• 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!

The Master Dealmaker In Action

Mach said:
Because they couldn't:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/physic...amacare-into-law-four-years-ago/#78a0e62a526b

They could only pass meaningful Health care if they had a supermajority because the ****ing asshole Republicans opposed any and all Obama/Dem healthcare legislation.
But Dems DID pass a health care bill in the House.
Then through a few twists of fate, they gained, lost, and then gained again, the senate supermajority. So they passed a different health care senate bill (Obama care).
They figured they had plenty of time to reconciled he two bills, because after Ted K died, the special election was assumed to go for the 38th straight year to another Dem.
It didn't.
Scott Brown pulls a huge upset, and they lose the supermajority.

So now they have a choice, forfeit all the work and progress on their health care legislation, knowing Rs will show them their ass and obstruct it entirely.
Or, they have to pass the new Senate bill in the House, because they CAN get the house votes.
So they made the choice to pass it in the house, and it did.

Not so black and white.
Click to expand...

Obviously a purely partisan post. Care to be civil?
 
Moderate Right said:
Obviously a purely partisan post. Care to be civil?
Click to expand...

I thought you'd respond to the substance I took the time to summarize from the link so you didn't have to read it.
sure I can remove a handful of words for someone on debate politics, who doesn't like a little partisan language.

Because they couldn't:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/physici.../#78a0e62a526b

They could only pass meaningful Health care if they had a supermajority because the [] Republicans opposed any and all Obama/Dem healthcare legislation.
But Dems DID pass a health care bill in the House.
Then through a few twists of fate, they gained, lost, and then gained again, the senate supermajority. So they passed a different health care senate bill (Obama care).
They figured they had plenty of time to reconciled he two bills, because after Ted K died, the special election was assumed to go for the 38th straight year to another Dem.
It didn't.
Scott Brown pulls a huge upset, and they lose the supermajority.

So now they have a choice, forfeit all the work and progress on their health care legislation, knowing Rs will [] obstruct it entirely.
Or, they have to pass the new Senate bill in the House, because they CAN get the house votes.
So they made the choice to pass it in the house, and it did.

Not so black and white.
 
Mach said:
I thought you'd respond to the substance I took the time to summarize from the link so you didn't have to read it.
sure I can remove a handful of words for someone on debate politics, who doesn't like a little partisan language.

Because they couldn't:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/physici.../#78a0e62a526b

They could only pass meaningful Health care if they had a supermajority because the [] Republicans opposed any and all Obama/Dem healthcare legislation.
But Dems DID pass a health care bill in the House.
Then through a few twists of fate, they gained, lost, and then gained again, the senate supermajority. So they passed a different health care senate bill (Obama care).
They figured they had plenty of time to reconciled he two bills, because after Ted K died, the special election was assumed to go for the 38th straight year to another Dem.
It didn't.
Scott Brown pulls a huge upset, and they lose the supermajority.

So now they have a choice, forfeit all the work and progress on their health care legislation, knowing Rs will [] obstruct it entirely.
Or, they have to pass the new Senate bill in the House, because they CAN get the house votes.
So they made the choice to pass it in the house, and it did.

Not so black and white.
Click to expand...

But even when they had the supermajority they weren't trying for single payer.
 
Moderate Right said:
But even when they had the supermajority they weren't trying for single payer.
Click to expand...
According to Obama it was too disruptive considering we were starting from a huge entrenched system already, and not starting from scratch.
He also knows most industrialized countries have that system, but that we didn't have the luxury of scrapping it all and starting over
Single Payer: The Health Care Plan Not On The Table : NPR

And/or, outsiders say:
Because many of the biggest lobbyists in that industry, opposed it? (figures from now)
American Medical Assn $351,242,500
American Hospital Assn $316,679,338
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $310,527,800
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $296,422,964
AARP $264,831,064
Business Roundtable $233,580,000

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2008&indexType=s


Considering how disruptive Republicans have acted like Obamacare was, that is very moderate compared to single payer, maybe they should have just bit the bullet then, you're right. Some wanted to, that was Obama's call.
 
Master PO said:
the president submits an idea
Click to expand...

Oh The Donald did far more than that. He claimed 'his' healthcare would be sooo cheap and sooo easy to do....

Soooo either Donald was talking out his butt or had some plan to do that. Now we know it was just butt talk.

You would think that in the 7 years the Republicans have been taking meaningless votes to repeal the ACA they would have worked out the differences we see today, (or much more likely, know the differences were YUGE and replacing ACA would not be 'easy to do')

Anyway you slice it the GOP has shown it is fragmented and can't govern without the Dems agreeing with the plans... that moves any solutions to the left.

While the rabid right and petty, small minded folks might be content to let the ACA struggle my money is on the GOP and Dem moderates working together to come up with solutions.

I'd kinda like that... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh The Donald did far more than that. He claimed 'his' healthcare would be sooo cheap and sooo easy to do....

Soooo either Donald was talking out his butt or had some plan to do that. Now we know it was just butt talk.

You would think that in the 7 years the Republicans have been taking meaningless votes to repeal the ACA they would have worked out the differences we see today, (or much more likely, know the differences were YUGE and replacing ACA would not be 'easy to do')

Anyway you slice it the GOP has shown it is fragmented and can't govern without the Dems agreeing with the plans... that moves any solutions to the left.

While the rabid right and petty, small minded folks might be content to let the ACA struggle my money is on the GOP and Dem moderates working together to come up with solutions.

I'd kinda like that... :peace
Click to expand...

that was not about trump, it was about the president in general, meaning any president
 
Master PO said:
that was not about trump, it was about the president in general, meaning any president
Click to expand...

Most Presidents, yes, but this one, this snake oil salesman the desperate flocked to, claimed healthcare reform was going to be soooo easy and soooo cheap. Remember????

Now it seems all the Trumpster was doing was blowing smoke- he had NO plan, the plan presented was a smuck plan that the House quickly flung together. They had SEVEN years and that is the best they could do????!!!! :doh

Trump KNEW he would have to have something after saying he'd replace the ACA "IMMEDIATELY" but as usual he just ranted what the easily fooled wanted to hear.

This is ALLLLLL about Trump.... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Most Presidents, yes, but this one, this snake oil salesman the desperate flocked to, claimed healthcare reform was going to be soooo easy and soooo cheap. Remember????

Now it seems all the Trumpster was doing was blowing smoke- he had NO plan, the plan presented was a smuck plan that the House quickly flung together. They had SEVEN years and that is the best they could do????!!!! :doh

Trump KNEW he would have to have something after saying he'd replace the ACA "IMMEDIATELY" but as usual he just ranted what the easily fooled wanted to hear.

This is ALLLLLL about Trump.... :peace
Click to expand...

guy, i post was about the president does not create federal legislation, and they dont.
 
Mach said:
According to Obama it was too disruptive considering we were starting from a huge entrenched system already, and not starting from scratch.
He also knows most industrialized countries have that system, but that we didn't have the luxury of scrapping it all and starting over
Single Payer: The Health Care Plan Not On The Table : NPR

And/or, outsiders say:
Because many of the biggest lobbyists in that industry, opposed it? (figures from now)
American Medical Assn $351,242,500
American Hospital Assn $316,679,338
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $310,527,800
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $296,422,964
AARP $264,831,064
Business Roundtable $233,580,000

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2008&indexType=s


Considering how disruptive Republicans have acted like Obamacare was, that is very moderate compared to single payer, maybe they should have just bit the bullet then, you're right. Some wanted to, that was Obama's call.
Click to expand...

And you think this is going to change in the future so that we will have single payer?
 
Moderate Right said:
And you think this is going to change in the future so that we will have single payer?
Click to expand...
*cough, choke, cough* not with Republican controlled government, of course not.

After reading all that stuff recently, I just felt I had easy access to some sources to answer your question.
But with the constant claims of Obamacare failing, and single payer being one such answer to it, down the line, who knows.
 
Mach said:
*cough, choke, cough* not with Republican controlled government, of course not.

After reading all that stuff recently, I just felt I had easy access to some sources to answer your question.
But with the constant claims of Obamacare failing, and single payer being one such answer to it, down the line, who knows.
Click to expand...

We had a Democratic controlled government and we didn't get single payer.
 
Moderate Right said:
We had a Democratic controlled government and we didn't get single payer.
Click to expand...

That's just because the Dems were trying to compromise with the GOP. That was one of the biggest things Obama gave up to try to get some sort of buy-in from them. That was back in the good ol' days when we thought governance was still about negotiation, fruitful discussion and debate, compromise, and good will. Now we know better.
 
Master PO said:
guy, i post was about the president does not create federal legislation, and they dont.
Click to expand...

So then why did talk like he had legislation, and it was going to be soooo good, and everyone was going to be covered? He should have just said he had no plan.
 
ataraxia said:
That's just because the Dems were trying to compromise with the GOP. That was one of the biggest things Obama gave up to try to get some sort of buy-in from them. That was back in the good ol' days when we thought governance was still about negotiation, fruitful discussion and debate, compromise, and good will. Now we know better.
Click to expand...

Why would they need to compromise with the GOP? They rammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote. They could have done single payer then if they wanted to. They did not have to compromise if they weren't getting any votes from the GOP anyway.
 
chuckiechan said:
The republicans could have just kept hand off and let it collapse.
Click to expand...
While the GOP narrative is "Obamacare is imploding," the CBO clearly stated that the system was not in trouble.

Then there is this: NY Times: No ‘Death Spiral’: Insurers May Soon Profit From Obamacare Plans, Analysis Finds

In contrast to the dire pronouncements from President Trump and other Republicans, the demise of the individual insurance market seems greatly exaggerated, according to a new financial analysis released Friday.

The analysis, by Standard & Poor’s...
Click to expand...
 
Moderate Right said:
Why would they need to compromise with the GOP? They rammed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote. They could have done single payer then if they wanted to. They did not have to compromise if they weren't getting any votes from the GOP anyway.
Click to expand...
The Democrats didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.

First, the Democrats never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. Second, the Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
 
MTAtech said:
The Democrats didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.

First, the Democrats never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. Second, the Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
Click to expand...

And Democrats have been falling like rocks largely due to Obamacare.
 
Moderate Right said:
And Democrats have been falling like rocks largely due to Obamacare.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Democrats should have run on Obamacare's accomplishments. Democrats really are bad at campaigning - but they're great a governing -- while, Republicans are great at campaigning but suck at governing.

As long as those down on their luck rural voters keep electing Republicans, who will take away their health care; their retirement security and their wages, this is what they deserve.
 
MTAtech said:
Yeah, Democrats should have run on Obamacare's accomplishments. Democrats really are bad at campaigning - but they're great a governing -- while, Republicans are great at campaigning but suck at governing.

As long as those down on their luck rural voters keep electing Republicans, who will take away their health care; their retirement security and their wages, this is what they deserve.
Click to expand...

Obamacare didn't really have any accomplishments. They love to talk up that all of these people have insurance that they didn't have before but even after being subsidized, the deductibles and out of pocket costs were so high that these people who technically had insurance actually had insurance they couldn't use because they couldn't afford to go to providers and pay those out of pocket expenses. Now I'm not going to say that no one benefited from Obamacare but the number the Democrats tout is extremely overblown. And, the middle class who were not subsidized were paying astronomical amounts for healthcare.
 
Moderate Right said:
Obamacare didn't really have any accomplishments. They love to talk up that all of these people have insurance that they didn't have before but even after being subsidized, the deductibles and out of pocket costs were so high that these people who technically had insurance actually had insurance they couldn't use because they couldn't afford to go to providers and pay those out of pocket expenses. Now I'm not going to say that no one benefited from Obamacare but the number the Democrats tout is extremely overblown. And, the middle class who were not subsidized were paying astronomical amounts for healthcare.
Click to expand...

Really?

Health exchange: Utah family gets coverage for $123 a month

Kendall Brown

Obamacare in Calif. Saves One Family $400 a Month

Meet Butch Matthews, A Republican Who Came To Love Obamacare After Realizing It Will Save Him $13,000
 
Moderate Right said:
Both sides can come up with individual examples. Are you going to look at me with a straight face and claim there are zero Obamacare horror stories?
Click to expand...

Those were covered in A General Theory of Obamacare Fiction.

The Affordable Care Act isn’t magic — it produces losers as well as winners. But it’s not black magic either, turning everyone into a loser. What the Act does is in effect to increase the burden on fortunate people — the healthy and wealthy — to lift some burdens on the less fortunate: people with chronic illnesses or other preexisting conditions, low-income workers.

Suppose, then, that someone comes to you with an anecdote about a cancer patient, or just an older person in poor health, and tells you that this person is about to lose the care she needs, or face a huge increase in expenses, under Obamacare. Well, it’s almost certainly not true — people like that are overwhelmingly beneficiaries of health reform, thanks to community rating, which means that they can’t be discriminated against because of their condition.

Or suppose that someone tells you about a struggling worker who had adequate coverage but is now being confronted with unaffordable premiums. You should immediately ask, what about the subsidies? Because the Affordable Care Act has subsidies that are there specifically to keep premiums affordable for lower earners.

If someone insists that he knows about someone in these categories who really is being grievously hurt, well, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Basically, stories like that are going to be very rare.
Click to expand...
 
chuckiechan said:
Presidents don't write legislation.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do. The POTUS can submit a draft appropriations (budget/spending) bill for consideration to the Speaker of the House (i.e, Obama's American Jobs Act) or a draft treaty bill to the Senate, but it's up to the House Speaker and/or the Senate Majority Leader to determine if such drafts will be added to the calendar in either respective congressional chamber to come up for a vote of any kind.

Writing legislation clearly isn't one of the POTUS' enumerated powers, but the WH (POTUS) can submit a draft bill for congressional review (and has on numerous occasions).

1750Texan said:
It is more than an idea. Obama wrote legislation he submitted to the Senate on more that one occasion.

Maybe you're used to your president being an "ideas guy" with no real legislative experience, but that does not speak to what all real President do.
Click to expand...

Didn't see this earlier prior to my above comment, but you're 100% correct.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom