So, the Democrats in the Senate have now said they won't pass Waxman. The Public Option is dead, dead, dead. Bagram is still in effect, the economy will be sucky for years to come, and Obama is at best indifferent to gay rights.
What part of the Democratic base will still support them in the next few years?
If the economy is still sucky in November 2010, they'll have problems. The rest of that, not so much.
If the economy is still sucky in 2010 the challenge will come from the left wing of the Democratic party, not the Republicans.
Buppies have done pretty well under Obama. A couple hundred peaceniks will stay home (hard to notice in a midterm). A couple hundred gay activists will stay home (hard to notice in a midterm).
Obama is going to be our beloved President for two full terms, and the Democrats will benefit from that. GOD BLESS OUR OBAMA NATION
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 01:50:42 PM
What part of the Democratic base will still support them in the next few years?
Blacks. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 02:02:33 PM
Obama is going to be our beloved President for two full terms, and the Democrats will benefit from that. GOD BLESS OUR OBAMA NATION
Aren't you the guy who coined the term "Obamateur?" :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2009, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 02:02:33 PM
Obama is going to be our beloved President for two full terms, and the Democrats will benefit from that. GOD BLESS OUR OBAMA NATION
Aren't you the guy who coined the term "Obamateur?" :lol:
What's that got to do with anything? :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 02:01:27 PM
If the economy is still sucky in 2010 the challenge will come from the left wing of the Democratic party, not the Republicans.
Buppies have done pretty well under Obama. A couple hundred peaceniks will stay home (hard to notice in a midterm). A couple hundred gay activists will stay home (hard to notice in a midterm).
Buppies?
I'm not so sure as you guys, and here are a couple of discussions as to why:
1) Obama's grass roots base seems, well, tired. Here's a good example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/health/policy/15ground.html?_r=2&hp
2) The Democrats are frankly much, much less enthusiastic than they were even a few months ago: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/enthusiasm-gap-revisited.html.
IIRC the Democrats were also falling behind in fundraising a fewm onths ago, but I'd need to check that to see if it's still true.
Idiots. ACORN and Americorps are the new shadow Federal police force. Elections will soon be meaningless relics under the President for Life and his Liberal Armies.
I support Hillary. She would have glared at Pelosi and said "Bitch, I'm the president, not you. How you think you gonna check me, boo?"
I don't think the party loyalists get too disheartened by legislative failure (at worst, they sit the election out for a while), because most people don't know what the platform or manifesto was to begin with. So they vote on the impressions of the media, who are paid to read such things and their own intuition about candidates/stuff in general.
I think to lose those votes in significant number you need to do something that they dislike intensely. I don't think Obama failing to get things passed or done (and, and, and this is very early in a President's term to be talking about their legislative achievement), in my opinion he'll need to pass or do something that liberals and Democrats actively dislike.
In the UK you also need an opposition that isn't too scary or tribalism will kick in, I don't think that's likely in a mid-term election.
I don't understand this dislike of Congress writing laws. I thought that was its job? After I spent the Bush years worrying about a creeping parliamentarianism into the US system (which I think would be very damaging) I don't think Congress doing what it's meant to do is necessarily that bad.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 02:16:50 PM
I support Hillary. She would have glared at Pelosi and said "Bitch, I'm the president, not you. How you think you gonna check me, boo?"
Probably. Which is why she's been neutralized. She'll never be able to run again.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 02:14:51 PM
Buppies?
Black Yuppies.
Shelf: the typical pattern is for the president to offer a draft bill for his "major initiatives" and haggle about amendments.
Who else are the left going to support?
The Democrats can piss them off all they want and they aren't going Republican.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Who else are the left going to support?
Idiot fringe primary challengers.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Who else are the left going to support?
The Democrats can piss them off all they want and they aren't going Republican.
They don't have to support anyone, if they're pissed off enough they'll stay home.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 02:51:20 PM
Idiot fringe primary challengers.
That's as much a threat for the right as well, though.
Quote
They don't have to support anyone, if they're pissed off enough they'll stay home.
I think if they're pissed off they support fringe primary challengers. If they're apathetic (which I think is more likely) then most stay at home, some vote depending on how scary the alternative is.
I think if someone like, say, Rick Santorum is running and could get in and you're a good well-meaning liberal you'd be inclined to swallow your frustration and vote to keep him out.
I certainly hope the UAW will support Obama; that really would be ingratitude if they did not.
A numer of representatives who were swept into office on Obama's coat tails will lose their seats and the margin should get narrower in the Senate. Obama may be a disappointment to the radicals or certain single issue supporters; that will hurt Democrats in terms of raising money. Even so I would be surprised if the Republicans took either house; the margins are large; Obama hasn't done anything terrible; and, at the moment, the Republicans look to be leaderless. This could change; I wouldn't have thought the Republicans could have taken both houses in the next election in 1993.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 02:52:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Who else are the left going to support?
The Democrats can piss them off all they want and they aren't going Republican.
They don't have to support anyone, if they're pissed off enough they'll stay home.
I dunno, as Shelibh says you don't have to vote for someone, you can also vote as being against someone.
The Republicans are pretty scary these days. The way they're underhandedly sabotaging the current health care stuff is sure to push people from mild dislike into being activly against them.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:02:45 PM
The Republicans are pretty scary these days. The way they're underhandedly sabotaging the current health care stuff is sure to push people from mild dislike into being activly against them.
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 02:58:59 PM
That's as much a threat for the right as well, though.
Idiot fringe candidacies have more traction when the incumbent has a record to run against.
Joe Squeeze: :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 02:52:48 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 02:48:07 PM
Who else are the left going to support?
The Democrats can piss them off all they want and they aren't going Republican.
They don't have to support anyone, if they're pissed off enough they'll stay home.
I dunno, as Shelibh says you don't have to vote for someone, you can also vote as being against someone.
The Republicans are pretty scary these days. The way they're underhandedly sabotaging the current health care stuff is sure to push people from mild dislike into being activly against them.
Underhandedly? They're openly against it.
QuoteUnderhandedly? They're openly against it.
No they aren't.
They're relying on a load of silly scare tactics about death panels and the like.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 03:26:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2009, 02:58:59 PM
That's as much a threat for the right as well, though.
Idiot fringe candidacies have more traction when the incumbent has a record to run against.
Joe Squeeze: :lol:
:lol: is not a argument.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:49:07 PM
:lol: is not a argument.
Random babble does not require refutation. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:49:07 PM
:lol: is not a argument.
Random babble does not require refutation. :lol:
:yeahright: What I said was perfectly valid.
I wasn't even saying much new, just agreeing with what has already been said.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 16, 2009, 02:16:42 PM
Idiots. ACORN and Americorps are the new shadow Federal police force. Elections will soon be meaningless relics under the President for Life and his Liberal Armies.
You have been reading my friend's emails to me. :mad:
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:49:07 PM
:lol: is not a argument.
:weep:
You may be right, Republicans may be pounding away about death panels and I'm just missing it. Hook me up with a quote or two.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:02:45 PM
I dunno, as Shelibh says you don't have to vote for someone, you can also vote as being against someone.
The Republicans are pretty scary these days. The way they're underhandedly sabotaging the current health care stuff is sure to push people from mild dislike into being activly against them.
Problem is, it's working. The majority of the public is with them, some quite fervently, so even if those of us who aren't dislike them more over it, they still win on the issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
:weep:
You may be right, Republicans may be pounding away about death panels and I'm just missing it. Hook me up with a quote or two.
At least you're saying what your disagreement actually is now.
Did you actually miss that? Its one of the more famous quotes to come out of the various republican sillyness.
http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2009/08/obama_reacts_to_death_panel_cl.html
Quote
Problem is, it's working. The majority of the public is with them, some quite fervently, so even if those of us who aren't dislike them more over it, they still win on the issue.
Yeah, but the point is though whether the left will hold this as a Obama failing so not vote or of why Republicans are bad (tm) and so vote to stop them.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 03:55:14 PM
:yeahright: What I said was perfectly valid.
Not at all.
Quote from: Tyr on August 16, 2009, 04:11:17 PM
At least you're saying what your disagreement actually is now.
Did you actually miss that? Its one of the more famous quotes to come out of the various republican sillyness.
http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2009/08/obama_reacts_to_death_panel_cl.html
Quote
Linky no worky.
This thread reminds me to drive my gas guzzler through Yellow Springs and yell obscenities at the Antioch college students.
I didn't vote for Obama to bring about health care reform, gay rights, or fix the economy. Therefore I will be pleased to vote for him again in 2012.
Quote from: Fate on August 16, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
I didn't vote for Obama to bring about health care reform, gay rights, or fix the economy. Therefore I will be pleased to vote for him again in 2012.
What did you vote for him for?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 16, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
I didn't vote for Obama to bring about health care reform, gay rights, or fix the economy. Therefore I will be pleased to vote for him again in 2012.
What did you vote for him for?
Negro pussy
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: Fate on August 16, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
I didn't vote for Obama to bring about health care reform, gay rights, or fix the economy. Therefore I will be pleased to vote for him again in 2012.
What did you vote for him for?
Nigger cadence makes me weak at the knees.
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
I get the rant weekly from some friends of mine. They seem to have made it a personal challenge to plumb new depths of paranoid weirdness. When Obama hits the streets they'll simply move on to some other fixation.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2009, 04:03:00 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 16, 2009, 02:16:42 PM
Idiots. ACORN and Americorps are the new shadow Federal police force. Elections will soon be meaningless relics under the President for Life and his Liberal Armies.
You have been reading my friend's emails to me. :mad:
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
Why?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
Why?
Hates America.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
I would think that someone with AIDS would want good health care.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 07:39:29 PM
I would think that someone with AIDS would want good health care.
Exactly. ;)
Quote from: Savonarola on August 16, 2009, 02:59:34 PM
A numer of representatives who were swept into office on Obama's coat tails will lose their seats and the margin should get narrower in the Senate.
That's normal for an off-year election anyway, that the party in power loses seats in Congress.
Well, its not this one.
Quote from: Siege on August 16, 2009, 09:05:50 PM
Well, its not this one.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
You rock Seebrew.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
Why?
Cuz it would have been a disaster. Not that it won't be a disaster without it, mind you.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2009, 09:13:35 PM
Cuz it would have been a disaster. Not that it won't be a disaster without it, mind you.
I figure since we are already paying more per capita than the socialized bastards in Euroland we might as well get what we pay for.
But yeah the health system is simply messed up and I have no illusions whatever the eventual reform the Dems do it will be any better.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2009, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
Why?
Cuz it would have been a disaster. Not that it won't be a disaster without it, mind you.
What with the death panels and all.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 09:42:39 PM
I figure since we are already paying more per capita than the socialized bastards in Euroland we might as well get what we pay for.
Except we may well end up getting even less for what we pay. You don't still claim to be a Lockean liberal, do you?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2009, 09:50:59 PM
What with the death panels and all.
Ah, why don't you go & get yourself some end of life counseling.
:P
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2009, 10:05:42 PM
Except we may well end up getting even less for what we pay. You don't still claim to be a Lockean liberal, do you?
Yep I am just considering the possibility this might not fuck it up any worse than it already is.
The model I wish would be adopted would be where most of the health care decisions would be worked out between doctors and patients. But now HMOs and Lawyers pretty much run everything and the system is about as innefficient and corrupt as all hell. I don't really know if having the Feds run it will make it any worse...and through Medicare and such they already have a ton of power.
Might as well since it is so far gone.
I am not enthusiastic about this Spicey I just don't really think our present system is worth defending and nobody seems to have any other ideas. Heck even the Republicans massively expanding federal health benefits.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 10:16:47 PM
The model I wish would be adopted would be where most of the health care decisions would be worked out between doctors and patients. But now HMOs and Lawyers pretty much run everything and the system is about as innefficient and corrupt as all hell. I don't really know if having the Feds run it will make it any worse...and through Medicare and such they already have a ton of power.
After reading ulmont's article I don't see how letting doctors run things would be all that fabulous.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 10:30:21 PM
After reading ulmont's article I don't see how letting doctors run things would be all that fabulous.
If the people providing the service and the consumers of said service should not make the decisions then who? I guess that is the question we are ultimately wrestling with here.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 10:31:27 PM
If the people providing the service and the consumers of said service should not make the decisions then who? I guess that is the question we are ultimately wrestling with here.
The question we are wrestling with is how to allocate supply in a condition of infinite demand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 10:16:47 PM
The model I wish would be adopted would be where most of the health care decisions would be worked out between doctors and patients. But now HMOs and Lawyers pretty much run everything and the system is about as innefficient and corrupt as all hell. I don't really know if having the Feds run it will make it any worse...and through Medicare and such they already have a ton of power.
After reading ulmont's article I don't see how letting doctors run things would be all that fabulous.
Doctors, for all their education, are mostly morons. To paraphrase George Carlin: a few good ones, a whole lot of useless ones.
Oh, and they're greedy as all hell. It would be like putting investment banks in charge of the stock market. Oh, wait.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2009, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 10:16:47 PM
The model I wish would be adopted would be where most of the health care decisions would be worked out between doctors and patients. But now HMOs and Lawyers pretty much run everything and the system is about as innefficient and corrupt as all hell. I don't really know if having the Feds run it will make it any worse...and through Medicare and such they already have a ton of power.
After reading ulmont's article I don't see how letting doctors run things would be all that fabulous.
Oh, and they're greedy as all hell. It would be like putting investment banks in charge of the stock market. Oh, wait.
Indeed. I shall become one of those greedy, tax obsessed, country club Republicans in short order. :mmm:
In Canada we have regional health boards who run things, under the administration of the provinces, who have a mandate to implement national standards using federal monies. providers are a mix of private and nonprofit, they bill the government but there are private insurers involved as well. every province runs things differently. in some places you have a pay an additional annual fee.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2009, 01:50:42 PM
So, the Democrats in the Senate have now said they won't pass Waxman. The Public Option is dead, dead, dead. Bagram is still in effect, the economy will be sucky for years to come, and Obama is at best indifferent to gay rights.
What part of the Democratic base will still support them in the next few years?
My impression is that Pres Obama has shifted too far politically left. He was elected by a lot of more centrist voters, the extremes being a minority on either political side. If he can start working more towards the center he stands a better chance. That will alienate the more further left, but I don't think it's a good idea to cater to the more extreme anyway.
I think he lost the early debate on health care, but now is probably making up for it with more speeches and talks on it. But some damage has been done and he's playing catch up, so he's hurt himself politically on just health care. Let alone other budget and bailout stuff that people might be upset over. He had pushed to have health care passed quickly, and I really think that angered a lot of people to go so fast, with yet another unread and non-understood massive spending bill.
Quote from: KRonn on August 17, 2009, 08:10:32 AM
My impression is that Pres Obama has shifted too far politically left. He was elected by a lot of more centrist voters, the extremes being a minority on either political side. If he can start working more towards the center he stands a better chance. That will alienate the more further left, but I don't think it's a good idea to cater to the more extreme anyway.
The same exact thing happened with Bush, except he shifted in the other direction. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM
As I forgot to say it, how exciting that the public option is going away. :w00t: :swiss:
Why?
Doesn't his mom work in Pharma? wants to keep those drug prices up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 03:26:44 PM
Idiot fringe candidacies have more traction when the incumbent has a record to run against.
I agree. I think that's why you'd have to be a very confident Republican to even think about helping the Dems, especially if you're a Senator, like Olympia Snowe, for example.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2009, 04:03:58 PM
You may be right, Republicans may be pounding away about death panels and I'm just missing it. Hook me up with a quote or two.
Chuck Grassley:
QuoteThere is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life. And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma.
I believe he's since walked back some of that and a spokesman's more or less abandoned it all.
Gingrich:
Quote"The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms," he said. "You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards."
I'm assuming you've read the Palin comment:
Quote"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care," Palin wrote. "Such a system is downright evil."
Michael Steele:
Quote"That's the mood the administration is beginning to take," Steele said. "In this case, it is the government controlling the means of providing health care to the American people. It is inserting itself into the very fabric of the decisions that you make, have to make every single day. It'll make the Terry Schiavo case look like a walk in the park."
John Cornyn being most suspicious of the 'death panel' claim:
QuoteI think it's probably an exaggeration of what is actually in the plans, but there is no doubt that there is an emphasis on consulting with family members about end-of-life decisions and health care decisions because of the stated concerns about how much money is spent at that stage of life and whether money could actually be saved by encouraging people to have living wills and medical directives, as the president has discussed.
I think the most important thing here is that those decisions must be left in the hands of the family and individuals most directly affected. I think what scares people and what creates the specter of end-of-life panels or "death panels" is the idea that government would somehow be involved in those decisions. I think we've got to have a firewall between private decision-making and government decision-making when it comes to end-of-life decisions, because I think it's easy for all of us to see how this could, even despite the best of intentions, degenerate into one where government ultimately made decisions based on cost and the value of one's life, rather than leaving those decisions in the hands of the family
Now it could have come up because they've been asked about it but there are a number of Republicans who seem to be giving credence to something that's just not true. And this has garnered attention in the UK because they've made a number of untrue statements about the NHS which has attracted politicians attentions here with everyone rushing to defend 'our NHS' (David Cameron) from such attacks.
Edit:
Palin's also said that the death panels won't be 'entirely voluntary' apparently.
This isn't a death panel claim but it's still untrue and aiming at geeing up opposition, from Boehner:
Quote"will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars."
Dan Lungren:
Quote"If we are being told that this week we have to make the decision as to whether or not the program we put forward will have government decide whether a 100-year-old woman who is in extraordinarily good health but needs a pacemaker ought to instead be told by the government that merely she should take a pain pill — as the president suggested on television not too long ago — then maybe we owe it to the American people to give ourselves sufficient time" to study this legislation further.
Then there's Betsy McCaughey:
Quote"Mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home. ... That's an invasion of the right to privacy. We can't have counseling for mothers who are thinking of terminating their pregnancy, but we can go in there and counsel people about to die."
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 09:42:39 PM
But yeah the health system is simply messed up and I have no illusions whatever the eventual reform the Dems do it will be any better.
I'm always confused when Americans attack healthcare as if it's going to be socialised, like the NHS. From what I can tell there are two undeniable truths in healthcare policy: no-one would want to imitate the American system and no-one would want to imitate the British system.
From what I've read you look to be heading to a Dutch/French system with a private insurance market with government regulation and support for the poor. In Holland last year health insurance premiums fell due to competition which I don't think has happened in the US in a long time.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 10:16:47 PM
I am not enthusiastic about this Spicey I just don't really think our present system is worth defending and nobody seems to have any other ideas. Heck even the Republicans massively expanding federal health benefits.
Ironically despite Democrat claims to the contrary the Democrats seem to want to cut Medicare as part of healthcare reforms. After a long time of wanting to do something like that Republicans are attacking the Democrats from the left on that :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 08:58:38 AM
In Holland last year health insurance premiums fell due to competition which I don't think has happened in the US in a long time.
:blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 08:58:38 AM
...
I'm always confused when Americans attack healthcare as if it's going to be socialised, like the NHS. From what I can tell there are two undeniable truths in healthcare policy: no-one would want to imitate the American system and no-one would want to imitate the British system.
...
As with the gun control debate, they're mired in myths and religious inspired fantasies. Mind you we experience something similar in Canada but from the opposite angle: any suggestion that the private sector could somehow be involved in Healthcare is howled down as anathema and an attack on canadian values...
Delusions all around. HA!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 17, 2009, 09:50:19 AM
As with the gun control debate, they're mired in myths and religious inspired fantasies. Mind you we experience something similar in Canada but from the opposite angle: any suggestion that the private sector could somehow be involved in Healthcare is howled down as anathema and an attack on canadian values...
We've the same problem here. Politicians who wish to reform the NHS have to frame it, as Blair did, as internal reforms and building an internal market. As Nigel Lawson said the NHS is the nearest thing we have to religion.
I think for the UK it's because we generally know nothing about the continental European systems so the dichotomy in our mind (especially if the word 'insurance' is mentioned) is between the NHS or privatisation, and we'd choose the NHS every time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 09:00:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 10:16:47 PM
I am not enthusiastic about this Spicey I just don't really think our present system is worth defending and nobody seems to have any other ideas. Heck even the Republicans massively expanding federal health benefits.
Ironically despite Democrat claims to the contrary the Democrats seem to want to cut Medicare as part of healthcare reforms. After a long time of wanting to do something like that Republicans are attacking the Democrats from the left on that :lol:
Cutting Medicare has me confused, unless maybe the plan is to move some of the Medicare stuff into the new health plan. Medicare has been in financial trouble, needs fixing as well.
Quote from: Caliga on August 17, 2009, 08:39:19 AM
The same exact thing happened with Bush, except he shifted in the other direction. :)
Not in every case.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 17, 2009, 08:58:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2009, 09:42:39 PM
But yeah the health system is simply messed up and I have no illusions whatever the eventual reform the Dems do it will be any better.
I'm always confused when Americans attack healthcare as if it's going to be socialised, like the NHS. From what I can tell there are two undeniable truths in healthcare policy: no-one would want to imitate the American system and no-one would want to imitate the British system.
From what I've read you look to be heading to a Dutch/French system with a private insurance market with government regulation and support for the poor. In Holland last year health insurance premiums fell due to competition which I don't think has happened in the US in a long time.
We are told that apparently a genius like Stephen Hawkings would have died had he lived in Britain.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2009, 10:36:22 AM
We are told that apparently a genius like Stephen Hawkings would have died had he lived in Britain.
The British death panels would have certainly put him to death. Thank goodness he has never gotten anywhere close to that evil gun-less socialist hell hole.
Actually the amount of crazy going around in this debate is reminiscent of another debate in this country 50 years ago.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg10.imageshack.us%2Fimg10%2F4562%2Funholythree.png&hash=fe174cabf5abac8d16c6beb7698e3dabdbbc7e1b) (http://img10.imageshack.us/i/unholythree.png/)
That ad is awesome Raz. "Polio Monkey Serums" is the name of my new douchebag indie band.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2009, 08:43:26 AM
Doesn't his mom work in Pharma? wants to keep those drug prices up.
Irrelevant, but I work in pharma. :mellow:
I stand corrected Shelf.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2009, 06:53:50 PM
I stand corrected Shelf.
To be fair, this is what Obama himself said in a NYTimes interview back in April:
QuoteI mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think it has to be able to give you some guidance.
That sure sounds like an endorsement of "death panels". And he has expressed similar sentiments several times in town halls about denying health care to the elderly on the basis that he'd not judge them worthy of the expense.
For example:
QuoteObama discusses deathbed measures
At a healthcare town hall, he says stopping futile procedures for the terminally ill can lower costs.
By Peter Nicholas
June 25, 2009
Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
Obama said he has personal familiarity with such a dilemma. His grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given less than nine months to live, he said.
She fell and broke her hip, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"
Sure sounds like he's endorsing denying health care to seniors on account they're not worth spending much money on. The hysteria about the GOP using the term "Death Panel" is merely because the Dems are scared the GOP have found an effective catchphrase to attack the Democrats on.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 18, 2009, 06:04:20 AM
For example:
QuoteObama discusses deathbed measures
At a healthcare town hall, he says stopping futile procedures for the terminally ill can lower costs.
By Peter Nicholas
June 25, 2009
Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
Obama said he has personal familiarity with such a dilemma. His grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given less than nine months to live, he said.
She fell and broke her hip, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"
Sure sounds like he's endorsing denying health care to seniors on account they're not worth spending much money on. The hysteria about the GOP using the term "Death Panel" is merely because the Dems are scared the GOP have found an effective catchphrase to attack the Democrats on.
You should have quit while you were ahead. The first article has a whiff of death panel to it, this one does not.
Not even a whiff. Well at least you are enlightened Yi. You can see that your comrades in arms in the GOP really do take their conspiracies seriously.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2009, 06:14:07 AM
Not even a whiff. Well at least you are enlightened Yi. You can see that your comrades in arms in the GOP really do take their conspiracies seriously.
Easily a whiff.
Incidentally, the left wing of the Democrats is now getting angry at Obama, and with his sky high popularity already gone...
QuoteAugust 17, 2009
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201
Dear Secretary Sebelius,
We write to you concerning your recent comments about the public option in health insurance reform.
We stand in strong opposition to your statement that the public option is "not the essential element" of comprehensive reform. The opportunity to improve access to healthcare is a onetime opportunity. Americans deserve reform that is real-not smoke and mirrors. We cannot rely solely on the insurance companies' good faith efforts to provide for our constituents. A robust public option is essential, if we are to ensure that all Americans can receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high-quality.
To take the public option off the table would be a grave error; passage in the House of Representatives depends upon inclusion of it.
We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their Position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option.
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/17/60-members-of-congress-say-no-public-plan-no-conference/ (http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/17/60-members-of-congress-say-no-public-plan-no-conference/)
Dean of course has also been critical of the president.
QuoteHoward Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, went so far as to say Democrats should try to "tackle health reform another time."
"You can't really have reform without a public option," Dean said on CBS News's "The Early Show. "If you don't want to have the public option, ... just do a little insurance reform ... and then we'll tackle health reform another time. But let's not pretend we're doing reform without a public option."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26180.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26180.html)
Anyway, can someone explain to me how the government being concerned about the cost of end of life treatment is different than for profit insurance companies being concerned about it?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2009, 06:43:12 AM
Anyway, can someone explain to me how the government being concerned about the cost of end of life treatment is different than for profit insurance companies being concerned about it?
For one thing 100% of people dying of old age are covered by Medicare.
Of all the things to get hung up about a public option seems like the most trivial.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 18, 2009, 06:43:12 AM
Anyway, can someone explain to me how the government being concerned about the cost of end of life treatment is different than for profit insurance companies being concerned about it?
This thing has been drastically blown out of proportion for political reasons, but, if it were actually as the extreme right (i.e. Palin and friends) is trying to portray it, I could see the concern. Let's say that these fictitious government boards really were going to decide to deny coverage to a terminal or very elderly case... you KNOW if it was government-run, folks like Jesse Jackson would turn it into something racial and the end result would be they'd be less likely to pull the plug on a black dude than a white one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 06:40:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2009, 06:14:07 AM
Not even a whiff. Well at least you are enlightened Yi. You can see that your comrades in arms in the GOP really do take their conspiracies seriously.
Easily a whiff.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2009, 07:48:50 AM
:tinfoil:
:jaron:
Read Hans' first post and tell me what Obama wants to have a difficult democratic conversation about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 07:52:40 AM
Read Hans' first post and tell me what Obama wants to have a difficult democratic conversation about.
But that is insane. That is not practical and will never work politically.
What pisses me the fuck off is Hans is dancing the fucking happy dance he now has a way to attack the Democrats politically but the Republicans have zero alternatives and indeed only expanded the fucking health care system themselves when in power.
So what? Hans has a pointless and useless and masturbatory way to attack Democrats. Why the fuck should I care?
It is not like something like death panels could ever really exist in the real world. The millions of lawsuits in themselves would be stunning. Hurrah for conspiracy theory bullshit to get us talking about nonsense instead of actual health care solutions.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 07:56:31 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 07:52:40 AM
Read Hans' first post and tell me what Obama wants to have a difficult democratic conversation about.
But that is insane. That is not practical and will never work politically.
What pisses me the fuck off is Hans is dancing the fucking happy dance he now has a way to attack the Democrats politically but the Republicans have zero alternatives and indeed only expanded the fucking health care system themselves when in power.
So what? Hans has a pointless and useless and masturbatory way to attack Democrats. Why the fuck should I care?
It is not like something like death panels could ever really exist in the real world. The millions of lawsuits in themselves would be stunning. Hurrah for conspiracy theory bullshit to get us talking about nonsense instead of actual health care solutions.
I think part of the scare is that since health care costs are so high, and that needs to be dealt with, the concern is how costs will be brought down in a govt run system. That might include some sort of rationing, which may be the wrong word, but the insurance companies do similar now to curb costs. Some Insurance companies may deny some care, such as experimental, or have some caps on care spending. That might also include denying some care to elderly, which is something that's been talked about by other people even if it's not part of the health care bill.
As for the Repubs, they have many ideas to curb costs or what ever. I can't schill for them as I haven't followed too closely. But there are other ideas out there, Dem and Repub outside of the health care bill. But if not for Pres Obama finally pushing for some reform, it's not likely the Repubs especially, or many Dems, would be trying to take this on anyway. So I give credit to Pres Obama, though I don't like the original bill and the ideas of more massive spending. However, I do hope he sticks to this to get some reform started. Health care costs are a real burden on business and individuals and that hits the economy too.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 07:56:31 AM
But that is insane. That is not practical and will never work politically.
What pisses me the fuck off is Hans is dancing the fucking happy dance he now has a way to attack the Democrats politically but the Republicans have zero alternatives and indeed only expanded the fucking health care system themselves when in power.
So what? Hans has a pointless and useless and masturbatory way to attack Democrats. Why the fuck should I care?
It is not like something like death panels could ever really exist in the real world. The millions of lawsuits in themselves would be stunning. Hurrah for conspiracy theory bullshit to get us talking about nonsense instead of actual health care solutions.
Not sure what your point is.
Quote from: KRonn on August 18, 2009, 08:09:44 AM
However, I do hope he sticks to this to get some reform started. Health care costs are a real burden on business and individuals and that hits the economy too.
Yep. I am not sure what the solution is but anybody with half a brain knows you cannot practically just start cutting off the elderly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 08:44:24 AM
Not sure what your point is.
Bullshit annoys me.
Also that Hans' perspective on health care is :w00t: we have something to attack Democrats on like I give shit really.
Don't worry everybody!
QuoteGibbs insists Obama not backing off public option
WASHINGTON – White House spokesman Robert Gibbs insists the Obama administration has not shifted its goals on health care reform or distanced itself from a government-run public insurance option.
He said in a meeting with reporters Tuesday morning that news stories suggesting that the administration was ready to abandon the public option as it battles to push health care reform through were overblown. The rash of reports began after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (seh-BEEL'-yuhs) appeared to signal the president was open to health care cooperatives as an alternative.
Gibbs said there was no intention to indicate a change in policy. He said, "If it was a signal, it was a dog whistle we started blowing weeks ago."
Although it probably is bad that many of Obama's underlings, including the Health secretary have no idea what Obama wants...:(
People keep asking me IRL what I think about Obama's "plan", and I keep answering I have no idea what his plan even is or if there is one, so I can't comment.
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:22:05 AM
Although it probably is bad that many of Obama's underlings, including the Health secretary have no idea what Obama wants...:(
I certainly have no clear idea besides everybody is supposed to be covered at no increased federal cost somehow.
Quote from: Caliga on August 18, 2009, 11:23:54 AM
People keep asking me IRL what I think about Obama's "plan", and I keep answering I have no idea what his plan even is or if there is one, so I can't comment.
Yep.
honking crap, all this death panel nonsense. You don't cut healthcare for the elderly - They actually vote. political euthanasia. I don't think Obama or anyone on his team is that stupid. Even if they are discussing such things.
what I also find quite funny is how the Righties always get in a huff over right to life stuff whether it's abortion, or euthanasia, but have no problem killing anyone they find vaguely offensive. I guess it goes to Hans' avatar... it's not wrong if we decide it. Bunch of Tards.
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:22:05 AM
Although it probably is bad that many of Obama's underlings, including the Health secretary have no idea what Obama wants...:(
Even I know that; Obama wants to be re-elected in 2012.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 18, 2009, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:22:05 AM
Although it probably is bad that many of Obama's underlings, including the Health secretary have no idea what Obama wants...:(
Even I know that; Obama wants to be re-elected in 2012.
So much for Change. <_<
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:27:07 AM
honking crap, all this death panel nonsense. You don't cut healthcare for the elderly - They actually vote. political euthanasia. I don't think Obama or anyone on his team is that stupid. Even if they are discussing such things.
what I also find quite funny is how the Righties always get in a huff over right to life stuff whether it's abortion, or euthanasia, but have no problem killing anyone they find vaguely offensive. I guess it goes to Hans' avatar... it's not wrong if we decide it. Bunch of Tards.
You are a spinning murder top!
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:27:07 AMwhat I also find quite funny is how the Righties always get in a huff over right to life stuff whether it's abortion, or euthanasia, but have no problem killing anyone they find vaguely offensive. I guess it goes to Hans' avatar... it's not wrong if we decide it. Bunch of Tards.
It is also amusing how the Lefties are often against killing like in the cases of war or self-defense(guns) but then have no problem killing anyone when it fits their ideology whether it's abortion or euthanasia.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:27:07 AM
honking crap, all this death panel nonsense. You don't cut healthcare for the elderly - They actually vote. political euthanasia. I don't think Obama or anyone on his team is that stupid. Even if they are discussing such things.
what I also find quite funny is how the Righties always get in a huff over right to life stuff whether it's abortion, or euthanasia, but have no problem killing anyone they find vaguely offensive. I guess it goes to Hans' avatar... it's not wrong if we decide it. Bunch of Tards.
Pfft like Lefties are any better.
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:27:07 AMwhat I also find quite funny is how the Righties always get in a huff over right to life stuff whether it's abortion, or euthanasia, but have no problem killing anyone they find vaguely offensive. I guess it goes to Hans' avatar... it's not wrong if we decide it. Bunch of Tards.
It is also amusing how the Lefties are often against killing like in the cases of war or self-defense(guns) but then have no problem killing anyone when it fits their ideology whether it's abortion or euthanasia.
:huh: you know more extreme lefties than I then. Most of your wartime Presidents in the US have been so called "lefties". Extreme lefties though are just as fascist as actual fascists, they just tend to have bland uniforms. That's how you tell them apart.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:43:52 AM
:huh: you know more extreme lefties than I then. Most of your wartime Presidents in the US have been so called "lefties". Extreme lefties though are just as fascist as actual fascists, they just tend to have bland uniforms. That's how you tell them apart.
Cindy Sheehan ran to be my rep and got like 16% of the vote. :mellow:
Anyway the point is, stop being ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Cindy Sheehan is about as much a real leftie as Hans. Actually There are no public figures in America that I'd even begin to call "left".
Being anti-war is not the sole province of the left. as i said the left goes to war as often or moreso than the right. the righties though tend to fuck up the wars more.
I assumed that we were talking about America, my apologies. :mellow:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:51:10 AM
Cindy Sheehan is about as much a real leftie as Hans. Actually There are no public figures in America that I'd even begin to call "left".
This is a non-starter. They might not be identical to your lefties or be ideologically attractive to more fanatical lefties but they are still lefties.
I am a lefty and I eat your unborn babies for breakfast. it's true.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 18, 2009, 11:54:31 AM
I am a lefty and I eat your unborn babies for breakfast. it's true.
That's more because you are a hippy though California Cheeseburgers FTW.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 18, 2009, 11:54:31 AM
I am a lefty and I eat your unborn babies for breakfast. it's true.
and afterwards you wipe your mouth with the American Flag amiright?
In Canada all our napkins and toilet paper has the American flag on it.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:51:10 AM
Cindy Sheehan is about as much a real leftie as Hans. Actually There are no public figures in America that I'd even begin to call "left".
Are there any American public figures that you would call true Scotsmen?
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 07:56:31 AM
What pisses me the fuck off is Hans is dancing the fucking happy dance he now has a way to attack the Democrats politically but the Republicans have zero alternatives and indeed only expanded the fucking health care system themselves when in power.
The GOP has put forth lots of alternatives. There are plenty of ideas on both sides of the aisle. But the GOP also realizes it's of the utmost importance to defeat Obamacare. And to defeat Obama in general :shifty:
I hope Obama fails :D
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2009, 12:37:26 PM
The GOP has put forth lots of alternatives. There are plenty of ideas on both sides of the aisle. But the GOP also realizes it's of the utmost importance to defeat Obamacare. And to defeat Obama in general :shifty:
I hope Obama fails :D
I hope Obama and the Congress actually put together a good plan. *shrug*
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:55:41 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 18, 2009, 11:54:31 AM
I am a lefty and I eat your unborn babies for breakfast. it's true.
and afterwards you wipe your mouth with the American Flag amiright?
cocaine laced federal currency and T-bills. and then I curse god.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 12:38:25 PM
I hope Obama and the Congress actually put together a good plan. *shrug*
I used to wish for the ability to fly (without aid of something like an airplane or catapult ^_^) until I realized the utter futility.
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 12:40:07 PM
I used to wish for the ability to fly (without aid of something like an airplane or catapult ^_^) until I realized the utter futility.
I guess I don't see your point. I always hope the government will do something good and then I get to vote every once in a while.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 12:43:13 PM
I guess I don't see your point. I always hope the government will do something good and then I get to vote every once in a while.
Your time would be better spent elsewhere or perhaps on hoping that the government doesn't screw things up too mightily. Pelosi&Co aren't capable of doing good.
How about the government just do nothing, other than un-do past screw-ups?
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 12:45:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 12:43:13 PM
I guess I don't see your point. I always hope the government will do something good and then I get to vote every once in a while.
Your time would be better spent elsewhere or perhaps on hoping that the government doesn't screw things up too mightily. Pelosi&Co aren't capable of doing good.
Well I am not the dude who lives in her district.
We just keep sending this guy back to DC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McCaul
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 12:50:44 PM
Well I am not the dude who lives in her district.
Nor do I want to be that dude. :weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 06:40:34 AM
Easily a whiff.
This is specifically about the Dan Lungren remark and a more developed version of what Obama said to the NYT:
Quote
Lungren was referring to remarks Obama made during the ABC News' June 24 special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, which was anchored by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.
We went to the transcript of the event and found that Lungren is distorting Obama's words. While Obama did bring up the example of patients and their families possibly having to choose between a pill and a pacemaker at some point, he did it as a hypothetical example while emphasizing that the government's role should be to provide background information so that patients and doctors can better sort through thorny, end-of-life issues.
The exchange began when Sawyer introduced Jane Sturm, who takes care of her mother, Hazel, now 105. When Hazel was 100, Sturm said, the doctor told her she needed a pacemaker. Both mother and daughter said they were game, but an arrhythmia specialist initially said no, before seeing Hazel's "joy of life" in person.
Sturm asked the president, "Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?"
After joking that he'd like to meet Sturm's mother and "find out what she's eating," the president said, "I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people."
After Gibson interjected with a comment about how money may not have been available for a pacemaker, Obama responded, "Well, and — and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care."
Obama continued, "And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve."
Looking at the full transcript, it's clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian.
QuotePeople keep asking me IRL what I think about Obama's "plan", and I keep answering I have no idea what his plan even is or if there is one, so I can't comment.
I think Obama's still negotiating. What intrigues me about this is that Obama never supported the public option in the campaign, he didn't even support individual mandates (right phrase?). I think the House bill is a base, to the left of what Obama thinks possible, from which negotiations with the Senate can start. And I agree with Peter Suderman that the public option is a chip he can negotiate with. The focus on the public option means that if Obama gets rid of it it looks like he's made a huge concession when much of the important stuff remains in the bill.
I wouldn't treat the public option as the be-all and end-all that some Democrats are. As far as I know many European healthcare systems don't have one, such as Switzerland and Holland.
QuoteThere are plenty of ideas on both sides of the aisle. But the GOP also realizes it's of the utmost importance to defeat Obamacare.
This is what annoys me. Grassley was asked that if he got everything he wanted into the healthcare bill but Republicans in the Senate still wouldn't support it whether he'd vote for it or not, and he said he wouldn't support it.
So in all honesty I don't see the point in Senate Democrats continuing negotiations if they can pass it in that Committee and that they'd be better served by doing that and then negotiating with Republicans who have suggested they could support it like Snowe and, I believe, Graham.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:58:39 PM
This is specifically about the Dan Lungren remark and a more developed version of what Obama said to the NYT:
How is that a response to my comment?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 02:08:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:58:39 PM
This is specifically about the Dan Lungren remark and a more developed version of what Obama said to the NYT:
How is that a response to my comment?
I think it's a more expanded version of the quotation where you detected a whiff and would be a useful thing to read :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2009, 12:37:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 07:56:31 AM
What pisses me the fuck off is Hans is dancing the fucking happy dance he now has a way to attack the Democrats politically but the Republicans have zero alternatives and indeed only expanded the fucking health care system themselves when in power.
The GOP has put forth lots of alternatives. There are plenty of ideas on both sides of the aisle. But the GOP also realizes it's of the utmost importance to defeat Obamacare. And to defeat Obama in general :shifty:
I hope Obama fails :D
It won't be enough. It falls on you to build an ANFO bomb.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
I think it's a more expanded version of the quotation where you detected a whiff and would be a useful thing to read :mellow:
Yours was from June 24, Hans said his was from April.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2009, 02:16:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
I think it's a more expanded version of the quotation where you detected a whiff and would be a useful thing to read :mellow:
Yours was from June 24, Hans said his was from April.
Expanded is the wrong word. My first choice 'a more developed' version, is better :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 02:18:37 PM
Expanded is the wrong word. My first choice 'a more developed' version, is better :blush:
"Clarified" or "calibrated" are the White House approved terms. "Reset" works too.
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2009, 11:34:25 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 18, 2009, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:22:05 AM
Although it probably is bad that many of Obama's underlings, including the Health secretary have no idea what Obama wants...:(
Even I know that; Obama wants to be re-elected in 2012.
So much for Change. <_<
This is the genius of the American system.
1. I cannot do this, as I want to be reelected to another term.
2. I've been reelected, but I cannot do this as I am now a lame-duck, and these congressmen who average 20-year careers will just ignore it and wait me out.