• 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!

Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

CaptinSarcastic said:
Republicans were begged to participate, the only caveat the democrats made was that there would need to be some Republican votes for the bigger changes Republicans would have wanted, the Democrats simply did not have the votes if they conceded elements to Republicans and Republicans still didn't vote for it. This was party over country and politics over nation. But the bill did include 161 amendments put forward by Republicans with many of them substantive.

One of two things will happen because the GOP will not address any of the shortcomings of the bill, they will either benefit politically or be blamed for not doing their job. In one case, Democrats will win the House and make the needed changes, or alternatively, the GOP will win the Senate, and they may have the power to repeal the bill in total and enjoy the backlash of reinstating pre-existing condition exclusions, allowing insurance companies to throw dependents off at 21, repeal tax credits to small business for buying health insurance, reopen the Medicare "doughnut hole", and these benefits will be up an running so will have to be taken away from Americans. And if and when they do this, besides all of the people who will be angry at losing the benefits of this bill, if insurance rates don't fall, they will then own THAT.
Click to expand...

How do you expect Republicans to participate when the majority of the bill, expanding Medicaid and hundreds of billions in new taxes, is fundamentally against what the party believes in? Taking one or two ideas from Republicans doesn't make it a bipartisan bill. It reminds me of the fiscal cliff debate. Romney wanted to limit deductions to bring down overall tax rates. Obama wanted to limit deductions to raise taxes, then tried to spin it as a "Republican issue."
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't speak for most liberals. But it is possible you ignore what they their response really is because you put too much emphasis on what you THINK is in the bill. But I would have to study your responses more to know for sure.
Click to expand...

No, I put emphasis on what is in the bill. Do you deny anything I said is in the bill is actually in the bill?
 
wbcoleman said:
One can keep saying this until the cows come in, but the reality is that the scheme got one Republican vote in the House and zero in the Senate. The ideas obviously weren't TOO Republican!

But isn't this really beside the point? The Democrats were banking on the notion that it was OK to pass the scheme in the face of clear cut public opposition because they assumed that the opposition would dissipate. But it hasn't, and it won't.
Click to expand...

Yes they were...Republicans just are the party of NO. They won't vote for their own ideas or even for another Republican if it has anything to do with Obama.
 
ReformCollege said:
How do you expect Republicans to participate when the majority of the bill, expanding Medicaid and hundreds of billions in new taxes, is fundamentally against what the party believes in? Taking one or two ideas from Republicans doesn't make it a bipartisan bill. It reminds me of the fiscal cliff debate. Romney wanted to limit deductions to bring down overall tax rates. Obama wanted to limit deductions to raise taxes, then tried to spin it as a "Republican issue."
Click to expand...


Absolutely against what the Republicans stand for. They want a 60% Military Offense budget and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then those crooked banksters need lots of help and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then there's the tax cuts for the 1% and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. 'Bout sums it up. It's time to get back to serious death and destruction and the co-joined profits from war and business joining at the hip. Screw a bunch of healthcare, don't ya' think?
 
DaveFagan said:
Absolutely against what the Republicans stand for. They want a 60% Military Offense budget and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then those crooked banksters need lots of help and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then there's the tax cuts for the 1% and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. 'Bout sums it up. It's time to get back to serious death and destruction and the co-joined profits from war and business jpoining at the hip. Screw a bunch of healthcare, don't ya' think?
Click to expand...

I know plenty of conservatives who were staunchly against the bailout of both banks and the auto industry. I know plenty of libertarians who want to cut the military budget. And the tax cuts weren't solely for the rich, they were actually for everyone.

But don't let that get in the way of your partisan absolutes.
 
disneydude said:
Yes they were...Republicans just are the party of NO. They won't vote for their own ideas or even for another Republican if it has anything to do with Obama.
Click to expand...

No they weren't. And if your best argument is "they were Republican ideas" then you really need to come up with better arguments. Democrats passed healthcare, without a single Republican vote. The blood is on their hands.
 
ReformCollege said:
No they weren't. And if your best argument is "they were Republican ideas" then you really need to come up with better arguments. Democrats passed healthcare, without a single Republican vote. The blood is on their hands.
Click to expand...

The entire idea of the insurance mandate was a REPUBLICAN IDEA. Learn your legislative history. Obama dropped the idea for a public option in order to try to appease the Republicans and a handful of blue-dog democrats. He was able to attract a couple of the blue-dogs, enough to get the bill passed, but still couldn't get a single Republican to support ideas that were theirs in the first place. The party of NO wanted desperately to make Obama a one-term President and deny him any kind of "victory", even if it meant opposing their own people and their own ideas. Look no further than Republicans opposing Hagel if you doubt it.
 
ReformCollege said:
Typical Democrat. If the economy recovers by 2016 it will be because of how "pro-jobs" the Democrats are.
Click to expand...

If it does recover, it will have nothing to do with the federal government.
 
disneydude said:
The entire idea of the insurance mandate was a REPUBLICAN IDEA. Learn your legislative history. Obama dropped the idea for a public option in order to try to appease the Republicans and a handful of blue-dog democrats. He was able to attract a couple of the blue-dogs, enough to get the bill passed, but still couldn't get a single Republican to support ideas that were theirs in the first place. The party of NO wanted desperately to make Obama a one-term President and deny him any kind of "victory", even if it meant opposing their own people and their own ideas. Look no further than Republicans opposing Hagel if you doubt it.
Click to expand...

I've already discussed this. The insurance mandate is an entirely different animal when you combine it with further restrictions on medical underwriting that are going to cause costs to skyrocket. When you look at the whole picture of the bill, it definitely was NOT a Republican idea, even if the Democrats took some Republican ideas and twisted them to suit their liking.....
 
wbcoleman said:
Olympia Snowe goes public on O. Pretty funny!

Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away - The Hill's Healthwatch
Click to expand...

and he was correct
it will fade
and the healthcare system will be tweaked to become better
Santayana was correct. we forget our history at our own peril
social security faced similar opposition when FDR pushed it thru

the 1% buys access to government. they don't need the social safety net (personally, anyway), and they see no reason to support social safety net programs
nothing new here

but kudos to Senator Snowe; it was her vote that kept discussion of the Obamacare program alive. but for her vote, it would have probably died
 
ReformCollege said:
I've already discussed this. The insurance mandate is an entirely different animal when you combine it with further restrictions on medical underwriting that are going to cause costs to skyrocket. When you look at the whole picture of the bill, it definitely was NOT a Republican idea, even if the Democrats took some Republican ideas and twisted them to suit their liking.....
Click to expand...

They weren't twisted to suit "our" liking. They were offered as compromises in an attempt to appease the blue-dogs and try to draw in some Republican support by using THEIR ideas. The public option was a much much much better plan, but without a single Republican vote and the blue-dogs rejecting it, we got stuck with the watered down Republican ideas. Hopefully in the future we can fix it.
 
Taylor said:
I did for several years - actually my income rose to around 17k eventually. I didn't have a car, but led a fairly normal life otherwise.
Click to expand...

The when would matter. But today, I doubt hat seriously. Of course I still think jeans should cost ten dollars. ;)
 
disneydude said:
They weren't twisted to suit "our" liking. They were offered as compromises in an attempt to appease the blue-dogs and try to draw in some Republican support by using THEIR ideas. The public option was a much much much better plan, but without a single Republican vote and the blue-dogs rejecting it, we got stuck with the watered down Republican ideas. Hopefully in the future we can fix it.
Click to expand...

Its not a Republican idea when you combine it with restricting medical underwriting. It completely changes the substance of the provision.
 
ReformCollege said:
That's why you can have a government program that contributes to the savings accounts. The government can subsidize the system.

And its more moral to steal from me to pay for him/her? Forbidding medical underwriting raises costs on the system overall. No one is talking about letting the obese smoker die. My entire point is expect me to subsidize someone else's risk is a moral hazard. By definition. And you have yet to refute that (or even attempt to do so).

What on earth are you talking about? My point was they are limiting FSA contributions to force people onto traditional healthcare plans. I don't see you discuss that anywhere in your post.

You're the one who said that they weren't able to receive care. I just showed they are able to do so. Sometimes they may choose not to, but the ability is there for them even if they don't have coverage.

Illegal immigrants seem to have gotten the memo, they receive free coverage at our hospitals all the time.
Click to expand...

No one s stealing from you. That's a sad and rather cheap debate tactic. And the money the government would subsidize for savings would also come from you, as does the money that makes up for those paying right now.

Again, the only way to force is to ban or outlaw. No one is forced not to use anything.

No, your trying to deal in absolutes; I'm not. Many are not able to get adequate care. That's a fact.

And you want illegals to get care. You have no idea what they might bring with them that could be communicable. Our leaders have shown no will to stop illegal immigration despite enough was on the books to do so. So, you either adjust to the reality, or change leadership. But I warn you that there s a reason nothing's been done, and new leadership won't likely change it.
 
ReformCollege said:
You're right, but I would certainly hope the worst parts of it would be curtailed under a Romney administration. I see the APA as having a lot of good ideas that are laced with cyanide. Detoxify the bill, and the overall impact will be overwhelmingly positive.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. He'd have likely made it worse. As I noted earlier, they are opposed to actually paying for things.
 
ReformCollege said:
No, I put emphasis on what is in the bill. Do you deny anything I said is in the bill is actually in the bill?
Click to expand...

I think we're having that discussion. And I'm capable of having more than one.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because there was first an effort to work with republicans. You would right if they just went and left them to begin with, and there wasn't that tea party silliness.
Click to expand...

pfft...there was no serious effort. Democrats made token gestures and rejected every thing the Republicans did offer.
 
Kal'Stang said:
pfft...there was no serious effort. Democrats made token gestures and rejected every thing the Republicans did offer.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but democrats didn't say there job was to make sure republicans rent successful. Republicans did say that concerning Obama. It makes a difference.
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe, but democrats didn't say there job was to make sure republicans rent successful. Republicans did say that concerning Obama. It makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you don't cry that you want to work with someone and then block them at every turn. That is not working with someone. That is making a meaningless token gesture just so that you can say later on that "well...at least we tried!" totally spinning what actually went down. Nothing more than an attempt to make yourself look good.

And before someone else comes up with the meme...Yes Republicans have done the same thing. Doesn't mean that it was any more right for them to do it than the Democrats. Both sides are wrong to do so.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Sorry but you don't cry that you want to work with someone and then block them at every turn. That is not working with someone. That is making a meaningless token gesture just so that you can say later on that "well...at least we tried!" totally spinning what actually went down. Nothing more than an attempt to make yourself look good.

And before someone else comes up with the meme...Yes Republicans have done the same thing. Doesn't mean that it was any more right for them to do it than the Democrats. Both sides are wrong to do so.
Click to expand...

How about coming to the table and wanting to work, not block?
 
Boo Radley said:
I think we're having that discussion. And I'm capable of having more than one.
Click to expand...

You just claimed that I'm making a big fuss about what I "think" is in the bill. I want examples of what I "think" is in the bill that actually isn't in the bill.
 
Boo Radley said:
I doubt it. He'd have likely made it worse. As I noted earlier, they are opposed to actually paying for things.
Click to expand...

Healthcare can be fixed without huge amounts of additional government spending.
 
ReformCollege said:
You just claimed that I'm making a big fuss about what I "think" is in the bill. I want examples of what I "think" is in the bill that actually isn't in the bill.
Click to expand...

We are having that discussion elsewhere.
 
ReformCollege said:
Healthcare can be fixed without huge amounts of additional government spending.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. If we used the money we spend extra right now, moved it to a universal payer system, allowing those who can to buy more, we'd spend less, much less, and get more.
 
ReformCollege said:
The law itself may be a done deal, in the sense that it won't be repealed wholesale. But that doesn't mean parts of it cannot be scrapped or changed over time.

The point is, Republicans are setting themselves up to capitalize on the next two elections when premiums begin to skyrocket.
Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence that premiums are going to skyrocket unless you rely on the sound bites from the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom