Is this the same bill that I'm aware of?
If all those Republicans were sitting behind all that paper, smaller than many of the bills they've pushed through Congress themselves, how could they claim ignorance of the contents?
Were the pieces of paper blank?
If they were blank, then what were they objecting to?
If the Republicans weren't lying, they how did Denise get the pieces of misinformation that she's been waving around in the postings she's made since yesterday?
Pointing fingers is exactly what you've been doing here. When I point out what your finger pointing needs to be compared with, all of a sudden you want to change the subject, you come up with a case of amnesia or find some other reason for not dealing with the material you've opened up.
Is the Democratic method of running this health care and insurance business my favorite?
No, it is not. It excludes the single payer option. I do not have the solution I would dearly like. But the President and the congress have finally shown some backbone and look to be getting at least some of the potential benefits of this bill passed. It's not everything I wanted, but it's a step forward in a hundred year old fight. Teddy Roosevelt was the guy with the gumption to get it started, a reformer and a Republican, and you should be proud to have him as part of your historical record in the Republican Party. I don't think his wing would get much approval, sadly, in this crowd.
But I didn't vote for the President so that he would carry out my agenda down the line. I expected the man to use his brain and to adapt and deal. He's been a bit slow off the blocks to start that, but he seems to be doing it now. Besides, he more moderate than I am, and his choices are going to be more moderate.
Cheney - Bush - eight years....same attempt to point fingers in another direction, instead of addressing a current topic. Hasn't worked before and is not working now, Bob. We're discussing health care bills.
And you brought up being secretive and how that leads to social unrest. I think you might have forgotten that, or somehow figured that what you said wasn't germane to the discussion. Why you would say something you thought inappropriate to reply to is a mystery to me. The most obvious solution would be not to bring in material you think is off the point in the first place, let alone bring up material that places you at such an obvious disadvantage.
Mike now quotes me as saying:
"The information as to what is happening here is not very secret at all. The same Republicans who tell you that they don't know what's in the health care bill are the folks who have members on the committee that's supposed to be writing and discussing that bill."
And, in responding, Mike says,
It seems inconceivable to me that anyone would not consider these dealings secretive. Btw, what bill are you referring to? The final health care bill? Surely not because it hasn't been written yet, even after it's passage. Obama urged the House to pass a bill that was not even finalized, telling them that parts they found offensive would be changed and they had his word on it. Pelosi said, "We need to pass the health care bill so the people can see what's in it.", an amazing statement. Obama said on Wednesday in his interview with FOX that the bill would be posted "many days" before the vote so the American people could see it, quite a statement, since the vote was set up for Sunday. Not secretive? Is that why Republicans were not allowed in the finalization process or any of the back room dealings - because it was not secretive? This whole thing was handled the way college kids would plan a panty raid. The only times Obama had to back off was when dealings became public, like with Nebraska and Florida.
Come on, Mike.
There is a common text that both Democrats and Republicans are working from in their day to day dealings on this bill. The Republicans say, "I object to this and so language because it does not address the budgetary Process." All stops while a debate and a ruling must be made on this point of order.
That common text is the current text of the bill as it is being worked on in public, in front of both parties and anybody who chooses to watch on television. Were there no common text, The Republicans would not know where to object and what to say, would they?
The new items that come up have to do with the accommodations that have to be made on the bill to bring it into compliance with the reconciliation process. I would assume that it's too late for any serious horse-trading to be done, because that would ensure that the bill would have to make another House/Senate go-around to make sure that everything was to the satisfaction of the cooperative Republicans. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's never a point when a little extra rancor and poison can't be stirred into the pot, is there?
Next Mike presents an article designed to pour further gasoline on the fire. However, a close reading of the text shows some fairly major problems.
Should a reader actually wish to read the text, it is in Mike's posting above.
The article proports to be about late inclusions in the Health care bill. The implication is that we have been duped again. It speaks about the terrible things included in this 153 page inclusion bill, and all about the horrible things the Democrats have planned for you now this bill is here.
About a third of the way into the text, however, the article drops this little bomb into the text. I will quote it exactly because it's worth the read.
House leaders hoped to approve the revisions Sunday when lawmakers vote on the health care legislation. They were included in a 153-page bill revising the giant Senate-passed overhaul package, and in separate language that Democrats plan to add.
it was eliminated in the revisions bill.
In plain English, that means, "We were just jerking your chain."
Unperturbed, the dingbats writing the article then go to great lengths to tell you which horrible provisions you might have had to deal with if the bill had actually been included. They completely ignore the fact that the bill was thrown out and now deal with it as though it has become law.
"The latest changes to the bill include" is what the text goes on to say, instead of the factual "might have included" that the situation called for.
My conclusion is that the folks who write this stuff live in a horseshoes sort of world, where "close enough" counts and the distinctions between one thing and another fade into indistinguishability, and once again it's Time to check the sheep entrails for the latest news from Capital Hill.
Those evil insurance companies getting tax breaks at the last minute? Quite a revelation.
Indeed it would be, if the article Mike was quoting from hadn't already debunked that conclusion by saying that the 153 page bill had been junked.
And provided that all the information that needed top be included had been included by knowing that 3 out of 13 hospitals had democratic representatives representing their districts. It makes a guy wonder who represented the other 10 hospitals? If they'd been represented by Democrats, surely the paper would have said so, and made another scathing point for the Home Team.
If, however, as logic would suggest, the other 10 hospitals had been represented by folks from some other, unknown party, then what about the people of those districts, who might have gotten some needed medical services at the cost of some tax breaks to incentivize some doctors opening new hospitals to serve Medicaid patients?
Logic would suggest that such hospitals would not go up in areas already crawling with well funded hospitals in physician rich communities, either, though I certainly could be wrong. Looks like that Republican opposition is really in there doing its job for the people of this country, doesn't it, protecting them from better health care delivery and more jobs in rural and underserved areas? There's the old Republican spirit for you! Go get "em, guys!
You might also want to research the bank in North Dakota, by the way, before you start to crow about how wonderful it is that you've gotten it out of the student loan business. It's an unusual bank indeed.
Again, Mike quotes me:
"The American people have been kept up to date with the ongoing process of this bill during the year or so it's been winding its way through the Congress."
Obama has reneged on every promise to make facts public.
And yet, somehow, despite the Republican attempts at disinformation and misinformation, the facts seem to be in the public domain. And the Republicans seem to have enough of them clearly enough in sight to raise word by word objections to the contents of the bill. Simply because their public position of the congressional Republicans is that the bill is unreadable does not mean that they haven't read it and studied it in detail, or at least their staffs have. You can get it off the web, same as Grinch can. The entire statement of its inaccessibility is silly.
What is true is that it's been constantly in flux, and part of that is to satisfy the Opposition.
The sad truth of the matter is that what we have in front of us is pretty much a Republican health care bill written pretty much as the Republicans wanted it circa 1993, when the Republicans thought it might actually be possible to have two party government in this country. This is how far to the right that the country has been forced in almost twenty years, when the actual Republicans of today condemn what is essentially the work of their fathers as the depths of depravity and evil.
Mike and I agree, it appears on brick throwing, and now it appears that we have agreement on bribes and bribing. It seems a terrible pity that our agreement on this last point has been rendered moot by the Supreme court's opinion on financial contributions to political campaigns. The actual thought of a corporation being a person I find bothersome.
On the other hand, it does open up some possibility of prosecution on the basis of public indecency and lewdness when it comes to environmental behaviors. Stuff that it's illegal for me to do in public ought to be illegal for a corporation to do in public, and that should include disposal of toxic waste.
Ah, the every flighty mind!
To not be able to understand civil unrest, Bob, would be not being able to understand most of world history.
Why you old hippie you! I never thought I'd hear you sympathize with such things! Welcome! Now, how about reading dome stuff on non-violent protest. I have trouble seeing you on the side of the "grab a gun and shoot the nearest cop or soldier" folks. I never liked them very much.
Civil disobedience, on the other hand, is something different, where you take action that is against the law and don't run off. You take responsibility for it and allow yourself to be arrested, understanding that you've done something you feel is right, knowing that the society doesn't agree.
So which one are you suggesting, Mike? Or are you letting seriously wacky rhetoric sway you into saying stuff that isn't an exact statement of your position. Is your position something entirely different than needs to be made clear, because advocating violent overthrow of the government is serious business, and that's what a lot of the fringe right wing folks are talking about. You decided that Abraham Lincoln is the wrong guy to be proud of in the early Republican Party? Not big on The Union?
The title of the thread is "Politics or Just Plain Hatred," Mike, and while it's about the Health care bill, a lot of the Just Plain Hatred seems to keep coming up. Where is it coming from, for heaven's sake?