(03-16-2017 12:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

I think paragraph three explains why there is limited happiness with his pronouncement. Who knows what he means? I'm not convinced he understands diddly-squat about health care policy.

In answer to the first question, no, he didn't say "only". But that was the gist I and others got from it in context. If he never spoke that way, people would give him the benefit of the doubt, but it's more in character for him to consider people who didn't vote for him "his enemies" so we are more likely to take it that way.

(03-16-2017 02:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Just to be clear, did he use the term "only" combined with "our people"? Sounds more like a general populist-based PR statement.

I could see this coming out of Huey Long's mouth or any number of the incarnations of populist leaders that have popped up in the US or elsewhere over the past decades. (Hugo Chavez?)

Since what he says on any given day is subject to great fluctuation, I'm not sure about the relevance to what actually gets done . . . . . .

but I would think that the Democrats and others who are very critical of this attempt at Healthcare reform would be happy with this pronouncement?

I think paragraph three explains why there is limited happiness with his pronouncement. Who knows what he means? I'm not convinced he understands diddly-squat about health care policy.

In answer to the first question, no, he didn't say "only". But that was the gist I and others got from it in context. If he never spoke that way, people would give him the benefit of the doubt, but it's more in character for him to consider people who didn't vote for him "his enemies" so we are more likely to take it that way.

OK, Fair enough.

I took it as more of a populist attempt to speak to "the little guy", which includes non-Trump supporters. (Basically not the top 10% of income earners, and not "inside the Belt politicians" or "East Coast Elites" (quotes indicate they are not my designations)).

He views them as one of his core constituencies. So he IS talking to his "base" in that sense, but it was a broader message. That base includes a lot of people whom the Democrats reach out to (hence Obamacare, and entitlement programs, right?).

Since there are a lot more non-upper 10%, than upper 10% (math is obvious, right?) . . . . it's makes sense that both the Democrats and Republicans have significant portions of their base in that demographic.

In short, the 'little guy' is actually the majority. How big a majority depends on where you draw the income line (bottom 90%, bottom 75%, bottom 60%). But rest assured that both Democrats and Republicans want all of them to hear themselves included in the phrase "our people".

(03-16-2017 01:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  It's not about savings.

George Will:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/201...?amphtml=y

I think George would be sad if the defunded the NEA. He wouldn't be able to periodically trot out the same column. How many decades have we been hearing about "piss Christ"?

(03-16-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think George would be sad if the defunded the NEA. He wouldn't be able to periodically trot out the same column. How many decades have we been hearing about "piss Christ"?

What makes you think he would stop?

(03-16-2017 03:59 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think George would be sad if the defunded the NEA. He wouldn't be able to periodically trot out the same column. How many decades have we been hearing about "piss Christ"?

What makes you think he would stop?

Ha, good point.

"Republicans have pulled the GOP health care plan from the House floor just minutes ahead of a planned vote,
a House leadership aide tells NBC News, leaving the fate of the party's efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare with an uncertain future."


"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of
governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is
quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe
should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort,
we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant
insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

Dwight Eisenhower

Who knew legislating was so hard?

Just saw Donald blame this on the Democrats. If only the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Oh, wait....

The Art of the Fail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...19aa1ad064

(02-02-2017 01:35 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 05:52 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Still thinking the odds of Obamacare being around in 4 years are pretty good.

One possibility is that the Republicans will pass a modest reform and assert it is Completely Different than Obamacare.

Right now, it looks like JAAO’s prediction was good and I overestimated the Republicans.

(03-24-2017 04:37 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Just saw Donald blame this on the Democrats. If only the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Oh, wait....

At this point I won’t be surprised if there is a bunch of chatter about Hillary’s emails next week.

The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

(03-25-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

edited out: not worth the effort.....

Quote: they did the work that needed to be done to make it work.

Are you of the mindset that Obamacare "works"? lolz.......

(03-25-2017 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

edited out: not worth the effort.....

Quote: they did the work that needed to be done to make it work.

Are you of the mindset that Obamacare "works"? lolz.......

It doesn't matter to my point if Obamacare "works" per your definition (which I assume means is successful in implementation). I meant to that in reference to making a piece of legislation that works to get passed. As in, they were able to cobble together enough compromises to push something through the House and Senate.

Obamacare is far from perfect, but I've argued before that the true achievement there was getting any piece of healthcare reform passed and creating a starting point for refinement. Reps at the federal level were so incompetent that they had seven years to continue the refinement and ended up putting together a giant turd that couldn't pass a vote in Rep controlled federal chambers.

(03-25-2017 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

edited out: not worth the effort.....

Quote: they did the work that needed to be done to make it work.

Are you of the mindset that Obamacare "works"? lolz.......

It doesn't matter to my point if Obamacare "works" per your definition (which I assume means is successful in implementation). I meant to that in reference to making a piece of legislation that works to get passed. As in, they were able to cobble together enough compromises to push something through the House and Senate.

Obamacare is far from perfect, but I've argued before that the true achievement there was getting any piece of healthcare reform passed and creating a starting point for refinement. Reps at the federal level were so incompetent that they had seven years to continue the refinement and ended up putting together a giant turd that couldn't pass a vote in Rep controlled federal chambers.

Its a giant sh-t show. And I'm being generous. Wow. BF kudos for passing a giant t-rd. Takes skill.

By the way, if the Dems have *any* ideas on things like, say, fixing the giant t-rd they put out, where have *they* been the last seven years, that is, aside from (no statutorily based) executive actions for exemption after exemption after exemption (and extra legal after extra legal incessant transfers to the risk corridors) to shove (and cover up) this giant t-rd down the road incessantly?

Hate to tell you, the Reps arent the only ones with their heads up their a--es on this sh-tshow, but wowee, kudos to the ones who passed it..... Not a defense at all for for the Reps, but you seemingly act like the Dems sh-t doesnt stink on this one as well (surprise surprise), where I personally smell the outhouse emanating from both sides and dont feel the need to incessantly 'cheer' one side for this.

But that is your right and privilege to do. Just saying there are a *lot* of people that dont necessarily wholly subscribe lock, stock, and two smoking barrels to the epistemological Maddow view on a constant ongoing basis.

Edited: told you it wasn't worth it.....

(03-16-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  It's not about savings.

George Will:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/201...?amphtml=y

I think George would be sad if the defunded the NEA. He wouldn't be able to periodically trot out the same column. How many decades have we been hearing about "piss Christ"?

Even more tiresome is the fact that in all those decades since that debacle, there are STILL blowhards who think the NEA is a creditable use of public funds.

But seriously, time to cut the guy a break. I mean, nobody knew health care could be so complicated.

(03-25-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

So the democrats' great achievement is that given a bill that was a complete clusterflock, they managed to find a way to pass it, whereas republicans' great failure is that given a replacement bill that was equally bad, they killed it?

Neither party has actually approached this from the perspective of what it takes to accomplish actual improvement in health care. Doctrinaire political rhetoric has trumped improving health care for both teams.

I want to see a health care reform that starts from the perspective of, hey, let's look around the world, see what works best, and figure out how to build a health care system around identified best practices.

I guess I could describe my point of view with answers to three questions.

Is universal health care a good objective? Yes.
Is single-payer or single-provider a useful approach? No, particularly not for any population over 10 million.
Does Obamacare achieve either of its purported objectives--universal health care and reduced health care costs? No.

(03-25-2017 07:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

So the democrats' great achievement is that given a bill that was a complete clusterflock, they managed to find a way to pass it, whereas republicans' great failure is that given a replacement bill that was equally bad, they killed it?

Neither party has actually approached this from the perspective of what it takes to accomplish actual improvement in health care. Doctrinaire political rhetoric has trumped improving health care for both teams.

I want to see a health care reform that starts from the perspective of, hey, let's look around the world, see what works best, and figure out how to build a health care system around identified best practices.

I guess I could describe my [oint of view with answers to three questions.

Is universal health care a good objective? Yes.
Is single-payer or single-provider a useful approach? No, particularly not for any population over 10 million.
Does Obamacare achieve either of its purported objectives--universal health care and reduced health care costs? No.

Johnson was awesome because he *started* us down the path on a micromanaged clusterfook in Vietnam --- and it was the evil Republican administration that showed it just couldnt fix (sorry, 'continue to refine' is the correct 'soft term') it after 5 years.....

same argument.....

(03-25-2017 07:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  It's not about savings.

George Will:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/201...?amphtml=y

I think George would be sad if the defunded the NEA. He wouldn't be able to periodically trot out the same column. How many decades have we been hearing about "piss Christ"?

Even more tiresome is the fact that in all those decades since that debacle, there are STILL blowhards who think the NEA is a creditable use of public funds.

One could potentially say that for *both* things that carry the NEA label....

(03-25-2017 07:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The pulling of the Trump/Ryan-care bill is astounding. I mean, is there better proof of the fact that the current Republican Party is a party of contemptuous blowhards who have no greater goal than opposing Democrats than this? The party had seven years and full control of the federal government and they could not figure out how to properly address the legislation that they were so vehemently opposed to.
The Dems have their share of blowhards and turds, but man, at least when they wanted to pass healthcare legislation they did the work that needed to be done to make it work. I actually think that, as a whole, the Republican Party at the federal level doesn't understand how governing works. If you look at the state level, they actually have some idea of how you govern and run a government.

So the democrats' great achievement is that given a bill that was a complete clusterflock, they managed to find a way to pass it, whereas republicans' great failure is that given a replacement bill that was equally bad, they killed it?
Neither party has actually approached this from the perspective of what it takes to accomplish actual improvement in health care. Doctrinaire political rhetoric has trumped improving health care for both teams.
I want to see a health care reform that starts from the perspective of, hey, let's look around the world, see what works best, and figure out how to build a health care system around identified best practices.
I guess I could describe my point of view with answers to three questions.
Is universal health care a good objective? Yes.
Is single-payer or single-provider a useful approach? No, particularly not for any population over 10 million.
Does Obamacare achieve either of its purported objectives--universal health care and reduced health care costs? No.

Johnson was awesome because he *started* us down the path on a micromanaged clusterfook in Vietnam --- and it was the evil Republican administration that showed it just couldnt fix (sorry, 'continue to refine' is the correct 'soft term') it after 5 years.....
same argument.....

Agree.

But one clarification, that "evil" republican administration could have fixed it, if they had the guts.