Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare Predictions for May 2015 (Page 26)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some of them really just don't trust the liberals and democrats. If the Democrats proposed to send a space shuttle to an asteroid heading towards earth in order to save the planet, they would oppose it on that principal.
That is a very meaningful point. You basically acknowledge that the conservative/Republican position is not rational, even to the extent of being willing to die in blithe ignorance than acknowledge a reality that doesn't conform to their chosen emotional fealties.

If you have insurance, would you be willing to give it up -- out of principle -- because Democrats forced you to have it to protect your health and the health of your family?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[Josh:] I don't have health insurance and I haven't gotten it yet for a handful of reasons:
I very sincerely hope you aren't injured in an unanticipated accident or suffer a disease that you didn't plan on contracting that would require extensive medical care.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the point of getting insurance before you get sick now?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin] . Should I assume that you are healthy and therefore don't have health insurance for yourself or your family? Not yet, I mean [Smile]
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seneca:What's the point of getting insurance before you get sick now?
You can't get insurance on your way to the hospital if it's 10pm and you're unconscious after a car accident.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ai: I very sincerely hope you aren't injured in an unanticipated accident or suffer a disease that you didn't plan on contracting that would require extensive medical care.
Thanks, me too. I've hoped that for a few years now (since I left my job at UPS). I'll continue to hope that those things don't happen (and take precautions to avoid those things) whether or not I have health insurance.

I would have been relatively OK under either of those scenarios prior to the ACA. Depending on the time frame, I would have been responsible for either 0% of 10% of the hospital bills, and I believe NJ already had a provision for pre-existing conditions, so I think I could have gotten insurance if I came down with cancer.

I would be in a much worse position if I had paid $2000-$3000 over the past 6 years for health insurance. I wouldn't own a business, I would have struggled to replace my car when I did, and I'd likely be in some small amount of debt.

[ April 21, 2014, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
That is a very meaningful point. You basically acknowledge that the conservative/Republican position is not rational, even to the extent of being willing to die in blithe ignorance than acknowledge a reality that doesn't conform to their chosen emotional fealties.

If you have insurance, would you be willing to give it up -- out of principle -- because Democrats forced you to have it to protect your health and the health of your family?

Apparently you were not reading what I wrote.

"You basically acknowledge that the conservative/Republican position is not rational"

I did? I don't think that was THE conservative/Republican position. I gave several, and you seem to have cherry picked the weakest one and turned it into THE conservative/Republican position. Thanks.

"If you have insurance, would you be willing to give it up -- out of principle -- because Democrats forced you to have it to protect your health and the health of your family? "

No. But that isn't exactly what the ACA does, does it? My state FORCES everyone to have car insurance. It's basically a good idea but I have some beef. One thing they don't do is subsidize some people's car insurance.

Look, I'm out of this thread if this is what I'm going to have to deal with. People misreading what I write and then misrepresenting policy. Have fun.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why didn't they do all these things? They weren't compromising.
You're begging the question a bit. They were compromising all over the place.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Why didn't they do all these things? They weren't compromising.
You're begging the question a bit. They were compromising all over the place.
With who, and to what end? They didn't win any votes by compromising. What did the democrats get, and from whom? What did those people give the democrats in return?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They didn't win any votes by compromising.
Well, they didn't know that when they compromised. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To try to secure Republican support and vote. They didn't get anything in return, except maybe a slightly better inkling that the Republican objective was not to actually make a positive contribution to governance, but to simply try to make them fail, regardless to the benefit or damage caused in the process.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyr: To try to secure Republican support and vote.
I'm sorry, I have more faith in President Obama's abilities than that. I don't believe he didn't gave stuff away for empty promises.

Presidents have entire staffs whose job it is to negotiate with and nose-count congress. This bill was his highest priority. I find it incredibly hard to believe that he gave away things he wanted in the bill on the _hope_ that it might get him some republican votes.

When you negotiate you get things in return.

My question was sincere (in that I expected someone might be able to answer it), and I still imagine Tom will be able to back up his statement with something that make sense. I'm interested to read that.

However, the idea that the democrats gave stuff away that they wanted in order to maybe get votes that they never actually got sounds very, very far fetched to me.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

"You can't get insurance on your way to the hospital if it's 10pm and you're unconscious after a car accident. "...

... But you *will* be treated with the equality that any other emergency room patient would receive... as it should be. From that point, you will have to reference your IRS return declaration that "hardship" prevented payment of insurance premiums, and that you would have paid them on your completed "application" when able to comply.

I am not suggesting that this is moral behavior, but the IRS normally assumes the taxpayer will always "avoid" taxes where possible... and it is possible to be "legally" immoral. The Obama administration provokes, and facilitates immoral behavior where political imperatives dictate a necessity.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want a better example of Obama's approach to compromise, you need to look at the stimulus bill, where the initial measure that he propose was a pre-made compromise between what his advisors were telling him was necessary and what the nominal Republican proposal was, in hopes of gaining expedient passage. He failed to get that and instead sent the first hint to Republicans that they could take advantage of his attempts to reach out by being completely intransigent.

Obama didn't give anything away or not give anything away for the ACA- he kept the Executive hands off of it completely and let the Congressional leadership work it out. And they put things on the table that, per their experience normally would have worked, and had worked in the past when they were dealing with a party interested in looking good on governance, but completely failed when the party focus was on unseating the president without regard to quality of governance.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr: I don't understand that at all. They had every democrat line up and vote for the thing. After some time, they knew every republican was going to oppose the bill.

Why exactly didn't the democrats vote for the bill they wanted? They had all of the votes. They could pass whatever they collectively wanted without the republicans, and the republicans made it clear they wouldn't be voting for the bill. At that point, why did the democrats continue to "compromise" with another party that wasn't at the table? What exactly did the democrats get in return for that "compromise"?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Noel:. But you *will* be treated with the equality that any other emergency room patient would receive... as it should be. From that point, you will have to reference your IRS return declaration that "hardship" prevented payment of insurance premiums, and that you would have paid them on your completed "application" when able to comply.
If you say so. I wouldn't base my financial well being on this plan. Sounds like the sorta thing that gets squished by a bureaucrat or a judge.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The compromises were to secure democrat votes. Not to try and gain republican votes.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why exactly didn't the democrats vote for the bill they wanted?
You make the mistake of assuming that all Democrats all want the same thing, and are trained and capable of voting monolithically the way Republicans do. Until the Tea Party started eating the Republicans from the inside, the Blue Dogs were doing the same thing to the Democrats.

The Democrats, as a political party, have long been incompetent at any sort of scheming.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

"If you say so. I wouldn't base my financial well being on this plan. Sounds like the sorta thing that gets squished by a bureaucrat or a judge. "...

What is a judge to make of any number of waivers, and exemptions, that Barry has implemented by executive decree? How, for example, can an insurance company be forced, by state insurance commissions, to reinstate "junk" policies for which actuarial tables do not (and cannot) exist, and that are expressly "illegal" under terms of the UCA?

Your focus on "financial" well-being is not misplaced given the arbitrary character of UCA administration, but it pales in comparison to the *medical* well-being of virtually all Americans.

[ April 21, 2014, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
Why exactly didn't the democrats vote for the bill they wanted? They had all of the votes. They could pass whatever they collectively wanted without the republicans, and the republicans made it clear they wouldn't be voting for the bill. At that point, why did the democrats continue to "compromise" with another party that wasn't at the table? What exactly did the democrats get in return for that "compromise"?

Because tehy had made a promise to try to conduct business in a bipartisan manner, and so trying as best they could to reach out and secure cross party votes was an equally high priority for them, even if it meant sacrificing what they might have been able to get if they actually had a sufficiently unified desire (something that is a false presumption in and of itself) to get it through on a purely partisan basis.

They hoped, at the very least , to gain public acknowledgement of their efforts to reach out and compromise, completely underestimating the short memory of the public and the degree to which the Republicans would use money and media to gaslight the narrative.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The Democrats, as a political party, have long been incompetent at any sort of scheming. "...

Historically, this is true, but there has not been an authentic Blue Dog Democrat since Zell Miller.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
The compromises were to secure democrat votes. Not to try and gain republican votes.

The later compromises were, once the most conservative Democrats realized that the more liberal Republicans had, de facto, handed them the power to squeeze concessions out of the process.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"The Democrats, as a political party, have long been incompetent at any sort of scheming. "...

Historically, this is true, but there has not been an authentic Blue Dog Democrat since Zell Miller.

Exactly. Many of the Democrats didn't even know what was in the bill. They could have passed anything they wanted, so they passed this. They own it entirely.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom:You make the mistake of assuming that all Democrats all want the same thing, and are trained and capable of voting monolithically the way Republicans do.
No, I acknowledged above that the democrats had to compromise within their own ranks to get this thing passed ("...They could pass whatever they collectively wanted without the republican...") although I didn't acknowledge it explicitly, so I don't mind the misrepresentation of my position.

I agree with the assertion that the democrats had to compromise within their own party to get this bill passed. I thought you and others were asserting that they compromised with the Republicans or some other group.

I just want to be clear that the democrats are fully responsible for this bill. Whatever parts you think are good, whatever parts you think are bad, the Republicans aren't to blame. I think a lot of people say "the bill was a compromise" to excuse democrats. This bill (good, bad, or mixed) belongs to President Obama and the democrats that voted for it.

(I also want to be clear: I think the republican leadership sucks and the republican platform is pretty bad right now. I'm not defending them; I'm just refusing to share the blame [or credit] for the bill with them.)

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin:Because tehy had made a promise to try to conduct business in a bipartisan manner, and so trying as best they could to reach out and secure cross party votes was an equally high priority for them, even if it meant sacrificing what they might have been able to get if they actually had a sufficiently unified desire (something that is a false presumption in and of itself) to get it through on a purely partisan basis.

They hoped, at the very least, to gain public acknowledgement of their efforts to reach out and compromise, completely underestimating the short memory of the public and the degree to which the Republicans would use money and media to gaslight the narrative.

I believe that you believe this narrative. I think it's hogwash.

It seems to me that it's impossible for us (any of us, I'm not talking about you and me in particular) to have any sort of fact-informed discussion on this issue. The information we have access to can't tell us what the motivations were of those who were passing it. We would need President Obama, a high level congressman, or at least a high level staffer to come on here (and speak candidly and truthfully). Beyond that, we just have what we saw at the circus.

For my part, when I watched President Obama and the Democrats talk about this bill, it was clear to me that the only thing they cared about was getting it passed.

Beyond what I saw, from a point of view of human nature, it's the narrative that makes the most sense to me. If they were truly concerned with bipartisanship, they wouldn't have passed it; some very large percentage of the country hates this idea, and all of the republicans in congress opposed the idea.

To me, if I'm trying to be bi-partisan, that means I don't pass the bill right now. It means I have to go convince more people that my idea is good. Shoving a bitter pill down the throat of roughly half the country isn't bi-partisanship, no matter how you structure it. For example, if a Republican President had a super majority in congress and said to the democrats in the country "I'm going to double military spending, halve poverty programs, cut taxes across the board, and dismantle half of the federal government. But hey, come to the table, within those confines, I've tried structuring the bill in a way that's more palatable to you" you couldn't call that bi-partisanship with a straight face.

Similarly, the idea of quasi-nationalized healthcare that subsidizes the insurance system is too far away from the republican platform and the goals that many conservatives have for this country. I don't care how you try to slice up the details; if the end goal has those basic points, it's not bi-partisan.

--

The narrative you're providing appears to be divorced from the reality I witnessed. I believe we watched the same events, but we generated two extraordinarily different narratives. Perhaps it's me, perhaps it's you. Most likely, it's both of us to some degree or another.

All of that being said, I don't know how to even begin trying to bridge the perception gap here. We're too far apart.

[ April 21, 2014, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:

All of that being said, I don't know how to even begin trying to bridge the perception gap here. We're too far apart.

But...but...but...but...

What about the OBJECTIVE FACTS!?!?!?!?!

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!
[Exploding]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Razz] I love objective facts. I just don't think we have access to them here. The topic is "What were the motivations of the democrats when they were trying to pass the ACA".

I mean, I have no idea. As Tom properly pointed out, they aren't a monolithic group. Even if you just focus on one democrat, I still have no idea. I have the TV-shows he published, I have virtually no access to his internal thoughts or plans.

We can try to read the tea-leaves of his released statements. If we're talking about the group, we can try to divine the motivations behind their collective released statements. We'll all see what we want to see, and I don't believe there will be any thing in those 'facts' that will help any of us get one step closer to the truth on this (very narrow, and not very important) topic.

[ April 21, 2014, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have the motivations of the Senate majority leader on record. He pretty much controlled whether the bill would have passed or failed in the senate. He stated this bill was meant as a step to sp.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. The information we have access to can't tell us what the motivations were of those who were passing it.
We had high level Republicans explicitly say that their objectives were to boot Obama out of office and to do their best to explicitly stall any useful progress on reforms.

quote:
To me, if I'm trying to be bi-partisan, that means I don't pass the bill right now.
In other words, pass the bill never, since the only "bi-partisan" solution at that point is to never pass anything.

They already tried that approach. It cost them another 16 years, twice. in which no attempt to fix anything was made, and pushed the bill further to the right- to the point that they started from a counterproposal that the Republicans put forward (apparently not as a serious proposal, so earnest were they about actually maybe doing something)

quote:
some very large percentage of the country hates this idea, and all of the republicans in congress opposed the idea.
Only after the Republicans campaigned against it because the Democrats put it on the table.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
We have the motivations of the Senate majority leader on record. He pretty much controlled whether the bill would have passed or failed in the senate. He stated this bill was meant as a step to sp.

No matter how many times you repeat that misrepresentation, it does not become any more true.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin:In other words, pass the bill never, since the only "bi-partisan" solution at that point is to never pass anything.
Yes. If your goal is to be bi-partisan you don't pass this bill. This is a partisan bill by it's nature.

I'm not saying the democrats should have been bi-partisan (in fact, I am saying I don't think they cared very much about that at all). You're the one who provided that narrative.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In other words, pass the bill never, since the only 'bi-partisan' solution at that point is to never pass anything. "...

Are you agreeing that no bipartisan legislation came out of the 111th Congress?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel: That's got nothing to do with what he said. He was talking about this bill, not every bill.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, saying that the country will eventually adopt a non-insurance based form of healthcare doesn't mean that the ACA was designed to bring that about.

From the Las Vegas Sun:
quote:
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Nothing about a hidden purpose of ACA.

Or were you referring to a different statement?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
We have the motivations of the Senate majority leader on record. He pretty much controlled whether the bill would have passed or failed in the senate. He stated this bill was meant as a step to sp.

No matter how many times you repeat that misrepresentation, it does not become any more true.
Could either of you provide the quote and surrounding context that Seneca's referring to?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
Pyrtolin:In other words, pass the bill never, since the only "bi-partisan" solution at that point is to never pass anything.
Yes. If your goal is to be bi-partisan you don't pass this bill. This is a partisan bill by it's nature.
No passing the bill would not have been bipartisan, because no-bill was the Republican's explicit partisan solution. Capitulation is not bi-partisanship, fusing ideas to reach a mutually agreeable middle is. (And it was amusing to watch REpublicans try and pull amendments they offered off the table once they realized that the Democrats were actually going to give them those fixes and improvements as an offer to try to garner support, just to preserve the illusion that the Democrats weren't trying to reach out in every possible way.)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

"noel: That's got nothing to do with what he said. He was talking about this bill, not every bill. "...

This seems a little more general to me. :

"We had high level Republicans explicitly say that their objectives were to boot Obama out of office and to do their best to explicitly stall any useful progress on reforms. "

... And to feign complete ignorance of political motivation(s) is not particularly realistic, or useful to frank dialogue.

[ April 21, 2014, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/10/absolutely-yes-reid-says-obamacare-will-lead-to-a-single-payer-healthcare-system/Is one- all of the reporting on it comes from conservative sources though, because it's a popular misinterpretation for them to harp on.

What he said is that the US health care system is eventually headed for single payer, and that's what he would have preferred to see. He calls Obama care a step in the right direction, but doesn't think it's a great solution- no because it will lead to single payer, but rather because single payer is the only really viable model, and with or without Obamacare, the private insurance model is doomed to fail because it's fundamentally unworkable, even with measures taken to reign in its worst abuses.

[ April 21, 2014, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyr: No passing the bill would not have been bipartisan, because no-bill was the Republican's explicit partisan solution. Capitulation is not bi-partisanship, fusing ideas to reach a mutually agreeable middle is.
These ideas are fundamentally opposed. You can't fuse them. One group wants nationalized healthcare, one group doesn't. It's not a difference of implementation issue. It's a fundamental difference.

Anyway, what are we talking about and why does it matter, exactly?

I don't care that the democrats were partisan in passing this. Sometimes our leaders are partisan. If I supported the ACA I would say "Great, they got something done. Good job guys."

If you want to call what they did bi-partisan, I am going to point out that I think that's a nonsense thing to say. I don't really think there's much merit in dissecting the meaning of the words and talking about status quos and god knows what else. We could go back and forth for 5 pages on this corner of a corner of a point, and neither of us would benefit from the conversation, and god knows the rest of the forum would simply stop reading along.

You asserted something for everyone to think about. I provided a counter assertion for people to think about. I don't see much value in laboring the issue beyond that.

Feel free to have the last word on this particular topic (what the democrats' motivations were, and whether they were acting in a partisan or non-partisan way). I'd like to get back to the main discussion.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"In other words, pass the bill never, since the only 'bi-partisan' solution at that point is to never pass anything. "...

Are you agreeing that no bipartisan legislation came out of the 111th Congress?

I'm saying the Republicans worked as a block to prevent any useful legislation, no matter how nominally bipartisan the contents of it were, to the point that you need to actually look at the content of what was passed rather than the voting record to evaluate partisan influence over it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  ...  46  47  48   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1