• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

I'd gladly sacrifice 9 or 10 Democratic senators in the next election to pass health care reform. It remains to be seen if the Senate agrees.

If the bill passes, the Democratic Party will be in the political wilderness for the next few decades. Meanwhile, the GOP will take overwhelming majorities in both houses and eventually have the power to repeal the bill. There is only one precedent for this, in 1854.


I'm all for giving the minority ample time to debate the issue

Here's the problem. In this case, the "minority" in Congress is representing the view of a majority of Americans.


but the filibuster was not intended as a tool of obstructionism

What? By definition, it was.

If anything, this debate totally proves the need for a filibuster in the Senate. Congressmen for the most part wouldn't dare filibuster popular bills which they are only mildly against, but there has to be a check to make sure that unpopular bills which have the support of a slim majority in Congress don't pass so easily. Note that in the current case, filibusters only work when a party is in complete unity, which is rare. Snowe and Collins aren't exactly hyperpartisans.
 
Obstructionism is exactly what the filibuster was intended for. It has been used for that purpose since the days of the Roman Empire.

Then why go through the whistles and bells of making congressmen stand up and speak until they drop (which, granted, we don't even do anymore. But originally we did), and have a cloture vote? Why not just mandate 60 votes?

Gill said:
So, does that mean that if legislation is passed by a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, then vetoed by Obama you will accuse him of obstructionism?

No. The president is a separate branch of government, and specifically has veto power as authorized by the Constitution whereas the filibuster is just a Senate rule...and in it's current incarnation, a relatively new Senate rule. The president's election was every bit as legitimate as a (hypothetical) Republican congressional majority was. The key difference between the veto and the filibuster is that the president represents a majority of the people (or at least a majority of the electoral college), whereas the veto is used by the Senate MINORITY.
 
Last edited:
Passing legislation that gets your party completely tossed by the people should be the BIG CLUE that the PEOPLE reject this idea.

Well, I don't think the Democrats will be tossed from power over passing health care reform anyway, although they might be tossed for other reasons...such as, well, failure to pass health care reform.

But in any case, I'm saying *I* would be willing to sacrifice some Democratic seats in the next election to pass the most important legislation of my lifetime. Whether or not the actual Democrats sitting in Congress agree is a different matter.

MrVicchio said:
This is a Representative Republic, I guess to you, what the peopel want isn't as important as what you believe they need, they just don't realize it yet.

The Democrats campaigned on health care in 2006 and 2008, and the people elected them. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over them passing legislation that the people MIGHT oppose in the NEXT election.

At what point in the election cycle is the democratically-elected majority allowed to enact its agenda? The first time a poll indicates less than 50% support for an issue, they should just abandon ship?
 
Last edited:
If the bill passes, the Democratic Party will be in the political wilderness for the next few decades. Meanwhile, the GOP will take overwhelming majorities in both houses and eventually have the power to repeal the bill. There is only one precedent for this, in 1854.

Which provisions of the bill, specifically, do you believe are so massively unpopular with the people? The American people, by and large, favor ending preexisting conditions. They favor subsidies for the poor to buy health insurance. They favor a public option to compete with private insurers. They favor pretty much every provision of health care reform, with the possible exception of the insurance mandate. And no one is going to vote the bums out just because of that. ;)

What I think the American people object to is the wheeling and dealing of the health insurance bill, and the length of time it has taken for Congress to (still not) do anything. This is caused - once again - by the supermajority requirement.

Dav said:
Here's the problem. In this case, the "minority" in Congress is representing the view of a majority of Americans.

Then why didn't the majority of Americans pull the lever for the other guys?

Dav said:
What? By definition, it was.

The intent of the filibuster is to ensure that the issue is thoroughly debated and everyone's opinion is heard.

Dav said:
If anything, this debate totally proves the need for a filibuster in the Senate. Congressmen for the most part wouldn't dare filibuster popular bills which they are only mildly against,

I'm not sure where you get this idea. Nearly EVERYTHING is filibustered...sometimes by the bill's own sponsors (e.g. the deficit commission). Sometimes when the bill later passes 98-0 (e.g. funding the troops last December).

Dav said:
but there has to be a check to make sure that unpopular bills which have the support of a slim majority in Congress don't pass so easily.

There is. The presidential veto and judicial review. And a looming election in which a new congressional majority and/or new president could undo the possible damage.

Dav said:
Note that in the current case, filibusters only work when a party is in complete unity, which is rare. Snowe and Collins aren't exactly hyperpartisans.

They have been acting more and more that way in the 111th session. There is absolutely no reason Olympia Snowe should not be on board with this bill. She got almost everything she wanted when she was negotiating last fall.

Complete unity may have been rare in the past, but it is not rare now. The Senate minority has been moving in lockstep on almost everything in the last session. They even voted in lockstep against raising the debt ceiling, so it only passed 60-40. What if a single Democrat had voted no? The United States would have been in default on its debt, which I don't think is an exaggeration to say would be the most grossly fiscally irresponsible thing the US government has EVER done. And yet not a single Republican was willing to vote for the most basic fiscal obligation we have. This is frightening.
 
Last edited:
Then why go through the whistles and bells of making congressmen stand up and speak until they drop (which, granted, we don't even do anymore. But originally we did), and have a cloture vote? Why not just mandate 60 votes?

Simple... they are too lazy to stay in their chairs for 4 days straight.

No. The president is a separate branch of government, and specifically has veto power as authorized by the Constitution whereas the filibuster is just a Senate rule...and in it's current incarnation, a relatively new Senate rule. The president's election was every bit as legitimate as a (hypothetical) Republican congressional majority was. The key difference between the veto and the filibuster is that the president represents a majority of the people (or at least a majority of the electoral college), whereas the veto is used by the Senate MINORITY.

Yeah, and the end result is the same isn't it??
 
Yeah, and the end result is the same isn't it??

I'm not following you...what end result are you talking about? Defeat of the Senate majority's bill? That's fine, I'm not saying the Senate majority should have its way on everything. But that's why we have a House of Representatives and a presidential veto and judicial review. The House was elected by the people, the president was elected by the people, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the president. Having a Senate bill fail there is not at all the same as obstruction by a minority of senators.

As I mentioned before, there are 40 senators who represent 8% of the US population, and 50 senators who represent 18% of the US population. The minority already has PLENTY of representation in the Senate, even without a filibuster. The Senate wouldn't even exist if not for an interest in protecting the minority.
 
Last edited:
Which provisions of the bill, specifically, do you believe are so massively unpopular with the people? The American people, by and large, favor ending preexisting conditions.

True.

They favor subsidies for the poor to buy health insurance.

Not if they're too expensive and/or they might raise premiums for everyone else.

They favor a public option to compete with private insurers.

Not if it's too expensive and puts any of the 80% of people who are satisfied with their insurance at risk of losing it. Also the public option wasn't even in the final plan.

They favor pretty much every provision of health care reform, with the possible exception of the insurance mandate. And no one is going to vote the bums out just because of that. ;)

Not only are most Americans against the bill, a huge portion of them are STRONGLY against the bill. If it passes, they will throw the bums out in unprecedented levels in modern times.

What I think the American people object to is the wheeling and dealing of the health insurance bill, and the length of time it has taken for Congress to (still not) do anything. This is caused - once again - by the supermajority requirement.

That's ridiculous. The unpopularity has been increasing since August. It was already unpopular when the House version passed by a slim majority, with a public option, without the (highly publicized, at least) wheelings and dealings. The Senate silliness only helped.


Then why didn't the majority of Americans pull the lever for the other guys?

If they could see the future, they would have.


The intent of the filibuster is to ensure that the issue is thoroughly debated and everyone's opinion is heard.

Odd, seeing as that is never how it has been used.


I'm not sure where you get this idea. Nearly EVERYTHING is filibustered...sometimes by the bill's own sponsors (e.g. the deficit commission). Sometimes when the bill later passes 98-0 (e.g. funding the troops last December).

The deficit commission was filibustered on a bipartisan basis. The troop funding thing was just silly and I doubt they would have done it if there was any chance of it actually working.


There is. The presidential veto and judicial review. And a looming election in which a new congressional majority could undo the possible damage.

Presidential veto doesn't work when the President ALSO disagrees with the public. Judicial review has nothing to do with public opinion. Repealing a bill is more difficult than passing it.

They have been acting more and more that way in the 111th session. There is absolutely no reason Olympia Snowe should not be on board with this bill. She got almost everything she wanted when she was negotiating last fall.

She obviously had a reason, or else she would have voted for it. This isn't exactly a bill to take lightly. It would have huge effects, and it's kind of hard to compromise on those.


Complete unity may have been rare in the past, but it is not rare now. The Senate minority has been moving in lockstep on almost everything in the last session. They even voted in lockstep against raising the debt ceiling, so it only passed 60-40. What if a single Democrat had voted no? The United States would have been in default on its debt, which I don't think is an exaggeration to say would be the most grossly fiscally irresponsible thing the US government has EVER done. And yet not a single Republican was willing to vote for the most basic fiscal obligation we have. This is frightening.

Not raising the debt ceiling would mean finding a way to stop the rapidly increasing debt is all. Then again, they might not have tried to filibuster it if that had any chance of actually working.

It is not rare now - or at least wasn't before Scott Brown - most likely because of the makeup of the Senate. The Democrats had exactly 60 votes, and thus the illusion of being able to do anything they wanted. What reason did they have to try to include Republicans in the process? None.

Republicans would be the same if they were in that position.
 
Not if they're too expensive and/or they might raise premiums for everyone else.

Not if it's too expensive and puts any of the 80% of people who are satisfied with their insurance at risk of losing it.

No, that's YOUR opinion...not the opinion the American people tell pollsters. A majority of the American people support nearly every provision of health reform which they have been polled on, except the mandate.

Dav said:
Not only are most Americans against the bill, a huge portion of them are STRONGLY against the bill. If it passes, they will throw the bums out in unprecedented levels in modern times.

Why exactly are they strongly against it? And what has happened (in terms of policy, not politics) in the last year to make them see the error of their ways in 2006 and 2008, when they elected Democrats who made no secret of their desire to reform health care?

Dav said:
If they could see the future, they would have.

I think it's a bit silly to criticize the Democrats for ignoring the will of the people when they have an 18 seat majority in the Senate which they gained partially by campaigning on health care reform. When exactly are they allowed to govern?

Dav said:
The deficit commission was filibustered on a bipartisan basis.

Yes, and some of the filibusterers were the bill's sponsors, who supposedly supported it. There are three possible explanations for this, none of them particularly charitable:

A) Maybe the bill's sponsors were secretly opposed to it, but were resigned to it passing and therefore wanted to look good by supporting it. Then when a few Democrats jumped ship, they delightedly realize they could follow their heart and oppose the bill. This is the most generous explanation and the least plausible.

B) Maybe the bill's sponsors truly supported it, but once a few Democrats jumped ship their desire to obstruct and make the Democrats look bad outweighed their interest in good governance.

C) Maybe the bill's sponsors followed the political winds instead of what they actually believed.

In any case, the idea that congressmen would never filibuster a bill unless they were really extremely opposed to it, is factually incorrect.

Dav said:
The troop funding thing was just silly and I doubt they would have done it if there was any chance of it actually working.

It did work. It obstructed long enough for them to stall on some OTHER legislation...even though no one actually opposed the troop funding bill.

Dav said:
Presidential veto doesn't work when the President ALSO disagrees with the public.

OK, at some point this stops being a debate over minority rights and starts being a debate over minority rule. The president was elected by the people. The Senate was elected by the people. The House was elected by the people. The Supreme Court was appointed and confirmed by the others.

If a bill can survive all of those gauntlets and the majority of the people supposedly STILL disagree? Well at that point I say tough ****. Maybe they'll have better luck electing someone who isn't so diametrically opposed to their views next time.

Dav said:
She obviously had a reason, or else she would have voted for it. This isn't exactly a bill to take lightly. It would have huge effects, and it's kind of hard to compromise on those.

If you look at everything she was negotiating on last fall, she got almost all of it. The only thing she didn't get was her public option trigger...and it really strains my imagination to believe she's opposing this bill from the left.

Dav said:
Not raising the debt ceiling would mean finding a way to stop the rapidly increasing debt is all. Then again, they might not have tried to filibuster it if that had any chance of actually working.

Perhaps, but it shows that the minority *is* willing to move in lockstep. Even when it's something important, and even when they don't truly believe what they're saying. This is NOT healthy for our government, especially when we also have a supermajority requirement in the Senate.
 
so much nonsense

if harry wants to force the gop physically to tag team the reading of the phone book, he's more than welcome to

HE's the one who wants to go on recess

and yes, the american voter endorsed in the last election the broad concept of health care, indeed

but certainly not THIS health care

THIS health care's a pig

ask the people in massachusetts (and everywhere else across our nation)

obama really blew it

he screwed up

he always screws up

half a T cuts to m and m

forcing individuals to buy that which they can't afford (a rather perverse view of universalism, no?)

fining them if they don't

criminalizing nonconformists, threatening to jail them

10 years of taxes, 6 of benefits

burdening already bankrupt states with 200B of mandated medicaid expansion, unfunded

the doc fix, a quarter T, off budget

the double counting of another quarter T

sorry, but THIS bill stinks

like i said, obama screwed up

he's QUITTING, by the way

did you see what he released today in the way of the house-senate compromise he was gonna trap the republicans with

it's like 10 pages

there's NOTHING there

he's got NOTHING

that's cuz HIS party can't agree, can't get it done, can't come together over THIS pig of a bill

if they could he SURELY would have TRUMPETED it TODAY

sorry, start all over

or forget about it

obama today put out his 10 page "summary," hardly the comprehensive legislation he promised by his monday deadline

and at the governor's conference this morning he spent almost all his time talking about...

(are you ready?)

EDUCATION!

LOL!

talk about CHANGING the subject

i'm sorry if i can read body language others can't, or if i might pay closer attention to every little goings-on than others do

but the president himself has QUIT on health care

i SAW IT today

The President?s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care. | The White House

peace, progressives

be proud!
 
No, that's YOUR opinion...not the opinion the American people tell pollsters. A majority of the American people support nearly every provision of health reform which they have been polled on, except the mandate.

Nope, the Dems health care reform plan is NOT supported by a majority of Americans. As shown in this January poll, only 38% do, while 56% oppose it.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 38% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That matches the lowest level of support yet. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters oppose the plan.
38% Favor Health Care Plan, 56% Are Opposed - Rasmussen Reports
 
Nope, the Dems health care reform plan is NOT supported by a majority of Americans. As shown in this January poll, only 38% do, while 56% oppose it.


38% Favor Health Care Plan, 56% Are Opposed - Rasmussen Reports

I'm talking about the individual provisions of the bill, not what people are telling pollsters about the bill as a whole. That's my point...people support practically every idea in the bill, they just oppose the legislative sausage-making necessary to get 60 votes and the length of time it has taken to do so.
 
exactly when will the party in power be "allowed" to govern?

what an absolutely bizarre question

well, if you have to ask, then i guess the answer is "never"

make it happen

or fail
 
I'm talking about the individual provisions of the bill, not what people are telling pollsters about the bill as a whole. That's my point...people support practically every idea in the bill, they just oppose the legislative sausage-making necessary to get 60 votes and the length of time it has taken to do so.

No, they oppose THIS bill. The American people have opposed this pig of a bill since last September which is the last time a majority was for its passage.

The opposition has nothing to do with the required votes and the length of time its taken.

If you have some type of proof to counter this, then feel free to post it.
 
No, that's YOUR opinion...not the opinion the American people tell pollsters. A majority of the American people support nearly every provision of health reform which they have been polled on, except the mandate.

It's not just my opinion.

Voters Frown on Health Plan Details - Abortion, Proof of Citizenship, Public Option - Rasmussen Reports


Forty percent (40%) of voters now favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. But 48% oppose such an option.

However, 63% of voters say it is more important to guarantee that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage than it is to give consumers the choice of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. Thirty percent (30%) think the “public option” is more important. These numbers are unchanged from early October.

The fact is that both Rasmussen and Gallup have shown 80% of Americans to be satisfied with their health insurance. Hence, any move that may pose any danger to current coverage will probably be unpopular.


Why exactly are they strongly against it? And what has happened (in terms of policy, not politics) in the last year to make them see the error of their ways in 2006 and 2008, when they elected Democrats who made no secret of their desire to reform health care?

That's silly. About as many people were thinking of health care when they went to the polls as those who were thinking about abortion. Heck, lots of Republicans campaign in part with their anti-abortion views, yet something tells me they wouldn't be very popular if they tried, with a 66-37 majority in the Senate, to pass a strict pro-life amendment. It also wouldn't work to criticize the need to have 67 votes to pass an amendment, and claim that Democrats were being obstructionist for voting against something they oppose using a method perfectly valid for such a condition.

I think it's a bit silly to criticize the Democrats for ignoring the will of the people when they have an 18 seat majority in the Senate which they gained partially by campaigning on health care reform. When exactly are they allowed to govern?

When they come up with less partisan, more popular ideas.

Yes, and some of the filibusterers were the bill's sponsors, who supposedly supported it. There are three possible explanations for this, none of them particularly charitable:

A) Maybe the bill's sponsors were secretly opposed to it, but were resigned to it passing and therefore wanted to look good by supporting it. Then when a few Democrats jumped ship, they delightedly realize they could follow their heart and oppose the bill. This is the most generous explanation and the least plausible.

B) Maybe the bill's sponsors truly supported it, but once a few Democrats jumped ship their desire to obstruct and make the Democrats look bad outweighed their interest in good governance.

C) Maybe the bill's sponsors followed the political winds instead of what they actually believed.

I have no idea why they opposed it, and don't particularly care, but it's almost funny to suppose that there's some political gain in opposing something that you just recently supported and isn't extremely unpopular.


In any case, the idea that congressmen would never filibuster a bill unless they were really extremely opposed to it, is factually incorrect.

Indeed. They also filibuster it if that is what their constituents want. Which is pretty much true in all 50 states right now regarding the health care bill, with the possible exception of Vermont.


OK, at some point this stops being a debate over minority rights and starts being a debate over minority rule.

And you are once again confusing a minority of Congress for a minority of the public.

If a bill can survive all of those gauntlets and the majority of the people supposedly STILL disagree? Well at that point I say tough ****. Maybe they'll have better luck electing someone who isn't so diametrically opposed to their views next time.

Indeed, that is exactly what they did in 1854, which is the last time this happened.


If you look at everything she was negotiating on last fall, she got almost all of it. The only thing she didn't get was her public option trigger...and it really strains my imagination to believe she's opposing this bill from the left.

What about Susan Collins? Or Voinovich, who isn't even up for re-election? They are both pretty much as moderate as Snowe, and yet both opposed the health care bill. 39 House Democrats opposed the bill, and probably plenty of Democratic Senators would have if they hadn't been bought off.
 
half a T cuts to m and m

mandates on individuals to buy for themselves

fines for those who don't

10 years of taxes, 6 of benefits

massive unfunded mandates on bankrupt states

the doc fix

the seiu exemption, STILL exempt

the louisiana purchase, specifically endorsed (today)

no, most americans do NOT support so much crap

evidently, less than 50 senate dems do, either

face it, obamacare failed

start blaming

blame the rules, blame bush, blame me, blame boehner, blame...
 
Last edited:

Abortion and citizenship aren't substantive issues that are central to health care reform. Frankly I don't give a damn about them. If supporting or opposing those provisions will get more congressmen to sign on, go for it.

As for the public option, this is the ONLY poll I've seen which has shown plurality opposition to it. And even here, the numbers aren't horrible. 40-48% opposition on a single poll of a single issue is not exactly the kind of thing that will send a party into the political wilderness for decades, as you put it.

Dav said:
The fact is that both Rasmussen and Gallup have shown 80% of Americans to be satisfied with their health insurance. Hence, any move that may pose any danger to current coverage will probably be unpopular.

If 80% of Americans don't USE their health insurance on a regular basis, why would they NOT be satisfied with it? The whole point of insurance is that most people don't use it and people share the risk.

Dav said:
That's silly. About as many people were thinking of health care when they went to the polls as those who were thinking about abortion.

Then it's not an issue that's going to send the Democrats into the political wilderness. If the American people were so overwhelmingly and vigorously opposed to this, surely it would've been on the forefront of their minds when the Democrats were campaigning on it. :2wave:

Dav said:
Heck, lots of Republicans campaign in part with their anti-abortion views, yet something tells me they wouldn't be very popular if they tried, with a 66-37 majority in the Senate, to pass a strict pro-life amendment. It also wouldn't work to criticize the need to have 67 votes to pass an amendment, and claim that Democrats were being obstructionist for voting against something they oppose using a method perfectly valid for such a condition.

While I'm not a big fan of our constitutional amendment process, it *is* a part of the Constitution. The filibuster is not.

Dav said:
When they come up with less partisan, more popular ideas.

So every government should abandon ship on every policy the minute it drops below the 50% threshold in the polls? This is not a direct democracy, nor should it be, lest the entire country end up like California.

If the people don't like the policies of the government, they should have voted for someone else, and they'll be able to correct that mistake next time.

Dav said:
I have no idea why they opposed it, and don't particularly care, but it's almost funny to suppose that there's some political gain in opposing something that you just recently supported and isn't extremely unpopular.

So if you're implying that there is no political gain, then you're also implying that they did it for policy reasons and that all of the people who SPONSORED the bill had a sudden change of heart all at the same time. Right?

Dav said:
Indeed. They also filibuster it if that is what their constituents want. Which is pretty much true in all 50 states right now regarding the health care bill, with the possible exception of Vermont.

The people get a chance to voice their opinion once every two years, which is plenty. In between, I don't give a damn what they want, except inasmuch as it relates to what Congress wants.

Dav said:
And you are once again confusing a minority of Congress for a minority of the public.

I have yet to see any evidence that the people oppose the main provisions in the reform bill (other than the individual mandate): Ending preexisting conditions, helping people buy insurance, an independent Medicare commission, making insurance portable, etc.

All I've seen so far is ONE poll that indicates they're slightly opposed to the public option (and many other polls to the contrary), and some polls that indicate they're opposed to "the bill" as a whole...even though most people have no clue what's in it.

Dav said:
Indeed, that is exactly what they did in 1854, which is the last time this happened.

I hardly think 40-48% opposition to a public option, which is not in the bill, is going to cause such devastating losses...especially when there was overwhelming SUPPORT for it just last summer. :roll:

Dav said:
What about Susan Collins? Or Voinovich, who isn't even up for re-election? They are both pretty much as moderate as Snowe, and yet both opposed the health care bill.

As I mentioned before, Snowe opposed the bill despite getting everything she wanted, which indicates to me that either A) she was negotiating in bad faith from the outset, or B) the Republican leadership leaned heavily on her to oppose it. I think (B) is more likely, and the same is probably true for Sue Collins.

Dav said:
39 House Democrats opposed the bill, and probably plenty of Democratic Senators would have if they hadn't been bought off.

(They wouldn't have HAD to have been bought off if the majority had its way, but I digress.)

As for the 39 House Democrats who opposed it, you are forgetting that it STILL passed, because the Democrats had an even bigger majority, because the people voted them into power. You seem to be suggesting that even an OVERWHELMING majority should still capitulate to the wishes of the minority.
 
