ALL Americans. That just didnt happen. SEC, if the right actually DID care, then why wasnt this an issue over the last 8 years? Why wasnt any kind of effort taken? All the Right had to do was TRY to be part of the process, and if Pelosi and Reid then would dismiss them, then THE LEFT would look bad and obstructionist to a bi-partisan solution. The facts are that the right chose to sit on the sidelines. The proposals "offered" (and the Paul Ryan roadmap has a LOT of good salient points to make) wasnt part of the "discussion" until after the fact. The right insisted on "no, no, just pass OUR bill" and the left said "screw you guys, we will just pass OUR bill". Bottom line is a overall bad bill. Plenty of blame to go around, but from a pure politcs standpoint, the Republicans made a lot of very stupid moves by being obstructionist when they COULD have looked like the oppressed minority valiantly trying to help the everyday American . . . but they chose to just not participate. Surprising because tradtionally the GOP tends to make savvy political moves, as oppoosed to the Democrats who tradtionally make blunders like the Coakley mistake in Massachusetts . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted February 25, 2010 Author Share Posted February 25, 2010 According to the Republicans . . . . . SEC, amendments could have been offered, legit proposals could have been issed in time for adoption. NONE of these were done, which is why th Republicans look like the "party of no". If they actually TRIED to do something about health care reform in the first place, they would look like heroes to their base if the Democrats dismissed their efforts to work in a manner that would benefit ALL Americans. That just didnt happen. SEC, if the right actually DID care, then why wasnt this an issue over the last 8 years? Why wasnt any kind of effort taken? All the Right had to do was TRY to be part of the process, and if Pelosi and Reid then would dismiss them, then THE LEFT would look bad and obstructionist to a bi-partisan solution. The facts are that the right chose to sit on the sidelines. The proposals "offered" (and the Paul Ryan roadmap has a LOT of good salient points to make) wasnt part of the "discussion" until after the fact. The right insisted on "no, no, just pass OUR bill" and the left said "screw you guys, we will just pass OUR bill". Bottom line is a overall bad bill. Plenty of blame to go around, but from a pure politcs standpoint, the Republicans made a lot of very stupid moves by being obstructionist when they COULD have looked like the oppressed minority valiantly trying to help the everyday American . . . but they chose to just not participate. Surprising because tradtionally the GOP tends to make savvy political moves, as oppoosed to the Democrats who tradtionally make blunders like the Coakley mistake in Massachusetts . . . so much bad information here it's frightening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) According to the Republicans . . . . . SEC, amendments could have been offered, legit proposals could have been issed in time for adoption. NONE of these were done, which is why th Republicans look like the "party of no". If they actually TRIED to do something about health care reform in the first place, they would look like heroes to their base if the Democrats dismissed their efforts to work in a manner that would benefit ALL Americans. That just didnt happen. SEC, if the right actually DID care, then why wasnt this an issue over the last 8 years? Why wasnt any kind of effort taken? All the Right had to do was TRY to be part of the process, and if Pelosi and Reid then would dismiss them, then THE LEFT would look bad and obstructionist to a bi-partisan solution. The facts are that the right chose to sit on the sidelines. The proposals "offered" (and the Paul Ryan roadmap has a LOT of good salient points to make) wasnt part of the "discussion" until after the fact. The right insisted on "no, no, just pass OUR bill" and the left said "screw you guys, we will just pass OUR bill". Bottom line is a overall bad bill. Plenty of blame to go around, but from a pure politcs standpoint, the Republicans made a lot of very stupid moves by being obstructionist when they COULD have looked like the oppressed minority valiantly trying to help the everyday American . . . but they chose to just not participate. Surprising because tradtionally the GOP tends to make savvy political moves, as oppoosed to the Democrats who tradtionally make blunders like the Coakley mistake in Massachusetts . . . http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/...in5510731.shtml and, by the way, the republicans wanted to be part of the process, but stated out front, that if the dems insist on a public option and funding abortion through federal funds then there is nothing to talk about... The dems wanted those items in there and were unwilling to compromise. Edited February 25, 2010 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Perch . . . is a sample of 100 people "the will of America"? If only the right actually worked on the original bill, then the left wouldnt have tried to jam it through, and we wouldnt be in this situation we are now . . . . when it comes to important stuff like this, politicians need to put the partisan crap aside and actually focus on what is best for AMERICA, not their narrowly defined talking points . . Seems like 75% of the people actually WANT health care reform perch . . I wonder why no one has brought it up prior to this? Perhaps between Clinton's attempt and now no one has cared about "the will of the people"? hhhmmm . . . . . . . The sample size was 1.023 and the margin of error was +/-3%. A sample of 1,000 people and a 3% margin of error is typical of most scientific polls. With regard to why nothing has been done since Clinton tried, is simple most people are happy with their health care. We've done the math, before and 60-65% of the people in the US (depending on citizenship and actual desire to be covered) are happy with their coverage. This issue has been blown out of proportion by Obama and the complicit media. That is not to say some reform isn't needed, but because the majority of people were happy with their coverage before Obama and the media told them not to be, it really hasn't been a front burner