You’re still one of those sane moderates we should all aspire to be, aren’t you Mr Smashy? This looks to me like you’ve got a bit of a stick in your craw that makes you willing to violate Occam’s razor. Real moderates don’t do shit like that.
Thanks for responding to my questions Mr. Smashy.
However, I do have some follow-up questions.
If, as you say, the bulk of the Republican-sponsored amendments weren’t substantive, then is your argument against the bill that the Republicans didn’t get to dictate the content enough? Is the Republican definition of bipartisan “we determine the content of the bills passed by Congress, and the Democrats don’t argue or propose any content of their own”? If the Democrats propose content that the Republicans don’t like, do the Republicans plan to not compromise at all until the content is completely to their liking? How is that bipartisan?
Can you explain why this bill, which was pretty much the plan that the Republicans have been proposing for almost the past two decades, wasn’t supported by Republicans this time? Apparently, the Republicans proposed almost this exact plan at several points in the 1990s, and this plan is almost identical to the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Romney in 2006 and supported by Brown. Why, now, do the Republicans think the plan is a bad idea?
ETA: Also, regarding those black churches burned that you claimed were burned by Democrats in order to be able to blame Republicans - your addressing of that issue seems to ignore your original statement. Can you clarify that statement, support it with actual cites and evidence, or retract that statement and apologize?
And before Smashy gets in here with his No True Scotsman accusation, I want to make this clear: real moderates, real realists, look at the facts presented to them and make their opinion based on those facts. Ideologues start with an opinion and twist the presented facts to fit that opinion, or ignore facts that can’t be twisted.
Looking at a death threat made to a legislator because of HCR, or that a black church was set on fire, and deciding that it’s more probable that these are acts of left-wingers trying to make right-wingers look bad is twisting the facts to support your pre-established opinion.
Um, I may be misreading this, but I think that article on Santelli is meant to be a joke.
[el threado wrongo]
If they know what’s good for them (always a dubious proposition with that lot), they’d better not.
Here’s a link to a recent On The Media segment regarding polling and just how inaccurate it can be.
But we all know that, right? Answers to polls highly depend on the wording of the questions and (if multiple choice) the options given. Two very good reasons why ALL polls should be judged critically and taken with grains of salt.
According to that segment, most of the polls where people state they disagree with HCR if asked a reason say that is it because the current reforms don’t go far enough. And to not mention that salient fact is not only disingenuous of the GOP and Fox et al, but downright false.
On another note, I especially love those over age 65 screaming about the government funding health care, as they cling to their Medicare. :rolleyes:
I am not jumping into most of what has been said here, because others have done a much better job of handling it than I could. But I was wondering, do you have COBRA where you work Mr Smashy? Silly question I know, everybody has it because it is a federal law. That was put into effect in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
IOW, a major change in health insurance laws, passed using reconciliation, because it had an effect on the budget. Which is what the reconciliation bill that Obama will sign this week does. It makes changes to an already passed bill that will save the federal government money, by removing some of the “back room deals” that the Republicans were so upset about. Of course, every Republican in both houses voted against removing those deals. Wouldn’t want to pass up the chance to score some political points by trying to save the government some money. :dubious:
And that horrible individual mandate that the AGs are filing suit over and the Republicans hate so much? That is one of the most bi-partisan parts of the entire bill, since it is a Republican idea they have been pushing since 1994. I can see why you don’t think there are any substantive Republican ideas in the bill. :rolleyes:
“This article was deleted by the author.”
Bummer.
It’s possible, but the others were not.
This.
I was one of those people who opposed RomneyCare 2.Obama. If I had been asked about it in a telephone poll, I’d have said so, because I want a single payer system. If I’d been asked the day after it was signed which word came closest to expressing how I felt about it, I might well have gone with “disappointed.” I wouldn’t mind telling a pollster that, because I trust that the people I elected would not govern by opinion poll, and would settle on the best plan they could pass, with a little help from Naked Rahm Emmanuel. OPinion polls are generally meaningless.
