I hear a lot that the Dems watered down the health care bill to get nonexistent Republican votes

[CTLawGuy]

my understanding was that they did so because they needed to get skeptical "DEMOCRATIC" (Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln) votes and those of Democratic "allies" (Lieberman), so that the bill had any chance of being PASSED at all. Maybe I'm wrong.

Does anyone have an example of a provision in the health care bill that was supported by all 60 Dem senators (before Brown was seated) but was taken out in order to get Republican votes that never materialized?

Thanks!

[RandomThoughts]

1. Why did they not like the provisions they wanted removed?

That is the better question.


As far as being skeptical, I am all for skepticism, it creates thought. Then a person can do what they think is best, and let the chips fall where they may.

I myself am skeptical, and actually make decisions based on overlapping possibilities.

I have a set of views based on my spiritual beliefs that I try to uphold, then I take every other possibility of existence, and what I think of as moral thought, put them on graph, and find the decision that does not go against my views, while having the highest result across all possible views of existence.

Note that some belief systems are flipped if my views think them bad, so some extreme group, I would not have what they think is best as the same as best value, but what parts of their values I can agree with as highest value.

So while I have my perception and beliefs, I also know I do not have all the answers, nor can claim to know all the mysteries of God. So I try to find choices that have the highest average value on all the possibilities of existence I can think of, while still not going against my values.

Easier to explain if drawn out.



For example, one of the views of existence says the world is a test, so that bumps up ideas of integrity. Another view of existence is it is training, so learning gets bumped up on that one. One of the views is it is suppose to be fun also, so is it humorous and enjoyable, then there are views like pets, where I have to make sure I am not treated as owned in my decisions, or selling what I think is important, then there is reap what you sow, or rules applied back to a person, so then I have to ask is it something I would want done to me.

Then there is not playing the game, so I have to avoid delusions of grandure or giving value to things that have not earned it, or can not contain their own credibility. Then there is knowing I don't know near all there is to know, so humility has to be part of it, since how would I know what is best, then there are a few others. And while doing that, I throw out any ideas that are geared to create despair, since I do not accept that as part of a good part of reality to make decisions on, same with fear, although it get a person to think more on actions, it should not be the guiding force in thought. And there are many other thoughts that can help a person think through choices, and decide what path they want to take. Of coarse I am also flawed, so I make mistakes also, so there is also that.

So I have no problems with skeptism, unless it is an excuse for self gain.

Edit: Self gain is actually ok, and not a bad thing, and something I also include, but it has to not be first or the only graph item that always used when making a decision. Because of the imbalance in self gain in society, I said it was bad in my first statement, in truth I think it is bad if it is not balanced with other important parts of living. I should also add part of self gain is sharing kindness and love, because through empathy you gain love when you share love. I think sharing love and kindness is like the perpetual money machine of the spiritual, as metaphor of coarse. So sharing love and kindness is not only feels like a better choice, it adds to ones sense of self in a way.


But again, that is what I try to do when I have a tough decision, not what I always succeed at doing, but it helps to think of the whys and whats of existence, and the choices made.

And I really post this because the idea of Skeptism is so interesting, and how reason can also be used to find the same results that faith gives a person.

[rox63]

2. There aren't 60 Dem Senators n/t

[zipplewrath]

3. A matter of perspective

I tend to agree with your premise. The primary problem was not the GOP, it was people who actually caucus with the democrats. There were a notable few who were willing to leverage the fact that the GOP was going to vote against anything in lock step and use it to get what they wanted over the preference of the majority. Mind you, they didn't actually have to vote for the bill, but were willing to take the extra step to prevent it (in conjunction with the GOP) from even coming to a vote. So in my mind, the problem last fall wasn't the GOP it was democrats. Move On and others wanted to run ads in their districts highlighting these facts, but someone thought that would be "retarded". Pressuring Kucinich in his own district, that's okay. But pressuring Nelson, Lieberman, or Lincoln, well that'd be just wrong. All they had to do with the conservative dems was to pressure them to allow the vote, not actually vote for it. Instead they chose to pressure Kucinich to vote for the bill.

There is an alternate view however, which is that a ruling majority can never rely upon a unanimous vote of their own party and so must go "hunting" for those few votes from the minority to make it up. If they can get a handful of those on relatively "minor" issues, they don't have to give in on larger issues for particular members of the majority. Since not a single member of the GOP was willing to truly compromise, as such it truly empowered the particular members of the majority party to be obstacles to the majority will.

There is an even further alternative view, one that isn't really popular around here though. Basically, it is that the White House didn't really want those provisions in the first place and used the opposition of a few particular senators to run interference for them.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. The class "the Dems" includes Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln