(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.

There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened. Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is, let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage. From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway? The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.

And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.

The "turd" that is Obomacare at least moved the country forward and started a long conversation about providing more robust healthcare coverage for the nation. The only thing the Rep "turd" did was prove that the current batch of Congressional Reps have no idea how to govern and never thought past a campaign slogan. But sure, go ahead and try and make it sound like they were smart, when in reality they only pulled the legislation to avoid the utter embarrassment of not being able to pass it in the first place.

(03-26-2017 02:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened.

Interesting that you overlook the 'massive' feedback and cross-aisle interaction that the Dems accorded during the drafting. And you are "surprised" at the lack of Republican interaction afterwards? Next time look at all the facts, instead of just the ones support your "Republicans and evil missive". Interestingy, again, seven years in, what have the Democrats even "proposed" to fix the pile of **** they shoved down the throat? I mean, this was a perfect opportunity for them to show that, and they sat on the sidelines this round.

Quote:Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is,

Yes they did. Bilateral support in any form helps. They told the Republicans to f-- off. So this sentence builds no brownie points or sympathy points.

Quote:let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage.

Incorrect. Obamacare has far more problems on the "socialist" agenda than universal coverage. Nice 100,000 foot blurring overview of the issue.

Quote:From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway?

Considering the respect and goodwill generated in the process? Don't make me laugh. Had the Democrats even bothered to include Republican input (aside from a couple of forums that devolved into essentially the extension of a middle finger to the Republican caucus as to any of their concerns it would have both a healthier bill *and* one that doesn't engender the issues even to this day.

Granted the democrats had the sheer political will and might to do it. And they did. And within the rules (to some extent). Can't fault them for that political strength.

But if you think that the Republicans should 'jump on board' and be 'helpers' to t a pile of turd that runs amazingly contrary to the evil Tea Partiers basic agenda of reduce the impact of government intervention in private life, was shoved down the throat without any accordation of bilateralism in any way whatsoever, well you have an interesting worldview, to say the least.

Quote:The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.

One of the problems of not being a 'progressive' -- its hard to campaign against Santa Claus and piles of 'free ****'.

Quote:And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.

And the Democrats have been so amazingly competent in moving *their* pile of **** forward and suggesting amendments to it in the last 7 years, right? I mean if you think of it, this was the perfect chance to do so even from the Democratic side of the aisle. Love the interaction they provided. As I mentioned before, you obviously think the democrats **** doesnt stink on this, I think both of them emanate greatly.

But kudos to the Democrats for passing a big turd pile!!!

(03-26-2017 02:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened. Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is, let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage. From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway? The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.
And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.
The "turd" that is Obomacare at least moved the country forward and started a long conversation about providing more robust healthcare coverage for the nation. The only thing the Rep "turd" did was prove that the current batch of Congressional Reps have no idea how to govern and never thought past a campaign slogan. But sure, go ahead and try and make it sound like they were smart, when in reality they only pulled the legislation to avoid the utter embarrassment of not being able to pass it in the first place.

You start from the assumption that Obamacare was somehow a good thing, and therefore all we need to do is improve it. I'm not going to grant you that assumption, because I don't accept it.

It's not a good thing, it's a cluster flock that is only going to get worse, because it is based on flawed economic principles. You can't cut the price of health care--or anything else--without cutting the cost to providers, or else you will reduce the quality and number of providers. This bill contains nothing to address that. You can't achieve universal coverage without injecting tax dollars into the system. What Obamacare does is make things better for the poor folks who did not have health insurance before, at the expense of making things worse for the middle class folks who did have health insurance before. Zero sum game. Actually to become a negative sum game when the cost controls start kicking in.

As for no way Reps would have worked with Dems, isn't that's primarily because there's no way that Dems would have allowed Reps anything that they wanted in return for their coming onboard? That's what we've lost. Compromise doesn't mean you give in to what I want because I won the election. It means I give something to you and in return you give something to me. Bipartisan doesn't mean you cave in to everything I want. It means we take some of what I want and some of what you want and put them together. Where have we seen that from either party?

(03-26-2017 08:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 02:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened. Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is, let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage. From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway? The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.
And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.
The "turd" that is Obomacare at least moved the country forward and started a long conversation about providing more robust healthcare coverage for the nation. The only thing the Rep "turd" did was prove that the current batch of Congressional Reps have no idea how to govern and never thought past a campaign slogan. But sure, go ahead and try and make it sound like they were smart, when in reality they only pulled the legislation to avoid the utter embarrassment of not being able to pass it in the first place.

You start from the assumption that Obamacare was somehow a good thing, and therefore all we need to do is improve it. I'm not going to grant you that assumption, because I don't accept it.

It's not a good thing, it's a cluster flock that is only going to get worse, because it is based on flawed economic principles. You can't cut the price of health care--or anything else--without cutting the cost to providers, or else you will reduce the quality and number of providers. This bill contains nothing to address that. You can't achieve universal coverage without injecting tax dollars into the system. What Obamacare does is make things better for the poor folks who did not have health insurance before, at the expense of making things worse for the middle class folks who did have health insurance before. Zero sum game. Actually to become a negative sum game when the cost controls start kicking in.

As for no way Reps would have worked with Dems, isn't that's primarily because there's no way that Dems would have allowed Reps anything that they wanted in return for their coming onboard? That's what we've lost. Compromise doesn't mean you give in to what I want because I won the election. It means I give something to you and in return you give something to me. Bipartisan doesn't mean you cave in to everything I want. It means we take some of what I want and some of what you want and put them together. Where have we seen that from either party?

I'm actually making no assumption that Obamacare is good - I'm only making the assumption that I think was a step in the direction of healthcare reform. I have been making an argument without consideration to the overall quality of the law from the beginning. Causing the debate in healthcare to evolve is better than not addressing the issue at all. Had the ACA never passed, I have no faith that Reps would have taken an interest in healthcare reform, because why would they? In the current model that Congressional Reps work on (basically a fend for yourself America), assisting to increase coverage of healthcare doesn't fit the bill.

And I disagree with the comment about Dems not being willing to work with Reps if they truly wanted to try and increase coverage/outcomes and try and reduce costs at the same time. However, as I said, that isn't in the Congressioanl Rep agenda right now. I don't have faith in any Congressional Rep to be sane as you are when you discuss alternatives to the ACA, because, as I've said, they had seven years and came up with squat.

Congressional Republicans got used to governing through "No" and just found out the harsh reality of needing to try and govern through "Yes," which is much more difficult.

(03-26-2017 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 02:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened.

Interesting that you overlook the 'massive' feedback and cross-aisle interaction that the Dems accorded during the drafting. And you are "surprised" at the lack of Republican interaction afterwards? Next time look at all the facts, instead of just the ones support your "Republicans and evil missive". Interestingy, again, seven years in, what have the Democrats even "proposed" to fix the pile of **** they shoved down the throat? I mean, this was a perfect opportunity for them to show that, and they sat on the sidelines this round.

Quote:Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is,

Yes they did. Bilateral support in any form helps. They told the Republicans to f-- off. So this sentence builds no brownie points or sympathy points.

Quote:let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage.

Incorrect. Obamacare has far more problems on the "socialist" agenda than universal coverage. Nice 100,000 foot blurring overview of the issue.

Quote:From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway?

Considering the respect and goodwill generated in the process? Don't make me laugh. Had the Democrats even bothered to include Republican input (aside from a couple of forums that devolved into essentially the extension of a middle finger to the Republican caucus as to any of their concerns it would have both a healthier bill *and* one that doesn't engender the issues even to this day.

Granted the democrats had the sheer political will and might to do it. And they did. And within the rules (to some extent). Can't fault them for that political strength.

But if you think that the Republicans should 'jump on board' and be 'helpers' to t a pile of turd that runs amazingly contrary to the evil Tea Partiers basic agenda of reduce the impact of government intervention in private life, was shoved down the throat without any accordation of bilateralism in any way whatsoever, well you have an interesting worldview, to say the least.

Quote:The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.

One of the problems of not being a 'progressive' -- its hard to campaign against Santa Claus and piles of 'free ****'.

Quote:And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.

And the Democrats have been so amazingly competent in moving *their* pile of **** forward and suggesting amendments to it in the last 7 years, right? I mean if you think of it, this was the perfect chance to do so even from the Democratic side of the aisle. Love the interaction they provided. As I mentioned before, you obviously think the democrats **** doesnt stink on this, I think both of them emanate greatly.

But kudos to the Democrats for passing a big turd pile!!!

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I am not debating merits of the ACA, just the amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional Republicans and Trump, and that fact that, in my eyes, this proves that Congressional Republicans are out of touch of the realities of governing. As I mentioned in a previous post, this is not a blanket statement for all Reps, as Republican governors routinely show that they have a decent head on their shoulders and understand how to govern and build coalitions. The Congressional Reps couldn't even do that within their own party (which is all they needed to do) after seven years. I honestly don't think they ever had a discussion about a realistic path forward in those seven years because of how quickly this was defeated by their own team. Dems didn't have to push back an inch.

So answer me three questions, without deflecting about how much of a turd you think the ACA is.

1) How does this situation spin positively for Republicans when they could pass any legislation they wanted since they control Congress and the White House?

2) Why does it matter what Dems did during the years after the ACA and now (when they didn't have control of House or Senate), and its relation to the current Healthcare vote?

3) How does this prove that Republicans are aware of the challenges that governing brings when you must be providing governance that extends beyond "we're against X, Y, and Z?"

(03-26-2017 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 02:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened.

Interesting that you overlook the 'massive' feedback and cross-aisle interaction that the Dems accorded during the drafting. And you are "surprised" at the lack of Republican interaction afterwards? Next time look at all the facts, instead of just the ones support your "Republicans and evil missive". Interestingy, again, seven years in, what have the Democrats even "proposed" to fix the pile of **** they shoved down the throat? I mean, this was a perfect opportunity for them to show that, and they sat on the sidelines this round.

Quote:Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is,

Yes they did. Bilateral support in any form helps. They told the Republicans to f-- off. So this sentence builds no brownie points or sympathy points.

Quote:let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage.

Incorrect. Obamacare has far more problems on the "socialist" agenda than universal coverage. Nice 100,000 foot blurring overview of the issue.

Quote:From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway?

Considering the respect and goodwill generated in the process? Don't make me laugh. Had the Democrats even bothered to include Republican input (aside from a couple of forums that devolved into essentially the extension of a middle finger to the Republican caucus as to any of their concerns it would have both a healthier bill *and* one that doesn't engender the issues even to this day.

Granted the democrats had the sheer political will and might to do it. And they did. And within the rules (to some extent). Can't fault them for that political strength.

But if you think that the Republicans should 'jump on board' and be 'helpers' to t a pile of turd that runs amazingly contrary to the evil Tea Partiers basic agenda of reduce the impact of government intervention in private life, was shoved down the throat without any accordation of bilateralism in any way whatsoever, well you have an interesting worldview, to say the least.

Quote:The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.

One of the problems of not being a 'progressive' -- its hard to campaign against Santa Claus and piles of 'free ****'.

Quote:And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.

And the Democrats have been so amazingly competent in moving *their* pile of **** forward and suggesting amendments to it in the last 7 years, right? I mean if you think of it, this was the perfect chance to do so even from the Democratic side of the aisle. Love the interaction they provided. As I mentioned before, you obviously think the democrats **** doesnt stink on this, I think both of them emanate greatly.

But kudos to the Democrats for passing a big turd pile!!!

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I am not debating merits of the ACA, just the amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional Republicans and Trump, and that fact that, in my eyes, this proves that Congressional Republicans are out of touch of the realities of governing. As I mentioned in a previous post, this is not a blanket statement for all Reps, as Republican governors routinely show that they have a decent head on their shoulders and understand how to govern and build coalitions. The Congressional Reps couldn't even do that within their own party (which is all they needed to do) after seven years. I honestly don't think they ever had a discussion about a realistic path forward in those seven years because of how quickly this was defeated by their own team. Dems didn't have to push back an inch.

So answer me three questions, without deflecting about how much of a turd you think the ACA is.

1) How does this situation spin positively for Republicans when they could pass any legislation they wanted since they control Congress and the White House?

2) Why does it matter what Dems did during the years after the ACA and now (when they didn't have control of House or Senate), and its relation to the current Healthcare vote?

3) How does this prove that Republicans are aware of the challenges that governing brings when you must be providing governance that extends beyond "we're against X, Y, and Z?"

1. Never said it spun positively, was pointing out that *both* sides are responsible, albeit at different times and methods, for creating (and allowing) this monstrous pile of crap. Just pointing out that the Democrats are equally as culpable for "bad governance" as opposed to your diatribe directed *solely* at the Republicans. your statement implies that there is a "Republican" bulwark --- I guess you haven't figured out that there is a large of Tea Party (in your book I know the word Tea Party gets equated to racist, but in reality they are far more less government intrusion types) faction in the Republicans, and many Republicans even now do not feel that trump is representative at all of them. False implicit assumption that the Republicans 'control' the government. While those that carry the label might 'be on control', i would be very hard pressed to say exactly *what* a 'Republican' is these days. But please feel free to equate that term with a monolith, as it truly does aid your unidirectional diatribe. But I would hazard to guess that you saw at *least* a smidgeon of difference between the Senate and House views of the bill........ But it is far easier to demagogue against a perceived unitary label as opposed to the sometimes present political fact, as your post demonstrates very well.

2. My point is as stated in number 1. Your demagogue is exclusively one direction. It is easy to demagogue when you cover up (or exclude for consideration) related actions that led to a result that is in question.

3. No more than this proves the Democrats are capable of governing when they foist a pile of goo around, sit around with no substantive input for 7 years to "refine" the tub of goo (even including this last go around), and seem to want to be lauded for foisting an unworkable mess on the country. Just as the Republicans finger point and fling poo, you noticeably overlook (and/or excuse) similar reactions by the opposition in the last 7 years. I mean, your sole excuse is 'republican obstructionism' for the 7 year hiatus from the progressive side -- when both sides even attempt to cobble together a workable solution Ill be pleased. I dont overlook that both sides have done a great job of jumping up and down and flinging poo at the other side of the cage. Your diatribe ostensibly overlooks that salient issue that the actions truly are bilateral. But you give great brownie points for passing an unworkable mass of garbage. Your right and prerogative to believe what you want.

Quote: amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional Republicans and Trump

It is. Ranks right up there with the amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional [strike]Republicans[/strike] Democrats and [strike]Trump[/strike] Obama in creating this unworkable mess in the first place.

(03-26-2017 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  as I've said, they had seven years and came up with squat.

Love to see the list of proposals that the Democrats have put forward in the last 7 years. But let's overlook that salient point and just throw poo one way..... seems to be de rigueur response for both parties and their herds of acolytes.

(03-26-2017 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 02:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way Reps would have worked with Dems to adjust the issues with Obamacare during Obama's tenure, which is why nothing happened.

Interesting that you overlook the 'massive' feedback and cross-aisle interaction that the Dems accorded during the drafting. And you are "surprised" at the lack of Republican interaction afterwards? Next time look at all the facts, instead of just the ones support your "Republicans and evil missive". Interestingy, again, seven years in, what have the Democrats even "proposed" to fix the pile of **** they shoved down the throat? I mean, this was a perfect opportunity for them to show that, and they sat on the sidelines this round.

Quote:Dems already had a hard enough time pushing the ACA through Congress as is,

Yes they did. Bilateral support in any form helps. They told the Republicans to f-- off. So this sentence builds no brownie points or sympathy points.

Quote:let alone as something that would be more "socialist" by providing universal coverage.

Incorrect. Obamacare has far more problems on the "socialist" agenda than universal coverage. Nice 100,000 foot blurring overview of the issue.

Quote:From the moment Obamacare was passed, the only real conversation from the Reps was repealing Obamacare, and nothing more. Do you actually think Tea Partiers and other Reps would have sat down for real negotiations that expanded healthcare coverage in anyway?

Considering the respect and goodwill generated in the process? Don't make me laugh. Had the Democrats even bothered to include Republican input (aside from a couple of forums that devolved into essentially the extension of a middle finger to the Republican caucus as to any of their concerns it would have both a healthier bill *and* one that doesn't engender the issues even to this day.

Granted the democrats had the sheer political will and might to do it. And they did. And within the rules (to some extent). Can't fault them for that political strength.

But if you think that the Republicans should 'jump on board' and be 'helpers' to t a pile of turd that runs amazingly contrary to the evil Tea Partiers basic agenda of reduce the impact of government intervention in private life, was shoved down the throat without any accordation of bilateralism in any way whatsoever, well you have an interesting worldview, to say the least.

Quote:The only reason moderate Reps decided to push back on the Ryan plan is their constituencies actually had coverage from the ACA and realized that they would be raked over the coals of they lost it.

One of the problems of not being a 'progressive' -- its hard to campaign against Santa Claus and piles of 'free ****'.

Quote:And by the way, great way to spin the fact that Congressional Reps were so incompetent that after 7 years of telling the country how bad Obamacare was, that when they finally had the chance to change it and make it better, they sh** the bed in the most amazing way possible.

And the Democrats have been so amazingly competent in moving *their* pile of **** forward and suggesting amendments to it in the last 7 years, right? I mean if you think of it, this was the perfect chance to do so even from the Democratic side of the aisle. Love the interaction they provided. As I mentioned before, you obviously think the democrats **** doesnt stink on this, I think both of them emanate greatly.

But kudos to the Democrats for passing a big turd pile!!!

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I am not debating merits of the ACA, just the amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional Republicans and Trump, and that fact that, in my eyes, this proves that Congressional Republicans are out of touch of the realities of governing. As I mentioned in a previous post, this is not a blanket statement for all Reps, as Republican governors routinely show that they have a decent head on their shoulders and understand how to govern and build coalitions. The Congressional Reps couldn't even do that within their own party (which is all they needed to do) after seven years. I honestly don't think they ever had a discussion about a realistic path forward in those seven years because of how quickly this was defeated by their own team. Dems didn't have to push back an inch.

So answer me three questions, without deflecting about how much of a turd you think the ACA is.

1) How does this situation spin positively for Republicans when they could pass any legislation they wanted since they control Congress and the White House?

2) Why does it matter what Dems did during the years after the ACA and now (when they didn't have control of House or Senate), and its relation to the current Healthcare vote?

3) How does this prove that Republicans are aware of the challenges that governing brings when you must be providing governance that extends beyond "we're against X, Y, and Z?"

1. Never said it spun positively, was pointing out that *both* sides are responsible, albeit at different times and methods, for creating (and allowing) this monstrous pile of crap. Just pointing out that the Democrats are equally as culpable for "bad governance" as opposed to your diatribe directed *solely* at the Republicans. your statement implies that there is a "Republican" bulwark --- I guess you haven't figured out that there is a large of Tea Party (in your book I know the word Tea Party gets equated to racist, but in reality they are far more less government intrusion types) faction in the Republicans, and many Republicans even now do not feel that trump is representative at all of them. False implicit assumption that the Republicans 'control' the government. While those that carry the label might 'be on control', i would be very hard pressed to say exactly *what* a 'Republican' is these days. But please feel free to equate that term with a monolith, as it truly does aid your unidirectional diatribe. But I would hazard to guess that you saw at *least* a smidgeon of difference between the Senate and House views of the bill........ But it is far easier to demagogue against a perceived unitary label as opposed to the sometimes present political fact, as your post demonstrates very well.

2. My point is as stated in number 1. Your demagogue is exclusively one direction. It is easy to demagogue when you cover up (or exclude for consideration) related actions that led to a result that is in question.

3. No more than this proves the Democrats are capable of governing when they foist a pile of goo around, sit around with no substantive input for 7 years to "refine" the tub of goo (even including this last go around), and seem to want to be lauded for foisting an unworkable mess on the country. Just as the Republicans finger point and fling poo, you noticeably overlook (and/or excuse) similar reactions by the opposition in the last 7 years. I mean, your sole excuse is 'republican obstructionism' for the 7 year hiatus from the progressive side -- when both sides even attempt to cobble together a workable solution Ill be pleased. I dont overlook that both sides have done a great job of jumping up and down and flinging poo at the other side of the cage. Your diatribe ostensibly overlooks that salient issue that the actions truly are bilateral. But you give great brownie points for passing an unworkable mass of garbage. Your right and prerogative to believe what you want.

Quote: amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional Republicans and Trump

It is. Ranks right up there with the amazing incompetence/competence of Congressional [strike]Republicans[/strike] Democrats and [strike]Trump[/strike] Obama in creating this unworkable mess in the first place.

I think the communications here broke down because we both read a bit too much into what the other says and extrapolate the points further from where they start. I think you overstate how much I think the Dems are right, and I do the same to you (but with how much you think the Dems are wrong). I was really discussing this instant, the failure to put on the table a viable ACA replacement given the Republican campaigning to repeal it for 7 years. I don't think it's inappropriate to broaden the discussion, but your initial responses seemed to be more about trying to throw the blame back on the Dems as opposed to acknowledging the failures of the Reps.

But looking at it broadly, I agree that there is some blame to go around - Dems could have decided to try and rush out and publicly offer solutions upon Trump entering office, knowing that the Reps would be quickly moving to adjust the healthcare law somehow. Instead they did sit back and wait to see what would happen. Hopefully they can get over their "win" and not gloat too much and try and create some sort of bill that addresses the issues remaining in healthcare.

We'll see if the Dems decide to put their nose to the grindstone and if their conservative counterparts do as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this failure, and the apparent lack of popularity for repealing significant portions of the ACA allows Reps to feel they have more leeway to work with Dems on healthcare, without fear of being voted out of office. In 2010-2014 I think even moderate Reps didn't want to be labeled as someone who wanted to help make the ACA successful - the rise of the Tea Party made that conservative suicide. FYI, that fact is one of the reasons I worry about the rise of a similarly hard-lined group from the left with Trump, as no good comes from uniformly saying no, and opposing for opposition's sake.

However, to your last line, I still wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that it appears you think passing the ACA was a net negative and as incompetent for the Dems. Passing the ACA moved the conversation forward and has basically forced politicians to address the issue in a way they wouldn't have had to previously. I don't have faith in our political system anymore to pass a perfect bill the first try, but this was a step in the right direction.

(03-26-2017 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  as I've said, they had seven years and came up with squat.

Love to see the list of proposals that the Democrats have put forward in the last 7 years. But let's overlook that salient point and just throw poo one way..... seems to be de rigueur response for both parties and their herds of acolytes.

See my previous reply for some more insight - I think there are two main reasons why this was "overlooked" in my post.


1) It kind of was intentionally because I was specifically talking about how Republicans acted and how THEY handled this situation. That's because, well, they control the WH and Congress right now and they made the repeal and replacement of Obamacare a central tenant of their recent campaigning. Why do I need to discuss every single angle of the ACA debate during every debate about the ACA? But you're right, in the grand scheme of things, no party is innocent in terms of putting forth good legislation/efforts to legislate.
2) I doubt that Republicans would have worked with Dems during Obama's tenure without fear of being voted out of office due to the Tea Party influence. Any compromise (e.g. outright repeal) at the time likely would have led to a lose of a job. So I don't think there is much that Dems in the House/Senate could do to actually amend the law.

Do you actually think Reps could have worked with Dems to amend the law during that time period without being tarred and feathered by the likes of the Freedom Caucus and the Tea Party? From 2010-2016 Reps in Congress were often criticized if they were compromising with the WH, so do you think Dems felt there was even a chance to address some of the flaws in the ACA (and this doesn't even touch on the fact that some potential solutions Dems likely would have offered wouldn't be supported by conservatives)?

Lad, not going to quote to save space.

I think republicans very easily could, and certainly would, have worked with democrats to incorporate ideas that republicans wanted--things like malpractice reform, interstate purchases of health insurance, eliminating the IPAB and other of the expensive and non-productive bureaucracy that Obamacare--and, quite frankly, prior legislation--had required, encouraging rather than discouraging health savings accounts, replacing the mandate penalty for not buying health insurance with an advanceable, refundable tax credit for those who did. But democrats weren't interested in any of those. That would have looked too much like Bismarck, and we'd never get to single payer. They would have been happy to let republicans cave in and sign onto their ideas, but why should republicans have done that?

Also, Lad, I'm not going to say Obamacare is good because it started the debate. The debate has been going on since at least the 1990s and Hillarycare. I don't fault republicans for not doing anything when they didn't control the senate until the last two years, and had a partisan ideologue from the other side in the White House without the votes to override a veto.

Where I do hold republicans liable is for not getting something done from 1995 to 2006, when they had control of congress and either a republican or a pragmatist in the White House. They could have passed the Heritage plan, Clinton or GWB would have signed it, and we'd have been spared the abomination that is Obamacare.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Obamacare was designed to implode about 2020, whereupon it would be easy to convert it to single-payer. The only problem is that Hillary was supposed to be president then, and democrats were supposed to control both houses of congress, in order to make it happen.

I think a lot of what RiceLad is saying is echoed in this article, which places blame more on the far-right media outlets, rather than congressional republicans themselves, who were more-or-less hamstrung by their far-right constituents' misconceptions about what health care policy changes were reasonably possible.

As to the whole "Well, this was just a liberal turd shoved down republicans' throats with no compromises" thing, I can think of a few counterpoints off the top of my head. First, nobody can reasonably deny that the ACA was based, in large part, off the Heritage foundation model from the early 1990s that had substantial republican support. The democrats could have just pushed for single-payer, but decided to start with something that, at least at some point, was grounded in conservative thought. How is this not a compromise from the inception? Second, the bill that passed was not the bill that was introduced. For instance, the public option was removed from the version of the bill passed by the Senate - obviously a nod to moderate republicans (and Joe Lieberman). How was this not a compromise? Third, there's no shortage of revisionist history from republicans regarding their opposition (or lack thereof) to key components of the ACA - like the individual mandate. Chuck Grassley, for instance, was loud and clear about his support for the individual mandate - before he was against it, of course.

So, to recap - the ACA 1) was built on the framework of what, at least in the early '90s, was recognized as a conservative approach to health care, 2) included features that republicans supported in the months before the bill's passage, and 3) was modified, at least in part, to remove items that certain republicans did not agree with.

Sounds a lot like Owl69's definition of "compromise" to me.

Quote: Compromise doesn't mean you give in to what I want because I won the election. It means I give something to you and in return you give something to me. Bipartisan doesn't mean you cave in to everything I want. It means we take some of what I want and some of what you want and put them together.

(03-28-2017 11:15 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  As to the whole "Well, this was just a liberal turd shoved down republicans' throats with no compromises" thing, I can think of a few counterpoints off the top of my head. First, nobody can reasonably deny that the ACA was based, in large part, off the Heritage foundation model from the early 1990s that had substantial republican support. The democrats could have just pushed for single-payer, but decided to start with something that, at least at some point, was grounded in conservative thought. How is this not a compromise from the inception?

First, I can deny it, and I am denying it here. Obamacare was designed as an interim step toward single-payer. The Heritage plan always looked to me like an interim step toward Bismarck. The two are conceptually very different. Heritage seeks to control costs through increased competition, not regulation. The Obamacare drafters cleverly expropriated some words from the Heritage plan, while changing the meaning from how they were used in the Heritage plan. For example, the Heritage exchanges were modeled after the German exchanges. If you allow interstate purchases of insurance, you need to create a marketplace where they can happen, because your local agent isn't selling 50 states' worth of policies. The exchanges were designed to be the marketplace where interstate sales and purchases of insurance could occur. Since Obamacare doesn't allow interstate purchases of insurance, the Obamacare exchanges cannot possibly be the same thing as the republican/Heritage exchanges. There are a number of cases where the word or words were lifted from Heritage or other republican proposals, without the meanings going along for the ride. Taking someone else's words and changing the meaning of those words is not the same as incorporating someone else's ideas.

Quote:Second, the bill that passed was not the bill that was introduced. For instance, the public option was removed from the version of the bill passed by the Senate - obviously a nod to moderate republicans (and Joe Lieberman). How was this not a compromise?

It was a nod to moderate democrats, and was necessary to get their votes. Remember this thing squeaked through by the narrowest of margins, and that only after a number of bribes and parliamentary tricks. It was a compromise with those democrats who were not socialists/communists. To compromise with republicans, they would have had to add things that republicans wanted, like tort reform, or interstate insurance purchases, or things to make health savings accounts more--not less--attractive. Those were never offered. So republicans did not vote for it.

