Is Healthcare Bill going to pass or not?

scrap it and start over..

we should.. scrap our entire government though and start over.. it's so ineffective and useless.

scrap it and start over..

we should.. scrap our entire government though and start over.. it's so ineffective and useless.

EMOEVOLUTION

scrap it and start over..

EMOEVOLUTION

we should.. scrap our entire government though and start over...

EMOEVOLUTION

It's gonna pass now, unless Obama decides to veto it :roll:

but this bill is so watered down it's ridiculous.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]

scrap it and start over..

mattbbpl

we should.. scrap our entire government though and start over...

EMOEVOLUTION

If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?warmachines

Redeem himself?

Scrap it. Kill it! Kill it with Fire!!

[QUOTE="warmachines"]If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?Silverbond

Redeem himself?

If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?warmachines

[QUOTE="warmachines"]If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="warmachines"]If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?Ace_WondersX

Just as the Democrats will obstruct any bill that Republicans try to put through. Do you honestly think the filibuster is a Republican-exclusive weapon? Indeed, back in 2005 the Democrats used it to block a vote on one of GWB's judicial nominees. If one side doesn't like it, they'll try to filibuster it or shoot it out of the water, period.

As for the topic of the thread, though, a bill will pass eventually. Whether or not it's what the Democrats really want is up in the air. We do need to reform our health care services, but I honestly don't think that adding to our bureaucracy is the way to do it.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="warmachines"]If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?tycoonmike

Just as the Democrats will obstruct any bill that Republicans try to put through. Do you honestly think the filibuster is a Republican-exclusive weapon? Indeed, back in 2005 the Democrats used it to block a vote on one of GWB's judicial nominees. If one side doesn't like it, they'll try to filibuster it or shoot it out of the water, period.

First off, there's no bill yet. There are two bills that have passed the two different houses of Congress, we're still waiting for them to reconcile the two before we know what the details of the final bill will be. Frankly, I don't care either way. It probably won't pass the senate with a public option, although I do think using arbitration should be on the table in which case I say it'll pass, we have well over 50 votes in the senate that would support it. If the senate kills reform then I think we might see some of these blue dogs losing in the primaries which could get us the necessary votes for reform should we try to pick it up again. If it does pass it'll most likely not be the reform we need, but it won't be enacted until 2013. I'm not sure what can be done between now and then to improve it, if and how it can be modified, if Congress can somehow go back and modify it, or if perhaps states could do something to create an independent opt-in sort of thing, but hopefully we're able to turn it into real reform before we implement it. If we implement it with the shortcomings of the Senate bill then I don't think it'll be much good, I think the shortcomings will be blamed on the people who were trying to avoid them and not on the obstructionists who were instrumental in creating those shortcomings making repealing the reform the most appealing option to the public instead of amending it, of course that's exactly what the obstructionists are hoping for anyways.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="warmachines"]If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?tycoonmike

Just as the Democrats will obstruct any bill that Republicans try to put through. Do you honestly think the filibuster is a Republican-exclusive weapon? Indeed, back in 2005 the Democrats used it to block a vote on one of GWB's judicial nominees. If one side doesn't like it, they'll try to filibuster it or shoot it out of the water, period.

As for the topic of the thread, though, a bill will pass eventually. Whether or not it's what the Democrats really want is up in the air. We do need to reform our health care services, but I honestly don't think that adding to our bureaucracy is the way to do it.

The problem isn't that it's used, the problem is that it's used almost universally by Republicans. Granted, they don't have the votes in most instances to maintain a fillibuster, but on every issue that's gone through the senate so far in Obama's presidency Republican support has been unanimous, even when legislation is changed to address Republican concerns.

A healthcare bill is going to pass, yes. We just don't know what form it will take just yet. Both the House and the Senate have approved their own bills, now they're getting together for the final touches. I hope something comes up resembling the House bill more than the Senate, but either way, it is a vast improvement over what we currently have. After they finish and send the bill to Obama, he will pass it; after all this time and talk and after this being one of his biggest campaign issues, it's virtually guaranteed to pass unless the House and Senate completely **** it up to the point where no man could pass it with a clean conscience.

It's about time we had a modern healthcare system, one we should have had since the Forties. Funny how the argument is the same: Say "commie" enough times and eventually people will get scared enough to think the healthcare bill is bad.

You are right that the filibuster has been seriously abused in the recent past by democrats, but what Republicans have managed to do of late vis-a-vis obstructionism is quite remarkable.

-Sun_Tzu-

But the graph doesn't say whether or not that's all Republican attempts or the combined attempts of both parties. Furthermore, it just looks like it goes until 2008, not 2009 when the health care debate really started to heat up.

More rules and regulations for the healthcare industry that's already affected by rules and regulations. When will we realize that neither insurance or gov't healthcare is efficient? It's better to pay for our healthcare using our own money (and I mean paying up front). It would be very effective in improving healthcare as a whole.

