# Obama at House Republican Retreat, Q&A **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004 "2010-01-30T06:14:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/61 "2010-01-31T00:10:57Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Another non sequitur. Nice going. You keep enthusiastically missing the point, which is that your premise is false. If you proceed from the premise, “Since we all agree that health care coverage should be augmented by the government, and since we all agree that it needs significant expansion driven by government intervention, and since this can be done in a cost-effective way–let’s work out the details,” you might have a point. However, the opposition, most anyway (and, as it happens, me) reject the very premise. What proposals do you think are possible from a group that believes that this is only going to be a God-awful boondoggle? None, the Dems know it, and that’s why they are largely uninterested in gaining Republican support, at least while they had a super majority. Fuck the Republicans indeed. Are you of the opinion that the Republican position is that health care does not need government intervention? That any increase spending by the government, or any new regulation by the government in the name of improving health care should be opposed by anyone who considers themselves a Republican? If that is the case, then only way Democrats could have incorporated Republican ideas would have been to improve health care coverage by reducing spending and intervention from the status quo. Obama in the Q & A rejected that proposal as unworkable. If that’s what Republicans consider as their “idea”, then fuck them. Ideas have to be workable, and we can debate if you want whether it is possible to improve coverage without increasing spending. The point Obama tried to make during the Q & A is that he doesn’t reject ideas because they come from Republicans, he rejects them because he thinks they won’t work. The merit of this argument depends on how you view the merits of the Republican proposals he rejected. I think we can both agree that the Democrats do not have to incorporate meritless ideas in the name of bipartisanship. If Republicans were serious about governing they would be spending more time defending the merits of their ideas than whining about how the Democrats are shutting them out. So instead of pointing out that the health care bill does not represent core Republican values, why not propose some Republican ideas that should be incorporated to improve health care? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/62 "2010-01-31T00:12:26Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > The fact is that you made a specific claim. One that was rebutted, which you then responded to with sarcasm. That’s all I pointed out. But you can continue to move the goalposts as you wish. Are you unfamiliar with the word “material”? Seriously, are you suggesting that the Dems carefully considered all the significant Republican proposals and objections, then crafted a bill that should have satisfied them? Do you honestly believe that cort’s post confirmed such a conclusion? Nah, of course you don’t, you know the goalposts haven’t been moved, you realize you’re picking nits in the grand scheme of this debate, and you would concede this if you wish to be honest. > [@](#): > > **cluck, cluck, cluck** You might want to have your carburetor checked. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/63 "2010-01-31T00:13:26Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Medicare cuts? It is obvious you and MaGIVER did not watch the discussion. He had no teleprompter. He fielded all questions. When they were done a couple repubs said they wish it had not been filmed. They knew who the adult was in that room. What the hell does that have to do with Medicare cuts? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/64 "2010-01-31T00:22:53Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Are you of the opinion that the Republican position is that health care does not need government intervention? That any increase spending by the government, or any new regulation by the government in the name of improving health care should be opposed by anyone who considers themselves a Republican? The opposition is not to any increase, it’s to an unsustainable, dangerously large increase. The opposition is to an enormous increase in government. It is not trivial, it just isn’t. > [@](#): > > If that is the case, then only way Democrats could have incorporated Republican ideas would have been to improve health care coverage by reducing spending and intervention from the status quo. Obama in the Q & A rejected that proposal as unworkable. If that’s what Republicans consider as their “idea”, then fuck them. Ideas have to be workable, and we can debate if you want whether it is possible to improve coverage without increasing spending. > > The point Obama tried to make during the Q & A is that he doesn’t reject ideas because they come from Republicans, he rejects them because he thinks they won’t work. The merit of this argument depends on how you view the merits of the Republican proposals he rejected. I think we can both agree that the Democrats do not have to incorporate meritless ideas in the name of bipartisanship. I have already pointed out I would actually respect this position. I would disagree with the direction they’re taking, but I could understand the perspective that says that the Republican positions are diametrically opposed to the Dems, the angels are on your side, and no consensus will be sought since none is possible. As I already stated, I certainly don’t believe the Republicans are seeking real compromise either. My reaction was to the notion that partisanship and an absence of reaching across the aisle in any real way is the sole province of either party alone. All that “get off the sidelines” jive. The Republicans have not been in the game because they aren’t really invited. The invitation is to come on board and agree with all the major aspects of the bill, or get the hell out of the way. Or it was, until the Dems screwed the pooch in Massachusetts. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/65 "2010-01-31T00:52:46Z")
The invitation has always been to either work on the bill or come up with something better. The Republicans have chosen to do neither. Obama has consietntly said he’d be willing to listen to any otheir own ideas to reform health care, but they havn’t offered any. They don’t have any interest in solving health care, but only in preventing Obama from being able to score a poltical victory. He kicked their asses in that Q&A, by the way, and now I hear the Republicans are whining that it might have been a mistake to leave the cameras running. Fox News backed out in a panic. Obama should do more of that. H edid a good job of exposing just how shallow and disingenuous his opposition has really been. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/66 "2010-01-31T01:30:43Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Are you unfamiliar with the word “material”?..Do you honestly believe that cort’s post confirmed such a conclusion? From what I understand, the primary suggestions for health care reform from the Republicans are (1) tort reform, (2) cross-state-border insurance sales, and (3) modifications that make it easier for small businesses to afford insurance plans. Being the primary Republican suggestions, I’d say that their inclusion in the Democrat bill qualifies as “significant with regard to the structure of the changes”, and thus “material”. Coincidentally, those three items align with the first three items in **Cort** ’s list. Furthermore, according to this [LA Times article](http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/nation/na-health-gop5) (granted, a few months old, from November 2009), the Republican proposals also feature catastrophic coverage (also in **Cort** ’s list…funny that). > [@](#): > > Nah, of course you don’t, you know the goalposts haven’t been moved, you realize you’re picking nits in the grand scheme of this debate, and you would concede this if you wish to be honest. If you honestly think that incorporating the main Republican ideas into the bill falls short in the “grand scheme of this debate”, I’m speechless – and so have nothing else to say. Perhaps we have different definitions of “honest”. It’s not that I think you’re wrong about ideological differences playing a role in Republican opposition (_some_ role, however small I think it may be). It’s that I don’t want to waste my time and effort with someone who can’t simply say, “Yes, sorry, that was overstated.” ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/67 "2010-01-31T01:55:01Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The opposition is not to any increase, it’s to an unsustainable, dangerously large increase. The opposition is to an enormous increase in government. It is not trivial, it just isn’t. > > I have already pointed out I would actually respect this position. I would disagree with the direction they’re taking, but I could understand the perspective that says that the Republican positions are diametrically opposed to the Dems, the angels are on your side, and no consensus will be sought since none is possible. As I already stated, I certainly don’t believe the Republicans are seeking real compromise either. My reaction was to the notion that partisanship and an absence of reaching across the aisle in any real way is the sole province of either party alone. All that “get off the sidelines” jive. The Republicans have not been in the game because they aren’t really invited. The invitation is to come on board and agree with all the major aspects of the bill, or get the hell out of the way. Or it was, until the Dems screwed the pooch in Massachusetts. I think I see your point now. The Republicans do not want large increases of government spending, so in order for the Democrats to claim a bipartisan effort, they would have to significantly reduce spending in this bill. The Democrats, however, do not believe that you can improve health care with the massive spending increase so no compromise with the Republicans is possible. Apparently saying that you are “open to Republican ideas that work” is not enough to earn you bipartisan credit. Under your way of thinking it seems like you have to be open to Republican ideas regardless of whether you believe they work or not in order to claim you are being bipartisan. That seems like a sick and twisted version of bipartisanship that no one should aspire too. Obama is “open to Republican ideas that work.” He has rejected rightfully the idea that you can improve health care without substantially increasing spending. If Republicans want him to adopt it, then they have to make a better case for it, which is something they haven’t been doing. To me bipartisanship is Obama giving his well reasoned rejection to a Republican idea instead of ignoring it. It’s not Obama accepting a Republican idea no matter what he thinks about it. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/68 "2010-01-31T02:20:25Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > To me bipartisanship is Obama giving his well reasoned rejection to a Republican idea instead of ignoring it. It’s not Obama accepting a Republican idea no matter what he thinks about it. Well, if you reject every Republican idea, that’s not bipartisanship either. Saying you’re “open to Republican ideas that work” doesn’t make you bipartisan if you then reject every Republican idea as unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/69 "2010-01-31T02:21:21Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, this is what I mentioned earlier, the open-tent, non-partisan welcome that the Republicans enjoyed. Nicely summarized. Fuck non-partisanship and open tents, too. The Republicans are just plain bad for the country. I never claimed to be a non-partisan or a bi-partisan or a multi-partisan or anything else. Frankly, I’m not particularly married to the Democrats, either. If a party that represented my views better and had half a chance to actually reach an effective majority in Washington sprang up, I’d be voting that ticket before my seat at the Dem tent got cold. But the fact is that right now we have a choice of mostly sane but ultimately not committed to actual progressivism, and insane and completely useless to anybody who doesn’t make more than $80,000 a year. I’ll pick the folks who actually sometimes have an idea that doesn’t involve cutting the taxes of people who make more money in a week than I’ll ever see. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/70 "2010-01-31T02:36:56Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > But it is true that the Democrats blocked efforts of the Republican to address health care reform when they were in control of both houses and the White House right? Er, no. The Republicans didn’t do a fucking thing to address health care. The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act creating Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits was passed in 2003 under Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican president. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/71 "2010-01-31T02:43:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If it wasn’t public, it never would have “gone down”. This wasn’t a planning meeting. Nothing was hammered out. Except last year when President Obama addressed the GOP conference only his speech was televised and the cameras were removed for the Q&A session and this year the request to leave the cameras rolling during the Q&A session was made late Thursday night less than a day before his appearance. Doesn’t it just make you **SO MAD** when reality interferes with the things you want to be true? ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/72 "2010-01-31T02:54:14Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, if you reject every Republican idea, that’s not bipartisanship either. Saying you’re “open to Republican ideas that work” doesn’t make you bipartisan if you then reject every Republican idea as unworkable. Only if you are being disingenuous. This is why it’s better to debate about the merits of ideas you think should be in the bill rather than have both parties squabble over the meaning of bipartisanship. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/73 "2010-01-31T02:58:49Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, if you reject every Republican idea, that’s not bipartisanship either. Saying you’re “open to Republican ideas that work” doesn’t make you bipartisan if you then reject every Republican idea as unworkable. The Republicans haven’t _offered_ any ideas for reforming health care. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/74 "2010-01-31T03:00:00Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Only if you are being disingenuous. > > This is why it’s better to debate about the merits of ideas you think should be in the bill rather than have both parties squabble over the meaning of bipartisanship. If you say you’re open to ideas from the other side and then reject them all, you are being disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/75 "2010-01-31T03:00:39Z")
What Repblican ideas have been rejected? ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/76 "2010-01-31T03:17:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > If you say you’re open to ideas from the other side and then reject them all, you are being disingenuous. If you say you are open to _workable_ ideas from the other side and reject them all because they are unworkable, then you are not necessarily being disingenuous. If all the ideas from the other side are not workable, then you are not being disingenuous by rejecting them. You are being honest by sticking to your promise. This of course assumes that all the ideas from the other side are unworkable. It’s a given in my hypothetical, but in real life the question is open for debate. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/77 "2010-01-31T03:19:07Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act creating Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits was passed in 2003 under Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican president. And they made sure every penny of it was paid for, I bet, just like they demand from the Democrats. Let me look it up… Ooh. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/78 "2010-01-31T03:28:31Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > And they made sure every penny of it was paid for, I bet, just like they demand from the Democrats. Let me look it up… > Ooh. **DanBlather** said they didn’t ‘do a fucking thing to address healthcare’ and he was completely wrong. They passed a massive majorly flawed entitlement program. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/79 "2010-01-31T03:29:40Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > The Dems want expanded coverage, and pretend that this can be done without adding expense. The Republicans won’t join in that pretense, so they dismiss the objective as unachievable. With that as a given, what compromise is possible? If the GOP said they were willing to go for the Democrat plan (the _real_ one including the public option and a ban on denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions) as long as the Dems admitted that the plan couldn’t be paid for without raising taxes, then would the GOP go for it? Seems like a fair compromise to me. At least that way we could finally do something about our broken health-care system. Write your GOP congressperson and suggest this compromise. Let’s get going on this! ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004/80 "2010-01-31T03:33:55Z")
The Repubs passed out a booklet at the conference and declared it a health care proposal. Take the crap out and it distilled down to about 6 pages. Obama held it up and told them he read it . It was talking points with no programs and no implementation . They should have just passed out a one pager with NO in big block letters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-house-republican-retreat-q-a/527004.md?page=5)