How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Chicago Politics   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Chicago Politics

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


75 posted 07-20-2011 10:10 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Of course there's no compasison between Obama and The 2009 Republican plan.  I never said there was.  I drew the comparison between the Obama plan and the 1993 Republican plan, for which no Congressional Budget Office cost estimate was prepared.  I was suggesting a comparison between two similar things, not between ducks and watermelons.

     Here is a chart that looks at all three plans in a fairly straightforward way from the folks at the Kaiser Health News:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx


     The Boehner plan reflects the neo-conservative current values of the Republican party, not its traditional values, as nearly as I understand them.  That's in my opinion, of course.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


76 posted 07-20-2011 10:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, allow me to repeat since it seems I need to....the 93 bill was simply a bill that Chaffee introduced with only 21 sponsors, no debate and no vote. Comparing that to Obamacare, which was discussed, debated, voted on and passed by doing an end run around the constitution is foolish.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


77 posted 07-20-2011 10:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



      I see that Uncas has listed the same page on the health care issue that I did in his previous response.  As is so often the case, he's been there first, and deserves credit for having been there.  Thank you, Uncas.

     I don't kbnow how thoroughly the Democrats are pushing cap-and-trade, Mike.  This Democrat isn't all that fond of it; I don't think it helps the problems posed by climate change very well.  Perhaps you think all Democrats think the same way?  But I think Will Rogers is still right.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


78 posted 07-20-2011 10:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This the the first paragraph in the chart you point out, Bob.


The proposal President Barack Obama unveiled on Monday is based largely on the bill passed by the Democratic Senate on Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  It has some similarities to a GOP proposal sponsored by Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., during the Clinton presidency, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.

It would appear, Bob, that your comparison of the bills is invalid.

T h e   h e a l t h   c a r e   p r o g r a m   i s   e s s e n t i a l l y   t h e   o n e   t h a t   S e n a t o r   D o l e   o f f e r e d   w i t h   t h e   r e s p o n s e   o f   t h e   r e s t   o f   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e   C l i n t o n   H e a l t h   c a r e   p l a n .  

As you can see, the proposal Obama unveiled was based on the one passed by the democratic senate in 2009. As far as the 1993 bill, it simply states it has "some similarities". When you relay that information, however, you claim the the current health care bill is "essentially the one" offered in 1993. Your exaggeration doesn't make it valid....it only makes it an exaggeration.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


79 posted 07-22-2011 12:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Yo, Mike.


quote:


This the the first paragraph in the chart you point out, Bob.


The proposal President Barack Obama unveiled on Monday is based largely on the bill passed by the Democratic Senate on Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  It has some similarities to a GOP proposal sponsored by Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., during the Clinton presidency, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.

It would appear, Bob, that your comparison of the bills is invalid.




     You would have done yourself a favor if you had read further and checked out the actual chart itself before reaching a conclusion like that.  The response you make above tells anybody who has bothered to read the chart that you are either simply quoting out of context or have been careless in actually doing the comparison.  The comparison in fact supports my conclusion, below.  Chaffee, not Dole, was the first name on the bill, of course.

     You reprinted my comment, as I do again for reference, below:

T h e   h e a l t h   c a r e   p r o g r a m   i s   e s s e n t i a l l y   t h e   o n e   t h a t   S e n a t o r   D o l e   o f f e r e d   w i t h   t h e   r e s p o n s e   o f   t h e   r e s t   o f   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e   C l i n t o n   H e a l t h   c a r e   p l a n .  


quote:

As you can see, the proposal Obama unveiled was based on the one passed by the democratic senate in 2009. As far as the 1993 bill, it simply states it has "some similarities". When you relay that information, however, you claim the the current health care bill is "essentially the one" offered in 1993. Your exaggeration doesn't make it valid....it only makes it an exaggeration.

    

     And actual examination of the text of the Kaiser Health News Article will show that the chart compares the Republican 1993 Bill, The Democratic 1993 Bill and the Republican 2009 Bill.  You either didn’t read the meat of the article or chose to ignore it.  My preference is to believe you didn’t read it, and that you suggested that I exaggerated through ignorance rather than malice.

     Moreover, had you read the article to the bottom, you would have noticed a reference to yet another article that was even more specific on the subject, and which included excerpts from an interview with one of the Republican sponsors of the 1993 Republican bill, and his comments on the current Republican  thinking on health care.  His comments certainly support my thinking on the matter:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/Durenberger-1993-gop-bill-q-and-a.aspx


     If you did notice the article, you certainly didn’t choose to mention it in our discussion here.  Nor are you obligated to do so, really.  

     Your suggestion that 21 sponsors for a bill is not significant — “only 21 sponsors” was the phrase you used, I believe — is odd.  19 of those were Republicans, a significant proportion of the party in the Senate at that time.  Perhaps you are prepared to tell me that most bills have vastly more sponsors than that in the Senate.  If you can cite objective authority, I’m willing to learn from it.  Otherwise, I find it difficult to believe that getting a fifth of the senate to sign on to a bill as sponsors is so regular thing there that you would find a bill worth denigrating that did not have more; and, apparently, from the way you talk about it —”only 21” — substantially more.  Sorry, I need to be shown some objective information on that one before I’ll accept it as gospel.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


80 posted 07-22-2011 08:50 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"It has some similarities to a GOP proposal sponsored by Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., during the Clinton presidency",.......link

"T h e   h e a l t h   c a r e   p r o g r a m   i s   e s s e n t i a l l y   t h e   o n e   t h a t   S e n a t o r   D o l e   o f f e r e d   w i t h   t h e   r e s p o n s e   o f   t h e   r e s t   o f   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   i n   r e s p o n s e   t o   t h e   C l i n t o n   H e a l t h   c a r e   p l a n ".  .....Bob K

some similarities  vs. essentially the same

Your exaggerations still don't fly, Bob.

"Otherwise, I find it difficult to believe that getting a fifth of the senate to sign on to a bill as sponsors is so regular thing there that you would find a bill worth denigrating that did not have more;"

Ok, let's rephrase it. I find it difficult to believe that a bill not endorsed by 4/5 of the senate, not debated and not voted on bears a lot of signifigance.  That better??

Face it, Bob. You tried to compare a fairly unimportant piece of legislation that didn't go anywhere and claim that it is basically Obamacare, being "essentially the same".


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


81 posted 07-22-2011 10:46 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Just curious, Mike, but why should the fact that the Republican bill "didn't go anywhere" be relevant to the comparison? I haven't looked at the bill. I can't vouch for similarities or lack of similarities with the more recent Democratic bill. However, if we assume some similarities, you're basically saying the Republicans tried to regulate health care, but failed to get their bill off the ground.

It seems to me their apparent lack of success shouldn't necessarily negate their intent?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


82 posted 07-22-2011 12:25 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Seems to me that you're avoiding comment on the chart like the plague because it contradicts your comment.  In fact, the chart and the article mentioned at the bottom of the one we're speaking of both appear to support my contention.

    The introductory paragraph does not say how many similarities the two bill has when it says “some.”  It leaves that to be clarified by the chart below.  You would know that if in fact you acknowledged reading the chart and were willing to deal with the actual specifics mentioned there.  Despite my mentioning this point on several occasions, you have not done so.  The conclusion I have reached about this rather unsettling omission is that either you have still not read the chart, which is, after all, the point of the article, or you are trying to deal with this as a debate rather than a discussion.

     In fact, you have no reasonable grounds to decide that I am exaggerating until you have examined the evidence, only political and partisan grounds for doing so.  The evidence is right before you and you refuse to consider it or even speak about it.

quote:

Ok, let's rephrase it. I find it difficult to believe that a bill not endorsed by 4/5 of the senate, not debated and not voted on bears a lot of significance.  That better??




     Not really.  The Democratic bill didn’t pass either, which suggests that it got less than 50%, though how much less I don’t remember.  Were those folks you were expecting to endorse the passage of a minority bill?  I certainly wouldn’t think so.  And endorsement is not the same thing as co-sponsorship; you were trying to re-write your statement to get around the comments you’d made about that, weren’t you?  If “endorsement” is less binding than co-sponsorship, you shouldn’t be able to make the same claims for it, should you, that the only people who endorsed the bill were those who were willing to co-sponsor it?

      I have no memory of whether the bill was debated or voted upon.  I thought it was, but I may well be wrong.  You, on the other hand make a positive assertion on the matter, so I’d like to see some references to back up that claim.  I certainly remember discussing it in social work classes on social policy, so that may have given me a false impression.

     Unless it was discussed, debated and voted upon, however, how would you know who endorsed the plan and who did not within the Republican Party?  I submit that you’d have a fair amount of difficulty making an assertion like the one you made in the absence of that sort of hard evidence to back the claim up.

     So, no, that’s really not better, though I wish it were.

     Why would the Republicans submit a fairly unimportant piece of legislation as a response to a major Democratic set piece bill and use almost half their Senate caucus to sign on to it?  It certainly is possible, mind you.  But then, if you have a look at the other article I made reference to in the Kaiser Health News, the one made reference to at the bottom of the chart article, you’d be able to read about that in the piece that excerpted portions of an interview with the Former Senator Durenberger (R), who was there at the time.  Very interesting, I thought.  
  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


83 posted 07-22-2011 04:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'll respond soon, gentlemen...fighting with the internet connection right now....using my nook to type this
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


84 posted 07-22-2011 05:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

why should the fact that the Republican bill "didn't go anywhere" be relevant to the comparison?

It shouldn't. Bob made the statement that the '93 bill and Obamacare was "essentially the same thing". The '93 bill didn't go anywhere. Obamacare is the law of the land...hard to imagine them being the same to me.

You're basically saying the Republicans tried to regulate health care, but failed to get their bill off the ground.
It seems to me their apparent lack of success shouldn't necessarily negate their intent?


No, not at all. I applaud their intent, as I would applaud any Democratic intent. My problem with Obamacare is not the intent, it's the content.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


85 posted 07-22-2011 05:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The introductory paragraph does not say how many similarities the two bill has when it says “some. No, it doesn't, Bob, but you can see how many by checking the chart. There are enough there to negate your claim that they are essentially the same, which you are trying to avoid acknowledging.  

In fact, you have no reasonable grounds to decide that I am exaggerating until you have examined the evidence, only political and partisan grounds for doing so. Of course I do. I just stated them. You are not capable of admitting that perhaps "essentially the same" was a little strong so you point fingers in other direction.....ain't working, sir.

I have no memory of whether the bill was debated or voted upon.  I thought it was, but I may well be wrong.  You, on the other hand make a positive assertion on the matter, so I’d like to see some references to back up that claim.  

You can do the work, Bob. I made the claim after investigating it. I stated it as true. If you feel I am wrong, then show me where.

Btw, your comment  I t   w a s   n e v e r   a   p a r t i c u l a r l y   s a v o r y   p r o s p e c t ,   a n d   I   c a n ' t   b l a m e   t h e   R e p u b l i c a n s   f o r   w a n t i n g   t o   g e t   r i d   o f   t h a t   p a r t i c u l a r   h o t   p o t a t o . makes me wonder why you would declare Obamacare as being essentially the same bill. Does that mean you consider Obamacare to be not particularly savory and a hot potato worthy of getting rid of?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


86 posted 07-22-2011 09:39 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The quote of mine you're trucking in was about cap and trade, not health care.  My thoughts and opinions on the two are different.  I make a point of not quoting your thoughts about Democrats as if they were made about race relations or religion or nationality.  Please keep your excerpts of my texts on subject too.  Not doing so is unfriendly and unnecessary.  I’m certain you can find plenty of errors in opinion, fact and logic in what I say to make whatever points you need to make.  Why not use those?

     If you state a thing is true, it’s your responsibility to prove it if you wish to be believed.  That's why people footnote things, and it's why newspapers quote sources when they make assertions.  That’s why attribution is important in news reporting, and why multiple sources are important.  I would say, "Nice try," but it's not.  I can't blame you for trying to turn things around, but it's just not the way things are done, unless you believe the rules are different for you than for other people.  If you do believe that, then by all means, say so.  It will help me evaluate your assertions more accurately.

     Otherwise, you say, "In my opinion."  I won't quarrel with your right to have an opinion; I'll defend it.

     Clearly, you still haven't looked at the chart, otherwise your statement would be pretty much impossible to back up.

     The chart compares the two plans on 19 points.  On twelve of them, they rate identical answers.  On some areas of disagreement, the points of differences included these:

1)  In the Obama plan, the CBO was estimated by the CBO to reduce the deficit by 132 Billion dollars over  10 years.  In the 1993 Republican plan, no CBO cost estimate was offered.  No comparison is possible.

2)  The Obama plan was estimated to cost $8971 Billion dollars over ten years.  The Republican 1993 plan was not evaluated by the CBO.  No comparison is possible.

3)  Prohibition of allowing insurers to set lifetime caps on coverage.  The Obama plan did prohibit such caps, the 1993 Republican plan did not.  I should point out, though, that the 2009 Boehner sponsored Republican bill also prohibited such caps.  The political tide for both parties has apparently turned in this regard, though my acknowledgment of this reality does not help me make my point.

     Perhaps you would like to specify exactly what the major differences are between the Republican 1993 Plan and the Obama plan, and why you believe that  these are so major, please; and why they indicate that the Obama plan was not drawn closely from the 1993 Republican Plan?

     The interview excerpts I mentioned in one of my last posts here were, I thought, helpful in clarifying some of this, should you be interested in doing so.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


87 posted 07-22-2011 11:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If you state a thing is true, it�s your responsibility to prove it if you wish to be believed.  

OR, if you wish to tell someone you think they are wrong, it's your responsibility to back it up. However, I won't nitpick the point. I'll save you the 10 seconds it would have taken to check it. Here you go...
In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan.  It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill. aspx

I did not say the changes were major. I said that when the report YOU offer says "some changes" and you say "essentially the same plan", you have exaggerated the relationship.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


88 posted 07-23-2011 08:16 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


I think Ron makes a very valuable point, the fact that the Republican health care bill didn't make it into law isn't important, the intent to amend the law is clear and, if you read the bill. It's also clear that some parts of the 1993 bill are strikingly similar to the 2009 bill that was enacted into law.

Why were those sections seen as viable solutions by the Republicans of 1993 and as untenable in 2009? Has the left moved towards the position held by the right in 1993 and if so does that mean that the Republicans have made a similar shift to the right, as Bob has suggested on several occasions?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 07-23-2011 10:04 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Why were those sections seen as viable solutions by the Republicans of 1993 and as untenable in 2009?

That's a reasonable question. I can only answer it by my own thoughts and opinions.

First, I think the state of the economy has something to do with it. We are not in 1993, nor is our financial status. Yes, you can argue about who is at fault for that, be it Bush, Barney Frank and Fannie Mae or a culmination of many years of mismanagement that caught up with us. That's not the point here. The financial situation of the country is very different. We went through bailouts, the crash of the housing market, bankruptcies and foreclosures at a level we had never seen. THIS is the time Obama wants to spend more. Why? Yes, Ron had made his view clear in previous posts by saying, "If not now, when?"with regards to health care, cap and trade, environmental issues, getting away from oil and other things. I understand that things can be put off indefinitely but I still think that NOW, at this time, there are enough hardships going around that we don't need another one. At a time that unemployment is at an all-time high, it's not the time to make hiring less lucrative with the promise of higher taxes and health-care costs on businesses.

Second, no one really believes that this is not going to cost the average taxpayer more money. You don't throw another tens of millions of people into a free health care system and expect it to save money and not cost more, not even with your wildest imagination. I asked the question earlier in this thread concerning why, if this is such a wonderful thing, have so many unions, people and businesses filed for waivers from this bill...and why Obama granted them. That question was ignored.

Third, no one liked the manner in which it was orchestrated. It was a 2100 page bill that the congressmen who voted it in didn't even read. it was a bill fashioned behind closed doors by Democrats, nullifying Obama's campaign pledge that everything he did would be out in the open, on C-Span for everyone to see, nothing hidden. It was done just the opposite, with C-span, the republicans and the public banned.  It was a bill that caused Pelosi to utter one of the most ridiculous statment in congressional history..."We have to pass it so the American people can see what's in it." They don't like the sleazy tactics the Democrats used to get it through, beginning with

Republicans Battle Pelosi Over Plan to Pass Health Bill Without Traditional Vote http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/16/pelosi-plan-pass-health-care-traditional-vote-riles-critics#ixzz1SvrjowG5

...and ending with Obama's tactics to push it through the final hurdle. The democrats knew how unpopular it was and went ahead with it, anyway, because they could care less what the public thinks - unless the public agrees with them and then Obama claims he has the will of the people.

Why were those sections seen as viable solutions by the Republicans of 1993 and as untenable in 2009? Has the left moved towards the position held by the right in 1993 and if so does that mean that the Republicans have made a similar shift to the right, as Bob has suggested on several occasions?

Good question. There is little doubt that politicians do a lot of changing in that regard, depending on who is saying what. Obama's stance on raising the debt ceiling shows that very well...

2006...


    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256199/obama-not-always-fan-upping-debt-ceiling-katrina-trinko

I doubt he feels the same way now. Let me ask you a similar question, Uncas. If it is basically the same bill, why were the democrats in 1993 so against the same type of health care bill they passed now? Obviously there was  a lot of changing of opinions by both parties. The saving grace in 1993 is that the republicans knew it wouldn't fly and didn't pursue it or even vote on it. The democrats of Obama embraced it an ran with it.

A lot in life depends on one's belief in who is talking. If someone tells you to let go of the rope and you'll be safe, you need to believe them to do it. Republicans, and the majority of the population, do not believe Obama. HE does what he can to promote class warfare. He does what he can to alienate business. His interest seems to lie more in "class restucturing" than anything else. He lies about his programs. He cried wolf to get the stimulus passed, citing immediate destruction imminent, and then says "Oops" on the shovel ready jobs that weren't there and the unemployment that went up insteead of down. He works in shadows, behind closed doors instead of having the "open" government he claimed to institute. He has two congressional leaders in Pelosi and Reid that are as unbelievable as he is.  He is a man that is not believeable and, as such, his programs and promises are not believeable, either.


I hear that Kenyans are so upset about Obama's showing that they are swearing he was born in the United States!!


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Chicago Politics   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors