Healthcare Homestretch

[Run To State]

No, but I do wish he had spent a lot less time trying to placate and work with Republicans that had no intention of ever working with him.

Why in the world would they want to work with him on something they know the people DO NOT WANT?

 

Also, you're OK with the dishonest way the Dems are handling this?

[Trinity alum]

Why in the world would they want to work with him on something they know the people DO NOT WANT?

 

Then why did they pretend to work with the Democrats in the senate all summer? The president is a bad negotiator. He includes Republican ideas without getting any cooperation in return. It is time topass the bill andmove on.

[75center]

Then why did they pretend to work with the Democrats in the senate all summer? The president is a bad negotiator. He includes Republican ideas without getting any cooperation in return. It is time topass the bill andmove on.

 

You're half right.

[Bluegrasscard]

He includes Republican ideas without getting any cooperation in return.

 

He did not do squat on the initial bill. He gave it to Congress to do. The Democratic leadership in both houses then ignored the Republicans. I think the Dems would have gotten more input and buy-in and support from Republicans if the standard method of making law was followed. But Obama dictated completely unreasonable initial timeframes. He also made to clear to both the Dems and Repubs on who got to control the input. "We won" was his take. Somehow that quote does not rise to the level that would match our own Henry Clay.

 

Do not blame the Republicans for the child-like actions and consequences of this POTUS. He made this bed with poor leadership in delegating the creation to Congress and with his poor statesmanship in thumbing his nose at the (very) minority party.

[Run To State]

Then why did they pretend to work with the Democrats in the senate all summer? The president is a bad negotiator. He includes Republican ideas without getting any cooperation in return. It is time topass the bill andmove on.

He's worse than a bad negotiator, he's a bad leader.

Why would you want to see a bill passed that will be as costly as this one and doesn't address the problem?

[75center]

He did not do squat on the initial bill. He gave it to Congress to do. The Democratic leadership in both houses then ignored the Republicans. I think the Dems would have gotten more input and buy-in and support from Republicans if the standard method of making law was followed. But Obama dictated completely unreasonable initial timeframes. He also made to clear to both the Dems and Repubs on who got to control the input. "We won" was his take. Somehow that quote does not rise to the level that would match our own Henry Clay.

 

Do not blame the Republicans for the child-like actions and consequences of this POTUS. He made this bed with poor leadership in delegating the creation to Congress and with his poor statesmanship in thumbing his nose at the (very) minority party.

 

I agree that Obama has been totally inept in the handling of this major issue. However, to think that the Republicans would have bought in or supported anything brought to them by the Democrats is not realistic.

[MountainThunder]

Even a Democratic senator, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, released a statement late Tuesday saying "any plan to approve major reform without actually voting for it simply won't fly outside the Beltway."

 

But Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, are considering a process to pass the Senate's health care bill without forcing rank-and-file Democrats to go on record by voting to support it.

 

Here's how the process would work:

 

Under a tactic known as a "self-executing rule," the House could simultaneously approve the Senate bill while voting on a package of changes to it. This would "deem" the Senate bill to be passed, without compelling members to vote for it directly.

 

Democratic leaders are considering the option because many House Democrats don't want to cast a vote in favor of the unaltered Senate bill, which they oppose for numerous reasons. But the House must pass the Senate bill in order to move on to the package of changes intended to correct all the things about it that they don't like.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/critics-challenge-legitimacy-plan-avoid-direct-vote-health-care/

 

Why actually vote when you can try to pass legislation without it. This is a bad joke. If you can't get the other party and parts of yours to vote for what you want, why not subvert the intent of the constitution? Ridiculous.

[nWo]

A good book to read on the procedures of the U. S. Congress is called, "Robert's Rule of Order."

[Trinity alum]

He's worse than a bad negotiator, he's a bad leader.

Why would you want to see a bill passed that will be as costly as this one and doesn't address the problem?

 

We'll disagree on your opinion of the President. According to the CBO, the bill will save money in the first ten years and about a trillion dollars in the second ten years. So the bill isn't costly. Put that lie in the same waste can as death panels and government takeover of health care. Second it does address some of the problems. It opens health insurance to over 30 million people. If that was all it did it would be worth passing, but it does much more. It opens large group rates to small businesses and individuals. That is a great thing that will help small businesses that offer insurance to keep the benefit and it will help businesses that don't offer insurance to start. Preexisting condition exclusions will be eliminated. It makes a small start on controlling junk lawsuits. This bill does not do all that I think that it should, but it is a huge step forward. The alternative to this bill is to do nothing for a generation. If this bill fails, no member of congress or president will bring it up again for a long time.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Trinity alum

[Trinity alum]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/critics-challenge-legitimacy-plan-avoid-direct-vote-health-care/

 

Why actually vote when you can try to pass legislation without it. This is a bad joke. If you can't get the other party and parts of yours to vote for what you want, why not subvert the intent of the constitution? Ridiculous.

 

I keep hearing all of this stuff about the constitution. Would someone please show me where the constitution is being violated by either the house or the senate. I've read the constitution many times and I can't find it. Please cite the clause from the constitution that is being violated. As I sit hear I am listening to Rush Limbaugh scream that the constitution and the foundations of our government are being destroyed. He just never seems to say where.

[Run To State]

We'll disagree on your opinion of the President. According to the CBO, the bill will save money in the first ten years and about a trillion dollars in the second ten years. So the bill isn't costly. Put that lie in the same waste can as death panels and government takeover of health care. Second it does address some of the problems. It opens health insurance to over 30 million people. If that was all it did it would be worth passing, but it does much more. It opens large group rates to small businesses and individuals. That is a great thing that will help small businesses that offer insurance to keep the benefit and it will help businesses that don't offer insurance to start. Preexisting condition exclusions will be eliminated. It makes a small start on controlling junk lawsuits. This bill does not do all that I think that it should, but it is a huge step forward. The alternative to this bill is to do nothing for a generation. If this bill fails, no member of congress or president will bring it up again for a long time.

The CBO is full of crap. No way you can include preexisting conditions without it being costly. No way you can keep it from being costly when the main problems aren't' addressed, such as costs of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical equipment etc. This bill is nothing more than a health insurance reform bill, it has nothing to do with health care.

10 years of taxes and funding for 6 years of benefits, sounds cheap to me.

[Trinity alum]

The CBO is full of crap. No way you can include preexisting conditions without it being costly. No way you can keep it from being costly when the main problems aren't' addressed, such as costs of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical equipment etc. This bill is nothing more than a health insurance reform bill, it has nothing to do with health care.

If you agree with me you are smart. If you disagree with me you are full of crap. While that is one way to approach the question, the CBO is the non partisan method used to access the cost of bills proposed by congress. You can include preexisting conditions by mandating coverage and expanding the pool. I tend to agree with you that this is more of a health insurance bill than a health care bill, thus putting the lie to the whole government takeover of health care charge.

[Run To State]

If you agree with me you are smart. If you disagree with me you are full of crap. While that is one way to approach the question, the CBO is the non partisan method used to access the cost of bills proposed by congress. You can include preexisting conditions by mandating coverage and expanding the pool. I tend to agree with you that this is more of a health insurance bill than a health care bill, thus putting the lie to the whole government takeover of health care charge.

Sorry, but wrong is wrong and they are. If this passes, you'll see they're wrong, especially on preexisting conditions.

This is about control as much as anything and has been handled very dishonestly by the Dems. I believe, if it passes, you will see a lot of Dems lose in November and hopefully the Republicans will do everything in their power to get rid of it. This needs to be done right, this bill is anything but right or helpful.

[Butters]

For or against health reform, Democrat or Republican, one has to be against this type of back room shenanigans. I try very hard to be "tolerant" of those that I have philosophical differences with, but this maneuver would be WRONG.

 

Has it ever been done before?

[Gunner11]

If you agree with me you are smart. If you disagree with me you are full of crap. While that is one way to approach the question, the CBO is the non partisan method used to access the cost of bills proposed by congress. You can include preexisting conditions by mandating coverage and expanding the pool. I tend to agree with you that this is more of a health insurance bill than a health care bill, thus putting the lie to the whole government takeover of health care charge.

 

And how many times does the CBO's "estimates" hit the mark or come in below budget? Let's just say that Mendoza, the weatherman, and Shaq's foul shooting percentage are all significantly higher... In this case, past performance is highly indicative of future results...

 

My answer is that I have found one instance where that has occurred and the jury is still out because the program is in its infancy and will likely cost more than projected as the years plow by. I have found over a dozen in the last 20 years that are above cost projections and most of those over are over by 2 fold more than projected.