Talkfest 10': who really tried to compromise

[Yurt]

Basically the Republicans repeated the same speech over and over again: "Scrap the current bill because it's too long for us to read and we'll debate for another year" Not the kind of bipartisanship Obama hoped to get out of the meeting.
Now we know all the points that are disagreed upon and agreed upon. That's about it.

sboyle: i slammed dems in my first response. ^ first response ^

I referred to the wrong response then. My bad. Let's move on now k?

well...i guess i accept this weak apology that you claimed this was my failure and instead is actually your failure...

thank you for admitting you were wrong, perhaps you will someday come to your senses and admit your other wrongs/failures as well.

 

[slackjawed]

I am usually independent vanquish, but on this issue I do stand firmly with the republicans. The fact is that there are some, including me, that believe this simply gives the federal government too much control. I don't expect to change your mind. I don't intend to shut you up.
But notice who here is engaging in insults and name calling. That in itself should be an indication of weakness. When there is such a fundamental difference in opinion, working together to achieve the goals that are held by only one side are not "talking points", they are fundamental differences. There should be no "working together" if there is these basic fundamental differences. That is the lefty talking point and it isn't working.
examples?
ok;
shill- an accusation YOU tossed out first and i defended myself against
"Republitards" speaks for itself.

Now, I encourage to you keep expressing your opinion, and to stand behind your democratic leaders. I believe that the country is too divided, and could use some effort at unification. I also think that if the democrats continue to ignore the will of the people, the people will unite against them. That would do more to unite the country than anything else they have done thus far.
So, please continue, please.

 

[Murf76]

Ok. Let's take this step by step.

1. You're being disingenuous. If he HADN'T been even-handed you'd have screamed bloody murder - proving (though you attempt to downplay it) that he didn't run roughshod over the meeting and gave the other side a chance to speak.

This isn't just parliamentary rules, it was an honest man trying to get something done...and knowing that he'd have to let the other side do more than say their peace...but really get something done.

Again.... Obama 119 minutes; Democrats 114 minutes; Republicans 110 minutes.
Obama monopolized the time. He had a CLEAR partisan position in his insistence that the starting point would be HIS outline of a bill, which was based upon the Senate bill and has already been rejected by Republicans. He then proceeded to control the discussion from that vantage point.

There was NOTHING "honest" about this meeting. Just because YOU are apparently incapable of seeing the nuance of using one's own "starting point" and then refusing to budge off of it, doesn't mean everyone else is as slow-witted.

Even their cost analysis was dishonest, relying on 10 years of revenues but only paying out 6 years of benefits, putting the "doctor fix" in a separate bill, and counting on a half trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare that are unlikely to ever occur.

2. McCain first? Uhm you need to read the transcript buddy. What do you think Obama was responding to when he said that? He was responding to McCain trying to stick Obama with a sound bite about the election.

If you wouldn't stick your head in the sand and put your fingers in your ears....you'd remember that he said "I dont want Fox News to put us side by side on the screen and have us going at each other" ... THATS BIPARTISAN. He didn't want it to be a bicker-fest.

Are you denying that both Obama and McCain promised to "clean up corruption in Washington"? Are you denying that there were carve-outs and backdoor deals in the Senate bill? Because even Obama couldn't join you in those denials.

Bottom line... McCain spoke the truth, and Obama responded to him in ill-grace and refusal to engage in discussion of the points McCain had made. It was a rude shut-down in a discussion that McCain was INVITED to attend. Shutting down the other side because you don't like their point of discussion is NOT "bipartisan".

3. Your "see above" is pretty weak. Already killed that. Might want to post something else.

While I disagree that Obama's attacks on his Republican guests were "personal"... they were certainly ill-mannered and petulant. His goal at this meeting was simply to cement the "80% in agreement" meme... which is NOT TRUE. Any time he was faced with substantive difference, he refused to engage.

4. Your side seems to forget about all the Republican points that are IN THE DAMN BILL! There's already commonality there...why scrap it when you can work from where you agree. And that's just another point about how Obama was bipartisan...he said there are points where we all agree...there are points where we dont...lets keep the agreement parts and work on the non-agreement parts.

But instead Republitards can't even do that. They want to start over.

No. They are NOT in agreement. Again, from my last post...

"There's no 80% consensus. That's a Democrat meme that's been cooked up over the last couple of weeks. Republicans have had healthcare plans all along. And the differences between them are substantive. It's not enough to say, "We all want affordable healthcare, hence we are in agreement". It's not enough to say, "We want a solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions, therefore we're all on the same page". To agree on what the problem IS... doesn't necessarily mean we agree on how to solve it.

Hell, they had one Democrat gasbag trying to tell us that their "exchange" system was the same thing as group purchasing pools.
Ummm... one of those things requires insurance companies to comply with government "quality standards" and serves as the default choice for employers who don't line up their own government-approved, mandated health insurance, and the other is a private association that people and businesses enter into freely with the insurance company of their choice for the policies of their choice.

Not the same. Not even close to the same."

Now, to your point that there's a fundamental disagreement about the theory behind the bill. You're just repeating Cantor's talking points...so it's easy just for me to use Obama's words to slap you down just like he slapped Cantor down.

If you fundamentally disagree...say with the role of government...then why even show up? You agree that SOME law is required...so stop with the "limited role of government" bullshit. The FDA examples really shut Cantor up.

Referring to facts as "talking points" didn't work for Obama, and it won't work for you either.

Republicans "showed up" on the off-chance that Obama was serious about a bipartisan approach to healthcare reform, and because it was an excellent venue to once again expose the "Republicans have no plan" meme for the LIE it is.

What they got instead of a "bipartisan effort" though was Obama's insistence that he be agreed with on his own proposals. No compromise is possible when one side won't budge from his position. The only way any bipartisanship could have occurred was to scrap the existing plan, which Obama refused to consider.

5. Your comment that Republicans tried early on. Sure, some of them put forth plans...AND THEY WERE INCORPORATED into Obama's work. Not 100%...because that's not what compromise is...but there are MULTIPLE MULTIPLE Republican ideas that Dems agree to. But you wont even admit that!!!!!!!!

Republicans will never agree to the individual mandate. And without it, the insurance companies in bed with Obama will walk.

The focus of Republican plans is to bring down costs. But things like the re-importation of prescription drugs, for example, would lose the support of PHARMA, and Obama's not going to give that up.

In your seemingly blind support of Obama... you don't appear to be at all concerned about what the differences really are and why they exist. I've never know liberals to support the corporate interests of big players like Pharma and Big Insurance... but you don't ask yourselves WHY certain provisions of the Democrat healthcare bills are non-negotiable.

I dare you...post as many points of commonality as you can....work WITH us instead of against us...for one brief shining moment. I double dog dare you. Of course I know you wont. You'll go back to your big government argument and wont try to work together at all.

This forum isn't conducive to anyone with differing opinions working anything out so I'm not hoping for much. It's just "I'll post my crap. You post yours." but it is fun letting you know that the Republitard bullshit is easily seen through.

Free, unsolicited advice.... Get better glasses. Your view is severely hampered by your partisanship.

 

[Meister]

Great post, Murf.The republicans came to that meeting to prove that they did have ideas and plans, something the left has been lying about all the time. This was a plus for the republicans in the eye of the everyday Americans that watched the meeting.
The democrats came to that meeting to prove that they are willing to listen to what the republicans had to offer. Unfortunatley, a lot of the democrats weren't interested at all what was being said. The everyday Americans picked up on that real quick. It didn't come off looking good for the democrats. But, that is just me an Independent.

It WAS the dog and pony show that we all expected it to be, they sure didn't let us down.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Even their cost analysis was dishonest, relying on 10 years of revenues but only paying out 6 years of benefits, putting the "doctor fix" in a separate bill, and counting on a half trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare that are unlikely to ever occur.

There's that fuzzy math that this administration is getting known for 10 years worth of taxes will pay for 6 years of this program, yep that'll work.........NOT

 

[Ame®icano]

Even their cost analysis was dishonest, relying on 10 years of revenues but only paying out 6 years of benefits, putting the "doctor fix" in a separate bill, and counting on a half trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare that are unlikely to ever occur.

There's that fuzzy math that this administration is getting known for 10 years worth of taxes will pay for 6 years of this program, yep that'll work.........NOT

It goes along with idea that more spending will cut the deficit.

 

[Vanquish]

Murf & Crew...

You've proved my point totally. Count yourself as biased, partisan hacks since you didn't answer my simple question of "Where does commonality ALREADY exist ?"

Someone who was honest could have listed the several parts where the Repubs and Dems overlapped. Do you remember Cantor correcting Biden or the Pres when they said there was commonality?

Of course you don't. Because there are parts where they agree.

Scrapping the parts where you already agree by starting over...is just a delay and/or kill tactic.

It's an honest and legitimate question - where does commonality exist? You shouldnt be afraid to answer it. And that's what scares me about all this. If you can't even do that...then the two sides are never going to work together and it's brute force that's going to win the day.

 

[Murf76]

Murf & Crew...

You've proved my point totally. Count yourself as biased, partisan hacks since you didn't answer my simple question of "Where does commonality ALREADY exist ?"

Someone who was honest could have listed the several parts where the Repubs and Dems overlapped. Do you remember Cantor correcting Biden or the Pres when they said there was commonality?

Of course you don't. Because there are parts where they agree.

Scrapping the parts where you already agree by starting over...is just a delay and/or kill tactic.

It's an honest and legitimate question - where does commonality exist? You shouldnt be afraid to answer it. And that's what scares me about all this. If you can't even do that...then the two sides are never going to work together and it's brute force that's going to win the day.

Are you a grown up?... or are you a teenaged kid?
Because I should hate to be unpleasant to a youngster who doesn't know much.

Obama's attempt to add on a few areas of agreement is not a legitimate attempt at compromise. The current Senate bill, as well as Obama's proposed changes, are POISONED. As I've said twice, we might agree that healthcare insurance should be affordable, but we don't agree on how to get there. We might agree that something needs to be done for folks with preexisting conditions, but we can't just add on measures to an already unacceptable bill.

The one trillion quoted by the CBO is WRONG. The CBO can only work with what it's provided by Congress. So, when the information is skewed, so are the figures. The Senate bill actually costs something more like 2.3 trillion. And that's before Obama extends the Cornhusker Kickback to every state and before he extends the Union Exemption on Cadillac plans to everyone else.

We are NEVER going to go for an individual mandate. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We need to be getting away from employer mandates and incentivising private citizens to buy their own portable policies. Why should an employer hire more workers when it'd be damn near cheaper to ADOPT them?
Our nation's employers are not foster parents. Laying more onerous legislation on them reduces their incentive to hire at a time when we need more jobs.

We're never going to go for a "public option' or for legislation which destroys the private insurance industry's ability to manage their risk pools by demanding that they meet an arbitrary government mandate on coverage or by setting government price controls.

There is too much wrong with this bill.

Now, maybe you're a very young person and you haven't given much consideration to the poison pills that are already a part of the proposed legislation... but these things are deal-breakers and Obama KNEW that when he sat down.
He knew fully well that the Republicans weren't going to settle for a few add-ons to what's already BAD LEGISLATION. But instead of dealing with those things in good faith... he and his supporters want to cry foul.

It is OBAMA who behaved in a partisan fashion. He already knew that the bill is fatally flawed but he had no intention of starting over with a bipartisan effort. And this has been his method since the Porkulus bill. It is HIS job to set the tone. But first thing out of the box, he handed off to Nancy Pelosi and allowed her to run roughshod over the minority. He could just as easily have refused to sign the bill and sent her back to the drawing board for a truly bipartisan effort. But he didn't.

It doesn't matter if Mitch McConnell agrees that 'water is wet' if Obama is pushing his head under 'until the bubbles stop'.
This whole dog 'n pony show was about feeding the "80% meme". And it backfires because the differences are real and substantive. The legislation proposed is already poisoned... and Obama KNEW THAT. Supporting him in that, makes YOU the "biased, partisan hack".

Are you sure that's who you want to be?