Kolga, your attitude and language is far too reasonable for the SDMB, don’t make me have to report you…
I agree that this plan looks like Mass’s plan. I have no problem with Mass’s plan, or if every one of the 50 states want to pass Mass’s plan. I do have a problem when the Federal government tries to do this, because a) it’s unconstitutional IMHO, due to the ridiculous reading of the commerce clause, the 10th amendment, and probably the capitation-nature of the tax, b) it will clobber the deficit in all liklihood
and c) I think the law of unintended consequences will wreak havoc in this case. We’ve already discussed in other threads how many doctors will now consider retirement, as per an admitted less-than-scientific poll (it may not be the 45% quoted, but it certainly isn’t zero). Another example: AT&T just announced that they are going to take a $1b hit to earnings to account for these added healthcare costs. Will that come out of shareholder equity? Out of employee benefits or salaries? Out of finally fixing their woefully oversubscribed network… :eek:
No doubt the Dems are in charge so they get to do stuff like this. But the public has repeatedly said that they are against this; there is still more against than for, even after the emotional burst of passage. In situations like that, I think it’s incumbent on the party in power (Dems or GOPers, it doesn’t matter) to take that into account and make it bipartisan, or don’t pass it. Unlike the other ignorant poster who suggested that Obama’s election was a mandate for UHC, it’s clear that that was nowhere near the case: as always, “it’s the economy, stupid”.
Finally, I would have much preferred to see a bipartisan solution like the Wyden-Bennett bill, which Obama could have had back in August. (Note that this still had the unconstitutional mandate, but still, bipartisan is better than not when doing something this massive). Obama said he wanted a bipartisan bill. I doubt that. I think he just wanted a victory on his sig issue so he would have some kind of legacy. Unfortunately, his legacy will be one of exploding the debt and sending our kids to the poor house due to an entitlement we cannot afford.
PS Since I can’t put my hand on the cites I’ll retract that black churches stuff… the stuff i heard a few years ago, either radio or TV I forget which, wasn’t Dems doing it though, just other black folks.
Hey, I wasn’t using the word ‘proof’, others were. All I’m saying, don’t make any assumptions until we catch the dudes.
And yes, I’m most definitely a moderate. In fact I have more liberal positions than conservative ones.
There are no moderate Republicans in office. With well over 50% of registered Republican primary voters being complete nutjobs, any and all Republicans must toe the crazy line or lose their primary, even when the obvious result is a Democrat winning the general. That is the real reason no Republican even wanted to be seen negotiating with the Democrats to get a bipartisan plan passed.
Yes, I understand: Saddam’s mobile bioweapons production facilities may yet turn up in Syria.
It wouldn’t be properly circumspect of anyone to jump to conclusions about that, would it now? 
Cite?
[channeling my inner Frank]
cite?
[/Frank]
Last administration, the “ruling party” liked to talk about their “mandate” and how they were gonna do what they were gonna do, and if we didn’t like that, tough. This administration, many of these same people are screaming that everything is being rammed down their throats. The real reason is politics and power. It has nothing to do with the goodness or badness of the bill. It’s about power, being in charge. The Tea party is just a group of selfish, ignorant, stupid people who not qualified or fit to speak on policies or bills they haven’t even bothered to read, and who get their cue from the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
The Dems took the House. The Dems took the Senate. The Dems took the White House. In short, the people have spoken. They rejected the Reps this time. So, what’s this mean? The people spoke with their votes. The Dems (for now) have the mandate. Back to the Tea party:
In another thread, Knorf posted this:
So who are they wanting to take the country back from? Anyone who isn’t “their kind”. Occam’s Razor.
They are also hypocrites:
Grimes is a fucking hypocrite. Basically, by his own actions, he is really saying “I want it handed to me, but not anyone else”.
Well here is a nutbar who had been charged with threatening to kill a Senator. It seems his threats can be directly tied to his dislike of health care reform: