McConnell Refuses To Detail GOP Agenda

[cad]

I don't get your logic Cad, it's really screwy and even partisan.

"Obama is going to close Gitmo! How dare he!"

*Obama realizes he shouldn't yet since he received new information.*

"Obama promised to close Gitmo! He betrayed the voters!"

You can't complain about Obama closing Gitmo and then complain when he doesn't close it. It doesn't work like that.

god damn it. just wrote a lengthy response and my computer shit the bed. quick recap.

i want gitmo to be open. thought it was foolish for obama to want to close it.

however, the point i was trying to make is, sometimes situations change.

obama promised, numberous times, to close gitmo in a year.

the fact that he hasn't would cause some people to consider him a liar. i personally, don't.

i think he came in to office, saw the significance of gitmo, realized what it means to national security and did the proper thing in keeping it open. others on the left might disagree.

what i do have a problem with is him not keeping his promise not to put bills online for five days or put debates on cspan. i get that you promise a public option, and because of republican opposition you don't get it. i get you promise to repeal don't ask dont' tell and can't because of republican opposition. but when you don't put bills online or put debates on cspan, it makes me think you have something to hide. and when you claim to be so transparent, it makes me question your credibility. and no, you're not just another politician. you're the guy that's going to stop the oceans from receding...

 

[WillowTree]

and the Democrats plan to smear any people that disagree with them:

Democrats' 2010 Strategy: Republican Party, Tea Party Are 'One And The Same' (VIDEO)

YouTube - ONE AND THE SAME

I love it that Modbert is so concerned with how the Republicans are going to campaign, considering the Democrats seem to really need his advice.

demonRats demonize, it's just that Alinsky thang.

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's be fair, maybe he doesn't know they don't have one.

Hey, having an agenda is hard work. They'll get to it, eventually.

2% of total healthcare costs. What else you got?

Actually, estimates put it at closer to 0.5% of health care spending.

one obvious is tort reform.
does anyone believe that the reason a 2,000+ page healthcare bill contains no mention of tort reform has nothing to do with the fact that over90% of political contributions by trial lawyers goes to democrats?

No mention?

Sec. 10607. State demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation. Authorizes grants to States to test alternatives to civil tort litigation. These models would be required to emphasize patient safety, the disclosure of health care errors, and the early resolution of disputes. Patients would be able to opt-out of these alternatives at any time. The Secretary of HHS would be required to conduct an evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the alternatives.​

States can get five-year grants from the federal government to try out innovations to their liability laws.

so republicans offer a way to lower healthcare costs, and the democrat argument for not implementing tort reform is, IT'S ONLY 2% OF HEALTHCARE COSTS?

so you're not arguing, tort reform would raise healthcare costs, you're arguing it would only lower them minimally so why bother?

The argument isn't that liability laws shouldn't be reformed per se, it's that the effects of the common suggestions (e.g. damage caps) on health aren't clear. Tort laws exist to protect patients so presumably if you want to alter them you should do so with care. To quote from the report I referenced above:

The Effects of Tort Reform on Health Outcomes
Because medical malpractice laws exist to allow patients to sue for damages that result from negligent health care, imposing limits on that right might be expected to have a negative impact on health outcomes. There is less evidence about the effects of tort reform on people’s health, however, than about its effects on health care spending— because many studies of malpractice costs do not examine health outcomes. Some recent research has found that tort reform may adversely affect such outcomes, but other studies have concluded otherwise. Lakdawalla and Seabury (2009) found that a 10 percent reduction in costs related to medical malpractice liability would increase the nation’s overall mortality rate by 0.2 percent. However, Kessler and McClellan (1996 and 2002) and Sloan and Shadle (2009) concluded that tort reform generated no significant adverse outcomes for patients’ health.​

There's ambiguity here. So what does the reform law do? It gives states money to try out various tort reforms to see what works best for them.

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Generally speaking, there are four ways to do this:

1. Have national health insurance plans that can be sold in every single state. These would be subject to some uniform (national) rules but could be bought anywhere. This will be implemented under the reform law.
2. Allow multi-state insurance markets. States can then merge their markets if they so choose, theoretically allowing for more competition between insurers due to the larger marketplace. This will be allowed under the reform law (exchanges can be multi-state).
3. Encourage groups of states to enter agreements with each other to allow health insurance policies from other states to be sold within their borders. This will be encouraged under the reform law.
4. Force states to allow insurance policies issued in other states (and subject to those other states' regulations) to be sold within their borders. This is pretty universally panned as a bad idea and, not surprisingly, it's the one Republicans like the most. It won't be allowed under the reform law.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

This is, of course, one of the objectives of the health insurance exchanges being established under the reform law.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

State-level demonstrations of various health care innovations are one of the core strategies for long-term cost control under the reform law.

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

As already noted, states will be eligible to receive federal money under the reform law to try and do exactly that.

maybe republicans don't think our healthcare system is completely broken. maybe they think it's the best in the world, and only needs to be modified, rather than "transformed."

That's the same philosophy underlying the reform law.

i would love for you to address my point about obama taking care of his own. take the cadillac plans for example. dem's were going to raise the taxes on all cadillac plans. then, some of the head union guys take a trip to the white house, and in a matter of weeks, unions magically get an exemption from those taxes.

Which was later removed. All group plans, collectively bargained or not, that fall above the threshold will be subject to the excise tax when it goes into effect.

 

[Modbert]

0.5% of health care spending? Man I was being generous then. Thanks for the post Greenbeard.

 

[cad]

Let's be fair, maybe he doesn't know they don't have one.

Hey, having an agenda is hard work. They'll get to it, eventually.

2% of total healthcare costs. What else you got?

Actually, estimates put it at closer to 0.5% of health care spending.



No mention?

Sec. 10607. State demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation. Authorizes grants to States to test alternatives to civil tort litigation. These models would be required to emphasize patient safety, the disclosure of health care errors, and the early resolution of disputes. Patients would be able to opt-out of these alternatives at any time. The Secretary of HHS would be required to conduct an evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the alternatives.​

States can get five-year grants from the federal government to try out innovations to their liability laws.



The argument isn't that liability laws shouldn't be reformed per se, it's that the effects of the common suggestions (e.g. damage caps) on health aren't clear. Tort laws exist to protect patients so presumably if you want to alter them you should do so with care. To quote from the report I referenced above:

The Effects of Tort Reform on Health Outcomes
Because medical malpractice laws exist to allow patients to sue for damages that result from negligent health care, imposing limits on that right might be expected to have a negative impact on health outcomes. There is less evidence about the effects of tort reform on people’s health, however, than about its effects on health care spending— because many studies of malpractice costs do not examine health outcomes. Some recent research has found that tort reform may adversely affect such outcomes, but other studies have concluded otherwise. Lakdawalla and Seabury (2009) found that a 10 percent reduction in costs related to medical malpractice liability would increase the nation’s overall mortality rate by 0.2 percent. However, Kessler and McClellan (1996 and 2002) and Sloan and Shadle (2009) concluded that tort reform generated no significant adverse outcomes for patients’ health.​

There's ambiguity here. So what does the reform law do? It gives states money to try out various tort reforms to see what works best for them.




Generally speaking, there are four ways to do this:

1. Have national health insurance plans that can be sold in every single state. These would be subject to some uniform (national) rules but could be bought anywhere. This will be implemented under the reform law.
2. Allow multi-state insurance markets. States can then merge their markets if they so choose, theoretically allowing for more competition between insurers due to the larger marketplace. This will be allowed under the reform law (exchanges can be multi-state).
3. Encourage groups of states to enter agreements with each other to allow health insurance policies from other states to be sold within their borders. This will be encouraged under the reform law.
4. Force states to allow insurance policies issued in other states (and subject to those other states' regulations) to be sold within their borders. This is pretty universally panned as a bad idea and, not surprisingly, it's the one Republicans like the most. It won't be allowed under the reform law.

This is, of course, one of the objectives of the health insurance exchanges being established under the reform law.



State-level demonstrations of various health care innovations are one of the core strategies for long-term cost control under the reform law.



As already noted, states will be eligible to receive federal money under the reform law to try and do exactly that.

maybe republicans don't think our healthcare system is completely broken. maybe they think it's the best in the world, and only needs to be modified, rather than "transformed."

That's the same philosophy underlying the reform law.

i would love for you to address my point about obama taking care of his own. take the cadillac plans for example. dem's were going to raise the taxes on all cadillac plans. then, some of the head union guys take a trip to the white house, and in a matter of weeks, unions magically get an exemption from those taxes.

Which was later removed. All group plans, collectively bargained or not, that fall above the threshold will be subject to the excise tax when it goes into effect.

so you are saying republicans did have some ideas?
and help me out with the union exemption being taken out. i can't find any evidence of that. i don't doubt you, i just want to see it. and that's pretty cold of obama to stab those unions in the back like that.
At the time, he acknowledged that excessive litigation “may be” contributing to rising health costs, and he proposed state “demonstration projects” to test medical tort reform.

So where’d we end up? The Senate included a provision that would provide $50 million for grants to states that want to launch these projects. And since the House effectively approved the Senate version of the bill, this is what we’re left with on the tort-reform front: $50 million in demonstration projects.

Let’s break it down.

According to the Senate bill, states that get money will be required to develop an alternative to current tort litigation that:

(A) allows for the resolution of disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations; and

(B) promotes a reduction of health care errors by encouraging the collection and analysis of patient safety data related to disputes . . . by organizations that engage in efforts to improve patient safety and the quality of health care.

We checked in with folks from both sides of the aisle and, frankly, nobody seems all that troubled by this requirement. The trial lawyers are urging that states that apply for a grant to work on “patient safety” issues, rather than on other dispute-resolution techniques.

“We think patient safety is the way to go,” Anthony Tarricone, the president of the American Association for Justice, told us in an interview. “If there’s no medical error to begin with, then there aren’t lawsuits.” One example Tarricone tossed out: hand-washing programs at medical facilities to reduce infections.

But if a state does go the alternative-dispute resolution route — and sets up, say, an arbitration system presided over by a panel of medical experts — there’s a huge loophole. The law allows any plaintiff to “opt out” of a program he or she doesn’t like, and pursue his or her claims in state court.

It’s this component of the bill — the opt-out component — that has folks on the tort-reform side rolling their eyes.

“I don’t know anybody who thinks this is actual medical-liability reform, or finds this meaningful at all,” says Lisa Rickard, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform. “You’re not going to see pilot projects that might work well, you’re going to get watered-down demonstration projects designed to let plaintiffs’ lawyers opt-out at any time.” Added Rickard: “The bill is a demonstration of the interests of the trial bar over the views of the American people.”

 

[Greenbeard]

so you are saying republicans did have some ideas?

Of course. Most of them ended up in this law in some form.

and help me out with the union exemption being taken out. i can't find any evidence of that. i don't doubt you, i just want to see it. and that's pretty cold of obama to stab those unions in the back like that.

The unions weren't stabbed in the back. Originally the excise tax went into effect in 2014, the same time the exchanges begin operating and the law goes into full effect. Collectively bargained agreements sometimes substitute increased health benefits for wages and thus the argument was made that they should be given sufficient time to adjust their agreements to account for the change in the tax treatment of group health insurance. This was granted--the implementation of the excise tax was pushed back to 2018 for collectively bargained plans. Unions weren't "exempted" from the excise tax, they were given four extra years to prepare/adjust their agreements to accommodate it.

In the final law--as altered by the reconciliation bill--implementation of the excise tax was delayed until 2018 for all plans. The unions have exactly what they wanted (sufficient time to adjust), the only difference is that now everyone has it. This is Section 1401 of the reconciliation bill.

It’s this component of the bill — the opt-out component — that has folks on the tort-reform side rolling their eyes.

These are not replacements for state laws, they're demonstration projects (though obviously states are free to change their tort laws if they wish--they just can't do it with federal demonstration grant money). Their goal is--explicitly--not to curtail whatever existing legal rights state laws provide patients. The point of these demonstrations, like all demonstrations, is to gather information and test innovations. That's why the Secretary is directed to "enter into a contract with an appropriate research organization to conduct an overall evaluation of the effectiveness of grants awarded under subsection (a) and to annually prepare and submit a report to Congress" for each of the demonstration grants awarded.

The purpose here is to figure out, using a broad range of measures specified in the legislation, what works well for potential future federal or state-by-state implementation. Only then would one of these innovations actually replace existing state laws. Until they've demonstrated their value, they're not supplanting the state's existing law, unless the state were to go ahead and change its laws.

 

[cad]

so you are saying republicans did have some ideas?

Of course. Most of them ended up in this law in some form.

and help me out with the union exemption being taken out. i can't find any evidence of that. i don't doubt you, i just want to see it. and that's pretty cold of obama to stab those unions in the back like that.

The unions weren't stabbed in the back. Originally the excise tax went into effect in 2014, the same time the exchanges begin operating and the law goes into full effect. Collectively bargained agreements sometimes substitute increased health benefits for wages and thus the argument was made that they should be given sufficient time to adjust their agreements to account for the change in the tax treatment of group health insurance. This was granted--the implementation of the excise tax was pushed back to 2018 for collectively bargained plans. Unions weren't "exempted" from the excise tax, they were given four extra years to prepare/adjust their agreements to accommodate it.

In the final law--as altered by the reconciliation bill--implementation of the excise tax was delayed until 2018 for all plans. The unions have exactly what they wanted (sufficient time to adjust), the only difference is that now everyone has it. This is Section 1401 of the reconciliation bill.

It’s this component of the bill — the opt-out component — that has folks on the tort-reform side rolling their eyes.

These are not replacements for state laws, they're demonstration projects (though obviously states are free to change their tort laws if they wish--they just can't do it with federal demonstration grant money). Their goal is--explicitly--not to curtail whatever existing legal rights state laws provide patients. The point of these demonstrations, like all demonstrations, is to gather information and test innovations. That's why the Secretary is directed to "enter into a contract with an appropriate research organization to conduct an overall evaluation of the effectiveness of grants awarded under subsection (a) and to annually prepare and submit a report to Congress" for each of the demonstration grants awarded.

The purpose here is to figure out, using a broad range of measures specified in the legislation, what works well for potential future federal or state-by-state implementation. Only then would one of these innovations actually replace existing state laws. Until they've demonstrated their value, they're not supplanting the state's existing law, unless the state were to go ahead and change its laws.

greenbeard, thank you for your input. you seem to be very intelligent and well-informed. i appreciate your input.
but right now i'm 11 beers deep and about to make tacos.
so if i understand correctly, this healthcare bill sets up demonstration projects. in your opinion, is that the strongest step the government could have taken? this bill wasn't a win for trial lawyers?
so unions weren't the only ones to get the exemption. dem's changed the bill to make sure everyone got the exemption. so dems put forth an idea they believe would save money, tax these cadillac plans. unions complain, so dems exempt unions. then decide to exempt everyone. what happend to the good idea of taxing the cadillac plans? (i know i'm setting myself up here)

 

[oreo]

Link

Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents - The Hill's Ballot Box

There is no such thing as a "social" libertarian--LOL. You're a liberal--bonfide true and bluer than blue.

Your poll is not very credible.

according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are

Now to bring out a actual respectable and non-partisan poll:

The Fix - Tea Party = Republican party?

Asked whether they would support a generic Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress this fall, 80 percent of tea party supporters chose the GOP candidate, while 15 percent opted for the Democrat. While the loyalty of tea party supporters to Republican candidates is lower than that of self-identified "conservative Republicans" -- 95 percent of whom back the GOP candidate in the generic ballot -- it is still heavily weighted toward candidates of a certain ideological proclivity.

The Gallup findings generally affirm findings by Resurgent Republic, a conglomerate of GOP polling firms, in five states over the past weeks.

Also, you seem to not understand what I say socially libertarian.

I know to a liberal--it's hard to believe that there ARE democrats and independents that are actually CONSERVATIVE--

Here's a few of them that showed up at a tea party in Grand Junction, CO.



You need to define "social" libritarian--because after all these years--you are the very first one that has claimed to be one-- So exactly what is your political ideology--besides bashing conservatives and Republicans?

 

[uscitizen]

Think Progress Claiming He Doesn’t Want To ‘Scoop’ Himself, McConnell Refuses To Detail GOP Agenda

Last month, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda” because it could become a “campaign issue.” Just days later, the heads of the Republican congressional campaign committees — Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) — failed to name a single specific policy they support on NBC’s Meet The Press, instead suggesting that Americans intuitively “understand what Republicans stand for.”

This morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appeared on Bloomberg to discuss policy and the GOP agenda. But he didn’t have much to say either:

HOST: Do Republicans need to articulate what you would do in power, as opposed to simply campaigning against what the President’s done?

MCCONNELL: I think we clearly do need to make sure Americans know what we would do and we’re gonna make that announcement in late September so the voters will have an opp…

HOST: But you have an opportunity right here to spell it out.

MCCONNELL: Yeah but I think I won’t scoop myself. We’ll be making that announcement in late September.

Last month, RedState founder and staunch conservative Erick Erickson even told the party to “stop lying” and admit that it’s the “Party of No.”

But it’s not like the GOP has no ideas whatsoever. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) thinks that “all [Republicans] should do is issue subpoenas” if they win the House this fall. And House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who “doesn’t need to see GDP numbers or talk to economists” to determine policy, instead had lobbyists help him come up with a “new policy agenda.”

The Party of No has no ideas and is refusing to let the American people know what their agenda will be until almost the last minute. How shameful.

The republicans real agenda is not saleable to majority of the American public.

 

[Greenbeard]

but right now i'm 11 beers deep and about to make tacos.

Those both sound good right about now.

so if i understand correctly, this healthcare bill sets up demonstration projects. in your opinion, is that the strongest step the government could have taken? this bill wasn't a win for trial lawyers?

I would say this is the Number One thing that isn't appreciated about this reform law: it's chock-full of demonstration projects. It's overflowing with demonstrations, there are dozens that states are going to be going after. The tort reform demonstrations are just one example of a much bigger strategy, which is essentially "try lots of things." We don't know definitely what's going to make care better and cheaper so we're going to try everything. Different states will be trying all sorts of initiatives to change the way we pay for health care, the way we deliver it (to try and improve quality, care coordination, effectiveness, and so on), the way we think about it (and this includes emphasis on wellness and prevention programs). There are a lot of very exciting experiments in there (like these).

Back to your point: demonstrations aren't strong steps, they're smart steps. We don't know what works best yet, in tort reform, in payment reform, in delivery system reform, or even on a clinical level (this last one is part of the reason the law emphasizes the need to create a place where research on which medical procedures work best can be made available). This is the start of a long process of trying to systematically determine what we can do to lower costs and improve our health care system.

As far as tort reform in particular goes, I don't get the sense that we're in a place where we know enough to pursue it at a national level yet. States are and always have been perfectly able to reform their state laws--now they'll be able to get money to test out new ideas they've been itching to try but haven't had the nerve (or perhaps the political support) to implement on a statewide scale as a replacement for their existing laws. They get to do it without supplanting the laws they already have in place and hopefully we'll all learn something from their efforts.

so unions weren't the only ones to get the exemption. dem's changed the bill to make sure everyone got the exemption. so dems put forth an idea they believe would save money, tax these cadillac plans. unions complain, so dems exempt unions. then decide to exempt everyone. what happend to the good idea of taxing the cadillac plans? (i know i'm setting myself up here)

The good idea is still there. It goes into effect four years later than originally intended but it does go into effect.

 

[cad]

Think Progress Claiming He Doesn’t Want To ‘Scoop’ Himself, McConnell Refuses To Detail GOP Agenda

Last month, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda” because it could become a “campaign issue.” Just days later, the heads of the Republican congressional campaign committees — Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) — failed to name a single specific policy they support on NBC’s Meet The Press, instead suggesting that Americans intuitively “understand what Republicans stand for.”

But it’s not like the GOP has no ideas whatsoever. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) thinks that “all [Republicans] should do is issue subpoenas” if they win the House this fall. And House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who “doesn’t need to see GDP numbers or talk to economists” to determine policy, instead had lobbyists help him come up with a “new policy agenda.”

The Party of No has no ideas and is refusing to let the American people know what their agenda will be until almost the last minute. How shameful.

The republicans real agenda is not saleable to majority of the American public.

obama's economic policy: cut taxes, increase spending, large stimulus packages, bailouts, new healthcare entitlement programs. how eaxctly has he differentiated himself from bush?

 

[oreo]

I don't get your logic Cad, it's really screwy and even partisan.

"Obama is going to close Gitmo! How dare he!"

*Obama realizes he shouldn't yet since he received new information.*

"Obama promised to close Gitmo! He betrayed the voters!"

You can't complain about Obama closing Gitmo and then complain when he doesn't close it. It doesn't work like that.

god damn it. just wrote a lengthy response and my computer shit the bed. quick recap.

i want gitmo to be open. thought it was foolish for obama to want to close it.

however, the point i was trying to make is, sometimes situations change.

obama promised, numberous times, to close gitmo in a year.

the fact that he hasn't would cause some people to consider him a liar. i personally, don't.

i think he came in to office, saw the significance of gitmo, realized what it means to national security and did the proper thing in keeping it open. others on the left might disagree.

what i do have a problem with is him not keeping his promise not to put bills online for five days or put debates on cspan. i get that you promise a public option, and because of republican opposition you don't get it. i get you promise to repeal don't ask dont' tell and can't because of republican opposition. but when you don't put bills online or put debates on cspan, it makes me think you have something to hide. and when you claim to be so transparent, it makes me question your credibility. and no, you're not just another politician. you're the guy that's going to stop the oceans from receding...

Republicans haven't been able to stop anything. In fact--on don't ask don't tell all Obama would need to do is take his pen and sign an executive order--he doesn't even need a vote on that one.

The transperancy--was an all out LIE--to get voters to vote for him. GITMO--I think he probably wanted to close--which I felt was a very bad idea too--and when it backfired on him and even "blue" states didn't want them--he backed off and realised that closing GITMO was definitely not a winning situation for him. Hey--but the moron gave a date to close GITMO--and got his butt kicked over it. Another big deal is trying terrorists--the mastermind in New York City. Public opinion very much against that. His immigration policy--public opinion very much against suing Arizona. Health care--the public doesn't want it.

787 economic stimulus bill FLOPPED. Geithner out yesterday stating that they do not expect unemployment to drop--even though we have spent billions.

The first President to get to a 41% approval rating in such a short time.

 

[MarcATL]

that is a strong argument

so republicans offer a way to lower healthcare costs, and the democrat argument for not implementing tort reform is, IT'S ONLY 2% OF HEALTHCARE COSTS?

so you're not arguing, tort reform would raise healthcare costs, you're arguing it would only lower them minimally so why bother?

i'm ten grand in debt, and i walk by a ten dollar bill and decide not to pick it up. why bother, it's only ten bucks, right?

is tort reform the solution to our healthcare problems? no.
can it help? i think so. give me a good reason why it wouldn't

You're jumping to conclusions. I never said it would be wrong to do. I said it would drive down 2% of the costs, so I asked what else you had. Unless that's it. So I'll ask again, what else you got? I have a feeling I know what is next, but go on.

They don't have nothing but the same 3 - 5 regurgitated failed ideas of no significance.

The Republicans are going to balance the budget by cutting your taxes and spending even more on the military.

What more do you need to know?

Their constant rant and lust for war and not to mention their recent history of the last 30 years pretty much seals that fact in stone.

I don't get your logic Cad, it's really screwy and even partisan.

"Obama is going to close Gitmo! How dare he!"

*Obama realizes he shouldn't yet since he received new information.*

"Obama promised to close Gitmo! He betrayed the voters!"

You can't complain about Obama closing Gitmo and then complain when he doesn't close it. It doesn't work like that.

In Bizarro Republican World it does work like that. Having your cake and eat it too.

 

[oreo]

that is a strong argument

so republicans offer a way to lower healthcare costs, and the democrat argument for not implementing tort reform is, IT'S ONLY 2% OF HEALTHCARE COSTS?

so you're not arguing, tort reform would raise healthcare costs, you're arguing it would only lower them minimally so why bother?

i'm ten grand in debt, and i walk by a ten dollar bill and decide not to pick it up. why bother, it's only ten bucks, right?

is tort reform the solution to our healthcare problems? no.
can it help? i think so. give me a good reason why it wouldn't

You're jumping to conclusions. I never said it would be wrong to do. I said it would drive down 2% of the costs, so I asked what else you had. Unless that's it. So I'll ask again, what else you got? I have a feeling I know what is next, but go on.

They don't have nothing but the same 3 - 5 regurgitated failed ideas of no significance.

The Republicans are going to balance the budget by cutting your taxes and spending even more on the military.

What more do you need to know?

Their constant rant and lust for war and not to mention their recent history of the last 30 years pretty much seals that fact in stone.

I don't get your logic Cad, it's really screwy and even partisan.

"Obama is going to close Gitmo! How dare he!"

*Obama realizes he shouldn't yet since he received new information.*

"Obama promised to close Gitmo! He betrayed the voters!"

You can't complain about Obama closing Gitmo and then complain when he doesn't close it. It doesn't work like that.

In Bizarro Republican World it does work like that. Having your cake and eat it too.

Well Republicans are going to have a lot more to eat than cake--this November. A 300' Tsunami is going to hit the U.S. house of Representatives--leaving no democrat standing. They have gone against the will of the majority of citizens in this country on several occasions and they're going to pay for those decisions. They're going to be themselves standing in an unemployment line.

 

[MarcATL]

What will you RW nutjobs do come November and you find that your hopes and dreams of taking the House and/or the Senate have been dashed to smithereens?

Will you run out and shoot yourselves?

LOL!!!!!

 

[rdean]

and the Democrats plan to smear any people that disagree with them:

Democrats' 2010 Strategy: Republican Party, Tea Party Are 'One And The Same' (VIDEO)

YouTube - ONE AND THE SAME

I love it that Modbert is so concerned with how the Republicans are going to campaign, considering the Democrats seem to really need his advice.

If it's the truth, can you call it a "smear"?

 

[cad]

that is a strong argument

so republicans offer a way to lower healthcare costs, and the democrat argument for not implementing tort reform is, IT'S ONLY 2% OF HEALTHCARE COSTS?

so you're not arguing, tort reform would raise healthcare costs, you're arguing it would only lower them minimally so why bother?

i'm ten grand in debt, and i walk by a ten dollar bill and decide not to pick it up. why bother, it's only ten bucks, right?

is tort reform the solution to our healthcare problems? no.
can it help? i think so. give me a good reason why it wouldn't

You're jumping to conclusions. I never said it would be wrong to do. I said it would drive down 2% of the costs, so I asked what else you had. Unless that's it. So I'll ask again, what else you got? I have a feeling I know what is next, but go on.

They don't have nothing but the same 3 - 5 regurgitated failed ideas of no significance.

The Republicans are going to balance the budget by cutting your taxes and spending even more on the military.

What more do you need to know?

Their constant rant and lust for war and not to mention their recent history of the last 30 years pretty much seals that fact in stone.

I don't get your logic Cad, it's really screwy and even partisan.

"Obama is going to close Gitmo! How dare he!"

*Obama realizes he shouldn't yet since he received new information.*

"Obama promised to close Gitmo! He betrayed the voters!"

You can't complain about Obama closing Gitmo and then complain when he doesn't close it. It doesn't work like that.

In Bizarro Republican World it does work like that. Having your cake and eat it too.

I clarified the Gitmo thing. i was making a point a president can say something, have it turn out not to be true, but still not be a liar. it seems the left can't grasp that idea (no wmd = bush is a liar)

explain why he didn't put stimulus bill on line for five days like he promised to? or didn't put healthcare debates on CSPAN? did the republicans stop him from doing this?

the republicans keep regurgitating same failed ideas?
when has tort reform been tried an failed?
when are the dem's going to stop regurgitating "bush ruined everything" line

why are companies sitting on 1.8 trillion in cash but not hiring?

when is obama going to stop the failed bush policies of bailouts, stimulus, tax cuts, increased spending, trillion dollar entitlements?

how effective can your policies be when your strongest argument is, "well, it could have been worse"

what does it say about your administration when you can pass monumental legislation (stimulus, health care, financial reform) and you still feel the need to talk about the previous administration?

how can you claim to have strengthened our alliance against iran when bush got three sanctions passed with no dissents, while your one round of sanctions had our two allies brazil and turkey voting against it?