Unless a Senate Democrat dies between now and then or Joe Lieberman decides to be the annoying prick he likes to be, it's likely it will pass.chessmaster1989

That depends on what's in the final bill. I think three different Senate Democrats have pledged not to vote for anything with a public option as has Liberman, and a large group of House Democrats have pledged to not vote for anything without it.

More rules and regulations for the healthcare industry that's already affected by rules and regulations. When will we realize that neither insurance or gov't healthcare is efficient? It's better to pay for our healthcare using our own money (and I mean paying up front). It would be very effective in improving healthcare as a whole.

leviathan91

More rules and regulations for the healthcare industry that's already affected by rules and regulations. When will we realize that neither insurance or gov't healthcare is efficient? It's better to pay for our healthcare using our own money (and I mean paying up front). It would be very effective in improving healthcare as a whole.

leviathan91

. . .Do you know how expensive that would be? All the equipment they need to use, all the time and effort they have to put in to certain procedures, not to mention their schedules and the daily risks of infection. . .

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Unless a Senate Democrat dies between now and then or Joe Lieberman decides to be the annoying prick he likes to be, it's likely it will pass.theone86

That depends on what's in the final bill. I think three different Senate Democrats have pledged not to vote for anything with a public option as has Liberman, and a large group of House Democrats have pledged to not vote for anything without it.

Which means there won't be a public option. If the Democrats want the public option, they have to eliminate the filibuster. I'm all for eliminating the filibuster in any case...

They're going to pass it. Obama has to pass a bill soon. It's way overdue.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

More rules and regulations for the healthcare industry that's already affected by rules and regulations. When will we realize that neither insurance or gov't healthcare is efficient? It's better to pay for our healthcare using our own money (and I mean paying up front). It would be very effective in improving healthcare as a whole.

Theokhoth

. . .Do you know how expensive that would be? All the equipment they need to use, all the time and effort they have to put in to certain procedures, not to mention their schedules and the daily risks of infection. . .

It's going to be expensive but not as bad as the other types of healthcare. When paying out of your own pockets, you're going to have to worry about costs. When you worry about costs, doctors/hospitals have to make their prices reasonable to make sure the customer is satisfied in order to make profits. Yes profits. It's a win-win situation. I also advocate tort reform and I understand that the healthcare bill has nothing on that. So much for Obama's "change."

More rules and regulations for the healthcare industry that's already affected by rules and regulations. When will we realize that neither insurance or gov't healthcare is efficient? It's better to pay for our healthcare using our own money (and I mean paying up front). It would be very effective in improving healthcare as a whole.

leviathan91

Yeah, let's institute that. And when you call the ambulance because your arm had been chopped off and you're bleeding out which would you prefer the paramedics say: "We've got to get him to the hospital ASAP" or "What's your credit history like?"

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You are right that the filibuster has been seriously abused in the recent past by democrats, but what Republicans have managed to do of late vis-a-vis obstructionism is quite remarkable.

tycoonmike

But the graph doesn't say whether or not that's all Republican attempts or the combined attempts of both parties. Furthermore, it just looks like it goes until 2008, not 2009 when the health care debate really started to heat up.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Unless a Senate Democrat dies between now and then or Joe Lieberman decides to be the annoying prick he likes to be, it's likely it will pass.chessmaster1989

That depends on what's in the final bill. I think three different Senate Democrats have pledged not to vote for anything with a public option as has Liberman, and a large group of House Democrats have pledged to not vote for anything without it.

Which means there won't be a public option. If the Democrats want the public option, they have to eliminate the filibuster. I'm all for eliminating the filibuster in any case...

Yeah, but it might not be that simple. I'm not sure of who's exactly drafting the final bill, but they may not care if a public option fails, as long as they feel they put the best possible legislation forward. They also might think that some of the Democrats who said they will vote against it are posturing and want to take a chance on the public option regardless. There's also the problem of the House, the opposition to a bill without a public option might kill it there. Frankly, I think they should just dump most of the Senate Bill, go with the House Bill, and invoke arbitration. Who cares if they're not using it for what it was designed for, Republicans have set precedent of doing exactly that anyways. With all the senators receiving health care industry money and conviently coming out in opposition after having money pledged to their campaigns this isn't a clean vote anyways.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

More rules and regulations for the healthcare industry that's already affected by rules and regulations. When will we realize that neither insurance or gov't healthcare is efficient? It's better to pay for our healthcare using our own money (and I mean paying up front). It would be very effective in improving healthcare as a whole.

leviathan91

. . .Do you know how expensive that would be? All the equipment they need to use, all the time and effort they have to put in to certain procedures, not to mention their schedules and the daily risks of infection. . .

It's going to be expensive but not as bad as the other types of healthcare. When paying out of your own pockets, you're going to have to worry about costs. When you worry about costs, doctors/hospitals have to make their prices reasonable to make sure the customer is satisfied in order to make profits. Yes profits. It's a win-win situation. I also advocate tort reform and I understand that the healthcare bill has nothing on that. So much for Obama's "change."

In order to make a profit, they'll have to charge relative to the costs of equipment and goods/services provided, and the equipment alone is literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single piece (x-ray equipment, for example). There's the costs of hospitals (millions of dollars). The costs of surgeries.

What you propose is impossible. There's a reason why we need insurance now: the average person can barely hope to afford a physical let alone a trip to the OR. Without insurance, prices will sky-rocket. Profit would be impossible and doctors would cease to put in the time and effort required to be doctors due to the utter lack of payment they'll be receiving. What you suggest would effectively destroy healthcare.

To address your points in reverse order; a graph going into 2009 wouldn't drastically change the picture. When it comes to health care, the republicans have filibustered pretty much everything that has had anything to do with health care in any way, shape, or form. And the Republican party is the minority party, even more so since 2009, and because of that, virtually every filibuster is primarily composed of Republican senators, with maybe a select few Democrats now and then. These hardly constitute as bipartisan efforts to waste time reading phonebooks on the senate floor, this is mostly just a minority party trying to be as relevant and as powerful as possible, and they've actually been somewhat successful in doing so.

-Sun_Tzu-

The problem is that it's quite difficult have a bipartisan debate when the majority desires to keep everything in the stereotypical smoke-filled room. The latest gaffe with C-SPAN, for instance, should be proof enough of that. And besides, do you honestly think that if the tables were reversed and the Republicans were voting on something like reduced gun control laws that the Democrats wouldn't try to filibuster it as well? It doesn't matter if the Republicans or the Democrats are the minority party, the minority will always try to make its voice louder.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

. . .Do you know how expensive that would be? All the equipment they need to use, all the time and effort they have to put in to certain procedures, not to mention their schedules and the daily risks of infection. . .

Theokhoth

It's going to be expensive but not as bad as the other types of healthcare. When paying out of your own pockets, you're going to have to worry about costs. When you worry about costs, doctors/hospitals have to make their prices reasonable to make sure the customer is satisfied in order to make profits. Yes profits. It's a win-win situation. I also advocate tort reform and I understand that the healthcare bill has nothing on that. So much for Obama's "change."

In order to make a profit, they'll have to charge relative to the costs of equipment and goods/services provided, and the equipment alone is literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single piece (x-ray equipment, for example). There's the costs of hospitals (millions of dollars). The costs of surgeries.

What you propose is impossible. There's a reason why we need insurance now: the average person can barely hope to afford a physical let alone a trip to the OR. Without insurance, prices will sky-rocket. Profit would be impossible and doctors would cease to put in the time and effort required to be doctors due to the utter lack of payment they'll be receiving. What you suggest would effectively destroy healthcare.

Again, when people become aware with their money, hospitals will have to lower prices. If not, then they have to find innovative ways to improve healthcare technology. That's always the case for any product on the market or any service on the market. Quality improves and it gets cheaper. For example, the cell phone industry.

People need less of insurance companies as they encourage people not to care how much an operation costs, which in turn, allows to insurance companies not to care either. Not to mention the number of physicals a patient would have to go through just so the doctor won't get sued. The money can still be misused.

What I suggest would create better healthcare for all Americans as they will become more aware of their money.

It'll pass in one form or another. Hopefully without the public option, or publicly funded abortions. (I think the latter will happen though) It's not going to be as bad as I thought.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You are right that the filibuster has been seriously abused in the recent past by democrats, but what Republicans have managed to do of late vis-a-vis obstructionism is quite remarkable.

-Sun_Tzu-

But the graph doesn't say whether or not that's all Republican attempts or the combined attempts of both parties. Furthermore, it just looks like it goes until 2008, not 2009 when the health care debate really started to heat up.

And to be fair, saying it's all Democrats is really being selective in how you look at it. There's a huge spike during the Clinton years as well, meaning there was plenty of Republican opposition, not to mention that since the graph begins to climb in the Nixon Administration there has been a Republican in office 70% of the time (2 terms Nixon/Ford, 1 term Carter, 2 terms Regaen, 1 term Bush, 2 terms Clinton, 2 terms Junior). Of course there's going to be more Democratic fillibustering, they've been in the minority for most of the time shown in the chart. The issue os the proportion of fillibustering, which the chart says nothing of.

Again, when people become aware with their money, hospitals will have to lower prices. If not, then they have to find innovative ways to improve healthcare technology. That's always the case for any product on the market or any service on the market. Quality improves and it gets cheaper. For example, the cell phone industry.

People need less of insurance companies as they encourage people not to care how much an operation costs, which in turn, allows to insurance companies not to care either. Not to mention the number of physicals a patient would have to go through just so the doctor won't get sued. The money can still be misused.

What I suggest would create better healthcare for all Americans as they will become more aware of their money.

leviathan91

:| I'm pretty sure that my mom didn't care about how much the operation to get her kneecap repaired and to get a fixator for my leg was when we were in an car accident about ten years ago. There are some things I don't care how much I spend to get a quality product, and health care is one of them. Insurance helps to alleviate some of the cost, if not all of it in some cases, of a needed operation. Liposuction and cosmetic surgeries shouldn't be covered, of course, but things that we may actually need should be.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

To address your points in reverse order; a graph going into 2009 wouldn't drastically change the picture. When it comes to health care, the republicans have filibustered pretty much everything that has had anything to do with health care in any way, shape, or form. And the Republican party is the minority party, even more so since 2009, and because of that, virtually every filibuster is primarily composed of Republican senators, with maybe a select few Democrats now and then. These hardly constitute as bipartisan efforts to waste time reading phonebooks on the senate floor, this is mostly just a minority party trying to be as relevant and as powerful as possible, and they've actually been somewhat successful in doing so.

tycoonmike

The problem is that it's quite difficult have a bipartisan debate when the majority desires to keep everything in the stereotypical smoke-filled room. The latest gaffe with C-SPAN, for instance, should be proof enough of that. And besides, do you honestly think that if the tables were reversed and the Republicans were voting on something like reduced gun control laws that the Democrats wouldn't try to filibuster it as well? It doesn't matter if the Republicans or the Democrats are the minority party, the minority will always try to make its voice louder.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

To address your points in reverse order; a graph going into 2009 wouldn't drastically change the picture. When it comes to health care, the republicans have filibustered pretty much everything that has had anything to do with health care in any way, shape, or form. And the Republican party is the minority party, even more so since 2009, and because of that, virtually every filibuster is primarily composed of Republican senators, with maybe a select few Democrats now and then. These hardly constitute as bipartisan efforts to waste time reading phonebooks on the senate floor, this is mostly just a minority party trying to be as relevant and as powerful as possible, and they've actually been somewhat successful in doing so.

tycoonmike

The problem is that it's quite difficult have a bipartisan debate when the majority desires to keep everything in the stereotypical smoke-filled room. The latest gaffe with C-SPAN, for instance, should be proof enough of that. And besides, do you honestly think that if the tables were reversed and the Republicans were voting on something like reduced gun control laws that the Democrats wouldn't try to filibuster it as well? It doesn't matter if the Republicans or the Democrats are the minority party, the minority will always try to make its voice louder.

Actually, a majority of Democratic congressmen are against tighter gun control laws. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans, where Democrats can have differences of opinions on certain issues, Republicans are forcing moderates who don't confrom to party doctrine out. Any Republican that has come out in support of things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and even some Republicans who were in favor of it previously and had been elected to office multiple times were torpedoed by their own party and have started to leave en masse. You can just look at the healthcare debate, there are plenty of Democratic senators who are gainst what leadership wants, how many Republican senators are going agianst leadership? None. And even look at the things Republicans have proposed, buying across state lines and tort reform, Democrats have addressed those issues in reform in order to try adn get bi-partisan support but Republicans have still obstructed any Democrat-proposed legislation. Democrats are doing more for Republican proposals than Republicans are. There's such thing as a healthy minority voice, but this isn't it. This is obstructionism and political posturing as a result of their fundamentalist strategy for winning elections failing.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

To address your points in reverse order; a graph going into 2009 wouldn't drastically change the picture. When it comes to health care, the republicans have filibustered pretty much everything that has had anything to do with health care in any way, shape, or form. And the Republican party is the minority party, even more so since 2009, and because of that, virtually every filibuster is primarily composed of Republican senators, with maybe a select few Democrats now and then. These hardly constitute as bipartisan efforts to waste time reading phonebooks on the senate floor, this is mostly just a minority party trying to be as relevant and as powerful as possible, and they've actually been somewhat successful in doing so.

theone86

The problem is that it's quite difficult have a bipartisan debate when the majority desires to keep everything in the stereotypical smoke-filled room. The latest gaffe with C-SPAN, for instance, should be proof enough of that. And besides, do you honestly think that if the tables were reversed and the Republicans were voting on something like reduced gun control laws that the Democrats wouldn't try to filibuster it as well? It doesn't matter if the Republicans or the Democrats are the minority party, the minority will always try to make its voice louder.

Actually, a majority of Democratic congressmen are against tighter gun control laws. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans, where Democrats can have differences of opinions on certain issues, Republicans are forcing moderates who don't confrom to party doctrine out. Any Republican that has come out in support of things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and even some Republicans who were in favor of it previously and had been elected to office multiple times were torpedoed by their own party and have started to leave en masse. You can just look at the healthcare debate, there are plenty of Democratic senators who are gainst what leadership wants, how many Republican senators are going agianst leadership? None. And even look at the things Republicans have proposed, buying across state lines and tort reform, Democrats have addressed those issues in reform in order to try adn get bi-partisan support but Republicans have still obstructed any Democrat-proposed legislation. Democrats are doing more for Republican proposals than Republicans are. There's such thing as a healthy minority voice, but this isn't it. This is obstructionism and political posturing as a result of their fundamentalist strategy for winning elections failing.

The Republicans shooing out everyone who doesn't agree with their platform? Oh, heavenforbid. It's a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, who've got to buy the support of their own party members. I'm not saying that the Republicans are just as guilty, but at least they're trying to stick with what they believe and what their platform is rather than the Democrats diluting their platform until everyone can say they're a Democrat.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

The problem is that it's quite difficult have a bipartisan debate when the majority desires to keep everything in the stereotypical smoke-filled room. The latest gaffe with C-SPAN, for instance, should be proof enough of that. And besides, do you honestly think that if the tables were reversed and the Republicans were voting on something like reduced gun control laws that the Democrats wouldn't try to filibuster it as well? It doesn't matter if the Republicans or the Democrats are the minority party, the minority will always try to make its voice louder.

tycoonmike

Actually, a majority of Democratic congressmen are against tighter gun control laws. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans, where Democrats can have differences of opinions on certain issues, Republicans are forcing moderates who don't confrom to party doctrine out. Any Republican that has come out in support of things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and even some Republicans who were in favor of it previously and had been elected to office multiple times were torpedoed by their own party and have started to leave en masse. You can just look at the healthcare debate, there are plenty of Democratic senators who are gainst what leadership wants, how many Republican senators are going agianst leadership? None. And even look at the things Republicans have proposed, buying across state lines and tort reform, Democrats have addressed those issues in reform in order to try adn get bi-partisan support but Republicans have still obstructed any Democrat-proposed legislation. Democrats are doing more for Republican proposals than Republicans are. There's such thing as a healthy minority voice, but this isn't it. This is obstructionism and political posturing as a result of their fundamentalist strategy for winning elections failing.

The Republicans shooing out everyone who doesn't agree with their platform? Oh, heavenforbid. It's a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, who've got to buy the support of their own party members. I'm not saying that the Republicans are just as guilty, but at least they're trying to stick with what they believe and what their platform is rather than the Democrats diluting their platform until everyone can say they're a Democrat.

Not that I like that, but it isn't a bribe and it isn't unprecedented, it's sadly how politics work and if you think Republicans haven't done the same thing then you're delusional. To be clear, Nelson still doesn't support what Democratic leadership is proposing and he only voted to pass the Senate Bill which did not include a public option, what happened is hardly on the scale of what you're making it out to be. And equating Republicans sticking to what they believe in to forcing members out that don't confrom to every single talking point of the party leadership si a muddled point, the politicians who were sabotaged in their elections were just sticking to what they believed to as well, who defines what who believes? Just because they're Republicans they have to have the exact same stance on every single issue, social fiscal and otherwise? Democrats may not always agree, but at least they welcome discussion and oppositionwithin their party and actually debate with their colleagues instead of dropping funding and support without warning.

[QUOTE="warmachines"]If obama scraps it, and starts over with republican help, do you think he can redeem himself?Ace_WondersX

I heard a quote once about the politician's philosophy, which I think is pretty relevant to this discussion. A politicians philosophy: "Oh that's terrible! Something has to be done! This is something, let's do it." Just because a bill is moving forward doesn't mean it's the right move to make.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Actually, a majority of Democratic congressmen are against tighter gun control laws. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans, where Democrats can have differences of opinions on certain issues, Republicans are forcing moderates who don't confrom to party doctrine out. Any Republican that has come out in support of things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and even some Republicans who were in favor of it previously and had been elected to office multiple times were torpedoed by their own party and have started to leave en masse. You can just look at the healthcare debate, there are plenty of Democratic senators who are gainst what leadership wants, how many Republican senators are going agianst leadership? None. And even look at the things Republicans have proposed, buying across state lines and tort reform, Democrats have addressed those issues in reform in order to try adn get bi-partisan support but Republicans have still obstructed any Democrat-proposed legislation. Democrats are doing more for Republican proposals than Republicans are. There's such thing as a healthy minority voice, but this isn't it. This is obstructionism and political posturing as a result of their fundamentalist strategy for winning elections failing.

theone86

The Republicans shooing out everyone who doesn't agree with their platform? Oh, heavenforbid. It's a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, who've got to buy the support of their own party members. I'm not saying that the Republicans are just as guilty, but at least they're trying to stick with what they believe and what their platform is rather than the Democrats diluting their platform until everyone can say they're a Democrat.

Not that I like that, but it isn't a bribe and it isn't unprecedented, it's sadly how politics work and if you think Republicans haven't done the same thing then you're delusional. To be clear, Nelson still doesn't support what Democratic leadership is proposing and he only voted to pass the Senate Bill which did not include a public option, what happened is hardly on the scale of what you're making it out to be. And equating Republicans sticking to what they believe in to forcing members out that don't confrom to every single talking point of the party leadership si a muddled point, the politicians who were sabotaged in their elections were just sticking to what they believed to as well, who defines what who believes? Just because they're Republicans they have to have the exact same stance on every single issue, social fiscal and otherwise? Democrats may not always agree, but at least they welcome discussion and oppositionwithin their party and actually debate with their colleagues instead of dropping funding and support without warning.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are the only ones who have bribed (and yes, getting free health care for one's state in return for the support of a bill is a bribe) their own members, I'm saying that you need to hold both sides for their crimes against each other and against the American people.

And, as much as I'd like to go back in time and shoot both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for the feud that they started which developed into political parties, that's precisely what a political party is supposed to be, a group of people bound by a few key arguments. It's the majority that determine what the party platform is. If that means that the majority of the Republican party is, for instance, against same sex marriage and excessive government spending, and for looser gun control laws and the death penalty, then that's what the party platform is and is thus what a majority of one's beliefs should be. There should be debate within a party, I agree, but only if the people on the debate actually support the majority of the party platform. Indeed, I haven't seen you provide the names of Republicans who were supposedly sabotaged by their own party.

Oh, and about Democrats welcoming discussion and opposition. Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said that the debate on climate change was over? Isn't it the Democratic party that denied C-SPAN access to televise the final debates on the health care bills? I fully recognize the crimes the Republican party has committed against the citizens of the United States, but then again, you'd have to be just as delusional if you don't recognize the crimes the Democratic party has committed as well.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

The Republicans shooing out everyone who doesn't agree with their platform? Oh, heavenforbid. It's a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, who've got to buy the support of their own party members. I'm not saying that the Republicans are just as guilty, but at least they're trying to stick with what they believe and what their platform is rather than the Democrats diluting their platform until everyone can say they're a Democrat.

tycoonmike

Not that I like that, but it isn't a bribe and it isn't unprecedented, it's sadly how politics work and if you think Republicans haven't done the same thing then you're delusional. To be clear, Nelson still doesn't support what Democratic leadership is proposing and he only voted to pass the Senate Bill which did not include a public option, what happened is hardly on the scale of what you're making it out to be. And equating Republicans sticking to what they believe in to forcing members out that don't confrom to every single talking point of the party leadership si a muddled point, the politicians who were sabotaged in their elections were just sticking to what they believed to as well, who defines what who believes? Just because they're Republicans they have to have the exact same stance on every single issue, social fiscal and otherwise? Democrats may not always agree, but at least they welcome discussion and oppositionwithin their party and actually debate with their colleagues instead of dropping funding and support without warning.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are the only ones who have bribed (and yes, getting free health care for one's state in return for the support of a bill is a bribe) their own members, I'm saying that you need to hold both sides for their crimes against each other and against the American people.

And, as much as I'd like to go back in time and shoot both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for the feud that they started which developed into political parties, that's precisely what a political party is supposed to be, a group of people bound by a few key arguments. It's the majority that determine what the party platform is. If that means that the majority of the Republican party is, for instance, against same sex marriage and excessive government spending, and for looser gun control laws and the death penalty, then that's what the party platform is and is thus what a majority of one's beliefs should be. There should be debate within a party, I agree, but only if the people on the debate actually support the majority of the party platform. Indeed, I haven't seen you provide the names of Republicans who were supposedly sabotaged by their own party.

Oh, and about Democrats welcoming discussion and opposition. Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said that the debate on climate change was over? Isn't it the Democratic party that denied C-SPAN access to televise the final debates on the health care bills? I fully recognize the crimes the Republican party has committed against the citizens of the United States, but then again, you'd have to be just as delusional if you don't recognize the crimes the Democratic party has committed as well.

It's not a bribe, it's a politican working to get funding for his or her state. It's not the most forthright way to do so, but nonetheless it's still not a bribe, not to mention you're using excessive hyperbole to spin it to be something it's not. The Democratic Party wasn't trying to buy his support, like I said it just relates to one bill, he's openly said he won't support the party majority if what they supoort goes against his views. Besides, this whole argument is simple detraction, there's an issue I brought up about the Republican Party and to avoid addressing it directly you point the finger at the Democrats, I point the finger back at the Republicans, and before anyone knows it no one can remember what the actual issue was about. Sorry, not gonna happen. Earmarking funding is not a partisan issue, it has guilty parties and opposition on both sides, don't try to make it into one.

The majoprity determine the platform, but they shouldn't enforce views. Republican candidates who have been successful in the past getting elected on views that differ with the majority shouldn't be punished just because the party decided to take a hard ideological right turn when they started to lose support. If they support the core ideology, fiscal conservatism, and are committed to working in the party despite their differences with leadership then there is no good reason to force them out. "There should be debate, but only if the people in the debate support the majority,"do you even hear yourself? This is what I find so hilarious about ideologues, they can never see the blatant contradictions that are right in front of their faces. When people like Cheney go off on diatribes about executive branch power and push through legislation using clauses that were never meant to be used to do so conservatives are 100% behind them, but as soon as they're not in a position to do so they start whining about the need for bi-partisanship. Sure, the executive branch should have all the power, but only with a Republican President, as soon as Obama gets elected they start talking about Czars signaling communism, a notion which is so inherently flawed I won't even begin to get into it. Same here, they'll go on and on about tyrannical big government, the need for constructive debate, etc., etc., but they can't even facilitate constructive debate within their own party, they discourage it. They go on these long rants that invariably prove Godwin's Law yet again and all the while can't even see that they buy into this unquestioning, fall in line, don't mess with the status quo mentality. As for Republicans who have been sabotaged, Jim Leach is a prime example, and if you look at the Party's caucus there are virtually nopoliticians who disagree on social issues, whereas the Democratic Party has plenty of disagreement on issues of gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc.

The debate on climate change is over, the majority consensus of the scientific community (ya know, the guys who actually study this stuff for a living) is that global warming is real, is impacted by man and the pollution of the Earth, and is a real and continuing threat that if not addressed will be irreversible before long. As for the C-Span thing, I heard about it vaguely, but as I remember debates of that kind are never televised on C-Span. Either way, neither is an issue about censoring debate within the party, they're both simply more attempts at detraction. The former is simply a vague statement, not in any way meant to be a censor on party discussion, but rather to say that the verdict on climate change FROM those most qualified to comment on it has come back and that the evidence supports the assertation that global wamring is real and caused in large part by man. The latter doesn't affect debate within the party at all, it pertains only to public access to a congressional debate, and even then I don't see how that affects anything, the debate on both sides has been publicized since the issue was brought up and just about every key player on each side has said their piece about it to the public. Congressional debates are typically nothing more than a formality, someone takes the floor, makes their argument which is generally the same argument they've been making all along, cedes the floor, wash, rinse, repeat.

1. It's not a bribe, it's a politican working to get funding for his or her state. It's not the most forthright way to do so, but nonetheless it's still not a bribe, not to mention you're using excessive hyperbole to spin it to be something it's not. The Democratic Party wasn't trying to buy his support, like I said it just relates to one bill, he's openly said he won't support the party majority if what they supoort goes against his views. Besides, this whole argument is simple detraction, there's an issue I brought up about the Republican Party and to avoid addressing it directly you point the finger at the Democrats, I point the finger back at the Republicans, and before anyone knows it no one can remember what the actual issue was about. Sorry, not gonna happen. Earmarking funding is not a partisan issue, it has guilty parties and opposition on both sides, don't try to make it into one.

2. The majoprity determine the platform, but they shouldn't enforce views. Republican candidates who have been successful in the past getting elected on views that differ with the majority shouldn't be punished just because the party decided to take a hard ideological right turn when they started to lose support. If they support the core ideology, fiscal conservatism, and are committed to working in the party despite their differences with leadership then there is no good reason to force them out. "There should be debate, but only if the people in the debate support the majority,"do you even hear yourself? This is what I find so hilarious about ideologues, they can never see the blatant contradictions that are right in front of their faces. When people like Cheney go off on diatribes about executive branch power and push through legislation using clauses that were never meant to be used to do so conservatives are 100% behind them, but as soon as they're not in a position to do so they start whining about the need for bi-partisanship. Sure, the executive branch should have all the power, but only with a Republican President, as soon as Obama gets elected they start talking about Czars signaling communism, a notion which is so inherently flawed I won't even begin to get into it. Same here, they'll go on and on about tyrannical big government, the need for constructive debate, etc., etc., but they can't even facilitate constructive debate within their own party, they discourage it. They go on these long rants that invariably prove Godwin's Law yet again and all the while can't even see that they buy into this unquestioning, fall in line, don't mess with the status quo mentality. As for Republicans who have been sabotaged, Jim Leach is a prime example, and if you look at the Party's caucus there are virtually nopoliticians who disagree on social issues, whereas the Democratic Party has plenty of disagreement on issues of gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc.

3. The debate on climate change is over, the majority consensus of the scientific community (ya know, the guys who actually study this stuff for a living) is that global warming is real, is impacted by man and the pollution of the Earth, and is a real and continuing threat that if not addressed will be irreversible before long. As for the C-Span thing, I heard about it vaguely, but as I remember debates of that kind are never televised on C-Span. Either way, neither is an issue about censoring debate within the party, they're both simply more attempts at detraction. The former is simply a vague statement, not in any way meant to be a censor on party discussion, but rather to say that the verdict on climate change FROM those most qualified to comment on it has come back and that the evidence supports the assertation that global wamring is real and caused in large part by man. The latter doesn't affect debate within the party at all, it pertains only to public access to a congressional debate, and even then I don't see how that affects anything, the debate on both sides has been publicized since the issue was brought up and just about every key player on each side has said their piece about it to the public. Congressional debates are typically nothing more than a formality, someone takes the floor, makes their argument which is generally the same argument they've been making all along, cedes the floor, wash, rinse, repeat.

theone86

1. So then the politician who was the sole vote in the Democratic majority against the health care bill receiving a massive amount of federal money for his state then magically changing his vote after receiving it isn't a bribe? I guess when senators do it to themselves it's negotiation, but when a corporation does it it's a bribe? Earmarks are bribes, simple as that. You call it a detracting argument, I call it an underhanded tactic that ALL PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF. That has been my overriding point over this ENTIRE THREAD: that the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats when it comes to playing politics among themselves and against the other side and the third parties. Maybe if you actually read my original posts, you'd see that?

Oh, and I'll get to the detracting arguments thing in full. Don't you worry.

2. They shouldn't enforce a view, even though that's the definition of a party platform? Besides, maybe you should quote the whole thing when trying to use my own words against me.Thisis what I actually said:

There should be debate within a party, I agree, but only if the people on the debate actually support the majority OF THE PARTY PLATFORM. tycoonmike

Looks a whole lot different, doesn't it? I agree with you that Leach was cheated out of the election simply because he disagreed on a minority of the party platform. I also agree that there needs to be debate. But if your views only fit within a minority of those on a given platform, you should be ready for major resistance. Leach didn't fit that, and got wrongfully booted out of office. One of the main reasons why I don't identify myself with the Republican party in particular even though the majority of my views would probably be considered to be on the Republican side of things.

Oh, and if you're going to talk about Republicans invoking Godwin's law, you must be forgetting when Nancy Pelosi said the Tea Party activists were carrying swastikas with them. And before you go after me for using, God forbid, Fox News as a source, here's another one for you.

3. Really? Even though there have been several studies and even amateur work (listed below) that would further the debate?

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf(should be the first link in the search options, shows that there's been far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the more militant environmentalists would want us to believe, and yet life continues)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5446/1815a(this is a report on the study, but I don't think that the Swiss doctored their data, let me be perfectly clear about that)

Oh, and you may want to look at this thread, where I show that our production of greenhouse gas is, by far, less that that of the combined production of the natural processes, biological and geological, of the Earth.

As for the bold part, here, you can read up on it (no, it's not Fox). Can you prove to me that such debates aren't allowed to be televised? You're the one that's made the claim, after all. If not, then it will simply remain up in the air.

4. And now, for the detracting arguments portion. I started off posting in this thread that the Democrats are just as guilty of detracting from the issues at hand when they are the minority. This is what I said, as my first post in this thread:

Just as the Democrats will obstruct any bill that Republicans try to put through. Do you honestly think the filibuster is a Republican-exclusive weapon? Indeed, back in 2005 the Democrats used it toblock a vote on one of GWB's judicial nominees. If one side doesn't like it, they'll try to filibuster it or shoot it out of the water, period.tycoonmike

I contend that the Democrats, just as the Republicans are doing now, attempt to block votes on issues they don't agree with the Republicans on. Others agreed with me, even you when you said this:

Of course there's going to be more Democratic fillibustering, they've been in the minority for most of the time shown in the chart. The issue os the proportion of fillibustering, which the chart says nothing of.theone86

It isn't the proportion that's the problem, it's the simple fact that one side will filibuster when the other side is doing something they don't like. That is partisanship.

However, you started talking about the differences between Republicans and Democrats and how the Republicans shoot anyone down who disagrees with the majority of the party platform, which I agree with because if you disagree with the majority of a party platform you shouldn't be a member of that party, period, as well as how the Democrats try to get bipartisan support (which they attempted to do so by only axing the public option, like giving a thimble of water to someone who's dying of thirst, when there were many other points of contention, like the cuts to Medicare, tort reform, and buying across state lines (things the bill does not address in reading the majority of the newest version)). Face it, you're the one that started the diversionary tactics.

Something will pass.

I don't believe it will stove the real problem that the entire system is broken.

I don't believe as long as we have the corrupt party politics we do that it will be solved.