issue. It's similar to the gun control issue. Everyone knows Obama is for more gun control, but he isn't pushing it, because the people really don't want it. Until Obama and the media started downing our health care system people were relatively happy with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/...in5510731.shtml and, by the way, the republicans wanted to be part of the process, but stated out front, that if the dems insist on a public option and funding abortion through federal funds then there is nothing to talk about... The dems wanted those items in there and were unwilling to compromise. Again . . . this was issued THIS WEEK. How does that have anything to do with actually coming out with these ideas when the process started? The public option has been dead for some time now . . . cant lean on that. If the right actually started participating early on, and THEN the left shut them out, they would be in much better standing with rank and file Americans. But by CHOOSING to not participate, they segregate themselves. Seriously, a blunder in terms of political maneuvering . . the left wouldnt have adopted everything the right wants, but then the right could have self righteously pointed to "hey, we TRIED, but they wouldnt listen!". They just didnt do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 According to the Republicans . . . . . SEC, amendments could have been offered, legit proposals could have been issed in time for adoption. NONE of these were done, which is why th Republicans look like the "party of no". If they actually TRIED to do something about health care reform in the first place, they would look like heroes to their base if the Democrats dismissed their efforts to work in a manner that would benefit ALL Americans. That just didnt happen. SEC, if the right actually DID care, then why wasnt this an issue over the last 8 years? Why wasnt any kind of effort taken? All the Right had to do was TRY to be part of the process, and if Pelosi and Reid then would dismiss them, then THE LEFT would look bad and obstructionist to a bi-partisan solution. The facts are that the right chose to sit on the sidelines. The proposals "offered" (and the Paul Ryan roadmap has a LOT of good salient points to make) wasnt part of the "discussion" until after the fact. The right insisted on "no, no, just pass OUR bill" and the left said "screw you guys, we will just pass OUR bill". Bottom line is a overall bad bill. Plenty of blame to go around, but from a pure politcs standpoint, the Republicans made a lot of very stupid moves by being obstructionist when they COULD have looked like the oppressed minority valiantly trying to help the everyday American . . . but they chose to just not participate. Surprising because tradtionally the GOP tends to make savvy political moves, as oppoosed to the Democrats who tradtionally make blunders like the Coakley mistake in Massachusetts . . . so much bad information here it's frightening. No kidding! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/...in5510731.shtml and, by the way, the republicans wanted to be part of the process, but stated out front, that if the dems insist on a public option and funding abortion through federal funds then there is nothing to talk about... The dems wanted those items in there and were unwilling to compromise. The Republicans have floated at least 6 different proposals since they were shut of of White House health care talks in April. I know of at least two instances where Republicans urged Obama to talk to them about health care between April and August of last year where Obama basically ignored them. The fact that some people here believe the GOP is trying to be obstructionist just proves either how complicit the media has been in working for the Administration. Basically we are now be told unless the GOP rolls over an plays dead they are being obstructionist by trying to do the will of the people. The arrogance of The Administration and liberals is astounding when you consider their losses in last Novembers elections and in the special election, not to mention public opinion polls. They are sure they know what is good for us better than we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Again . . . this was issued THIS WEEK. How does that have anything to do with actually coming out with these ideas when the process started? The public option has been dead for some time now . . . cant lean on that. If the right actually started participating early on, and THEN the left shut them out, they would be in much better standing with rank and file Americans. But by CHOOSING to not participate, they segregate themselves. Seriously, a blunder in terms of political maneuvering . . the left wouldnt have adopted everything the right wants, but then the right could have self righteously pointed to "hey, we TRIED, but they wouldnt listen!". They just didnt do so. You might want to check your reading comprehension, unless we go back in time. The link was dated November 3, 2009. Maybe if the right hadn't been kicked out of talks with Dem leaders and Obama in April, they could have helped come up with some of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 . With regard to why nothing has been done since Clinton tried, is simple most people are happy with their health care. We've done the math, before and 60-65% of the people in the US (depending on citizenship and actual desire to be covered) are happy with their coverage. Not according to YOUR quoted poll Perch. I guess 75% of the people DO want change? I am REPEATEDLY gone on record that the current bill is very poor, and doesnt address the biggest concern of Americans in cost containment for average families. But for people to say that reform isnt needed, that is borderline ignorant. Hell, even Newt Gingrich has some GREAT points that are needed for health care reform to address efficiency and focus on health. Neither party can get their collective heads out of their asses to actually fix the bill . . . A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday also indicates that only a quarter of the public want Congress to stop all work on health care, with nearly three quarters saying lawmakers should pass some kind of reform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Not according to YOUR quoted poll Perch. I guess 75% of the people DO want change? I am REPEATEDLY gone on record that the current bill is very poor, and doesnt address the biggest concern of Americans in cost containment for average families. But for people to say that reform isnt needed, that is borderline ignorant. Hell, even Newt Gingrich has some GREAT points that are needed for health care reform to address efficiency and focus on health. Neither party can get their collective heads out of their asses to actually fix the bill . . . Wow, your reading comprehension sucks today, as does your listening comprehension. The poll doesn't address whether people are happy with their insurance coverage or not. It just addresses whether or not they think there should be some type of reform. I agree reform is needed, but I'd say the 25% that think this bill should be forced through are every bit if not more ignorant than the ones that don't think there should be any reform at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 No kidding! The Republicans have floated at least 6 different proposals since they were shut of of White House health care talks in April. I know of at least two instances where Republicans urged Obama to talk to them about health care between April and August of last year where Obama basically ignored them. The fact that some people here believe the GOP is trying to be obstructionist just proves either how complicit the media has been in working for the Administration. Basically we are now be told unless the GOP rolls over an plays dead they are being obstructionist by trying to do the will of the people. The arrogance of The Administration and liberals is astounding when you consider their losses in last Novembers elections and in the special election, not to mention public opinion polls. They are sure they know what is good for us better than we do. Do you have links for those meetings Perch? Seriously? Perch, just issuing "their plan" is NO BETTER than what the Dems are doing? Dont you see that? They are insisting on only getting THEIR way! How is that in any way productive at all? Issuing a bill that will never get brought up in committee versus actually proposing an AMENDMENT to the current bill that addresses . . . oh maybe . . . your silver bullet of tort reform? That would actually force the Dems to vote on the issue. perch . . . I am seriously asking here . . . what do you think would lend itself to getting passed? A "proposal" that is never formally issues to committee or in amendment form (that is waht has been done, right?) versus a formal amendment in open session that forces the Dems to put up or shut up? Newt Gingrich was quoted as saying when Clinton originally proposed health care reform as his goal was to DELAY THE PROCESS and win back more seats so it would die in committee if ever brought up again. So please dont paint the right as champions of virture on this issue. the only reason any reform at all is addressed is because of the left. Otherwise it would never have been brought up. You should know know better as a republican/staunch conservative . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I agree reform is needed, Funny . . . because the right never thought reform was needed, as evidenced by it never being addressed until the left had an overwhelming majority and forced the issue. Perch . . the Republicans never wanted health care reform. Be honest. But if 75% of the people WANT reform, does the actions of the right reflect the will of the people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Do you have links for those meetings Perch? Seriously? Perch, just issuing "their plan" is NO BETTER than what the Dems are doing? Dont you see that? They are insisting on only getting THEIR way! How is that in any way productive at all? Issuing a bill that will never get brought up in committee versus actually proposing an AMENDMENT to the current bill that addresses . . . oh maybe . . . your silver bullet of tort reform? That would actually force the Dems to vote on the issue. perch . . . I am seriously asking here . . . what do you think would lend itself to getting passed? A "proposal" that is never formally issues to committee or in amendment form (that is waht has been done, right?) versus a formal amendment in open session that forces the Dems to put up or shut up? Newt Gingrich was quoted as saying when Clinton originally proposed health care reform as his goal was to DELAY THE PROCESS and win back more seats so it would die in committee if ever brought up again. So please dont paint the right as champions of virture on this issue. the only reason any reform at all is addressed is because of the left. Otherwise it would never have been brought up. You should know know better as a republican/staunch conservative . . . . I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore as you are deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. I have never said tort reform is a silver bullet, in fact I have said exactly the opposite, that it is not a silver bullet. You've become an idiot on this issue today. Settle down, breathe and maybe we will talk about it tomorrow when you can actually read and remember what has been written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore as you are deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. I have never said tort reform is a silver bullet, in fact I have said exactly the opposite, that it is not a silver bullet. You've become an idiot on this issue today. Settle down, breathe and maybe we will talk about it tomorrow when you can actually read and remember what has been written. Today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 So is anybody watching this open and transparent government meeting? What was the next Repub candidate for pres doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 So is anybody watching this open and transparent government meeting? Watching the House carryover now... pissing me off. Did Obama really say (today) that "most working American's premiums will go up 10-12%?" I know the dems want this passed, but I wonder what public reaction will be if they pass it through reconciliation? I think the whole argument has lost focus - we're now working to reform health insurance - not health care. The former will do little to conatin costs until the latter is effectively addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 What was the next Repub candidate for pres doing? What a rogue . . . and completely irrelevant to todays discussion on health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Watching the House carryover now... pissing me off. Did Obama really say (today) that "most working American's premiums will go up 10-12%?" /color] Don't know. I was just reading up on his claim family premiums would drop 14 to 20%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Reid/Pelosi/Obama What amazes me is that these three just can't let it go. The American people don't want the crap there spewing, they couldn't even get their own party to buy it when they had total control. Their egos must be so hugh, it just amazes me. Do they actually believe in this crap, or is it they just can't admit they came up with something this lame, now it's to late to back out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1189 Has some interesting clips here, including Obama voicing his interest in tort reform and eliminating frivolous lawsuits. What will happen if the Obama includes most of the proposals of the Republicans? Will the bill still pass? Or will they remian united in their refusal to agree with a persona and a position that they have routinely demonized? Will people like Scott Brown vote his conscience or his party? Will Pelosi ever wipe that poopy-eating smirk off her botox-ridden face? Time will tell . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 The Republicans would have been glad to work w. the dems, but the dems had a supermajority and did not care what the Republicans had to offer, the could push it through in whatever form they wanted. The Republicans were never legitimately invited to the table on drafting the HC bills. See below - you answered your own complaint http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/...in5510731.shtml and, by the way, the republicans wanted to be part of the process, but stated out front, that if the dems insist on a public option and funding abortion through federal funds then there is nothing to talk about... The dems wanted those items in there and were unwilling to compromise. So, unless you do this, this, this and this, we're not going to compromise? Is that it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 ... they couldn't even get their own party to buy it when they had total control. A point that continues to amaze me. If they had pushed the issue hard during the first 6 months of the Obama administration, they'd have passed whatever bill they wanted including a public option. Instead, they played the "this is a great idea...... isn't it?" for months giving the repubs time to form public opposition. Now they cry GOP obstructionism when it was their own ineptitude that ground hc reform to a crawl. I don't think the heffalumps will concede anything - they've got little to gain from it politically. Mid-terms typically roll in favor of the party out of favor, so the louder they pitch tantrums now - the better for them in Nov.... maybe. They are taking a risk playing this card, but the dems may be betting on a paid of deuces if they push this reform via reconciliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 A point that continues to amaze me. If they had pushed the issue hard during the first 6 months of the Obama administration, they'd have passed whatever bill they wanted including a public option. Instead, they played the "this is a great idea...... isn't it?" for months giving the repubs time to form public opposition. Now they cry GOP obstructionism when it was their own ineptitude that ground hc reform to a crawl. I don't think the heffalumps will concede anything - they've got little to gain from it politically. Mid-terms typically roll in favor of the party out of favor, so the louder they pitch tantrums now - the better for them in Nov.... maybe. They are taking a risk playing this card, but the dems may be betting on a paid of deuces if they push this reform via reconciliation. Excellent points. The Democrats have NEVER been accused of making the correct decisions when it comes to party organization and strategery like the GOP. And the merry-go-round of ineptitude in gubment rolls on . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Excellent points. The Democrats have NEVER been accused of making the correct decisions when it comes to party organization and strategery like the GOP. And the merry-go-round of ineptitude in gubment rolls on . . . The problem with liberals are they are too inclusive of divergent thinking. This is one of the strengths and weaknesses of the party. They will question each other. Meanwhile the conservatives will lock-step with whatever they are told to do, all while whistling like the British in "Bridge Over the River Kwai".. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 As long as the Obamacare Bill continues to include language that requires Insurance Companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions AND requires Insurance Companies to issue a community rating, then the result of the Bill will always lead to the death of the private Insurance Industry leaving only the government to swoop in and cover everyone. So it really doesn't matter if Obama/Reid/Pelosi go in and add things that the Republicans think would work. If the Bill eventually effectively kills private business in favor of public, it should be voted down. The intended consequences of a Bill, are not always specifically spelled out in the language of a Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 As long as the Obamacare Bill continues to include language that requires Insurance Companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions AND requires Insurance Companies to issue a community rating, then the result of the Bill will always lead to the death of the private Insurance Industry leaving only the government to swoop in and cover everyone. That is not necessarily true. If you force private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions you just force them to increase their rates on everyone. It is just another form of redistribution, but it doesn't necessarily signal the death of private insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.