True, democrats had some early committee meetings. But those weren't going the way they wanted them to go, so they shut the process down and drafted a bill in secrecy that they rammed through. Remember, "We have to pass it so you can see what's in it"? That's not an expression of bipartisanship.

There was nothing bipartisan about the bill that was passed. That's what pissed off republicans, and why they've gone this way. I think both are wrong, for the record.

Look at it this way. A truly open process would have considered status quo, single payer, single provider, Bismarck, and other alternatives. When and where did those hearings take place? Hint, they didn't. Without being willing to go there, nobody can claim that it was an open process.

(09-20-2017 02:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 01:58 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  "If you like your doctor , you can keep your doctor "--Barack Hussein Obama

I still have my doctor. Do you?

Nope...In fact...Im on my 3rd due to this monstrosity of legislation.

Owl you are smarter than this. Research what we have to pass it to see what was in it was about. We've only went over this about 100 times on here. It's sad you guys have to misrepresent that.

(09-20-2017 07:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you are smarter than this. Research what we have to pass it to see what was in it was about. We've only went over this about 100 times on here. It's sad you guys have to misrepresent that.

I have researched it, probably all those 100 times.

Democrats sold this pretend idea that they wanted republican input and wanted a bipartisan bill. Then they realized that republicans were wanting a lot of things that democrats were not willing to give them, and they could pass it by themselves, without a single republican vote. So they went partisan and shut republicans out. Republicans got pissed, and have tried to reciprocate. The problem is that, unlike democrats with Obamacare, republicans can't pass fundamental change without some democrat votes. You can do things with 60 seats that you can't do with 52 seats. Remember, once Scott Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid had to do a bunch of underhanded political maneuvers to get the bill through.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that republicans are not being bipartisan now, and that's wrong. I'm not willing to agree that there was anything bipartisan about the way the democrats passed Obamacare.

I still say that what the republicans should have done is to pass Bismarck health care and either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin out of the house the first day after they retook control in 2011, and force Reid and Obama to deal with those issues then. But they were too stupid to do that, and/or they did not have any leaders who could get them to do that.

Bottom line: I'm fine with criticizing the republicans for not being bipartisan now, when the only hope of comprehensive reform is to get at least 8 democrats onboard. But I'm not willing to agree that democrats passed Obamacare in any kind of bipartisan fashion that let republicans have any input. Do you remember the televised meeting between Obama and republican leaders. Republicans were bending over backwards to say, let us have a few things, and we will give you some republican votes. But Obama was very adamant, nope, we have the votes without you, so we are going to go without you.

In regards to Obamacare being bipartisan

http://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--p...k20lUpyyL/

Quote:

We decided to look into Gutierrez’s claim that the final version of the Affordable Care Act incorporated hundreds of Republican amendments.

When the ACA was making its way through Congress, former President Barack Obama made a similar statement in September 2009. During a joint address to Congress, he said that his plan incorporated the ideas of both Republicans and Democrats. We rated that claim Mostly False, because many of the amendments Republicans introduced were technical in nature.

Quote:

Timothy Jost, emeritus professor of law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, told us that “the basic statement that hundreds were adopted is wrong.”

But Jost added that “there was very significant Republican participation early on on the Senate side. There were dozens of hours of debate, and Republicans like Sen. Chuck Grassley on the Senate Finance Committee were very engaged.”

Jost said by September 2009 that period was over and from then on, the bill was strictly a Democratic piece of legislation.

Quote:

Our ruling

Gutierrez said that “hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted” during the drafting of the 2010 health care law. His statement has some basis, because Republican amendments were adopted in both the House and the Senate during the legislative process. Most of these amendments were not particularly meaningful, though, so calling it a bipartisan enactment effort remains a stretch.

We rate this claim Half True.

A Half true opinion is still a hell of ALOT better than this shim sham going on now. That you have a conservative paper actually saying it's half true is a glowing endorsement and speaks volumes. I am much closer to the truth than my ideological opponents when I say the Democrats attempted to get Teoublicans involved. Thank you for the examples Kaplony that PROVE me right. Didn't think you had that in you!

Owl you made the claim the Peluso said we have to pass it to see what was in it. Is this claim about ram ridding it through? What point are you trying to make exactly? I believe you are making a misrepresentation of that claim. My evidence is the actual whole statement. They were talking about why people don't appreciate the bill and why it is so unpopular. Just research the statement if you need further support. You are either one of two things. Misrepresenting the quote or ill informed.

(09-21-2017 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A Half true opinion is still a hell of ALOT better than this shim sham going on now. That you have a conservative paper actually saying it's half true is a glowing endorsement and speaks volumes. I am much closer to the truth than my ideological opponents when I say the Democrats attempted to get Teoublicans involved. Thank you for the examples Kaplony that PROVE me right. Didn't think you had that in you!

The AJC is a conservative paper? Since when?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/atlanta-j...stitution/

Quote:These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Quote:Notes: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is the only major daily newspaper in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia, United States. The AJC is factual and sourced in reporting with a left of center editorial stance.

Its only half true because they adopted some irrelevant amendments. The meat and potatoes of the law was purely partisan

This is too good. AJC

Factual Reporting: HIGH

So facts have a liberal bias. THANK YOU!

(09-21-2017 11:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is too good. AJC

Factual Reporting: HIGH

So facts have a liberal bias. THANK YOU!

You might be the stupidest smart person on here.

Quote:They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.

But the fact remains you were wrong when you called the AJC a conservative newspaper.

So party over what's best for Americans.

"You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn't be considered," the Iowa Republican said. "But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That's pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill." Sen. Chuck Grassley

The ACA is not the final answer I understand, but work together to improve not go from one **** plan to another **** plan that screws even more people.

(09-21-2017 11:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A Half true opinion is still a hell of ALOT better than this shim sham going on now. That you have a conservative paper actually saying it's half true is a glowing endorsement and speaks volumes. I am much closer to the truth than my ideological opponents when I say the Democrats attempted to get Teoublicans involved. Thank you for the examples Kaplony that PROVE me right. Didn't think you had that in you!

So, you didn't read what he actually posted, did you?

I did read them and I read the ajc article which is one hell of a lot better than the vast majority of the yahoots on here. Carry on

I don't think it passes anyways. McCain, Paul, and Collins. Factor in The Alaska senator. We shall see.

(09-21-2017 12:22 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  So party over what's best for Americans.

"You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn't be considered," the Iowa Republican said. "But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That's pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill." Sen. Chuck Grassley

The ACA is not the final answer I understand, but work together to improve not go from one **** plan to another **** plan that screws even more people.

Thee is no "improving" Obamacare. It was designed to fail so that Obama's dim successor could implement socialized single payer.

Why dont they get to work on finding a replacement. Work across the aisle! At least attemp it!

(09-21-2017 11:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you made the claim the Peluso said we have to pass it to see what was in it. Is this claim about ram ridding it through? What point are you trying to make exactly? I believe you are making a misrepresentation of that claim. My evidence is the actual whole statement. They were talking about why people don't appreciate the bill and why it is so unpopular. Just research the statement if you need further support. You are either one of two things. Misrepresenting the quote or ill informed.

*Sigh*

"They were talking about why people don't appreciate the bill and why it was so unpopular"... Because anyone who had taken a damn minute to actually LOOK at the bill, the real bill, the legislative monstrosity that it was even then (forget the 'rule writing' that has taken place since), said we would inevitably end up precisely where we are.

It wasn't a lucky guess, it wasn't "partisan posturing", it was a clear eyed reading of the nuts and bolts of this thing and not blindly lapping up the promise of "free goodies" and pixie dust.

Is it lost on you and your fellow travelers that all the goodies were as front loaded as they were? And, that as predicted, all the pain would come later? Amazingly after zerO was long gone and the entrenched bureaucracy and entitlement mindset had taken hold?

All cynically by design, and just in the last 3 weeks or so the next move has already started by the socialist wing of the dim party.

Government run "health care" for all. Whoopee! I'm heading to the DMV later today, I'll report back on their efficiencies and potentially life saving service.

V.A. level care for all!

Thanks, you putz's.

(09-21-2017 12:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Why dont they get to work on finding a replacement. Work across the aisle! At least attemp it!

I hope both fail. Healthcare is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

(09-21-2017 11:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is too good. AJC

Factual Reporting: HIGH

So facts have a liberal bias. THANK YOU!

Did you ever recount to us your personal experience(s) with zerOcare in the individual market? I asked you a bunch of stuff a while ago, I'm pretty sure.