BREAKING NEWS: House cannot pass Senate Health Care Bill

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You know, I'd be more willing to believe Republicans wished for healthcare reform if they actually put together a bill. Or thought about putting together a bill. Or put forth some ideas for a bill. Or did pretty much anything related to healthcare besides oppose the Dems bill.

fidosim

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You know, I'd be more willing to believe Republicans wished for healthcare reform if they actually put together a bill. Or thought about putting together a bill. Or put forth some ideas for a bill. Or did pretty much anything related to healthcare besides oppose the Dems bill.

fidosim

I have yet to see a proposal regarding healthcare that differs from "let's not adopt the Dems plan"... and being out of power is no excuse for not attempting to propose legislation.

I blame the neo conservatives.. They have poisoned the Republican party in which unilateralism is the name of the game for every question they recieve.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] I blame the neo conservatives.. They have poisoned the Republican party in which unilateralism is the name of the game for every question they recieve.. fidosim

I'm moving toCanada, then.

I have yet to see a proposal regarding healthcare that differs from "let's not adopt the Dems plan"... and being out of power is no excuse for not attempting to propose legislation.

chessmaster1989

Unilateralism meaning they do not wish to make any attempts to change.. My way or the high way, the biggest talking points such as being death panels and other such blather has shown this.. And often times one of the main talking points has been "Our health care is just fine".. The republicans havn't shown in any kind of large quanity to ever want to make healthcare reform as a consensus this past decade..sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I have yet to see a proposal regarding healthcare that differs from "let's not adopt the Dems plan"... and being out of power is no excuse for not attempting to propose legislation.

fidosim

The Republicans were the majority in legislation for years before thedemocrats took over recently.. Healthcare was never the main platform for Republicans, they are only doing this to try to garner support do to being forced in a corner..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Unilateralism meaning they do not wish to make any attempts to change.. My way or the high way, the biggest talking points such as being death panels and other such blather has shown this.. And often times one of the main talking points has been "Our health care is just fine".. The republicans havn't shown in any kind of large quanity to ever want to make healthcare reform as a consensus this past decade..fidosim

.. Having one of your spirtual heads of the party declare that there will be death panels to kill off the weak and elderaly is pretty close to that.. That was the first things stated, not some ulterior plan.. Or real indepth criticism with another suggestion, this only started to take sway when stuff like the death panels was debunked numerous times when it started becoming a embarassment to the party... Neoconservatives are not willing to debate this what so ever..

The Republicans were the majority in legislation for years before thedemocrats took over recently.. Healthcare was never the main platform for Republicans, they are only doing this to try to garner support do to being forced in a corner..

sSubZerOo

.. Having one of your spirtual heads of the party declare that there will be death panels to kill off the weak and elderaly is pretty close to that.. That was the first things stated, not some ulterior plan.. Or real indepth criticism with another suggestion, this only started to take sway when stuff like the death panels was debunked numerous times when it started becoming a embarassment to the party... Neoconservatives are not willing to debate this what so ever..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I have yet to see a proposal regarding healthcare that differs from "let's not adopt the Dems plan"... and being out of power is no excuse for not attempting to propose legislation.

fidosim

Except that I haven't seen many attempts to compromise on issues, even healthcare. Well, there were negotiations with Olympia Snowe, but then you have guys like Mitch McConnell opposing healthcare just because they think it'll "break Obama"...

.. Having one of your spirtual heads of the party declare that there will be death panels to kill off the weak and elderaly is pretty close to that.. That was the first things stated, not some ulterior plan.. Or real indepth criticism with another suggestion, this only started to take sway when stuff like the death panels was debunked numerous times when it started becoming a embarassment to the party... Neoconservatives are not willing to debate this what so ever..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The Republicans were the majority in legislation for years before thedemocrats took over recently.. Healthcare was never the main platform for Republicans, they are only doing this to try to garner support do to being forced in a corner..

fidosim

What exactly does that mean? :?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The Republicans were the majority in legislation for years before thedemocrats took over recently.. Healthcare was never the main platform for Republicans, they are only doing this to try to garner support do to being forced in a corner..

fidosim

.. That was never George Bush's platform.. Furthermore Washington focuses on multiple structures.. Obama for instance is focusing on two wars now while tyring to go after the health bill.. Republicans in recent memory have never wanted to majorly reform the health care of any kind, infact the privatization was more seen as a mind fart that lasted for a very little time.. IT didn't strike up the entire nation for months on a feeding frenzy one what to be done..

Except that I haven't seen many attempts to compromise on issues, even healthcare. Well, there were negotiations with Olympia Snowe, but then you have guys like Mitch McConnell opposing healthcare just because they think it'll "break Obama"...

chessmaster1989

What exactly does that mean? :?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Except that I haven't seen many attempts to compromise on issues, even healthcare. Well, there were negotiations with Olympia Snowe, but then you have guys like Mitch McConnell opposing healthcare just because they think it'll "break Obama"...

fidosim

And they had eight years under Bush not not mention a year under Obama to do so. Hell, they had a good 8-10 months while Dems were drafting their own bill. So why didn't they have one? Mitch's comments came back in August, I do believe, though it may have been a little later. Why wasn't he proposing his own solution rather than remaining fixed solely on preventing Obama from doing something?

.. That was never George Bush's platform.. Furthermore Washington focuses on multiple structures.. Obama for instance is focusing on two wars now while tyring to go after the health bill.. Republicans in recent memory have never wanted to majorly reform the health care of any kind, infact the privatization was more seen as a mind fart that lasted for a very little time.. IT didn't strike up the entire nation for months on a feeding frenzy one what to be done..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Except that I haven't seen many attempts to compromise on issues, even healthcare. Well, there were negotiations with Olympia Snowe, but then you have guys like Mitch McConnell opposing healthcare just because they think it'll "break Obama"...

And they had eight years under Bush not not mention a year under Obama to do so. Hell, they had a good 8-10 months while Dems were drafting their own bill. So why didn't they have one? Mitch's comments came back in August, I do believe, though it may have been a little later. Why wasn't he proposing his own solution rather than remaining fixed solely on preventing Obama from doing something?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

What exactly does that mean? :?

fidosim

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY going to use that comparison.. Now I know its not worth ever debating with you again, that metaphore is so faulty its criminal it doesn't even work in the correct manner.. Slaverowners defended slavery because it was for the BUSINESS perspective of economic gain.. IF anything slaveowners are more akin to the people who are trying to enforce the big business health care industry as the status quo, not the people who are trying to put more government forsight into the matter.. This isn't defending either side, but seriously?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. That was never George Bush's platform.. Furthermore Washington focuses on multiple structures.. Obama for instance is focusing on two wars now while tyring to go after the health bill.. Republicans in recent memory have never wanted to majorly reform the health care of any kind, infact the privatization was more seen as a mind fart that lasted for a very little time.. IT didn't strike up the entire nation for months on a feeding frenzy one what to be done..

fidosim

:| No it was not.. When he entered office he literally did nothing when it came to legislation.. When 9/11 occured the flurry of legislation occured.. INFACT the only major legislation he passed was on tax cuts, THAT was it.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

What exactly does that mean? :?

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY going to use that comparison.. Now I know its not worth ever debating with you again, that metaphore is so faulty its criminal it doesn't even work in the correct manner.. Slaverowners defended slavery because it was for the BUSINESS perspective of economic gain.. IF anything slaveowners are more akin to the people who are trying to enforce the big business health care industry as the status quo, not the people who are trying to put more government forsight into the matter.. This isn't defending either side, but seriously?

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"]What's the point of being in the same party if you disagree on so much?nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Well the first priority is to kill the bill that is in the House right now, because it is antithetical to a conservative viewpoint. Conservatives would be happy to vote for a conservative bill. fidosim

And they had eight years under Bush not not mention a year under Obama to do so. Hell, they had a good 8-10 months while Dems were drafting their own bill. So why didn't they have one? Mitch's comments came back in August, I do believe, though it may have been a little later. Why wasn't he proposing his own solution rather than remaining fixed solely on preventing Obama from doing something?

Well, in '06 they had an extremely narrow majority and Bush was still president, so that doesn't really fly. Really, 06-08 would have been an ideal time for Repubs to try and get compromise legislation passed, since they knew Dems wouldn't exactly pass whatever legislation Bush wanted. Dems should have done a better job of this as well, admittedly. Really, though, Repubs only needed one Dem to side with them, then they could have Dick break the deadlock.

And, Democrats who voted against funding did so in order to attempt to put a halt to the war and force withdrawl of troops. The whole "not supporting our troops" propaganda is laughable...

hahahahaha! YES! HUZZAH!

:| No it was not.. When he entered office he literally did nothing when it came to legislation.. When 9/11 occured the flurry of legislation occured.. INFACT the only major legislation he passed was on tax cuts, THAT was it.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Harry Reid said people opposing the health care bill were on the "Wrong side of history", and compared them to slaveowners.fidosim

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY going to use that comparison.. Now I know its not worth ever debating with you again, that metaphore is so faulty its criminal it doesn't even work in the correct manner.. Slaverowners defended slavery because it was for the BUSINESS perspective of economic gain.. IF anything slaveowners are more akin to the people who are trying to enforce the big business health care industry as the status quo, not the people who are trying to put more government forsight into the matter.. This isn't defending either side, but seriously?

.... Slavery was defended due to fear it would collapse the economy regardless if it was seen as inhumane.. Does this sound familiar? Afterall the main talking points are specifically on that a public plan would bankrupt businesses, not that people would be hurt from it.. This isn't suggesting I would ever compare them to slaveowners, because that is disengenious.. I was merely pointing out when you bring that comparison in mind, then clearly its the other way around.. Slaveowners were protecting their private investments.. What the hell do you call keeping a privatized industry from any kind of government interference?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| No it was not.. When he entered office he literally did nothing when it came to legislation.. When 9/11 occured the flurry of legislation occured.. INFACT the only major legislation he passed was on tax cuts, THAT was it.

fidosim

:| So he wasn't for health reform then? If I remember correctly Obama started on healthcare with in a matter of a few months, right after the stimulus plan..

Well, in '06 they had an extremely narrow majority and Bush was still president, so that doesn't really fly. Really, 06-08 would have been an ideal time for Repubs to try and get compromise legislation passed, since they knew Dems wouldn't exactly pass whatever legislation Bush wanted. Dems should have done a better job of this as well, admittedly.

And, Democrats who voted against funding did so in order to attempt to put a halt to the war and force withdrawl of troops. The whole "not supporting our troops" propaganda is laughable...

:| So he wasn't for health reform then? If I remember correctly Obama started on healthcare with in a matter of a few months, right after the stimulus plan..

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Well, in '06 they had an extremely narrow majority and Bush was still president, so that doesn't really fly. Really, 06-08 would have been an ideal time for Repubs to try and get compromise legislation passed, since they knew Dems wouldn't exactly pass whatever legislation Bush wanted. Dems should have done a better job of this as well, admittedly.

And, Democrats who voted against funding did so in order to attempt to put a halt to the war and force withdrawl of troops. The whole "not supporting our troops" propaganda is laughable...

fidosim

I'm not saying they're ill-intentioned (well, besides the McConnell-type ones who are blocking it because they think it'll help Repubs win the next few elections), but I'd hope for more constructive contributions from Repubs who want reform but object to certain provisions of the bill. I mean, the most I've seen from that side of the aisle has been "we need to focus on reducing the deficit as part of healthcare reform," which is nice but they don't really follow up with that at all...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| So he wasn't for health reform then? If I remember correctly Obama started on healthcare with in a matter of a few months, right after the stimulus plan..

fidosim

I'm not saying they're ill-intentioned (well, besides the McConnell-type ones who are blocking it because they think it'll help Repubs win the next few elections), but I'd hope for more constructive contributions from Repubs who want reform but object to certain provisions of the bill. I mean, the most I've seen from that side of the aisle has been "we need to focus on reducing the deficit as part of healthcare reform," which is nice but they don't really follow up with that at all...

chessmaster1989

They are a minority and based on that shouldn't the bill been squelched long ago..?sSubZerOo

.... Slavery was defended due to fear it would collapse the economy regardless if it was seen as inhumane.. Does this sound familiar? Afterall the main talking points are specifically on that a public plan would bankrupt businesses, not that people would be hurt from it.. This isn't suggesting I would ever compare them to slaveowners, because that is disengenious.. I was merely pointing out when you bring that comparison in mind, then clearly its the other way around.. Slaveowners were protecting their private investments.. What the hell do you call keeping a privatized industry from any kind of government interference?

sSubZerOo

Many times parts of a private industry do wantgovernment interference. Usually its the big companies that push for it. With government intervention comes barriers to entry. The big business end of the industry can deal with the regulations, the smaller guys can't. They want competition to be stifled. Not good for the consumer but good for the big businesses.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I'm not saying they're ill-intentioned (well, besides the McConnell-type ones who are blocking it because they think it'll help Repubs win the next few elections), but I'd hope for more constructive contributions from Repubs who want reform but object to certain provisions of the bill. I mean, the most I've seen from that side of the aisle has been "we need to focus on reducing the deficit as part of healthcare reform," which is nice but they don't really follow up with that at all...

fidosim

Mitch McConnell has publicly stated he will block healthcare reform (before he even knew what would be in the bill!) because he thinks it will break Obama, I think that's fairly convincing that he's doing it for purely political reasons...

And of course people have to listen to their constitutents. We are a representative Democracy, after all. Nevertheless, that's a different form of political posturing. Really, in any case, ideally a candidate will more or less reflect the ideas of his constituents, so saying a candidate is "pandering to his constituents" should really be no different from saying a candidate is sticking to his/her beliefs. Of course, that's all in an ideal world, and it doesn't ever work out in reality...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]They are a minority and based on that shouldn't the bill been squelched long ago..?fidosim

Heh, that's funny after several years of "soft on terror," "not supporting the troops," "Dems want to surrender," etc.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I'm not saying they're ill-intentioned (well, besides the McConnell-type ones who are blocking it because they think it'll help Repubs win the next few elections), but I'd hope for more constructive contributions from Repubs who want reform but object to certain provisions of the bill. I mean, the most I've seen from that side of the aisle has been "we need to focus on reducing the deficit as part of healthcare reform," which is nice but they don't really follow up with that at all...

chessmaster1989

Mitch McConnell has publicly stated he will block healthcare reform (before he even knew what would be in the bill!) because he thinks it will break Obama, I think that's fairly convincing that he's doing it for purely political reasons...

And of course people have to listen to their constitutents. We are a representative Democracy, after all. Nevertheless, that's a different form of political posturing. Really, in any case, ideally a candidate will more or less reflect the ideas of his constituents, so saying a candidate is "pandering to his constituents" should really be no different from saying a candidate is sticking to his/her beliefs. Of course, that's all in an ideal world, and it doesn't ever work out in reality...

That's what a politician does. Its all nice and happy to say that "politicians are public servants who serve the people" but all they want to really serve is their next term.

Been reading a lot of pieces that say the Dems need to pass healthcare reform, and I pretty much agree with that. Paul Krugman has a good article about it in the Times.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Been reading a lot of pieces that say the Dems need to pass healthcare reform, and I pretty much agree with that. Paul Krugman has a good article about it in the Times.Bourbons3

Indeed it will.

Also, here's another great piece by Nate Silver about the minsinformation about healthcare reform.

I dunno why all you Americans act like it's going to be the end of your country if a public option for healthcare becomes available. We haven't self-destructed here in Canada, anyways. Don't be so afraid. Rippou

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. That was never George Bush's platform.. Furthermore Washington focuses on multiple structures.. Obama for instance is focusing on two wars now while tyring to go after the health bill.. Republicans in recent memory have never wanted to majorly reform the health care of any kind, infact the privatization was more seen as a mind fart that lasted for a very little time.. IT didn't strike up the entire nation for months on a feeding frenzy one what to be done..

:| No it was not.. When he entered office he literally did nothing when it came to legislation.. When 9/11 occured the flurry of legislation occured.. INFACT the only major legislation he passed was on tax cuts, THAT was it.

It was absolutely part of Bush's platform, it just took a backseat to the national security needs that arose after 9/11. fidosim

:| No it was not.. When he entered office he literally did nothing when it came to legislation.. When 9/11 occured the flurry of legislation occured.. INFACT the only major legislation he passed was on tax cuts, THAT was it.

Good. Maybe they'll scrap that piece of garbage and actually take some time and come up with a well thought out bill. They'll get more votes if they put more effort and thought into it. Most people want health reform, they just didnt want a rushed garbage bill.