I was disappointed with Obama’s SOTU address, but this really cheered me! Confrontation makes it difficult for Pubs to keep lying and obfuscating. He should do this more often.
So what you are saying is that the Democrats did not block healthcare reforms that were proposed by the other party. Makes them look like bi-partisan to me. It’s a shame the Republican think playing politics is more important than governing now that they are in the minority.
Well if it’s majorly flawed then t did not address the healthcare problem; it made it worse. Nice job Republicans.
Do you think that the federal government should have significantly less or even no involvement in healthcare? Is it your position that the feds should drastically cut their current healthcare outlays? Do you think it a good idea if the feds were to eliminate one or more of their current healthcare programs, since that could potentially save taxpayers 100s of billions if not a trillion or more dollars?
Which program would you like to see cut? How about VA medical benefits? How about the military’s TriCare coverage? Maybe Medicaid? Perhaps Medicare would be more to your liking?
Now, I know that you know that this a bit of a set-up, but only just a bit of one. You know that it would not be politically possible–even for the GOP–to eliminate Medicare or any of the other programs. I understand that. But if your concern is really about how much a serious overhaul of U.S. healthcare would cost then shouldn’t you support eliminating one or more of the above programs? Think of how much we could lower our deficit if we had the balls to cut that stuff! If your party is going to walk the budget-hawk walk (and not just talk), they should be proposing elimination of the costly, wasteful public healthcare “giveaway” programs that already exist.
If it’s good enough for your grandma, your buddy Tyrone in the Army mess-cleaning school, or your brother Darrell who’s getting Medicaid because of his trumped-up Oxycontin-addiction-based disability… then it’s good enough for me and every other American who can’t afford even basic healthcare coverage right now.
So which way would you have it? Care for all? Care for no one? Or care only for whatever special-interest groups you happen to think deserve it?
what you saw on TV was for your benefit. Nothing was gained from the event.
Not so; anything that makes Congressional Republicans look weak and petulent can’t be all bad.
It definitely didn’t help the Republicans much.
So have you actually watched it yet?
Yes, I know. I was pointing out that the Republican demand that the health care bill be deficit neutral was an idea that they felt free to disregard only a few years ago.
Which parts of what you watched did you find interesting, and did the President say anything you might agree with?
This is gold. The Republicans seem to actually believe their own talking points and this time it bit them in the ass.
But they generally are unworkable. Republicans stopped caring about actual governance a while ago.
Seems to me from watching it is that the Republicans felt strong after the MA win, and thought they could invite Obama to the meeting, blast him with election year platitudes and speeches, make him look bad, and win win win.
But they didn’t take into consideration that Law Professors can easily shoot down platitudes and electioneering.
The really sad thing about this is that here was a chance to truly have an honest and open debate about what is going on in this country. I think if the Republicans at the meeting had actually brought up points of possible compromise and showed that they were willing to work with the president, they would have won the day. Instead, they proved to the world that they consider the only compromise worth having is the one that gives them everything they want.
I liked Seth Meyer’s line on SNL tonight that thinking they could take down Obama by inviting him into a war of words was like thinking they could beat Aquaman by getting him into the water.
Not very kind to Obama, comparing him to Aquaman.
that he would consider, maybe, possibly across-the-board tax cuts, a better handle on earmarks, more transparency in general.
As Colbert described it on Thursday night, the proposal mentioned in the SotU response is 19 pages long. Roughly paraphrasing: The first page is a cover page, so that doesn’t count. Neither does the table of contents, the last blank page, and the half that is the Democrats plan. So that leaves six pages with the kind of margins normally reserved for eight-grade term papers.
I think we’re in agreement on the impasse (though probably not on much else ;)). The objective that the Dems have set, which is to significantly expand coverage, with the assumption that this can be done in a cost-effective manner, is not an objective/premise shared by the Republicans. Consequently, anything they offer will be “unworkable,” relative to that premise–the premise the Republicans do not share. The Republican proposals will seem small, inadequate, off the mark, missing the point from the Dem perspective. From the Republican perspective, the “smallness” is exactly the point–they believe (as I do) that the offsets for this program are an illusion (I believe a dishonest one, frankly) and however much we’d all like everyone to have all kinds of coverage, we can’t go into massive debt to do it.
So, their major objections and proposals are effectively ignored. Including any individual item that is a Republican “idea” completely misses the point if it’s tacked onto a bill like this–it is “immaterial.” It’s moving deck chairs around on the Titanic. It is a dismissal of the real Republican objectives and concerns. It accepts their ideas in no material or meaningful way.
And, again, why would the Dems do otherwise if they believe the angels are on their side and the Republicans are just wrong? Just enough with the “get off the sidelines” jive, when what they mean in reality is, “no way in hell we’re changing this bill in any way that will remotely satisfy you, tough shit.” Of course, Massachusetts changed all that. Dems screwed the pooch there and for their hope for health care.
Well, I don’t think it’s all or nothing, and I accept the fact that the ship has sailed on certain programs. They exist and they won’t be eliminated. Government never gets smaller. But that does not, for me, lead to a conclusion that we ought to do more, just by definition.
It would definitely seem more logical, but no, it would not seem like a compromise to me. Nor do I think the Dems will offer it up, since it would be political suicide. Talk about a blood bath in November.
No, you first. 
And was done so with pure deficit spending.
Yet the major objection to current HCR from the republicans is that it would increase the deficit.
So to sumerize: Deficit spending to help Americans is a great thing when the republicans can take credit for it. Deficit spending to help Americans when the the democrats could take credit for it is SOCIALISM! And deficit spending to kill brown people who don’t think much of Jeebus is always a good thing.
I agree that the Republican’s objective is not to expand coverage. I wish they would say that instead of making up bullshit about death panels and socialism.