Last edited:
tell it to blanche lincoln
 
omnipresent olympia wanted "a trigger"

i'm surprised anyone could forget, she came to symbolize the provision so
 
omnipresent olympia wanted "a trigger"

i'm surprised anyone could forget, she came to symbolize the provision so

Do you honestly believe that she's opposing this bill from the LEFT? That she would sign on if a public option trigger was added back in? That is absurd. Yeah...Bernie Sanders is on board, but it just doesn't go far enough for Olympia Snowe. :roll:
 
The only thing the trigger would accomplish is giving the health insurance industry a solid line so they know exactly how far they can push us before we bother to do a single thing about it.
 
the president's teeny tiny ten page blueprint which he put online today to try to embarrass the GOP as not having anything (LOL!) contains brand new language guaranteeing against undue hikes in premiums...

huh?

i thought his bill was sposed to make premiums go DOWN?

what's this brand new talk about some sudden NEED to prevent them from going UP?

typically incoherent

he doesn't know what the heck he's doing

the new york times today, assessing these rather strange developments, by the way, sees NOT the senate as the biggest problem

the lady laments the legislation's unlikeliness in lower house

Obama’s Health Bill Plan Largely Follows Senate Version - NYTimes.com

actually, it's all over the talking heads

THIS BILL IS NOW IN TREMENDOUS TROUBLE IN THE HOUSE

stupak's only part

sorry

you really need to get over it

you guys are sposed to be in leadership

dang
 
Last edited:
then...

LOL!

(i'm sorry, but this stuff is just precious)

(presidentially precious!)

it turns out, says THE NEW YORK TIMES, that mr elmendorf, the cbo, not only HASN'T scored president pieface's little teeny tiny ten page blueprint

HE CAN'T!

LOL!

not only has cbo NOT YET scored the bouncing baby blueprint, it HAS NO INTENTION of ever scoring it

as it is entirely TOO VAGUE to BE SCORED

it "does not provide sufficient detail"

President’s Proposal Lacks Sufficient Detail for Analysis, Budget Office Says - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

ouch

now, i ask you

does that even APPEAR to you to be a president WHO'S TRYING?

LOL!

you sure better hope not
 
As for the public option, this is the ONLY poll I've seen which has shown plurality opposition to it. And even here, the numbers aren't horrible. 40-48% opposition on a single poll of a single issue is not exactly the kind of thing that will send a party into the political wilderness for decades, as you put it.

Did you even read the bolded part, which was the whole point? Because you sure did ignore it.


Then it's not an issue that's going to send the Democrats into the political wilderness. If the American people were so overwhelmingly and vigorously opposed to this, surely it would've been on the forefront of their minds when the Democrats were campaigning on it. :2wave:

That's just stupid. They didn't campaign on health care. They made health care one of many policy goals, and put it in the backseat to all the others. Think abortion, an example which you ignored.


While I'm not a big fan of our constitutional amendment process, it *is* a part of the Constitution. The filibuster is not.

And that's the 3rd consecutive time you missed the point. See above.


So every government should abandon ship on every policy the minute it drops below the 50% threshold in the polls? This is not a direct democracy, nor should it be, lest the entire country end up like California.

Of course not. But it's silly to criticize a party for being "obstructionist" for trying to block a bill that most people are strongly against. If they don't succeed at blocking it, good for them. They'll probably pick up plenty of seats for their failure.


So if you're implying that there is no political gain, then you're also implying that they did it for policy reasons and that all of the people who SPONSORED the bill had a sudden change of heart all at the same time. Right?

Again, I have no idea, but it's just silly to say that there is political gain from it. For all I know it just didn't end up looking like they had wanted it to.


The people get a chance to voice their opinion once every two years, which is plenty. In between, I don't give a damn what they want, except inasmuch as it relates to what Congress wants.

We're a bottom-up country. The people get a chance to voice their opinion whenever they want, via mail and email to their congressman.


I have yet to see any evidence that the people oppose the main provisions in the reform bill (other than the individual mandate): Ending preexisting conditions, helping people buy insurance, an independent Medicare commission, making insurance portable, etc.

All I've seen so far is ONE poll that indicates they're slightly opposed to the public option (and many other polls to the contrary), and some polls that indicate they're opposed to "the bill" as a whole...even though most people have no clue what's in it.

Again, the public option isn't even in the Senate bill, but that's beside the point. If people are strongly against it - and they are - then they're strongly against it, whatever the reasons. This will show at the polls whether it's passed or not, but ESPECIALLY if it is.

I hardly think 40-48% opposition to a public option, which is not in the bill, is going to cause such devastating losses...especially when there was overwhelming SUPPORT for it just last summer. :roll:

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about a public option. And there wasn't even a solid bill written up last summer.


You seem to be suggesting that even an OVERWHELMING majority should still capitulate to the wishes of the minority.

It depends on how overwhelming a majority, how unified the minority is in opposing it, and how unified the majority is in supporting it, and a bunch of other factors.
 
Did you even read the bolded part, which was the whole point? Because you sure did ignore it.

Oh, the thing about guaranteeing people can keep their insurance? A couple points:

A) The government has no ability to make such a guarantee. Even if the government does nothing, the health insurance industry will change and people will lose their insurance.
B) Asking if people prefer the public option or a guarantee that they can keep their insurance is a ridiculous question. It's like asking people if they prefer education vouchers or discounted school lunches. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other, aside from the fact that they both relate to the same broad policy topic.
C) If you are using this particular data point as evidence that people oppose this health plan, I must confess you've completely baffled me. Are you saying that people oppose the health bill because it doesn't include a guarantee that they can keep their insurance...which they claimed they supported more than a public option...which also isn't in the bill? :confused:

Dav said:
That's just stupid. They didn't campaign on health care. They made health care one of many policy goals, and put it in the backseat to all the others.

I really don't know what you're talking about. The Democrats campaigned heavily on health care reform, especially in 2008. It was the primary reason I voted for Obama.

Dav said:
And that's the 3rd consecutive time you missed the point. See above.

Mmmkay, this doesn't actually say anything.

Dav said:
Of course not. But it's silly to criticize a party for being "obstructionist" for trying to block a bill that most people are strongly against.

I'm not criticizing them for being obstructionist on this particular bill. If they don't support it, they shouldn't vote for it. My complaint lies with the fact that 41 senators should NOT be able to kill health care reform, and the fact that this particular Senate minority has marched in lockstep to oppose even the most basic aspects of good governance, like not defaulting on the debt.

Dav said:
We're a bottom-up country. The people get a chance to voice their opinion whenever they want, via mail and email to their congressman.

And the congressman is under no obligation (moral or legal) to listen to them, nor should he be.

Dav said:
Again, the public option isn't even in the Senate bill, but that's beside the point. If people are strongly against it - and they are - then they're strongly against it, whatever the reasons.

No. Depending on the reason they are against it, it may or may not be a political issue in November if it's passed now. And there is good reason to think that it WON'T be a major problem if it's passed, because people voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 even though (or perhaps because) they CAMPAIGNED on this issue, and because health care reform polled quite well as recently as last summer.

So once again, what has changed in terms of policy (not politics) in the last year to make the voters see the error of their ways? Is our health care system suddenly on a more sustainable track than it was a year ago, thus rendering reform unnecessary?

Dav said:
This will show at the polls whether it's passed or not, but ESPECIALLY if it is.

That doesn't make any sense. If the American people are so opposed to it (because they've suddenly seen the error of their ways in 2006 and 2008, and not because they're seeing constant headlines about special deals with congressmen to vote for it), it logically stands to reason that passing it would be a better political option. At least the people who support the bill will support them then.

Dav said:
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about a public option. And there wasn't even a solid bill written up last summer.

You get remarkably testy. Interesting.

Dav said:
It depends on how overwhelming a majority, how unified the minority is in opposing it, and how unified the majority is in supporting it, and a bunch of other factors.

I agree. So if the majority is small or not particularly unified, and the minority is large and very unified, then I agree that the bill shouldn't be passed. Interestingly, we have the technology to measure the size of the majority and the degree to which each side is unified. I believe it's called taking a vote, and letting the majority rule. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Let me just say this: I'm perfectly fine with the Senate trying to pass an unpopular bill. Heck, people like Reid will probably lose re-election no matter what happens, so why not just go crazy and do whatever they want, right? Just don't complain if your opponents do all in their power to stop you, including a procedure to require 60 votes that you have every power to stop - the "nuclear option". Also reconciliation, which I suspect that if they tried, they would suddenly find that they don't have the votes for it (already 5 Dems are against it). If they do pass it I suspect an unprecedented catastrophy in November, but this is impossible to prove so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.
 
Back
Top Bottom