Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 109

Thread: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

  1. #31
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,132

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    half a trillion cuts to m and m

    10 years of taxes, 6 of benefits

    mandates on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford, fines and potential criminalization down the road if they don't

    200B of unfunded mandates on already bankrupt states in the form of massive expansion of medicaid, the ghetto of health care

    the doc fix, a quarter T, off budget

    the double counting of another quarter T, according to cbo

    i could go on (and on), believe me

    we have been over this ground a thousand times

    it's a pig of a bill, a real stinker

    you betcha, we opposed it

    and we were REWARDED massively, 25 to 30 point swings towards red in MA, VA and NJ

    ALL THREE extremely important and meaningful states

    if you can pass it, pass it

    grow the heck up

    america has NEVER seen leadership act like such babies

    it's a big part of YOUR problem
    Are you denying that we have a problem with healthcare? Why is it 17% of our GNP, highest in the 1st world? Why are so many uninsured? Why is it at the root of 60% of our personal bankruptcies? Are you proud of this reverse lottery that we are running in America, a lottery that 1/4 of the posters on the board will probably lose?

    I do agree the current bill is a real stinker. Dems and Reps can agree that the existing healthcare bill is so watered down that it probably should not pass.... all the more reason for the Dems to reverse field and return the public option with a pass via reconciliation

    BTW... as much as Rep want to gloat about NJ and VA...please do.. but making it a national issue is somewhere between silly and intellectually dishonest. People do not vote for their state governor based upon their feelings about the President or national issues. Case in point, the one national election held about the same time saw a congressional district elect a Dem for the first time in more than 100 years. MA is a bit more noteworthy, but even that isn't full proof of your postulate.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 02-19-10 at 09:11 PM.

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    lawrence odonnell is the guy who had the famous meltdown last week on coffee joe and had his mic pulled

    http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/v...ll-goes-crazy/

    i've known odonnell for decades from mclaughlin group

    he's a regular now on msnbc, sometimes subs for olbermann, indeed

    odonnell, as well, was CHIEF OF STAFF in 1994 on SENATE FINANCE when hillary tried and failed to get thru her health care

    finance is the GATEWAY and max baucus is the GATEKEEPER, always was

    when odonnell talks about health care, therefore, i really listen

    no one on tv knows more about parliamentary proceedings than the frothing truther who got his mic pulled

    well, just now on olbermann, he characterized reid's statement today on this topic of reconciliation thus:

    "if that decision (reconciliation) is made, i will work to put together a package that has the best chance of clearing the parliamentary hurdles..."

    THIS is the LANGUAGE emanating from leadership which is being latched on to by some in the media who would have you believe leadership is doing anything other than talking out their behinds on this empty threat to reconcile

    the point---reconciliation CANNOT be done, it's PHYSICALLY impossible

    read reid again

    does that sound like a man confident to you?

    they're talking reconciliation for 2 or 3 reasons

    1. they're posturing heading into the summit

    2. they're appeasing the movement libs who are suffering heartbreak over this

    3. they CAN'T APPEAR defeatist, now, can they?

    of course they're gonna push happy talk
    Last edited by The Prof; 02-19-10 at 09:42 PM.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    In my opinion, this is bad, and for the following reasons:

    1) It mandates that most Americans purchase insurance. This IS Socialistic in nature.

    2) It will add more than a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

    3) It will make steep cuts in Medicare, a program that many Americans have spent a lifetime paying into already.

    4) It will put the Federal government in the insurance business, something that it has no business being in.
    In fairness, we should probably wait until Monday and see what's actually in the WH plan that contains the compromises -- and/or the reconciliation bill made up of House and Senate bills. (not sure when that's due)

    All through this debate, people have been very quick to say what was in the bill and how it was going to effect our live in a negative way, then, down the road, the fact checkers end up saying that's just not the case.

    Re: Medicare -- I've seen first hand how wasteful that can be. Providers really take advantage and charge up as many goods and services as they can.

    The federal government is in the highway business, transportation business, tourist/leisure business, mail and parcel post business, to name a few.

    I would rather see tax-incentives and guaranteed loans to non-profits and co-ops at the state and local level. Use the most successful state-run health care programs and offer incentives to other states to adopt similar programs.

  4. #34
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    wait to see what's in the bill?

    LOL!

    everyone knows what's in the bills

    they're almost identical except the senate taxes cadillacs and the house goes after big earners

    the house has stupak, the senate doesn't

    wait to see what's in the compromise?

    LOL!

    like that's gonna make any difference

    as if some unknown entity is gonna make its magic entrance

    we already know what's in the bills, it's been all over everyone's favorite channel, cspan

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    This is absolutely horrible.

    No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

    I'm talking about reconciliation.

    While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

    The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

    The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

    This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

    If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

    By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

    Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

    If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

    This is not Change we can believe in.

    This is not post partisanship.

    This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.

    This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is absolutely horrible.

    No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

    I'm talking about reconciliation.

    While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

    The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

    The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

    This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

    If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

    By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

    Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

    If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

    This is not Change we can believe in.

    This is not post partisanship.

    This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.

    This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.
    I agree with most of what you said -- but I'm beginning to think this could be posturing or bluffing on the part of the Dems.

    They have this reconciled bill standing by while the WH releases the "compromised" plan. It puts pressure on the GOP to take a good look at the compromises.

    There's got to be a centrist version of health care reform that they can agree on.

    Meanwhile, Anthem Blue Cross has started price gouging Californians. If that trends spreads to other states and people see their monthly premiums go up 39%++... The GOP is going to have some 'splaining to do.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    That would certainly help balance the budget as Texas is not a contributor but rather a net dependent state.
    Texas pays in more than they receive. The only way they become a net consumer is if you include Federal expenditures that aren't appropriated by the state government.

    http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Federal_F...urces_0508.pdf

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    This is absolutely horrible.

    No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

    I'm talking about reconciliation.

    While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

    The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

    The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

    This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

    If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

    By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

    oh, no, my so right on friend, that might be a worry if they had a chance but they don't, they're gonna get their clocks cleaned, there will be no precedent

    Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

    If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

    This is not Change we can believe in.

    This is not post partisanship.

    This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual
    .

    !!!

    This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.
    excuse my liberties with this masterpiece of a post, my friend, but i got excited, which at my age almost never happens anymore

    thanks for that

    i'm alive, baby!

    just kidding

    yes, you are so right, so spot on

    which is just ONE MORE reason they WON'T do it, never would, never could, never intended to

    as you point out, ANOTHER PROBLEM with the nuke option is its LACK OF LEGITIMACY

    more specifically, IT IS PERCEIVED as lacking legitimacy

    and on an issue so very, very large and so very, very controversial, as you so powerfully note

    that is, if they even TRY for ONE DAY to push THIS bill by anything other than NORMAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE they will be SEEN as CHEATERS

    on top of everything else

    awesome post, sir, BEST i've seen around here in awhile, my opinion

    cliff
    Last edited by The Prof; 02-19-10 at 11:05 PM.

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    oh, yes, and for all the reasons so powerfully put forth above, THE PARTY WILL NEVER GET 51 SHOULD IT EVEN TRY

    THAT'S how REPUGNANT is this approach

    you'll see

  10. #40
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,156

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    And it will lead to SO many new jobs, won't it? I mean, the key to getting the economy moving is to nationalize healthcare.
    while it was unintended, there is more than a little truth in your statement

    the medical system is presently undersized to accommodate the large increase in the number of patients who will be seeking medical attention
    while it will require some time to train those new medical practitioners, jobs must be added to that industry

    in my opinion, an aspect more important to the economy as a result of expanded access to health care via a public option is the resulting boon to small businesses. many employees are now tied to their jobs only because to do something else would cost them health coverage. having portability of health insurance will allow many to move to other places of employment where the opportunities are greater. while large businesses have been subject to ever higher health care expenses, they now have an ability to negotiate favorable rates which small businesses do not enjoy. that provides them an economic advantage - which will be lost once the public option is available
    and just as small business has suffered that disadvantage historically, our nation's international trade sector has waged economic battle on an uneven playing field. those businesses operating in countries with nationalized health coverage do not incur the same overhead expenses for health expenses as do those in the USA. while we still need to renegotiate the free trade agreements to become fair trade agreements, allowing our nation's employers economic parity with their international rivals relative to health care costs will only make our domestic economy more dynamic
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •