A summary of the Healthcare Meeting

[Foxfyre]

If Obama was being open about the whole bill, why only CSPAN the meeting with the opposition, why not all the closed door meetings? Open and transparent, my ass.

This is the heart of the issue I think. As said previously, many of us were furious that the GOP agreed to this meeting at all. We thought the GOP leaders should have told the President that the people had spoken, socialized medicine was dead, and they were not interested in resurrecting it. By attending that meeting they were keeping it on the table.

Well, as it turned out, we skeptics were wrong. The GOP in attendance, the American people, and even the mainstream media who watched were not fooled.

They saw that His Arrogance was not the least bit interested in GOP input. Maggie pointed out that he agreed to consider GOP suggestions or stated they were already in the bill. Well, they aren't in the bill, and the lawyer in Obama was careful not to agree to anything. He made a good show of reasonableness, but seemed very uncomfortable that the GOP actually came to discuss what they wanted in the way of healthcare reform. He made sure they had as little time to express that as possible.

So, it was the GOP who appeared to be operating in good faith. Not the POTUS.

As David Gergen noted following the meeting, it was the Republican's best day in years.

And there is no indication that the Democrats intend to do anything any more transparently than they have.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have to agree with HB here. On the other thread I posted this exerpt from Erick Erickson's (Redstate) summary of the meeting:

Excerpt:

That is such complete BULLSHIT that it's hardly worth responding to. You post an OPINION from Redstate blog? Way to go, Foxy, way to go. And you wonder why it's difficult to find you credible.

If anyone wants to watch (or tape) the entire proceedings again, it will be aired on C-Span tomorrow morning starting at 10:30am. Then we'll see who's lying, as above.

Yep. I consult Redstate pretty often because they do damned good research. One of these days I look for Erickson to overtake Drudge as the master of what is important in the news. Both are already religiously consulted by all media organizations and most of Congress. So if I am uncredible for reading Redstate, then so is Barack Obama, because he or his staff does too.

If you want to know what Redstate is all about, here's a pretty good essay from TampaBay.com:
The man behind RedState.com shakes up the Republican Party - St. Petersburg Times

I posted the Redstate clip, by the way, because it is an excellent illustration of what those of us who read something other than Daily Kos and Huffington Post are seeing the media--even mainstream media--say about the healthcare summit meeting.

If that makes me uncredible in your eyes, so be it. I didn't think you found it difficult to brand me as uncredible though, Maggie. I thought that had already been decided. I don't drink any of the kool-ade that makes some support the President no matter what he says or no matter what he does or no matter how arrogant or partisan he comes across, so I don't expect to be loved by those who have.

All that's very interesting, but I wonder why people on the right dismiss and trash anything posted that came from, say Huffington Post or Media Matters. Both also do extensive research as well. If I'm to take Redstate seriously, then it's only "fair and balanced" for you to take the sites someone from the left might post. But, for the most part, if one of us even DARES to post a link, it immediately gets slammed and I'll bet my son's trust account that you people don't even read the contents because you erroneously assume it's all lies. Actually, I've never, ever posted some blogger's OPINION to make a point. If I want to read insulting OPINIONS, I get my fill of them right here.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[MaggieMae]

Do you think she cares? To her, like most liberals, the truth is inimical to her worldview.

Did Cantor and Boehner actually think that group was going to go though it page by page in that session? THAT'S WHAT WAS STUPID about bringing it alone.

It's a bill that could drastically change policy. OF COURSE it's going to be long. If it wasn't, the door would be wide open for all sorts of loopholes as the various interest groups do their own interpretations.

What's stupid is the fact that your party wrote that 2400 page monstrosity and your ignorance of that fact. You are right though...you progressives don't have the fricken balls to go through that bill page by page....your party would be exposed for the gaggle of ignoramuses and petty thieves they truly are....after all.... it WAS WRITEN AND PASSED BY DEMOCRATS ALONE!!!!!

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Did Cantor and Boehner actually think that group was going to go though it page by page in that session? THAT'S WHAT WAS STUPID about bringing it alone.

It's a bill that could drastically change policy. OF COURSE it's going to be long. If it wasn't, the door would be wide open for all sorts of loopholes as the various interest groups do their own interpretations.

What's stupid is the fact that your party wrote that 2400 page monstrosity and your ignorance of that fact. You are right though...you progressives don't have the fricken balls to go through that bill page by page....your party would be exposed for the gaggle of ignoramuses and petty thieves they truly are....after all.... it WAS WRITEN AND PASSED BY DEMOCRATS ALONE!!!!!

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

No it was written by special interests groups. Period.

And it's not the meat of the Bill that will have the loopholes. Why on earth should you pass the non-meat if you don't know what it's doing? Why should you pass it without debate as you seem to think. If none of that is essential, why put it in the bill to begin with?

 

[Avatar4321]

All that's very interesting, but I wonder why people on the right dismiss and trash anything posted that came from, say Huffington Post or Media Matters. Both also do extensive research as well. If I'm to take Redstate seriously, then it's only "fair and balanced" for you to take the sites someone from the left might post. But, for the most part, if one of us even DARES to post a link, it immediately gets slammed and I'll bet my son's trust account that you people don't even read the contents because you erroneously assume it's all lies. Actually, I've never, ever posted some blogger's OPINION to make a point. If I want to read insulting OPINIONS, I get my fill of them right here.

If by extensive research you mean "Make things up" or "Take things clearly out of context" I suppose you would be correct.

But most of us disagree with that definitions of extensive research.

 

[MaggieMae]

Did Cantor and Boehner actually think that group was going to go though it page by page in that session? THAT'S WHAT WAS STUPID about bringing it along.

It's a bill that could drastically change policy. OF COURSE it's going to be long. If it wasn't, the door would be wide open for all sorts of loopholes as the various interest groups do their own interpretations.

Yeah, having the bill to reference is stupid when you are debating the bill.

You seem to think 1500+ page bills are common. They aren't.

Loophooles are alot easier to squeeze into long bills that no one can possibly read than in small bills.

Bills that dramatically affect policy are long. How many have you actually ever read? Even the shorter ones? Not too long ago, you couldn't access a draft bill AT ALL, except by FAX from your representatives.

 

[MaggieMae]

For one thing, he's the POTUS. For another thing, he chaired the meeting and controlled the agenda.

Duh...

Facts elude you, dear. He TALKED more than those to whom he said he wanted to listen.

His saying he wanted to listen is typical and continued bullshit from him.

I suck at deprogramming, though, so my post is an effort in futility with you.

What I find most amusing is that Maggie doesn't even appear to realize that the polite term for the President is the President, not POTUS - POTUS is considered disrespectful. I refer to Obama as POTUS as a sign of disrespect.

If Obama was being open about the whole bill, why only CSPAN the meeting with the opposition, why not all the closed door meetings? Open and transparent, my ass.

So who made up that rule? GWB was referred to by ALL SIDES as the POTUS in any message boards I used before and nobody complained. It's SOP.

But I love the fact that you guys actually "counted" the number of times everyone got to speak. Talk about picking apart the small stuff. I'm sorry, but you are so amusing that I can't help but continue to support anything Obama does just because you can't seem to focus on what's really important and what isn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

What's stupid is the fact that your party wrote that 2400 page monstrosity and your ignorance of that fact. You are right though...you progressives don't have the fricken balls to go through that bill page by page....your party would be exposed for the gaggle of ignoramuses and petty thieves they truly are....after all.... it WAS WRITEN AND PASSED BY DEMOCRATS ALONE!!!!!

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

No it was written by special interests groups. Period.

And it's not the meat of the Bill that will have the loopholes. Why on earth should you pass the non-meat if you don't know what it's doing? Why should you pass it without debate as you seem to think. If none of that is essential, why put it in the bill to begin with?

Proof positive you don't have a clue about the process for writing bills. They are first and foremost LAW, and are written accordingly. And I never suggested it shouldn't be debated. Huh?

As for the health bill being written by lobbyists, period, look no further than six per every legislator. The campaign against a health care overhaul was led by the US Chamber of Commerce, which spent about $144 million on lobbying and worked hand in hand with the insurance industry, and an additional $50 million on television advertising. Wouldn't it have been more productive for the CoC to rally around the businesses who pay dues to be members and try to help solve the problem of skyrocketing costs for employers to cover their employees?

 

[Foxfyre]

That is such complete BULLSHIT that it's hardly worth responding to. You post an OPINION from Redstate blog? Way to go, Foxy, way to go. And you wonder why it's difficult to find you credible.

If anyone wants to watch (or tape) the entire proceedings again, it will be aired on C-Span tomorrow morning starting at 10:30am. Then we'll see who's lying, as above.

Yep. I consult Redstate pretty often because they do damned good research. One of these days I look for Erickson to overtake Drudge as the master of what is important in the news. Both are already religiously consulted by all media organizations and most of Congress. So if I am uncredible for reading Redstate, then so is Barack Obama, because he or his staff does too.

If you want to know what Redstate is all about, here's a pretty good essay from TampaBay.com:
The man behind RedState.com shakes up the Republican Party - St. Petersburg Times

I posted the Redstate clip, by the way, because it is an excellent illustration of what those of us who read something other than Daily Kos and Huffington Post are seeing the media--even mainstream media--say about the healthcare summit meeting.

If that makes me uncredible in your eyes, so be it. I didn't think you found it difficult to brand me as uncredible though, Maggie. I thought that had already been decided. I don't drink any of the kool-ade that makes some support the President no matter what he says or no matter what he does or no matter how arrogant or partisan he comes across, so I don't expect to be loved by those who have.

All that's very interesting, but I wonder why people on the right dismiss and trash anything posted that came from, say Huffington Post or Media Matters. Both also do extensive research as well. If I'm to take Redstate seriously, then it's only "fair and balanced" for you to take the sites someone from the left might post. But, for the most part, if one of us even DARES to post a link, it immediately gets slammed and I'll bet my son's trust account that you people don't even read the contents because you erroneously assume it's all lies. Actually, I've never, ever posted some blogger's OPINION to make a point. If I want to read insulting OPINIONS, I get my fill of them right here.

I am unaware of the mainstream media or the Obama administration consulting Huffington Post or Media Matters to determine what news is of interest or concern to the American people. Both are on record as consulting Redstate.

Huffington Post is a leftwing AND partisan publication and does a very good job for what it is. I read it regularly as I do Salon.com which also is a mostly respectable leftwing publication. And I post material from both which you have yet to criticize. You seem to think anything invalid only if it happens to have a conservative bias.

Redstate is ideologically conservative but it is in no way partisan and shills for nobody. The Republicans get their drubbing there right along with the Democrats.

Media Matters is a George Soros funded creation specifically to denounce, trash, or discredit ANYTHING conservative and focuses only on that. And they have been shown again and again to be so dishonest in what they cherry pick to criticize, nobody with half a brain would ever take them seriously as a credible source.

 

[boedicca]

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

Here's the problem: most of the people who will be voting for it have neither read nor understand the bill.

 

[Foxfyre]

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

Here's the problem: most of the people who will be voting for it have neither read nor understand the bill.

But they know fully well they won't have to be responsible for administering it. That will be done by burueaucrats supervised by the administration. Even some Democrats have admitted that there is wide leeway in how many of the provisions are likely to be interpreted and utilized. Many Republicans who have plowed through all that legaleze are convinced that it will not be interpeted and utilized in a way that many Americans will like.

If you guys would just make me a benevolent dictator with unlimited power for a year or two, one thing I would get engraved into the Constitution is that NO piece of legislation passed by Congress will exceed the number of words in the Constitution itself, and every clause must be translated into language understandable to the average citizen before any vote will be taken or before the President signs it into law.

Further ANY expenditure by Congress that is not uniformly beneficial in the same way to all citizens will be voted on in a stand alone bill uncluttered with any other issues. That way there will be no excuse for passing pork or legislating payola just because to not vote yes or sign it into law would be voting against some other provision that really does need to pass.

 

[boedicca]

I am not laboring under the assumption that the Health Care bill is for the benefit of American Citizens. It is designed to benefit Big Government, union employees, and large corporations who will line up for taxpayer funds.

The end result will be higher taxes and rationing. It's happened everywhere else it's been tried. This time will not be different.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not laboring under the assumption that the Health Care bill is for the benefit of American Citizens. It is designed to benefit Big Government, union employees, and large corporations who will line up for taxpayer funds.

The end result will be higher taxes and rationing. It's happened everywhere else it's been tried. This time will not be different.

Of couse it isn't for the benefit of the American citizen. It is specifically intended to transfer more and more power and resources to the Federal government. Cap & Trade is the same kind of legislation. Nobody with a brain, including those attempting to pass it, believes it will benefit the average citizen in any way or that it will accomplish any of the miracles it is supposed to accomplish. It is an intentional gimmick to transfer more power and resources to the Federal government.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

No it was written by special interests groups. Period.

And it's not the meat of the Bill that will have the loopholes. Why on earth should you pass the non-meat if you don't know what it's doing? Why should you pass it without debate as you seem to think. If none of that is essential, why put it in the bill to begin with?

Proof positive you don't have a clue about the process for writing bills. They are first and foremost LAW,.....

Proof positive you didn't pass Civics 101.....They are NOT laws until they are voted on and then signed INTO LAW by the President.

 

[Si modo]

The bill was written and rewritten following input from literally hundreds of lobbyist/special interest groups as well as liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republican lawmakers. Between the House and the Senate, it's gone through 6 major rewrites. And, like any major bill, it contains a lot of legalese referencing other clauses and paragraphs. If you know HOW to read a bill, you also know HOW to go directly to the meat of it.

No it was written by special interests groups. Period.

And it's not the meat of the Bill that will have the loopholes. Why on earth should you pass the non-meat if you don't know what it's doing? Why should you pass it without debate as you seem to think. If none of that is essential, why put it in the bill to begin with?

Proof positive you don't have a clue about the process for writing bills. They are first and foremost LAW, and are written accordingly. ....

 

[Foxfyre]

I was a bit encouraged early this morning to hear both Democrat and GOP talking heads express doubt that Pelosi could generate the votes to pass the healthcare boondoggle even if they do utilize reconciliation to get the bill to the President. It is becoming pretty apparent, however, that both Pelosi and the President will throw anybody under the bus to get a win, no matter how reprehensible, just to be able to claim some kind of win and salve their own egos.

But we can hope:

 

[MaggieMae]

Yep. I consult Redstate pretty often because they do damned good research. One of these days I look for Erickson to overtake Drudge as the master of what is important in the news. Both are already religiously consulted by all media organizations and most of Congress. So if I am uncredible for reading Redstate, then so is Barack Obama, because he or his staff does too.

If you want to know what Redstate is all about, here's a pretty good essay from TampaBay.com:
The man behind RedState.com shakes up the Republican Party - St. Petersburg Times

I posted the Redstate clip, by the way, because it is an excellent illustration of what those of us who read something other than Daily Kos and Huffington Post are seeing the media--even mainstream media--say about the healthcare summit meeting.

If that makes me uncredible in your eyes, so be it. I didn't think you found it difficult to brand me as uncredible though, Maggie. I thought that had already been decided. I don't drink any of the kool-ade that makes some support the President no matter what he says or no matter what he does or no matter how arrogant or partisan he comes across, so I don't expect to be loved by those who have.

All that's very interesting, but I wonder why people on the right dismiss and trash anything posted that came from, say Huffington Post or Media Matters. Both also do extensive research as well. If I'm to take Redstate seriously, then it's only "fair and balanced" for you to take the sites someone from the left might post. But, for the most part, if one of us even DARES to post a link, it immediately gets slammed and I'll bet my son's trust account that you people don't even read the contents because you erroneously assume it's all lies. Actually, I've never, ever posted some blogger's OPINION to make a point. If I want to read insulting OPINIONS, I get my fill of them right here.

I am unaware of the mainstream media or the Obama administration consulting Huffington Post or Media Matters to determine what news is of interest or concern to the American people. Both are on record as consulting Redstate.

Huffington Post is a leftwing AND partisan publication and does a very good job for what it is. I read it regularly as I do Salon.com which also is a mostly respectable leftwing publication. And I post material from both which you have yet to criticize. You seem to think anything invalid only if it happens to have a conservative bias.

Redstate is ideologically conservative but it is in no way partisan and shills for nobody. The Republicans get their drubbing there right along with the Democrats.

Media Matters is a George Soros funded creation specifically to denounce, trash, or discredit ANYTHING conservative and focuses only on that. And they have been shown again and again to be so dishonest in what they cherry pick to criticize, nobody with half a brain would ever take them seriously as a credible source.

Ah, but Redstate whatchamacallit.com, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, FoxNews, The Drudge Report, Pajamawhatever.com, and the literally HUNDREDS of other so-called right-wing, big monied (by whom?) "news" outlets that spew nothing but cherry-picked data or outright lies is what YOU rely on.
Got it.

Please spend a few minutes and draw a great big sign to post on your refrigerator:

THOU SHALL NOT BE A HYPOCRITE!!​

 

[MaggieMae]

No it was written by special interests groups. Period.

And it's not the meat of the Bill that will have the loopholes. Why on earth should you pass the non-meat if you don't know what it's doing? Why should you pass it without debate as you seem to think. If none of that is essential, why put it in the bill to begin with?

Proof positive you don't have a clue about the process for writing bills. They are first and foremost LAW,.....

Proof positive you didn't pass Civics 101.....They are NOT laws until they are voted on and then signed INTO LAW by the President.

You're getting there...what do you think he would be signing? A document which will become law. His "signature" is simply the formality.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm no hypocrite, Maggie. But I do know the difference between ideological bias and dishonest propaganda bought and paid for.

You apparently don't.

Do have a nice day though.