The question isn't who instituted it,
I'll agree but your earlier comment seems to point toward republicans as it's creators. That makes the question valid.
Perhaps you missed the place where I actually said that I didn't know who instituted it. It came before I said "The question isn't who instituted it" If you could in fact point out to me the place where I actually said the Republicans did any such thing, I'll correct that. As for your inference, if you can show me the words I used that prompted you to draw that inference, I shall attempt to address that more directly. I do not like to be unclear.
Have we clarified this?
To be absolutely clear, the Republicans have used only the threat of filibuster so far. The Democrats have shown a notable lack of spine by refusing to call them on it. The Republicans would then actually have to make a decision as to where their actual interests were. They would have to decide whether they were willing to hold up the business of the country for an indefinite amount of time during a time a war and financial crisis, or whether they would either pass the bill or negotiate in good faith.
I believe that the Democrats should call their bluff and stop p;laying softball, allowing themselves to be jerked around by a threat that the Republican keep pulling out of their pockets like it were garlic for use against vampires. I think the tactic stinks that badly, and the Republicans need to understand that it is a two edged sword, that can cut just as deeply in either direction. The last time it was used was by Newt Gingrich on the budget against President Clinton. Gingrich was voted out of office and the Republicans became, at least briefly, very unpopular. It may happen again, it may work the other way. In either situation it is a stupid threat, and the Democrats are stupid to react to it in this way, by caving in to it.
Simple. No one believes that it is a money-saving bill. They don't go with the trumped-up, unrealistic figures Obama has tried to get them to digest. They believe it will be the same scenario as the stimulus package where Obama claimed the unemployment rate wouldn't pass 8% and, when it did, he simply claimed extenuating circumstances beyond his control and looked for others to lay the blame on. How can I say that? Look at the polls of thousands who states that the bill would indeed cost Americans more. You want to insult the republicans for not buying this dog and pony show? Be my guest.
Fox cut away from the President's telecasted session with the House Republicans. They tried to sneak this one by him then, too. Unfortunately, he nailed them with his response. The trumped up figures are apparently accurate, and have been fact checked. The plans that the Republicans have proposed have apparently not gotten by the fact checkers and nobody among the house Republicans could come up with word one or fact one face to face with his to disprove him. He confronted them about it on national TV and the whole bunch of them backed down. They had zip to say about that. Nada. Nothing. They changed the subject. But as a Fox news watcher, you probably didn't see that. Fox probably didn't think it was fair to show you that.
As for the thousands who didn't buy that in polls, I'd like to remind you that there is a substantial divide between opinion and fact. Opinion can vary dramatically over time. Fact tends to pretty much stay the same. For you to offer a matter of opinion as a way of addressing a matter of fact is a category mistake, like trying to stuff a pocket patch into the coin slot of a gum ball machine. It might be a very valuable and interesting pocket watch, but the gum ball machine won't give you a gum ball for it.
Actually, the republicans have shown nothing to indicate they want to take over health care. They don't WANT the government, or the democrats, to take it over at all, hence the opposition. While I acknowledge it is not difficult to dupe democrats, I suppose what you are trying to say here is that democrats didn't want to take over health care - they were fooled by republicans into trying to take it over. I shall look for a planet named Denial so I can get a glimpse of your home.
Please forgive me in advance, but with a set-up like you're providing a ham like me, this simply must be said, Mike.
NO, MIKE, YOU'RE WRONG. DE NILE IS A RIVER IN EGYPT.
Had to get that out of my system. Forgive me.
On a more serious note, my understanding is that the bill as it reads now, wants a single payer option available for people who do not have any insurance right now. The government will be the folks who will be that insurer. The government will serve as the insurance company for those people.
For this to be a takeover of the health care system, the government would have to be owning hospitals, equipment, be employing the doctors, the pharmacists, the whole health care system. The legislation suggests that the government only function as one health insurance carrier among many, and then only for people who have no other health care at all. People with other health care couldn't get it. You would be able to continue your current health care insurance as long as you want.
This would cost money. It wouldn't be free. It's a lot less than what I, for one, would like; but that's all that I understand to be on the table, and this is what I understand the Republicans to be furious about.
I am willing to be corrected by any of my Republican friends. If Grinch, the ever helpful and informed, has information about this, I'd welcome that as well.
The insurance Companies want a lot more than this in the other direction, and they seem to be very much on the road to getting it. I'd be interested if other people would care to contribute any information they have about what the insurance companies have to gain from this legislation.
I have no desire to call Mike any names around this. I do have a desire to get our facts straight and to come out from the partisan masks and to look at what the country needs in the matter. That much, I believe we all agree on.