or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democrats on the Nuclear Option
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Democrats on the Nuclear Option

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
And the hits just keep on comin'.....

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-i...unders-intent/


Seems like requiring a simple majority vote for things like judicial nominees and budgetary items was a travesty of justice, a threat to the Republic, and generally nasty.....that is until they needed reconciliation to pass a trillion dollar healthcare bill. At least it's nothing important.

Here is my favorite quote of all time from Biden.

Quote:
"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."




It doesn't get any better than this. This is rank hypocrisy on a truly unbelievable level.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is rank hypocrisy on a truly unbelievable level.

The Democrats are going to be routed from Washington anyway, they may as well do this. I can't imagine things getting worse for them.
post #3 of 44
I guess what could be worse for them is that Republicans take over and NOT blow it like last time. It could set up a generation that votes Republican and has to have a reason to vote Democrat. I doubt that would happen.
post #4 of 44
Thread Starter 
Given their actions, one has to think they believe this is their last chance. Better to go out in a blaze of glory. I was listening briefly to the news last night, where one commentator said "they're pregnant healthcare," meaning they own it either way now. They've probably calculated that failing to get it done would be worse than anything...even worse than losing both houses.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 44
Either someone doesn't understand the difference between reconciliation and the nuclear option, or they need to post examples showing that the same Democrats who previously opposed the nuclear option are now supporting the nuclear option.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #6 of 44
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002240027

\t

Quote:
Want to see a neat trick?

As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.

To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.

Here's how the trick works:

Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.

In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.

This is absurd.

The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.

To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of "deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of conservatives attacking "freedom."

It would be about as honest.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #7 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002240027

Grasping at straws. That's what you're doing.

Call it what you like. It's still 51 votes we're talking about. They opposed putting through something relatively minor...like judicial nominations, but favor ramming through a bill that would effect 1/6th of our economy.

Go back and listen to the quotes. Tell me it matters that they were talking about the "nuclear option" instead of reconciliation. For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

By the way, speaking of honesty: Do you believe that reconciliation was ever intended to be used for a bill of this size and scope? Was it to be used to completely silence the minority and ignore public opinion?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Grasping at straws. That's what you're doing.


No, that's what YOU are doing (or, what BrietBartTV is doing, and you are mindlessly parroting).

Look up "projection".

"Tomato... tomatoe.... nuclear option... reconciliation".

Yeah sure - they're the same thing.....
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Either someone doesn't understand the difference between reconciliation and the nuclear option, or they need to post examples showing that the same Democrats who previously opposed the nuclear option are now supporting the nuclear option.

The key understanding is not the instrumentality, but the seeming hypocrisy in the justifications.

If the filibuster is a hollowed veto to keep the Senate from passing important legislation without significantly more support than a one vote majority, then budget reconcilation is a method of destroying that rationale.

The democrats seriously fought even a minor modification of the filibuster rules over less important matters (and which arguably should not require a super majority). Yet it seems that the nearly 100% democratic opposition to the nuclear optiion now has a number of hypocrits pushing reconcilation.

Unless you are suggesting that those pushing for reconcilation are only the newly elected, I think SDW's point is spot on.
post #10 of 44
Anyone who wants to claim reconciliation is used for passing legislation like this and notes that the Bush tax cuts were passed this way clearly wants everyone to forget the Byrd rule.

That said, I was fine with the Republicans nuking the filibuster and I'm fine with the Democrats nuking it as well. If it takes 51 to pass something then it takes 51 to unpass it as well. Change works both ways and I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with the direction change is going in about 8 months. Even if I'm not I've always been fine with nuking the filibuster.

The only thing I wouldn't be fine with, and I suspect this is what Democrats will do because it is what they always do, is of course conditionally nuking the filibuster. It would magically be nuked for them and be the first card played when they fall out of power. Perhaps will call it the Kennedy seat rule based off how in Mass. they removed the power of the governor to appoint a Senator requiring a special election, then restored it while a special election was pending and ended up with Scott Brown to show for it.

I suspect like most things, this will end up biting them in the butt and I'm all for that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 44
Well it's good to know that Republicans have used the "nuclear option" several times during their last reign.

IOKYAR
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #12 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Well it's good to know that Republicans have used the "nuclear option" several times during their last reign.

IOKYAR


That's not true. They used reconciliation for budgetary matters, but not for massive government takeover. In fact, use whatever word you like. This is a HUGELY important bill we're talking about. This is literally 16% of the economy. You're OK with that?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post


No, that's what YOU are doing (or, what BrietBartTV is doing, and you are mindlessly parroting).

Look up "projection".

"Tomato... tomatoe.... nuclear option... reconciliation".

Yeah sure - they're the same thing.....

I undersand the differences. But those differences are trivial, because we're still talking about 51 votes versus 60. The Democrats came out and opposed such a move over much less important matters/smaller matters. They excoriated Republicans over the concept of 51 votes vs. 60. Now they think it's a great idea.

Go ahead...tell me how much different this is. I can't wait.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 44
Obama has not discussed using the "nuclear" or Constitutional option to pass HCR.

Republicans did use budget reconciliation to pass major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and Democrats are debating using the same procedure to pass HCR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_option

Reconciliation is a procedure for overcoming a filibuster. The Constitutional Option is changing the rules of the Senate so that the filibuster ceases to exist.

Calling them "basically the same thing" or claiming "the differences are trivial" is either dishonest or ignorant, or perhaps both.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #15 of 44
We really should just make the Republicans filibuster. Go ahead. Read the phone book for a month. Show how silly you are.


Oh right, they changed the rules so you can filibuster and not even stand up and do anything. Wonderful.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Obama has not discussed using the "nuclear" or Constitutional option to pass HCR.

Republicans did use budget reconciliation to pass major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and Democrats are debating using the same procedure to pass HCR.

I know that. In that case we were talking about a budgetary item, not a takeover of 1/6th of the economy that only 25% of Americans wants passed.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_option

Reconciliation is a procedure for overcoming a filibuster. The Constitutional Option is changing the rules of the Senate so that the filibuster ceases to exist.

Calling them "basically the same thing" or claiming "the differences are trivial" is either dishonest or ignorant, or perhaps both.

You can keep posting wikipedia links all fucking night if it makes you feel smarter. I know the differences. What I'm saying is that we're still talking about passing legislation with 51 votes instead of 60. If you actually listen/watch the Democrats' earlier speeches I posted, you will find that this is EXACTLY the concept they are addressing. In fact, they went apoplectic over judicial appointments. You mean to tell me healthcare is a smaller or less important item?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 44
Passing things with a majority? OH MY GOD! THE END OF DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT!

Make people actually have to stand up to filibuster instead of saying "i'm gonna filibuster so we now move on to the next thing" and I'll be in favor of getting rid of the retardedly named "nuclear option". You want to filibuster? Get your ass and a phone book up to the podium, bitch.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #18 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I know that. In that case we were talking about a budgetary item, not a takeover of 1/6th of the economy that only 25% of Americans wants passed.

If you're talking about polls regarding national health care... let me ask you... what percentage of people in the US want the health care bill to include a single payer public option?
post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Obama has not discussed using the "nuclear" or Constitutional option to pass HCR.

Republicans did use budget reconciliation to pass major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and Democrats are debating using the same procedure to pass HCR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_option

Reconciliation is a procedure for overcoming a filibuster. The Constitutional Option is changing the rules of the Senate so that the filibuster ceases to exist.

Calling them "basically the same thing" or claiming "the differences are trivial" is either dishonest or ignorant, or perhaps both.

You are correct that Republicans used reconciliation to pass those tax cuts. However when you look at the Byrd rule, you will also see that is why those tax cuts automatically expire in ten years.

From the link above....

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

Is anyone here honestly claiming that the health care plan is going to be passed and then automatically expire in ten years? If it doesn't then it cannot be passed via reconciliation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We really should just make the Republicans filibuster. Go ahead. Read the phone book for a month. Show how silly you are.

Oh right, they changed the rules so you can filibuster and not even stand up and do anything. Wonderful.

The rules haven't been changed. Democrats just honor the intent to filibuster because there are easily dozens of ways to slow down the Senate that don't require the filibuster. Watch CSPAN and note that every time the words, 'without objection" are used and realize that there could be an objection and the resulting process would have to be gone through point by point. They could require the reading of the entire bill, every submitted amendment, all sorts of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Passing things with a majority? OH MY GOD! THE END OF DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT!

Make people actually have to stand up to filibuster instead of saying "i'm gonna filibuster so we now move on to the next thing" and I'll be in favor of getting rid of the retardedly named "nuclear option". You want to filibuster? Get your ass and a phone book up to the podium, bitch.

No problem and when each bill comes up for consideration, simply require it and every amendment be read, word for word in the chamber. Object to the number of days and hours the Senate is in session. Require all parties to be in the Senate via continual quorum calls, etc. You really should look into Robert's Rules of Order a bit to realize how much of what goes on now is courtesy on both sides. Hardly anyone is actually in the Senate during official business. They wander in and give their speeches for the cameras, then wander back out to do various items. Requiring a quorum to actually be in the chamber all the time would be an actual massive undertaking for the most part. Likewise the Senate actually runs dual tracks of business right now. That could be forced back down to one and it would operate even slower than it does right now.

The reality is the Senate hasn't had any real legitimate obstruction yet. Declaring the intent to filibuster is next to nothing. Forcing the whole body to be in there, only considering one bill at a time, allowing no side committee work to go on, and then objecting to pretty much every point and requiring every thing be read would grind that place to a true stand still.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Forcing the whole body to be in there, only considering one bill at a time, allowing no side committee work to go on, and then objecting to pretty much every point and requiring every thing be read would grind that place to a true stand still.

Maybe that wouldn't be such a terrible idea. Maybe getting things through congress has actually become too easy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are correct that Republicans used reconciliation to pass those tax cuts. However when you look at the Byrd rule, you will also see that is why those tax cuts automatically expire in ten years.

From the link above....

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

Is anyone here honestly claiming that the health care plan is going to be passed and then automatically expire in ten years? If it doesn't then it cannot be passed via reconciliation.



The rules haven't been changed. Democrats just honor the intent to filibuster because there are easily dozens of ways to slow down the Senate that don't require the filibuster. Watch CSPAN and note that every time the words, 'without objection" are used and realize that there could be an objection and the resulting process would have to be gone through point by point. They could require the reading of the entire bill, every submitted amendment, all sorts of things.



No problem and when each bill comes up for consideration, simply require it and every amendment be read, word for word in the chamber. Object to the number of days and hours the Senate is in session. Require all parties to be in the Senate via continual quorum calls, etc. You really should look into Robert's Rules of Order a bit to realize how much of what goes on now is courtesy on both sides. Hardly anyone is actually in the Senate during official business. They wander in and give their speeches for the cameras, then wander back out to do various items. Requiring a quorum to actually be in the chamber all the time would be an actual massive undertaking for the most part. Likewise the Senate actually runs dual tracks of business right now. That could be forced back down to one and it would operate even slower than it does right now.

The reality is the Senate hasn't had any real legitimate obstruction yet. Declaring the intent to filibuster is next to nothing. Forcing the whole body to be in there, only considering one bill at a time, allowing no side committee work to go on, and then objecting to pretty much every point and requiring every thing be read would grind that place to a true stand still.

First, isn't that what you Republicans want, anyway? For government to do nothing?

Second, maybe bills will be written in plainer English and fewer amendments will be made. How about limiting the size and scope of bills?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Second, maybe bills will be written in plainer English and fewer amendments will be made. How about limiting the size and scope of bills?

And that sounds like a terrific idea!

I suspect this would accomplish a couple of things. First it would expose or neutralize many of the special interests. Much of the benefits that accrue to them through legislation is buried in the details. Second, it would limit the number of things the Congress could deal with and force them to focus on those items that are truly of concern at the federal level and, hopefully, truly within their constitutional powers.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

First, isn't that what you Republicans want, anyway? For government to do nothing?

Second, maybe bills will be written in plainer English and fewer amendments will be made. How about limiting the size and scope of bills?

I'm quite certain that Republicans have put forward and signed off on solutions that are not comprehensive and that address specific problems. The issue here is that Democrats have demanded all or nothing. They claim anything less than the comprehensive solution is a complete and utter failure that won't solve a thing. Much like with the stimulus, Republicans, right or wrong, were fully willing to sign off and vote for the 15% of it that was shovel ready projects. They weren't willing to vote for the pork barrel nonsense. However the Democratic leadership and the president demand their solution or no solution all while claiming obstructionism and lack of good faith negotiating/excessive partisanship.

They are demanding comprehensive health care reform. No piecemeal work is allowed. They want all or nothing.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #24 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And that sounds like a terrific idea!

I suspect this would accomplish a couple of things. First it would expose or neutralize many of the special interests. Much of the benefits that accrue to them through legislation is buried in the details. Second, it would limit the number of things the Congress could deal with and force them to focus on those items that are truly of concern at the federal level and, hopefully, truly within their constitutional powers.

Agreed, then. We should reduce the role of the filibuster, as well as legislative riders. One thing that would kill the incentive to push for riders would be the line-item veto. It would also add accountability to the executive branch.
post #25 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm quite certain that Republicans have put forward and signed off on solutions that are not comprehensive and that address specific problems.

The Republicans have not made a single suggestion that would provide quality care for those who cannot afford to pay and who do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. Anything less than that is a complete and utter failure that won't solve a thing.

And the Democrats are not demanding "all or nothing". They are not even proposing a simplified universal public option. They should.
post #26 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Agreed, then. We should reduce the role of the filibuster, as well as legislative riders. One thing that would kill the incentive to push for riders would be the line-item veto. It would also add accountability to the executive branch.

Well I don't think I made a comment on the filibuster rule so I'm not sure you you were trying to wrap my position into agreement with you on that. But I'd prefer if you didn't.

Second, I used to favor the line-item veto but much less so now. First I think the executive branch has become far too powerful and many of the things it does should be prohibited or severely limited (e.g., signing statements, executive orders, war powers, etc.) and I think the line-item veto goes in the opposite direction, essentially vesting some level of legislative power (vs. executive/enforcement power) into the executive branch, further eroding the separation of powers which I consider to be a vital feature of the structure establish in the constitution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The Republicans have not made a single suggestion that would provide quality care for those who cannot afford to pay and who do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid.

Isn't it great that that the Repub's obstinate rejection of health care for the people will be met by reconciliation. If ever there was a time to justify it, it would be now. If the Repub's had come to the table this would never have happened and they've had plenty, too much cooperation from Dems. They've brought in on themselves the arrogant little traitors. I think this reform will be hugely popular just as it is in Massachusetts and this summit will guarantee those 51 votes and more.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #28 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Second, I used to favor the line-item veto (when Republicans were in office?) but much less so now (when a Democrat is in office?).

Color me shocked. SHOCKED!
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Color me shocked. SHOCKED!

Is it normally your habit to put your words into other people's posts as a means of reshaping their statements to fit whatever you think they mean in order to prove some point?

Is it also your habit to avoid discussing the actual topic and statements made as opposed to your interpretation of what those statements are or mean?

I'm sorry if my opinion offends you enough to prompt you to try and discredit it by injecting your perceptions of partisanship or bias into it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Passing things with a majority? OH MY GOD! THE END OF DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT!

Make people actually have to stand up to filibuster instead of saying "i'm gonna filibuster so we now move on to the next thing" and I'll be in favor of getting rid of the retardedly named "nuclear option". You want to filibuster? Get your ass and a phone book up to the podium, bitch.

This is the point of the thread. It's exactly what the Democrats opposed just a few years ago.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you're talking about polls regarding national health care... let me ask you... what percentage of people in the US want the health care bill to include a single payer public option?

No, that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the polling on the Dem plan. And "single payer" is not a "public option."

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm quite certain that Republicans have put forward and signed off on solutions that are not comprehensive and that address specific problems. The issue here is that Democrats have demanded all or nothing. They claim anything less than the comprehensive solution is a complete and utter failure that won't solve a thing. Much like with the stimulus, Republicans, right or wrong, were fully willing to sign off and vote for the 15% of it that was shovel ready projects. They weren't willing to vote for the pork barrel nonsense. However the Democratic leadership and the president demand their solution or no solution all while claiming obstructionism and lack of good faith negotiating/excessive partisanship.

They are demanding comprehensive health care reform. No piecemeal work is allowed. They want all or nothing.

Exactly. No other ideas are allowed. It's universal coverage and a trillion dollar takeover or bust. Swing for the fences!


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The Republicans have not made a single suggestion that would provide quality care for those who cannot afford to pay and who do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid.

Really...who are those people, exactly?

Quote:
Anything less than that is a complete and utter failure that won't solve a thing.

There you have it. Pure ideology. My way, or the highway. There are many ways of meeting the goals you claim to pursue. You're just not interested.

Quote:

And the Democrats are not demanding "all or nothing". They are not even proposing a simplified universal public option. They should.

Yes, they are demanding exactly that. I say again: A trillion dollar takeover of healthcare.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 44
May I ask if you really understand what public option means? It means those people who choose not to buy insurance are able to get whatever medical coverage they need, without any means test.

You keep saying the Democrats are proposing a public option under a different name. That makes me believe strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.
post #33 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

May I ask if you really understand what public option means? It means those people who choose not to buy insurance are able to get whatever medical coverage they need, without any means test.

You keep saying the Democrats are proposing a public option under a different name. That makes me believe strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's not a public option as you describe. It's actually much, much worse.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



Seems like requiring a simple majority vote for things like judicial nominees and budgetary items was a travesty of justice, a threat to the Republic, and generally nasty.....that is until they needed reconciliation to pass a trillion dollar healthcare bill. At least it's nothing important.




It doesn't get any better than this. This is rank hypocrisy on a truly unbelievable level.

FYI. the trillion $ health care bill was passed with a 60 - 40 majority on dec 24, 2009. Please explain which bill you are talking about?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #35 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

FYI. the trillion $ health care bill was passed with a 60 - 40 majority on dec 24, 2009. Please explain which bill you are talking about?

<yawn>

It was passed because the Dems had 60 votes and could stop a filibuster. They no longer have 60 votes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's not a public option as you describe. It's actually much, much worse.

You don't know what a public option is. A public option is what they have in the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Hong Kong, Singapore...

You seem to think Public Option means any government regulation or government sponsored insurance program whatsoever.

What Obama has suggested isn't even close to a true public option.

Did you know that I can go to a public hospital and get complete same-day treatment, ward admission if necessary, and all I have to do is provide my ID card? No form? And when I leave I'm presented with a bill for US$12.50?

That sure as hell simplifies the bureaucracy.

Yet still the majority of people in Hong Kong have private insurance because they want the option of a nicer ward or more specialized care or a wider choice of treatment options. Others pay full price for treatment out of their pocket because it's affordable. As I said in another thread, the insurance companies still do a great business, doctors do a great business because people can afford to visit them for a common cold, and everyody wins except big Pharma and poor doctors.

That's a public option. We can opt to have 100% government provided health care.
post #37 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You don't know what a public option is. A public option is what they have in the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Hong Kong, Singapore...

You seem to think Public Option means any government regulation or government sponsored insurance program whatsoever.

What Obama has suggested isn't even close to a true public option.

I know what a public option is. That's the last time I'm going to tell you nicely.

Quote:

Did you know that I can go to a public hospital and get complete same-day treatment, ward admission if necessary, and all I have to do is provide my ID card? No form? And when I leave I'm presented with a bill for US$12.50?

That sure as hell simplifies the bureaucracy.

Yet still the majority of people in Hong Kong have private insurance because they want the option of a nicer ward or more specialized care or a wider choice of treatment options. Others pay full price for treatment out of their pocket because it's affordable. As I said in another thread, the insurance companies still do a great business, doctors do a great business because people can afford to visit them for a common cold, and everyody wins except big Pharma and poor doctors.

That's a public option. We can opt to have 100% government provided health care.

I love when the financial argument comes up. Please explain how in the name of fuck we can afford what you just described.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I know what a public option is.

You know what you think a public option is. And what you think about anything is always 100% correct.
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I love when the financial argument comes up. Please explain how in the name of fuck we can afford what you just described.

Easy. Get special interests including Big Pharma and the existing Health Care Industry the fuck out of Washington and out of the secret board meetings with insurance companies. That's the main reason costs are so sky-high.
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

<yawn>

It was passed because the Dems had 60 votes and could stop a filibuster. They no longer have 60 votes.

My question:
Quote:
Please explain which bill you are talking about?

Your answer above.

My assumption based on your answer:
You don't know what you are talking about,

YAWN2001.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Democrats on the Nuclear Option