Quote:
Third, there's no shortage of revisionist history from republicans regarding their opposition (or lack thereof) to key components of the ACA - like the individual mandate. Chuck Grassley, for instance, was loud and clear about his support for the individual mandate - before he was against it, of course.

If you are going to cover pre-existing conditions, you need something like the mandate to avoid the free rider problem. Both parties agreed to that. Again, the Heritage/republican mandate was very different from the Obamacare mandate. If you bought health insurance, you got a very substantial tax credit--substantial enough to alter the economic calculus in favor of purchasing health insurance for a large number of people. Obamacare uses a stick instead of a carrot, and that stick is proving too small to get the people who need to come onboard--the young and healthy--to believe that it is in their best interests to purchase health insurance. So the mandate that Grassley and other republicans supported was not the same as the mandate that they opposed.

Quote:So, to recap - the ACA 1) was built on the framework of what, at least in the early '90s, was recognized as a conservative approach to health care, 2) included features that republicans supported in the months before the bill's passage, and 3) was modified, at least in part, to remove items that certain republicans did not agree with.

So, to recap, 1) No, 2) No, and 3) No.

Quote:Sounds a lot like Owl69's definition of "compromise" to me.

No, for the reasons given.

The basic concept of Obamacare was anathema to most republicans. Republicans fundamentally disbelieve that the central government can regulate ourselves to happiness. The fact that Obamacare may have added what sounds like a republican word--particularly when the meaning of that word is perverted in the process--is not going to win any republican support.

(03-28-2017 11:15 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  As to the whole "Well, this was just a liberal turd shoved down republicans' throats with no compromises" thing, I can think of a few counterpoints off the top of my head. First, nobody can reasonably deny that the ACA was based, in large part, off the Heritage foundation model from the early 1990s that had substantial republican support.

The differences between the two are pretty vast to make that stretch. The only thing that was even near common was a requirement to carry insurance.

When you look beyond the 100,000 foot level the differences are stark.

1) As 69 said above, the Heritage was couched in terms of the credit pushing sales of insurance as opposed to the tax penalty of the ACA ;

2) The Heritage plan was focused on ensuring at least catastrophic care as opposed to the very different plans that ACA mandates which essentially transform the concept of insurance into one pushed far more in the corner of pre-paid health services;

3) Heritage plan assumed and wanted to keep minimal regulation of insurers, and the plan envisioned the continued existence of almost all health plans -- even today's mandated 'you pay for everything under the sun' types -- in conjunction with a mandated minimal level of what could be described as 'catastrophic + small portions of other services' plans. ACA pushes heavy regulation of insurers at the Federal level coupled with very strict enforceable Federal consumer rights, and further it simply kills catastrophic plans and most other plans that don't sit neatly in the Gold, Silver, and Platinum definitions.

4) The Heritage plan was facially neutral for employers' roles in healthcare, albeit that the tax changes were proposed to eliminate empoyer-provided insurance and move the purchase to the family. ACA. In distinction, not only preserved the employers' role, but heavily handed essentially landed the brunt of the cost directly on the employers through the employer mandate. Essentially not only did they stop the elimination of the employer in the role, but they put the employer firmly in the crosshairs of an implied tax through the mandate.

5) Heritage proposed gutting Medicaid. ACA resulted in an historic expansion of Medicaid.

6) Heritage proposed removing Medicare and replacing it with a voucher system. ACA kept Medicare as an integral part of the plan.

There are other points, some discussed by Owl69, but this should be sufficient. To belabor it anymore would be a Sysiphean task that I will leave it to you to complete. The plans are radically dissimilar and to argue that the ACA is based on the Heritage plan is nonsensical.

Quote:The democrats could have just pushed for single-payer, but decided to start with something that, at least at some point, was grounded in conservative thought.

False premise in the last clause as shown by the above comparison and Owl69.

Quote:How is this not a compromise from the inception?

Because of the incorrect description of the ACA as "grounded in conservative thought." The only thing in common was a mandate, and even so the mechanism of the Heritage plan had grounding in supply side economics, as opposed to the more statist mechanism that the ACA employs. At best, both have mandates. The other salient points, including the mechanisms relating to the mandates are fundamentally different. Again, a bad description of the the Heritage plan does not make your statement correct.

Quote: Second, the bill that passed was not the bill that was introduced. For instance, the public option was removed from the version of the bill passed by the Senate - obviously a nod to moderate republicans (and Joe Lieberman). How was this not a compromise?

For instance, the public option was proffered for reinclusion by Schumer in committee, where it failed. This is no more of a sign of a "nod to moderate Republicans" than "they couldn't even get their own side on board in committee."

Why has no one mentioned the Gang of 6?

While it may have failed, it was an olive branch extended by both parties to try and come together and hammer out a compromise.

It seems to be forgotten in discussing the narrative that the Dems did nothing to try and create bipartisan support.

(03-29-2017 03:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why has no one mentioned the Gang of 6?
While it may have failed, it was an olive branch extended by both parties to try and come together and hammer out a compromise.
It seems to be forgotten in discussing the narrative that the Dems did nothing to try and create bipartisan support.

What proposals from the Gang of 6 were included in the bill as passed?

(03-29-2017 06:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 03:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why has no one mentioned the Gang of 6?
While it may have failed, it was an olive branch extended by both parties to try and come together and hammer out a compromise.
It seems to be forgotten in discussing the narrative that the Dems did nothing to try and create bipartisan support.

What proposals from the Gang of 6 were included in the bill as passed?

Does it matter if we are talking about attempting to compromise? If neither side is willing to move enough to the middle and find a compromise, the fault is with both parties. But at least there was an initial attempt by Dems/Reps (and I assume it was started by the Dems since they controlled House/Senate).

This goes against the narrative that there was no attempt/interest to compromise.

I think Dems understood at the beginning that the ACA having bipartisan support would have been much better than what they ended up with, which was none.

Interestingly enough, back in 2009, Olympia Snow of the gang was already talking about the issues that the Tea Party movement was causing her with regards to compromising and working with Dems: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=112222617

I think a lot of law makers on both sides wanted to work with each other to create a good healthcare law, but I don't think enough felt that they would be allowed to by their constituents, given the political atmosphere.

Reid, Pelosi, and Obama shut down any proposals from the Gang of 6 or anybody else. Mostly Reid. It's not a legitimate attempt at compromise if you have a group that meets but you shut out all their ideas.

Democrats and republicans have diametrically opposed ideas on how to improve health care. I don't know how you reach a viable compromise between the market-driven approach that republicans favor and the top-down command and control approach that democrats favor.

Under Bismarck, the command and control types own about 75% of the system and the free market types own about 25% of the system, and consumers get to decide. I think that's the best way to go, but I'm not sure how you get there from the current D and R positions.

(03-29-2017 08:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Reid, Pelosi, and Obama shut down any proposals from the Gang of 6 or anybody else. Mostly Reid. It's not a legitimate attempt at compromise if you have a group that meets but you shut out all their ideas.

Democrats and republicans have diametrically opposed ideas on how to improve health care. I don't know how you reach a viable compromise between the market-driven approach that republicans favor and the top-down command and control approach that democrats favor.

Under Bismarck, the command and control types own about 75% of the system and the free market types own about 25% of the system, and consumers get to decide. I think that's the best way to go, but I'm not sure how you get there from the current D and R positions.

Just wondering, but where are any articles that show that the blame for the deadlock falls squarely on the shoulders of the Dem leaders, as you seem to suggest?

From my reading, it appears more like politics didn't allow either side to negotiate enough to actually reach concessions, and that a significant driver was the renewed vigor that the Tea Party injected into Republicans (a la the quote from Snow).

But also, if Bismarck is the way to go, why hasn't there been a public push from Reps or Dems?

Lad -- what you overlook and is missing from your analysis is the sheer overpowering political force the Dems had at that time. Look, there is nothing 'wrong' with having that force, nor anything 'wrong' with exercising that force. To recap they had the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. There is nothing wrong in exercising that force.

But, with that force comes an awful predicament of 'how' to deal with bipartisanship. Bluntly, and having many friends and acquaintances on both sides at fairly decent level positions in the debate over Obamacare on both sides, it is *their* consensus that the attempts at integrating *any* item palatable to the conservative faction was pretty much less than minimal -- because the progressive knew they could forge something very close to their position with then-'current' political power.

The issue is when you deal in *that* manner with an issue concerning or affecting somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent of the US economy, do you exercise sheer power and create a lot of long lasting animus, or do you try to forge something that will lessen that animus. The Democrats chose to exercise that opportunity and add to animus. It is nothing more than a political calculus.

So no, based on my own personal relationships' opinions (who were literally right there), the *only* bipartisanship that was proffered was that simply to minimize the public perception at the most minimal level. Nothing right, nor wrong, about that.

We are seeing the 'cousin' of that power play play out today in the course of the Gorsuch proceedings. The only difference is that my guess (and it is only a guess) is that Gorsuch is probably more palatable to the left than Obamacare to the conservatives/libertarians. (I know he is an *evil* man because of the *horrors* or actually *following* the text and the actual wording of the statute, and that he sees a serious issue in not the allocation of power to unelected administrators, but in possible usurpation of Constitutional boundaries there, and whether Gorsuch is really 'unqualified' vis a vis political viewpoints, but those are discussions for another thread....) It would be akin if someone like Pryor would have been nominated who is even more antithetical to the perceived liberal/progressive judicial values.

At the end of the day, the Republicans may have to exercise a more unbridled power, which again is neither right nor wrong. But should that happen, I hope to all hope that they fully understand the animus that the act of 'shoving it down the throat' will entail.