• 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!

Analysis: Liberals tired of healthcare compromises [edited]

Yea, that's it. I mean, we survived through everything else, but the prospect of a government health plan is going to be the death of us.

Where are you getting this ****?

Its a combination of things. The party of NO has opposed everything that Obama has done.

If the economy improves and health care actually succeeds, the GOP will become even more irrelevant that they have become today.
 
That's why they are so desperate to try to stop it.

LOLOL!

tell it to baucus, conrad, clinton, ross, mccaskill, richardson, ritter, perriello, kratovil, boyd, gregoire, ritter, bayh, nelson, nelson, polis, bredesen...
 
Its a combination of things. The party of NO has opposed everything that Obama has done.

If the economy improves and health care actually succeeds, the GOP will become even more irrelevant that they have become today.

They can't actually have valid criticisms of his policies, now could they?
 
They can't actually have valid criticisms of his policies, now could they?

Their validity would be supplemented if they proposed some viable alternatives. The Republican Party could easily exploit the diversity of the Democratic Party to achieve reforms more palpable to their base. But it operates under the notion that any good which originates from a Democrat-run Congress is hurtful to its own election prospects. So, it derails everything it can instead.
 
bull

the republican party for the first 6 months of this disastrous presidency has done NOTHING but watch as democratic leadership has piece by piece destroyed its own party

man up and take responsiblity

you were given 60 senators for a reason
 
Their validity would be supplemented if they proposed some viable alternatives.
They have proposed alternatives, in both the House and the Senate. Besides the fact that the majority party refuses to discuss them, how is the legislation not viable?
 
Their validity would be supplemented if they proposed some viable alternatives. The Republican Party could easily exploit the diversity of the Democratic Party to achieve reforms more palpable to their base. But it operates under the notion that any good which originates from a Democrat-run Congress is hurtful to its own election prospects. So, it derails everything it can instead.

Hypo:

Let's say you happen to like your local bar. It's a bit of a dive and some people in town are unhappy with it, but you're largely content with the way it's run. Now imagine that a group of people get together and propose that the bar be converted into an upscale club with bottle service and B&T trash. You don't like that idea, and would much prefer that things remain the way they are. You acknowledge that there are things that could be improved from the status quo, but you would much prefer what you have now to this new type of bar.

Now, would you consider yourself to be a member of the "party of no" or someone who was totally devoid of ideas? Or would you consider yourself to be someone who simply disagreed with the proposed changes?
 
bull

the republican party for the first 6 months of this disastrous presidency has done NOTHING but watch as democratic leadership has piece by piece destroyed its own party

man up and take responsiblity

you were given 60 senators for a reason

You speak such few words and yet there is so much wrong about them.

The Republican Party has done more than watch. They are continually attempting to rally public opinion against every single proposal that comes out of the White House, going to great lengths to criticize (on speculative or blatantly false grounds) the weaknesses of the policies. There is really no Democrat-originating act or event, no matter how minor, that they don't have a lot of bad words to direct toward.

The Democratic Party is anything but destroyed, although I wouldn't expect a Republican to understand that because they are used to a party which demands consensus in its ranks. Diversity of opinion and argument are the order of the day in the Democratic Party.

I don't have to "man up and take responsibility" until Republicans "man up and take responsibility" for accruing 8 trillion of our 12 trillion debt, not even including interest. By the law of fiscal conservatism, they ought to be exiled from the land. The debt Republicans are so scared about is almost exclusively the fruit of their own labor. Clinton didn't do it and Obama will have to spend 2 trillion dollars every year of his first term to even begin matching it.

Hypo:

Let's say you happen to like your local bar. It's a bit of a dive and some people in town are unhappy with it, but you're largely content with the way it's run. Now imagine that a group of people get together and propose that the bar be converted into an upscale club with bottle service and B&T trash. You don't like that idea, and would much prefer that things remain the way they are. You acknowledge that there are things that could be improved from the status quo, but you would much prefer what you have now to this new type of bar.

Now, would you consider yourself to be a member of the "party of no" or someone who was totally devoid of ideas? Or would you consider yourself to be someone who simply disagreed with the proposed changes?

Disanalogy because the Republican Party has both a greater obligation to engage in policy than a bar patron and a greater capability. Also, our status quo isn't comparable to a run down bar -- more like a building that's in the process of collapsing on itself.
 
Last edited:
You speak such few words and yet there is so much wrong about them.

The Republican Party has done more than watch. They are continually attempting to rally public opinion against every single proposal that comes out of the White House, going to great lengths to criticize (on speculative or blatantly false grounds) the weaknesses of the policies. There is really no Democrat-originating act or event, no matter how minor, that they don't have a lot of bad words to direct toward.

The Democratic Party is anything but destroyed, although I wouldn't expect a Republican to understand that because they are used to a party which demands consensus in its ranks. Diversity of opinion and argument are the order of the day in the Democratic Party.

I don't have to "man up and take responsibility" until Republicans "man up and take responsibility" for accruing 8 trillion of our 12 trillion debt, not even including interest. By the law of fiscal conservatism, they ought to be exiled from the land. The debt Republicans are so scared about is almost exclusively the fruit of their own labor. Clinton didn't do it and Obama will have to spend 2 trillion dollars every year of his first term to even begin matching it.

attempting to rally public opinion---LOLOL!

it's called P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

speculative and blatantly false grounds---why, you POOR little thing!

LOLOL!

imagine!

bad words!

towards EVERY democrat event?!

oh, MY!

why, that DOES sound rather unFAIR!

we already took full responsiblity---november 4

sixty BLUE senators

a majority of 79 in the house

your super historical and exciting presidency

you silly

LOLOL!
 
Last edited:
attempting to rally public opinion---LOLOL!

it's called P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

speculative and blatantly false grounds---why, you POOR little thing!

LOLOL!

imagine!

bad words!

towards EVERY democrat event?!

oh, MY!

why, that DOES sound rather unFAIR!

we already took full responsiblity---november 4

sixty BLUE senators

a majority of 79 in the house

your super historical and exciting presidency

you silly

LOLOL!

There must be an argument in there somewhere, but I can't find it.

If you want to compare the depth and abundance of Democratic criticism of Republican events in the last couple decades, you'll lose. They Republicans are far less civil and exercise far less restraint. And while that is functional politics, it is not good politics or a virtue. Simply put, the Republicans are better rhetoricians -- which is how they pissed in the public's eye and jacked up the debt between 9-10 trillion (including interest) while amazingly retaining their reputation as a party of fiscal responsibility among their core base and some moderates. They are THAT good at sophistry.
 
Last edited:
Disanalogy because the Republican Party has both a greater obligation to engage in policy than a bar patron and a greater capability.

They have an obligation to go along with negotiations on a proposal they oppose?

Let's pretend it's 2005 and the GOP is trying to gin up support for an invasion of Russia. If the Democrats flat-out opposed that proposal, would they be the "party of no"? Would you accuse them of "refusing to engage in policy" unless they proposed a half-measure, like invading Mexico?

It's completely legitimate for a party to say "this is a bad proposal and we do not support it."

(This of course ignores the fact that the Republicans have proposed changes, but I don't want to distract from your already flawed argument by getting into this.)

Also, our status quo isn't comparable to a run down bar -- more like a building that's in the process of collapsing on itself.

You do realize that this is merely your opinion and that there are those who might disagree, right?
 
There must be an argument in there somewhere, but I can't find it.

If you want to compare the depth and abundance of Democratic criticism of Republican events in the last couple decades, you'll lose. They Republicans are far less civil and exercise far less restraint. And while that is functional politics, it is not good politics or a virtue. Simply put, the Republicans are better rhetoricians -- which is how they pissed in the public's eye and jacked up the debt between 9-10 trillion (including interest) while amazingly retaining their reputation as a party of fiscal responsibility among their core base and some moderates. They are THAT good at sophistry.

no argument, why argue

the republicans are an ant

the dems are a giant

fix this economy or you're dead

no excuses

actually, after all the political capital expended in the field by this IDIOT president, fix the economy AND get a BIG and MEANINGFUL health care, or you're dead

we, in the meantime, will watch

and one more thing: NO!

we sign on the dotted line of opposition, unambiguously

your ball

good luck
 
no argument, why argue

the republicans are an ant

the dems are a giant

fix this economy or you're dead

no excuses

actually, after all the political capital expended in the field by this IDIOT president, fix the economy AND get a BIG and MEANINGFUL health care, or you're dead

we, in the meantime, will watch

and one more thing: NO!

we sign on the dotted line of opposition, unambiguously

your ball

good luck

If you're not arguing, then you shouldn't be posting.

You do realize that this is merely your opinion and that there are those who might disagree, right?

Then they are wrong. If Medicare/Medicaid trends continue, the budget is broken and the value of the dollar is imperiled. Unshakable fact. If health care premiums continue to rise while wages remain stagnant, the net worth of the middle class will continue to shrink (which will lead to proportional decreases in educational-working opportunities and political influence)). Not as unshakable, but also a pretty safe bet.

They have an obligation to go along with negotiations on a proposal they oppose?

Yes, on both the standard measurements of political responsibility; the general republic demands some kind of health care reform (even if about half balk at the public option) and the budget (and therefore the longterm viability of the US government and nation) necessitates it.

Let's pretend it's 2005 and the GOP is trying to gin up support for an invasion of Russia. If the Democrats flat-out opposed that proposal, would they be the "party of no"? Would you accuse them of "refusing to engage in policy" unless they proposed a half-measure, like invading Mexico?

Invading Russia or Mexico most likely wouldn't satisfy either public will or, more importantly, serve governing necessity.

It's completely legitimate for a party to say "this is a bad proposal and we do not support it."

Only if current health care policies weren't heading for disaster.

(This of course ignores the fact that the Republicans have proposed changes, but I don't want to distract from your already flawed argument by getting into this.)

Not really. They have forwarded some ideas (a few of which have been incorporated) and floated an alternative or two, but they haven't engaged with the Democratic Party as the Democratic Party would with them on an issue like, say, Iraq, or No Child Left Behind. If they truly desired to, the Republican Party could have leaped in from the beginning and formed an alliance with the Blue Dog Democrats and some of the Moderate Democrats in both the House and the Senate; the public option would never have even been in discussion had this been the case.
 
Last edited:
Then they are wrong.

Oh **** bro, you got me. My bad for thinking that any opinion other than yours might be valid.

If Medicare/Medicaid trends continue, the budget is broken

This portion is true. Of course, one might wonder what that has to do with the private insurance industry, which is what this bill is trying to address.

(We might also ask why some people are so eager to expand government control of healthcare when these programs have highlighted just how terrible it turns out in practice.)

If health care premiums continue to rise while wages remain stagnant, the net worth of the middle class will continue to shrink (which will lead to proportional decreases in educational-working opportunities and political influence)).

That's a pretty tenuous thread on which to hang that conclusion.
 
If you're not arguing, then you shouldn't be posting.



Then they are wrong. If Medicare/Medicaid trends continue, the budget is broken and the value of the dollar is imperiled. Unshakable fact. If health care premiums continue to rise while wages remain stagnant, the net worth of the middle class will continue to shrink (which will lead to proportional decreases in educational-working opportunities and political influence)). Not as unshakable, but also a pretty safe bet.

i'll post if i want to post

fix this economy

get meaningful health care

or you LOSE

pretty simple

regardless of medicare trends, unshakable facts and the value of the dollar

have fun with it, too

i assume you've been waiting all your life for this

leadership's a bitch, tho

opposition is easy, perhaps you recall from a previous life

we're watching

cliff
 
the public option would never have been in place had only the gop teamed up with the bluedogs?

LOLOLOLOL!!!

now, THAT's funny
 
Oh **** bro, you got me. My bad for thinking that any opinion other than yours might be valid.

Open to how.

If health care premiums continue to rise while wages remain stagnant, the net worth of the middle class will continue to shrink (which will lead to proportional decreases in educational-working opportunities and political influence)).
That's a pretty tenuous thread on which to hang that conclusion.

Health care expenditures in the United States are only one of several private sector problems which endanger the longterm viability of the middle class. But they are in the singular one of the largest, along with house payments and other forms of debt. There is no unitary way of addressing the decline of the middle class, but a cap on premiums would contribute toward the solution.

This portion is true. Of course, one might wonder what that has to do with the private insurance industry, which is what this bill is trying to address.

1. It receives sizable subsidies to meet humanitarian goals it performs poorly at because of mis-use.

2. It price gouges.

3. Medicare/Medicaid are integrated into the private sector.

(We might also ask why some people are so eager to expand government control of healthcare when these programs have highlighted just how terrible it turns out in practice.)

Medicare and Medicaid are operational successes; most of their recipients are pleased with the services they receive and would not have otherwise been eligible for health insurance due to redlining, which was the publicly approved and politically necessary goal at the time and which has been validated by most members of both parties since. Financing could have been better managed, which is one of the ideas behind reform.

the public option would never have been in place had only the gop teamed up with the bluedogs?

LOLOLOLOL!!!

now, THAT's funny

And the moderates who are anxious about spending.

It's not really funny. That's the sort of thing you get in a theoretical, bipartisan universe. As it is, the Republican Party strategy assumes that any Democratic success is hurtful to its election prospects (and, if you want to tack it on, the "greater good"), so a derailment today is worth some governing dysfunction tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
AMEN!

Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise - Yahoo! News

Liberal activists say there's no point in the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House unless they use their clout to enact the major measures that Obama campaigned for — with or without some Republican support (Absolutely!)

"It is clear that Republicans have decided 'no health care' is a victory for them," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview. "There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it's reaching that limit (DUH!)

Grassley told an Iowa crowd he would not support a plan that "determines when you're going to pull the plug on Grandma." The remark echoed conservative activists who wrongly claim a House health care bill would require Medicare recipients to discuss their end-of-life plans with doctors.

For liberals supporting far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system, it was another sign that months of negotiations have been a one-way street. It's time to move on without Republicans
(They're starting to get it).



There's absolutely no point in trying to negotiate with the "party of no". They have made it clear that they are going to oppose anything Obama proposes.....so screw them.
Obama needs to realize that having a few Republicans on board to make him "look better" is less a priority that getting meaningful healthcare reform passed.

The Democrats can do this without 1 Republican vote. Its time for the Democrats to grow a spine and get to work.

Americans don't want the left's crappy "reform"; check the polls. Take your 1,000 page mockery and set it on fire.

Personally, I'm overjoyed at the way things turned out. I've never been happier to see one of Obama's policy initiatives crash and burn, I could revel in the flames all night.

If you're going to blame Republicans for shooting down Obama's health care "reform" then I'm going to send the GOP a big ol' thank you letter.

Dear GOP,

Good job guys!!! You finally did something useful!

From,

People that enjoy liberty and prosperity.
 
and the minority party has an obligation to negotiate with the party in power on proposals it sincerely feels will destroy this country because of "standard measurements of political responsibility?"

LOLOLOL!

why, you poor, abused little party in power

so mistreated by the minority

you make more excuses than THE PRESIDENT

LOL!

maybe you should SUE us

you got all the lawyers

maybe if the prez weren't such a PELOSI CLONE

personification of san francisco EXTREMISM

maybe then NORMAL human beings could negotiate some

he can't even get HALF his OWN party to negotiate

while my friend here hrmphs about operational success, redlining and the longterm viability of the middle class

LOLOL!

talk about missing the point

fix the economy or you're dead

keep your eye on the ball

the gop aint it, friend

you're polysyllabically silly
 
Americans don't want the left's crappy "reform"; check the polls. Take your 1,000 page mockery and set it on fire.

Personally, I'm overjoyed at the way things turned out. I've never been happier to see one of Obama's policy initiatives crash and burn, I could revel in the flames all night.

If you're going to blame Republicans for shooting down Obama's health care "reform" then I'm going to send the GOP a big ol' thank you letter.

Dear GOP,

Good job guys!!! You finally did something useful!

From,

People that enjoy liberty and prosperity.

I'll be waiting for your proposal on how to solve the Medicare/Medicaid problem and rising health insurance premiums/stagnant wages with great anticipation.

and the minority party has an obligation to negotiate with the party in power on proposals it sincerely feels will destroy this country because of "standard measurements of political responsibility?"

Well, yes, of course they have a responsibility; engaging in important policy issues is what they are paid gross amounts of tax dollar money to do. That pretty much characterizes the Democrat's interaction with the Bush Administration.

The Republican Party doesn't sincerely feel anything. If they did, then they would endeavor to the utmost of their power to craft a policy which has a hope of addressing our nation's chronic budget and health care problems while keeping the much-feared Democratic spending to the smallest limit possible. As it is, they are using the Democratic Party health care event to score some political capital from their base and any moderates who will listen while disregarding the Medicare/Medicaid problem totally (continuation of the Bush policy), along with the stagnant wages/rising health care costs problem.
 
Last edited:
And the moderates who are anxious about spending.

It's not really funny. That's the sort of thing you get in a theoretical, bipartisan universe. As it is, the Republican Party strategy assumes that any Democratic success is hurtful to its election prospects (and, if you want to tack it on, the "greater good"), so a derailment today is worth some governing dysfunction tomorrow.

oh, no, friend, it's hilarious

had the gop teamed up with bluedogs and "moderates anxious about spending," obama would never have gone there in the first place

LOLOLOL!

THAT's funny!

he won't even BACK OFF it NOW!

he's got BILL freakin CLINTON tellin him

the MATHEMATICIANS (you should DIG mathematicians, friend) at CBO

the GATEKEEPER, mr baucus

the WHIP, mr durbin (FROM! illinois)

his own MISSIONARY on MEDS (if he'd only paid his taxes), mr daschle, who IN JUNE declared the public option dead

sorry

you had every possible advantage

ALL FAILURES are on YOUR LEADERSHIP

deal with it
 
I'll be waiting for your proposal on how to solve the Medicare/Medicaid problem and rising health insurance premiums/stagnant wages with great anticipation.

step one---get this IDIOT outta the white house
 
step one---get this IDIOT outta the white house

... mine was go back in time and rig the elections so that none of the last 3 Republican administrations won. That would trim off 9-10 trillion dollars of debt and thus put off any budget concerns for another couple of decades. But if you want to drop the jokes and actually have a plausible idea on a very serious matter, we can actually have an argument, maybe.

oh, no, friend, it's hilarious

had the gop teamed up with bluedogs and "moderates anxious about spending," obama would never have gone there in the first place

LOLOLOL!

THAT's funny!

he won't even BACK OFF it NOW!

he's got BILL freakin CLINTON tellin him

the MATHEMATICIANS (you should DIG mathematicians, friend) at CBO

the GATEKEEPER, mr baucus

the WHIP, mr durbin (FROM! illinois)

his own MISSIONARY on MEDS (if he'd only paid his taxes), mr daschle, who IN JUNE declared the public option dead

sorry

you had every possible advantage

ALL FAILURES are on YOUR LEADERSHIP

deal with it

You seem fundamentally incapable of understanding how the political process works. First of all, the president has only limited leverage to make Congress do what he wants, and second of all, the president is backing off the necessity of the public insurance option -- purposelessly to my mind, but whatever. If the Republicans had engaged with the Blue Dogs and Moderates, then there would have been far more pressure on the liberal elements of the Democratic Party to tone down the scope of the reform. As it is, they possess the leverage and the Blue Dogs/Blue Dog leaning Moderates will be obliged to support the crux of it, whether it is the public insurance option or the less vaunted co-ops.

That's not what the Republican Party is after, however. They want political capital for future elections and will take it at any opportunity, to hell with any problems Medicare/Medicaid or the private sector might have.
 
Last edited:
go back in time?!

LOL!

THAT's leadership?

you don't get it, friend

this is WHY your party has squandered the world it so utterly owned just 3 months ago

i haven't cracked one single joke, friend

i've laughed at what, in my sincere opinion, are absurdities

fix this economy or you're dead

and fix health care too

and you know what else?

hurry the blank up

quit making excuses and looking in the rear view mirror

leadership's a bitch, i already told you that

you act like you've never been here before

it's becoming quite clear this IDIOT president is not UP TO IT

he too acts as if he didn't know all the CRAP that comes with the territory

no one ever said anything was FAIR
 
That's not what the Republican Party is after, however. They want political capital for future elections and will take it at any opportunity, to hell with any problems Medicare/Medicaid or the private sector might have.

Did you ever think that Medicare/Medicaid cause more problems than they solve?
 
Back
Top Bottom