Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yesterday's bill got exactly as many Republican votes as Single Payer would've

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:51 PM
Original message
Yesterday's bill got exactly as many Republican votes as Single Payer would've
ZERO.

After all that 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise'.

Just sayin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
1.  too bad the Democrats aren't able to go that bold
Its a shame, there are a lot of conservadems that wouldn't vote for it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It was never going to be put up for a vote, remember?
The votes are simply besides the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. It got a hell of a lot more Democrat votes than single payer would have though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat_patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

There.weren't.enough.votes.for.single.payer.

This bill is better than the status quo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. But why not?
And why do we keep playing this game when we know we're going to lose? ('we' meaning the citizens of this country)

It's easy now to say this bill is 'better than the status quo' because it will be several years before we really know. In rhetoric - 'affordable, accessible' it sounds great. But the fine print sucks. I'm not as optimistic as you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
118. there are a lot of provisions that piecemeal that "better than the status quo"
rather than a full, no bullshit fix to a broken system.

BUT it still means that many actual living breathing individuals WILL have things better than if this bill didn't become law.

THAT is why we keep playing this game - because some people do win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
61. Yeah, remember Joe "I'll filibuster ya" Lieberman?
We were very fortunate to take as many seats as we did in 2008. Any less, and the Republicans & DINO tag-alongs would have been able to quash any bill. What passed yesterday was not the best bill possible, but probably as good as it was going to get this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulkienitz Donating Member (313 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #61
132. the current bill seems to make a trade...
We've probably swapped some people having high premiums and others getting hosed and bankrupted, for everybody having even higher premiums in order to stop the hosing and bankrupting. For the shorter term at least, the total cost to the economy probably won't go down at all. So from a justice perspective maybe we've moved forward, but from a financial perspective we've gotten nowhere. And ya know... asking people to pay more so that somebody else can have justice doesn't really sell all that well politically. If we want to reap the political rewards for reform, we have to lower the costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #132
142. "lower cost" = defunding medicare & cutting services.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
71. Remind me again what the heck does the Dem party stand for?
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 01:09 AM by liberation
What on heaven's name is the point of having a party with such a bipolar ideological make up?

We are celebrating because Democrats barely allowed to pass a very watered down Dem policy, which needed no republican support at all? What sort of logical dissonance can look at that situation and not only excuse it, but to proactively fight to extend the same system which is so contrary to their very own interests?

Seriously, can anyone provide a justification of what is going on? Apparently the Dems are controlling the executive and legislative branches of the government.... yet from a fairly objective point of view, the only policies being produced are of the moderate conservative to full on reactionary persuasion. I.e. regardless of which party is in power, a very similar set of policies, albeit not as extreme in the case of the Dems, continue to be pushed and enacted?


So all those years, we fought so hard to defeat the republicans, and now... we are nowhere near reaching an actual goal, now we have to fight conservative democrats. What is the point? There is going to always be a new "enemy" to fight in order to get an actual representation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. Right now the Democrats pretty much stand for fabuous
And breath taking three acts plays in the fabulously redesigned Kabuki Theater.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #71
83. +100,000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #71
104. Democrats = Lowered Expectations... and Lower and lower and lower and lower...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #104
112. It is not the lowered expectations I have an issue with...
... it is the actual contempt towards liberals displayed by this administration that is concerning me more.

Because they seem to be rather effective when it comes to neutralize liberal policies. Funny that.

I have asked many times before: why would I as a liberal, support an administration which considers my ilk to be "retarded?" And why am I the bad guy for not feeling like supporting someone who does not only not care about my ideology but they are down right hostile to it? The level of entitlement by the DLC et al is not just galling, but the vitriol of their supporters is starting to drive me from ever supporting a straight Dem ticket ever again. I don't have self hate issues, so I will not vote to enable blue dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #71
138. We need at least 2/3 Dem majorities in both Houses of Congress
and a Democratic president, in order to get to the right place. Allow 10-15% DINO's to side with the Republicans on most important issues. A partisan majority doesn't necessarily guarantee control in today's ideological environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Which should be highlighting the problem we have inside the party
Too many supply siders and corporate fellaters around, these days. Hopefully, some of the primary challenges like Halter against Lincoln will succeed. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
78. Yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
105. Precisely! It Has to Come From OUT HERE! From Us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. How do we know unless we tried?
I actually think single payer would be a winner in the House - it would be the bought & paid for Senate where it would lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. You only get one bite at the apple.
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 02:42 PM by LostInAnomie
A failed attempt to get single payer or the PO through would have been so costly politically we wouldn't have even been able to pass this watered down bill with a second attempt.

They had to make a choice. Pass something and improve it later, or pass nothing and not get another attempt for a generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Bull.
You START with the best possible single-payer system you can devise. It goes into committee, gets hacked up, compromised, changed, and comes out looking like a STRONG PUBLIC OPTION - Medicare for all.

Failure to present a good workable plan in the first place is what left us squabbling about the POS that is going to the Pres for signature.

THERE IS NO FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS WE CAN ONLY TRY ONCE EVERY 25 YEARS.

But now that this is a done deal, they'll SAY it's been fixed, and it WILL be the end of it until the for-profit system collapses under its own weight, in about 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Haha... right.
They could barely get this watered down bill through the house. They only had four votes to spare. The 34 dems that voted against it didn't do so because they were to the left of the bill. If they could barely get this bill through the House, do you really think they could get a "STRONG PUBLIC OPTION" through there, let alone the Senate? If so, you are in dreamland.

There might not be a law against health care coming up every 25 years, but how often every 25 years do we control the House, Senate, and Presidency?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
91. And we have a right-leaning Democratic Congress thanks to Rahm Emanuel
and his insistence on running Blue Dogs everywhere in opposition to actual liberals & progressives. The Ls & Ps could have won as handily in 2008 as the BDs, but that would not have worked well for Rahm's Neocon DLC game. The American Likud Party wins again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #34
100. How does that even make logical sense?
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 10:35 AM by liberation
I am getting real lost with the twist and turns of logic here: The best we can hope for is to pass watered down legislation now that the Dems are in power, because they can't seem to get their act together and execute a common political platform. But not to worry, because things will get "better" later on, when it is not guaranteed that the Dems will have the same majorities, and thus making it even harder to push through even more watered down policies?


How does that even make sense initially? Do some of you comprehend what you are advocating?


How can I take at face value of those who tell me things will better and that "no we can't now because" when you guys were all chanting "yes we can" a few months ago? Why does hubris feel so entitled to the benefit of the doubt?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theFrankFactor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #100
106. It's BULL SHIT! That's The Thinking (non-thinking) That Has Put Us Where We Are!
The facts?

1. DEMOCRATS SUCKED ASS AS A MINORITY
2. DEMOCRATS SUCK ASS AS A MAJORITY

3. REPUBLICANS KICK ASS AS A MINORITY
4. REPUBLICANS KICK ASS AS A MAJORITY

There. Stuff that in your crack pipe and smoke it!

There are people on this site that are actually Progressives, Liberals or at least Democrats in the typical sense of the word. But there's also this "New Democrat" this pussy assed, weak willed, self excusing, bunch of useless boobs that are all to happy to give themselves reach-arounds and applaud limp dicked last place as a win.

Might I go so far as to say... while my caustic rhetoric my make babies cry, being losers and excusers really does more harm to the party than any nasty name calling!

Butch up! Stop changing these corproDems diapers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ticonderoga Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #106
113. "New Democrat"
this pussy assed, weak willed, self excusing, bunch of useless boobs that are all to happy to give themselves reach-arounds and applaud limp dicked last place as a win.



Yeah well, there is nothing "new" about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChadwickHenryWard Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #100
122. I agree: this whole thing is ass-backwards.
We would have gotten less votes with a better bill? I don't understand that. Americans are strongly in favor of universal healthcare and have been since TR attempted it in 1902. It's only business interests who are opposed to this bill, and the pitifully small yet unduly influential teabbagger movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #34
107. Proper negotiations
Require that you always ask for more than you are willing to settle for. The other side certainly understands this very well. And the republicans are very grateful for the DLC for selling out the public interest before negotiations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistajefferson Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
126. haha... right
Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #34
141. The Dems began negotiations from a compromise position. Begin weak, end weak. Begin strong...
...end strong. If you're this lame at negotiation psychology, I'd like to sell you your next house.

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChadwickHenryWard Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
93. Absolutely right.
Though I have to disagree on a small point - the for-profit system will not collapse. The history of economic reform in this country is a history of the capitalists changing just enough to keep the system propped up - the Populist movement, the Progressive movement, the New Deal - business interests allowed just enough change to keep their system going for the next 20-30 years, which you will notice is the span of time from one movement to the next. Meanwhile we are told that the boom-and-bust cycle is just a part of capitalism, as though that doesn't count as a strike against it. And notice that if any one of these movements had gotten everything they wanted, we would be a considerably more liberal country than we are today. But usually only those changes which benefit business interests in some way get through. The businesses party for thirty years, until things get so bad that we demand change, which they fight all the way, and ultimately all we have done is prop them up for another thirty years. So the system will not collapse under its own weight. If worst comes to worst, Congress will rush in to rescue it, under the guise of "reform" (this just happened to the banks.) The only way it will die is if we kill it.

Beyond that, you are absolutely correct. We should have started with something good, like universal single-payer, and worked from there. It's bizarre that we do not demand for ourselves the things we deserve, as do other countries with strong functioning democracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #24
99. No, that is not how the real world works....
... you don't start a negotiation by asking much less of what you originally wanted, and expecting to make up for the request deficit later on in the negotiation process, when the other party will have much less incentive to compromise.

I am yet to see a single car salesman starting a pricing negotiation selling cars at a loss, by asking less than sticker prices, while expecting the customers to increase their offer to make up for the lost profit.

Because at a deep level that is what you "visionaries" of negotiation are claiming is the "proper" way of conducting a negotiation. Good grief, talk about suspension of common sense. Some people are trying real hard to see those "invisible" clothes this naked bill is wearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
79. It would have won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulkienitz Donating Member (313 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #79
133. not in the senate... it might only get 20 votes (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. So the REAL problem was NEVER the Republicans.
The REAL opposition to Single Payer, Medicare expansion, or the Public Option IS the Democratic Party.
I know where not to waste my time now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Bingo. We're not all on the same page about which system is best
I think everyone acknowledges that if we were starting from scratch, SP would be best. But from there we disagree on the best way to reform what's going on now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulkienitz Donating Member (313 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
134. am I the only one who thinks a strong public option would be better than single payer?
Competition can only help -- the post office didn't get priority mail service going good until fedex came along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #134
135. Yes and no. From the competition standpoint, it's
never fun for people to be subjected to a monopoly. On the other hand, the downside of competition between the government and private companies is that doctors and hospitals can shut out patients who rely on the government option (many do not accept medicare/medicaid).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. What a horribly myopic take on the last year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. Thank god!
:whew:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
62. Today's Democratic party
Think of it as a great big tent with a lot of gaping holes (aka DINO's)in it. The GOP's sole purpose is to dump water on the tent, and as a result, whatever happens inside gets severely watered down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #36
80. My sentiments exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
44. As it is we lost 34
It pisses me off!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
77. Yep
glad we agree our party is the problem nowadays, not the opposition party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
October Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
92. Exactly.
And they had to work for the DEM votes they got!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
116. Please, how dare you use logic & common sense with this
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. The real business of our government doesn't seem to happen
between the Executive and Congress any more but in meetings with lobbyists. The rest seems like so much theater. Bi-partisanship compromise, reconciliation, all of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Theater...

and the marks suck it up. All done to insure that the final product was as business friendly as possible.

k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. remember, Obama wasn't dealing with republicans...it was democrats threatening
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. But there were Dems 'threatening' from the other side too
From the 'left' side, so to speak. Why were they whipped into shape, and not the others instead? Especially given that more americans wanted the public option or single payer or 'medicare for all'?

Who does the Dem congress work for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. More like Big Pharma and the insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. but it got more Democratic votes than single payer would have
and I am a single payer guy

I am also a realist, we never would have gotten close to 60 in The Senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Well, how about the public option, if not single payer?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And how come all this 'realism' has to always land on the backs of US citizens when other civilized countries can manage to at least get health care for all? (that's a rhetorical question, I'm not that stupid. Just frustrated with this bill being touted as a win)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
65. Your argument has a flaw
Nothing is "landing on the backs of US citizens" - this bill is an improvement over what we had before. That is to say, it's an improvement over nothing. Unfortunately you and all the other "progressives" apparently would prefer that everybody have nothing, if you can't get the absolute perfect and flawless legislation you wanted.

It's not perfect, not by a long shot. But it's an improvement. Of course, the progressives aren't here to see things improve. They're just here to bitch about Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. that tired meme again. perfect and flawless, my ass.
you know, skinner has publicly disapproved of such posts. you're attacking the people making the argument (not to mention using a straw man while you're at it: nobody here has argued for perfection as you claim).

if you were honest, you'd note that many here feel this bill is worse than nothing. such an argument can be and has been reasonably made here, and ridiculing it only shows your mind and your argument, or lack thereof, is flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #70
101. Wow, it must be awesome to be always so right as to not require actual proof of your claims...
... "you are wrong because and that is that"... must have been rather impressive debating technique during elementary school. In the real world, with grown ups... not so much.

I found the rest of your post a hilarious exercise in what can be considered pure projection...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ticonderoga Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #70
115. Don't you
have a Tea Party appearance you need to get start getting ready for Chul?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #65
111. Uhm...
Lets see... that is a fair number of logical fallacies packed in there.

We have False Choice and Strawman worked in as well as something of an Ad hominem. Is it possible you could just argue factually the merits of this reform package.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistajefferson Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #65
127. 66
yup, you're right about all of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. "I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted..."
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 02:08 PM by Marr
Obama said it himself: "I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system."

This bill isn't the result of compromise between parties. It isn't even the product of compromise within a single party. He got just what he wanted: a PR win that doesn't cause any discomfort to the status-quo.

All the political games of the last year were nothing but theater, designed to bridge the gap between Obama's "brand" and the actual policies he favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. Big PHarma is Elated! Obama gave them what they wanted!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Big Pharma is "elated"? I think you forgot the 'F'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. LOLOLOLOL
That took me a second

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
81. Mee too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
50. And YOU forgot the extra "l" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
98. Bingo.
Obama never was committed to changing the health care system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
102. Exactly...
However, you gotta admit that the hand waving exercises by some of the proponents of the bill in this site are glorious. The level of denial and intellectual dishonesty of those trying to make this piece of shit bill into some political tour de force are starting to be up there with the leaps in logic the Bushistas displayed during the past 8 years.

The more things change....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yeah, but they would have accused us of socialism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Interesting that meme didn't work to keep Obama from getting elected
hmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tranche Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. But it got a lot more Democratic votes than it would have.
Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. QED. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. Too bad the president wasn't willing to lead his party in the right direction. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
46. yep - his lack of leadership was utterly pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. except for the DLC "Democrats" we voted in
Maybe we should primary DLC Dems out at any cost. What's the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. unfortunately President Obama had to compromise with democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. but single payer would not have gotten the votes of the corporatist
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 02:47 PM by mdmc
so it would not have passed..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
55. Bingo!
Both the GOP and the Demos depend on corporate $ to get elected, plus there's corporate lobbyists to constantly remind them of it. Notice that the health care stocks all went up today which proves who really benefits from this health care charade.
The Democratic Party of today is not the same party we had under LBJ and the Great Society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
25. You weren't supposed to notice that. The theatrics are necessary to maintain the illusion of choice.
You'll upset the converts...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #25
88. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistajefferson Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
128. 67
YOu're right, we don't want that. :S
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
26. That was always just an excuse. Which we didn't buy
It was a stupid excuse basically saying that having all three branches of government under your control, means nothing when you want to get things done. It never made sense, but some people bought it.

The next excuse didn't work either with people who are not blinded by partisanship. 'We can't use reconciliation in this situation'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
27. That's because the Corporatist Party knew it could obtain two primary goals by
having the Republicans sit this one out.

1. "We the People's" government to promote and subsidize in to perpetuity a particular as opposed to "general welfare" benefiting a dysfunctional, illogical, immoral, redundant, fiscally irresponsible industry in to an ongoing feedback loop sending vast quantities of cash back to the Congress in the form of lobbying proceeds and to the corporate media in the form of commercial advertising money.

2. To hide the Republican wing of the Corporatist Party's fingerprints thus giving them a strong dynamic to regain their political momentum with their base and some Independents while dampening Democratic moral, thus aiding a Republican return to power and insuring corporate dominance over the American People in to the foreseeable future.

There was never any intention for the Republicans to actually negotiate in good faith on the substance of the bill, had they done so, the bill would have been more progressive than it turned out, and this would have reversed the decades long progression of corporate supremacism over the American People and their government.

Thanks for the thread, Cal Carpenter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. The Democrats are still playing 90s politics
Someone needs to clue them in that there are more sources of information than three network news broadcasts. It's harder to fool most of the people most of the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
32. If you actually think the Democratic leadership or the President wanted single payer
but were somehow thwarted by the Republicans, you might need a mental health evaluation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #32
82. "Health insurance companies perform an important role." Prez. B. Obama. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. Sing it loud and proud brother!
While there are legions of DU'ers it seems that are completely willing to give the Obama folks a pass for this corporate welfare bill and forgive the lies, the fact remains that it was never the GOP that Dems feared - it was oceans of corporate money. The reason there is no PO is because the health insurance industry was the constituency being PROTECTED by Obama and the Dem leadership. The whole thing was an ugly, messy con job. That being said, I am willing to play Charlie Brown for a little while longer and hope that the Obama folks do not pull the football away again. Or, is that the scorpion and the frog thing? Either way, I will still play ball for just bit longer with this President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
37. But far more Democratic votes. It was a close thing even as it was.
It was never a matter of needing Republican votes, but of keeping the conservative Democrats in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
40. And now we live underneath the fascist Individual Mandate as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. You betcha. But how would single payer have bailed out the insurance industry?
The thing speaks for itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
43. The bipartisanship was WITHIN the party
Between liberal Democrats, conservative Democrats, pro-life Democrats, Dixiecrats, whatever you want to call them. Once the Republicans are dead and buried we'll just divide up and form our own two party system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
47. ah. politics hides a world of sins.
and it trumps policy whenever our overlords want it to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
48. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
49. Don't forget 'including republican ideas'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pundaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
51. We may not get what we vote for, but if we vote a second time for the same people
we deserve what we got. I didn't vote for, nor will I deserve, forced involvement of for-profit health insurers between me and my doctor.

Incumbents who begin by dismissing my issues do not choose to represent me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
52. The compromises were never intended to garner Republican support
They were to garner corporate and industry lobbyist support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
53. Single payer wouldn't have passed...that's reality. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
54. Fuckin' A!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
56. "Bipartisan" these days means negociating with Blue Dogs
The GOP has lost ANY relevance to the reality-based world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
57. *EXCELLENT* point.

I've been saying it for months - Obama could actually be practicing truly progressive policies, and the fallout from the right wing would've been exactly the same. They'd still call him a "radical socialist" or whatever nonsense they call him now (despite him practicing pro-corporatist, center-right policies).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
58. K & R That !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Kidd Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
59. K&R
What a waste of time and effort. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
60. Self-delete
Edited on Mon Mar-22-10 11:34 PM by newtothegame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colsohlibgal Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
63. Bingo!
Indeed,Republicans did not stop single payer, the democrats did.....led by Obama. After all centrist watering down is "sensible" - in his own words. Change we can believe in - not quite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-22-10 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
64. Begs the question - do the rest of the dems really want our vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
66. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
68. That really is the kicker, isn't it.
They compromised for nothing. Like it was all a big show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
69. The Senate version would have never gotten the 60 votes needed with a PO,
let alone single payer.

You forget that much of the compromises made in the Senate version were made to get conservative Ds to vote for the bill.

The fact is that R votes were irrelevant to this process at every step of the way. That's obvious as the whole thing passed without a single R vote in either house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. It's sad.
Could people be so dense as to not be able to grasp the two bodies and their separate rules and rulings (senate vs house)?

You're absolutely right.

This flawed but important legislation was scarcely, only barely, passed and there's really no way we could have gotten much more good in it.

Sad, but true, and so obvious to anyone who paid attention and knows how congress works.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #69
123. If the president and the democratic party had introduced the most
progressive bills--health, job creation--and PR'd the American people. Repeated over and over again how they were going to help mainstreet over wall street, going to relieve their hardships--and the repukes went against every bill for the people--it would be the repukes who'd be in deep doo-doo. Some of those progressive ideas would have been passed--but the important part would be that the people would see who was really hindering the process of helping the people and changing the economy. By not bringing in sweeping reform and catering to the status quo, I believe that it hasn't helped the democratic party. Now some are saying, but they wouldn't pass medicare for all or single payer--true--but the people would understand who is hindering the process and who was on their side instead of monied interest. Sometimes you have to lose some to win it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkFloyd Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
73. Not only that but states also couldn't sue over the new bill
Several states plan to sue because they feel their rights have been violated by the individual mandate. They could have gotten around that by just having medicare for everyone and doing away with the health insurance companies altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
watajob Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
75. I agree with you, sir ...
... but it appears we're swimming upstream now as any mention of the negative aspects of this bill get you branded as "unappreciative" or "uninformed".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
76. that really slips by a lot of people
but the fact is, Obama never wanted single payer or public option - it was all bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBitt Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #76
84. this is it?
they sold out. they all suck. Nader was right, not a dimes worth of difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
85. True
but it got more Democratic Party votes than single payer would have. Just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
penndragon69 Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
86. To hell with the MINORITY party.
They won't vote for anything, anyway so let's do whats right
and forget about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
87. good point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeekendWarrior Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
89. Posts like this show a FUNDAMENTAL failure to understand the politics
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 07:47 AM by WeekendWarrior
of this situation.

1. Single-payer would not have passed. Period. Enough Democrats would have voted against it to kill it.

2. The WHOLE POINT of reaching across the aisle for bipartisanship was to give the Republicans room to completely destroy themselves. Which is exactly what they did.

I would have loved for the Dems to ignore the Repugs and pass single payer. But based on the composition of the Democratic party today, it never could have happened. Instead, Obama, a BRILLIANT politician and tactician, has made the Republicans look like complete schmucks right before the November elections.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. You've infered quite a lot about me from a statement of observation
My point of this wasn't to imply that single payer could have/would have passed.

I suppose, if you are that interested in my intentions, it was to broach the topic of WHY it couldn't have passed. WHY the Democratic party, while in control of the house, senate, and white house couldn't or wouldn't accomplish what dozens of other countries have successfully achieved. A truly affordable health care system for all.

IMO, that is something we all need to think long and hard about and stop accepting the answer as inevitable and unchangeable. Because if this is the best we can do, that's pretty fucking sad, dontcha think?

As for your point #2 and last paragraph - Let's hope people realize that that mentality is part of the problem, not the solution. The longer we justify legislative mediocrity by invoking 'what about November?!', the longer we will face such mediocrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
90. The quest for bipartisanship failed entirely
All the 'including Republican ideas' and all the time wasted on Snowe and other Republicans was a waste of time and energy. Obama's grand quest for Republican support failed to deliver so much as one solitary vote, and it took a year.
So if nothing else, perhaps we can mandate an end to the constant praise of Republicans and the constant scolding of Democrats. I do not want to be told that Chuck Grassley is an honest broker. He's not. And seeing as the heaps of praise lead only to more ridicule and of course, no votes of support, the whole routine is stale and pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
95. the policy was fixed in February of 2009.
Everything since then has been a political show. The Amercan people have completely fallen for the lies from both sides. Keep in mind, the bill that passed is basically identical to the bill written by industry lobbyists for the rapublicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
96. Has the list of no voters been posted? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
97. Unfortunately, we had to compromise with members of our party
Pitiful, but we couldn't have gotten anything better because of Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #97
103. So the question has to be asked:
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 10:40 AM by liberation
Why on earth should we support the Dem platform, since it is not interested in supporting us?

Other than "there are not as bad as the GOP" I just simply fail to see any clear value proposition of the Dem party if liberals also have to fight them in order to get the legislation we need.

When the GOP is in power, we have to fight them tooth and nail. When Dems are in power, libs have to fight them tooth and nail, but we libs have to support the Dems because they are not as bad as the GOP. That is not making any sense whatsoever. You know why? Because in the same sense I notice liberals have to fight for every crumb, regardless of whether the GOP or the Dem party are in power. A funny thing just occurred to me: them conservatives don't have to fight much in order to get their perennial 5 course meals. Funny eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
108. None of this was ever about Republican votes, but getting enough Democratic votes
to pass. Evidently this is a difficult concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #108
119. No actually it's glaringly obvious
and maybe we can discuss it with intellectual honesty instead of this 'it's better than nothing' or 'it's the best we could possibly do' bullshit.

What does that say about the Dems, that this is the best we can do? When we are in charge of both chambers and the WH? When we didn't even need any repub votes in the house? What does it say about the dems that for months we've been hearing 'we have to compromise' and 'we have to be bipartisan' when it's so obviously a load of shit?

This was the best we could do?

Why won't anyone really talk about this? Why do we have to talk around it like its a political football game?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #119
129. Yes, it is the best we could do. Just because you call it bullshit does not make it so.
We have a starting point. Neither Social Security nor Medicare were what they are today when they first were implemented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #129
136. Yeah and we fight year after year not to let
them get totally stripped down and privatized.

This is a mediocre starting point that is destined to fail or, at best, remain mediocre. History doesn't prove otherwise. Gains made in the New Deal have been eroding ever since. Job Security? Pensions? Reasonable benefits and hours per week? They've become (or are becoming) a thing of the past. How anyone can argue that starting from a point of relying on privatized health insurance with very little enforceable regulation is beyond me.

This bill is a joke. The joke is on all the American people. As usual.

Meanwhile our health care costs per capita are going to continue to be absurdly high compared to other countries with much better measurable outcomes.

Yeah, I call it bullshit, I'll continue to call it bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
109. yea too bad it got more democratic votes than single payer would've
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 11:09 AM by craigmatic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
114. Politics are not black and white
Geez, to hear some people on here, you'd think progressives had been firmly in control for at least a generation. Politically, we've skewed far right of the general populace since at least 1980 and just came out of 8 years of Bush. We did NOT gain a majority of progressives in the last election--we purposefully ran blue dogs in places where they had a chance to unseat rabid dog repugs. You can say that they (the Blue Dogs) are "just as bad as republicans" but that isn't true.

You don't repair 30 years of political damage in one election, and you don't face a constant, smooth curve of improvement either. To get us back to a left-leaning political environment will sadly take most of a generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
117. Good Cop/Bad Cop ring any bells? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
120. That was my 1st reaction too. My Pollyanna Take for today is the prolonged exposure of GOP insanity.
PERHAPS

-- The prolonged exposure of the GOP demonization of any good government, even basic compassionate healthcare, in such a public manner would finally give our Democratic legislators courage to act as though they understood why we voted the GOP out of office.

-- The public exposure of the GOP having been invited in to comment, pampered and courted again and again, and still refusing to vote for compassionate healthcare reform may have been necessary to penetrate our conservative-dominated media.

-- Exposing the crazy GOP ranting against basic compassionate reform may remove the stupid "Blue Dogs" excuse that they need to vote at corporate direction because they come from conservative districts. Will the Blue Dogs still want to ally themselves with the crazy rantings of today's GOP?

-- Doing what I hated by weakening the bill with Republican ideas, only to get zero GOP votes, thereby exposing the many Republican leaders voting against ideas they themselves had espoused, will penetrate our now very conservative mass media and reach the millions who voted out the GOP in 2006 and 2008.

-- The shield for conservative Democrats siding with corporate interests, the need to be bipartisan, has been promoted heavily in our conservative mass media every time Republican mismanagement has led to Democratic leadership being voted in again. The bipartisan lie has been promoted on very many fronts-- with editorials, conservative rants and push polls to get the public to dislike "all the arguing in Washington"-- especially before Democrats are voted in again. So President Obama nobly extending the bipartisan olive branch again and again, netting the Big Zero, may have penetrated through our very conservative mass media to millions of voters, reminding them of why they voted out the GOP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
121. And how would the Democratic votes have compared?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
124. Thanks for reminding us so sweetly and succinctly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistajefferson Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
125. Yesterday's bill got exactly as many Republican votes as Single Payer would've
Hmmm....now that's a great point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
130. They got Nelson and Lincoln, who are Republicans in all but name.
I'm not familiar with the House, but I bet they got some of the equivalents of those two.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
131. Single payer/universal/medicare for all just wouldn't have
Edited on Tue Mar-23-10 01:27 PM by shraby
garnered the votes in the Senate...yet. It will though same as all the other social programs the Dems have put together for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
137.  Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. Heh
That's okay. I can't believe it got so many as it is. I bet it got a lot of unrecs too...

Thanks though!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #139
140. ditto here
Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Great stuff, thanks Cal Carpenter!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 25th 2017, 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC