Pumpkin Eater Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Are they a bunch of lily-livered liberals? Political Pansies? As a good parent, if you feel that your children need their medicine you make them take it as prescribed no matter how much they bitch and moan. You make them take the medicine you know they need. You don't bargain with them and ask them to take half of it. You don't water down half the prescribed amount with a can of Coke. A good parent knows that just makes things worse, the medicine will be ineffective and their kids will still resent them. So why did the left do just that with health care? I'm not saying true universal health care would be good or bad for the country. I'm asking why the left, if they thought it would benefit the country so greatly, turned their idea into a gigantic turd? They had the power to pass any legislation they wanted. They had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Instead of passing legislation they supposedly thought was right for America, they pussy-footed around, got in bed with big medicine, and tried to compromise with their enemies and their children. The end result was a bowl full of diahrrea worse than anything their own kids could have produced; a terrible, unconstitutional, ineffective piece of legislation. Why? Does anyone really think that the watered down legislation that eventually passed generated any less ill-will than true universal health care would have? Would true universal health care been found unconstitutional? The left lost their chance. Instead of imposing their will they were wimps. The right didn't stop to make sure they weren't hurting any feelings when they had power during W's first six years. They did what they wanted, and America loved them for it--until the bottom fell out of the housing market. Maybe that's one of the reasons the Dems lost the House and will soon lose the Senate. They're pussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 They are willing followers of corrupt and extremely serious idealogues, headed by nutcases like George Soros, who has Obamao in his hip pocket. If you can make people THINK life is going to hell, they will vote for you. If you can MAKE their lives hell, you can promise them anything, and they will give you a new, complete/total power. It's the Alinski syndrome, with Cloward and Piven. It is what Obamao is doing. Look at all the radicals in his admin. They are nutcases. And the Dems in Congress actually ALL ? voted for that monstrous hc bill, so they could.. "pass it so they could find out what's in it". Meanwhile, it is an attempt to gain power over every single American, eventually, along with the power to undermine our democratic republic. They want Venzuela, handouts to the poor, in return for permanent, unabated power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Wait, did the left cram this bill down your throats using Chicago tactics and arm-twisting, or were they compromising pussies who watered down the bill and caved in to everyone? I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Compromise? They were willing Pelosi-Reid-ObaMao collaborators. Where do you get the "compromise" idea, when they shut Republicans out of the discussions? "We must pass the bill, to find out what's in it". That was the Dems with control over the entire Congress. And they didn't have to strong arm, they controlled the entire Congress. Your choices are cherry-picked nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Right where he said this, "Instead of passing legislation they supposedly thought was right for America, they pussy-footed around, got in bed with big medicine, and tried to compromise with their enemies and their children." So which one was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Wait, did the left cram this bill down your throats using Chicago tactics and arm-twisting, or were they compromising pussies who watered down the bill and caved in to everyone? I'm confused. No shit. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Well the end result was not true universal health care.. am I right? But that's exactly what the left really wanted. You know it, I know it. I'm not saying they compromised with the right.. but they did with big business and their constituency. You can't tell me that they weren't taking public opinion into consideration. My gripe is that they either pussed out or didn't really believe in their own ideas. They said they wanted public health care. They had all the power to make it happen. But they stuck us with a sloppy turd. What happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I don't think you're characterizing it correctly. I'd say most liberals wanted a public option, not public health care, which was never on the table. Some people want single payer, but it was never something the administration even came close to proposing. I think Dennis Kucinich did. Nor did they have "the power to make that happen." Just because you've got majorities it doesn't mean you're going to get all the Democrats to go along. There are Democrats from all over the spectrum, and just as much as the Republicans, it was the conservative Democrats in the Senate that made sure the public option was removed from the final bill - Lieberman (shilling for Connecticut insurance industries), Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, etc. They certainly compromised with the insurance and prescription drug industries, that's for sure. That's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Look, Dems took power for a few reasons but one was that people thought they'd end the warrs we're all tired of. Many didn't realize Obamacare would cost thenm anything. We'd just tax the rich. They knew that was horseshit but hey why make a stink before election day? Not that they won who cares? And if anybody gripes so what? Boehner stopped us!!!!! It was all smoke from the beginning. Power usually trumps idealism. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The idea that achieving universal healthcare is "smoke" and not something that liberals care deeply about doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. They've tried to make it law the last two times they've controlled the White House. Clearly, it's a goal, not just some nebulous thing promised in a campaign in order to get in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The idea that achieving universal healthcare is "smoke" and not something that liberals care deeply about doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. They've tried to make it law the last two times they've controlled the White House. Clearly, it's a goal, not just some nebulous thing promised in a campaign in order to get in power. Razberries. Promising free shit you know you can't deliver is always a winner. Just keep the downside on the QT. What do you think they'd say if Obama had been honest about the mandate? Hey war makes us prosperous and safe too. Samd deal. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Baloney. They could have done it, with Republican support. but they go so far overboard, in the wrong directions, but still including some valid directions for some legimate bragging... But PE is correct. they didn't do what they "said" they wanted to do. Instead, there was a gigantic turd occured instead. Meanwhile, a Federal Judge in Florida ruled the ENTIRE BILL UNConstitutional. So far, we nailed it, Heck. Now, despite Reid's frantic attempts to avoid a vote, the Senate is going to vote on repealing the hc fiasco. So, if indeed it is UNConsitutional, how bad is it, that some of the Dems, if not most, will vote against repealing it? It has to go. It was written to be whole, without parts taken out. That's why the Federal Judge ruled the entire thing is UNConstitutional. See, Heck? No "Ha ha". It's a very, very, very, very really bad bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Razberries. Promising free shit you know you can't deliver is always a winner. Just keep the downside on the QT. What do you think they'd say if Obama had been honest about the mandate? Hey war makes us prosperous and safe too. Samd deal. WSS So true. So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The HC bill was not without its merits. I really liked the idea that they couldn't turn anyone down for preexisting conditions. Were there any provisions regarding the insurance industry turning down old customers for new conditions? It happens rarely, but it does happen. But then I don't want the line between elective surgery and required surgery to get muddied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The HC bill was not without its merits. I really liked the idea that they couldn't turn anyone down for preexisting conditions. Were there any provisions regarding the insurance industry turning down old customers for new conditions? It happens rarely, but it does happen. But then I don't want the line between elective surgery and required surgery to get muddied. But those reasons are spurious. Here's why. You can get insurance under what they ccall "open enrollment" today. Always could. Problem is they can charge huge premiums. And that won't really change under Obamacare. Second he campaigned against the public mandate and that's the rub. He flipped on that as soon as he got elected. People thought it was going to be free. I bet most thought he'd end the wars. Suckers. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The mandate is how you are able to get the ban on pre-existing conditions. You can't have one without the other. Anyone who tells you they're going to repeal the mandate, but love the ban on pre-existing conditions (i.e. just about every Republican) is just selling you a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The mandate is how you are able to get the ban on pre-existing conditions. You can't have one without the other. Anyone who tells you they're going to repeal the mandate, but love the ban on pre-existing conditions (i.e. just about every Republican) is just selling you a lie. Yeah? Hey Heck, you don't have to sell me on the mandate. I've been on board for years. It's the only honest way. "de people" don't seem to like em though and Obama DID campaign against them. Maybe he was "lying" or maybe he had a change of heart. Or just had no idea what was involved with it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The mandate is how you are able to get the ban on pre-existing conditions. You can't have one without the other. Anyone who tells you they're going to repeal the mandate, but love the ban on pre-existing conditions (i.e. just about every Republican) is just selling you a lie. Yeah? Hey Heck, you don't have to sell me on the mandate. I've been on board for years. It's the only honest way. "de people" don't seem to like em though and Obama DID campaign against them. Maybe he was "lying" or maybe he had a change of heart. Or just had no idea what was involved with it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 The minutiae of health care policy doesn't exactly sway votes in primary season. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of votes, if any, were gained or lost for Hillary or Obama because they differed on a health care mandate. And remember: Obama switched on the mandate because the insurance companies told him they couldn't provide coverage to people at an acceptable cost without it. This was a trade-off to get industry support, and to realistically achieve the goal of universal coverage. And you've got to drop the false charge that they promised that it'd be "free." It's one you've repeated for years now, and it's never been true. See if you can find him or anyone in the administration promising that your coverage would be free. You can't. His original plan was to subsidize coverage for lower end earners, not to make it free. If you think some people thought he'd end both wars and that their health care coverage would be "free" then you've got a problem with these non-specific "people" in your head. Take it up with them, if you can find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 This will be a fun test, Steve. From Jon Chait's blog: "Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has a proposal to accommodate the philosophical and legal objections to the individual mandate while still fulfilling the core objective of preventing people from free-riding on the regulated insurance market: Defazio (D-OR) proposes that people be allowed to opt out of the insurance mandate altogether -- but if they do, they will not be allowed to free-ride on the new health care system. Under his plan, a person opting out "must file an 'affidavit of personal responsibility' with the state exchange. Such a filing will waive their rights to: 1) Enroll in a health insurance exchange; 2) Enroll in Medicaid if otherwise made eligible; and 3) Discharge health care related debt under Chapter 7 bankruptcy law," DeFazio wrote in a letter to colleagues Tuesday. Under his plan, if a person wants back into the system, they'd need to buy insurance on their own, out of pocket, for five years. The idea here, and with other, similar plans, is to moot one of the constitutional complaints about the mandate -- that it penalizes "inactivity." Since those conservative objections are utterly sincere, I'm sure Republicans will be happy to join together to pass a law to eliminate the hated individual mandate and improve the health care law. This is about freedom, right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Jeez Heck' that would be stupid to opt out at this point; because the whole healthcare law is set up to have everyone forced/manipulated into buying government ran health insurance. Its a catch 22 and DeFazio knows it. Just think how simple life would be if we did not have any liberals in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Jeez Heck' that would be stupid to opt out at this point; because the whole healthcare law is set up to have everyone forced/manipulated into buying government ran health insurance. Its a catch 22 and DeFazio knows it. Just think how simple life would be if we did not have any liberals in power. Yes it would be simpler... you would have a fascist state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yes it would be simpler... you would have a fascist state. Republicans are fascists IOW. Let the hand wringins begin!! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 This will be a fun test, Steve. From Jon Chait's blog: "Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has a proposal to accommodate the philosophical and legal objections to the individual mandate while still fulfilling the core objective of preventing people from free-riding on the regulated insurance market: Defazio (D-OR) proposes that people be allowed to opt out of the insurance mandate altogether -- but if they do, they will not be allowed to free-ride on the new health care system. Under his plan, a person opting out "must file an 'affidavit of personal responsibility' with the state exchange. Such a filing will waive their rights to: 1) Enroll in a health insurance exchange; 2) Enroll in Medicaid if otherwise made eligible; and 3) Discharge health care related debt under Chapter 7 bankruptcy law," DeFazio wrote in a letter to colleagues Tuesday. Under his plan, if a person wants back into the system, they'd need to buy insurance on their own, out of pocket, for five years. The idea here, and with other, similar plans, is to moot one of the constitutional complaints about the mandate -- that it penalizes "inactivity." Since those conservative objections are utterly sincere, I'm sure Republicans will be happy to join together to pass a law to eliminate the hated individual mandate and improve the health care law. This is about freedom, right?" Seems like I proposed that months ago. You don't have to buy car insurance if you have the dough and a cheap financial security bond. But if you f$ck up you're on the hook for big dough. That underscores the problem, ie that insurance in general has made us a bit more secure and a bit less responsible. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yes it would be simpler... you would have a fascist state. Yeah......... and what have you been smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yeah......... and what have you been smoking? Typical California Progressives. Most looked like they were high on glue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Sadly enough, watch these videos. They want socialism, so they can have what other's earned. Legalized theft. And they want revolution, violence, to get it. Especially troubling is the third one. Take away our guns, apparently, so they can have a successful "revolution" ? I don't get them. They want corporations out of politics, but the unions in those corps can support their liberal side to great advantage. And Obamao wants that too - that advantage. When liberals don't get the huge advantage, they get po'd to the max. Street thugs thinking they deserve whatever goods they can get, after beating up people and taking their money. Only these thugs are paid? to hold signs on the street to encourage 'the same thing going on in Egypt". Idiots. http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=14861 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.