So question...

[TheGame]

From how you've seen things play out for healthcare, who wasn't being bipartisan?

[BreakABone]

I know its probably hard to come off unbias since everyone knows everyone's opinions/party at this point.

But I just feel that the poll is leading. Like both options kind of make the Rebs look bad, but that's just me.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

But I just feel that the poll is leading. Like both options kind of make the Rebs look bad, but that's just me.

Well the poll is exactly what happened. Most republicans say it isn't bipartisan because they didn't vote for it, and most democrats are saying it is bipartisan because they included their ideas.

I'm just curious about what the forum thinks.

[Professor S]

I think both sides didn't want to work with one another, but for a very legitimate reason. As was shown in the health care summit, both of these parties are coming to this issue from different planets.

The Democrats want to have centralized control of the health care system to mandate coverage and cost.

The Republicans mainly want to open competition, increase choices and limit legal damages to allow market forces to create a consumer friendly private marketplace to lower costs and increase coverage.

The philosophy is so divergent there really is nothing to compromise about, as pretty much any acceptable compromise by either side completely destroys their point of view.

If I had to "blame" one side over the other, it would be the dems because:

1) They had the supermajority and I believe that puts the responsibility of inclusion on them as they could have just as easily completely ignored their opponents (and they would have IMO if not for the public outcry against the plan)

2) Republicans were never invited to help create the bill, only to either vote on it or add limited amendments.

3) The Republicans actually got bipartisan support for their opposition to the bill. Not one Republican was in favor of what passed.

4) Instead of trying to create a more moderate bill once they lost the supermajority, the Dems decided to use a budgetary process tactic to avoid a filibuster, and then used another process measure to "deem and pass" once it passed the house so they could avoid any further debate on the subject. This does not seem like the actions of a party that much cares about working with the other party.

[BreakABone]

If you are going to point fingers, let's also say that the Rebs didn't help themselves by using their fear tactics. I mean after a while it was difficult for them to come to the table with anything reasonable without completely scrapping the bill.

At least how I read it.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

If you are going to point fingers, let's also say that the Rebs didn't help themselves by using their fear tactics. I mean after a while it was difficult for them to come to the table with anything reasonable without completely scrapping the bill.

At least how I read it.

And the dems didn't? If you watched the health care summit, every argument that was made for the bill centered on a personal sob story. They constantly said that the bill needed to be passed NOW or else everyone was going to die and families were going to suffer.

Meanwhile the Dems offered fake numbers to the CBO so that they could pretend their bill cuts costs and deficits. Think about that: They basically lied to the CBO, the opposition party and all of us on national TV, so that we would tolerate their bill. They went into a bipartisan summit quoting those fake numbers that the opposition knew were fake. How do you compromise with a party that holds out an olive branch while at the same time lying right to your face?

As I said, if you want to point fingers, both sides can be held accountable, but in balance I have no idea how anyone could hold the Republicans more accountable for the lack of compromise.

[thatmariolover]

HCR was never a bipartisan goal, so I think it's natural for Repubicans to feel cheated. On the other hand, Dems did try fairly hard to include Republicans in the debate and in the vote. Whether you agree with how it ended up, there's a fair bit of compromise in the bill.

Republicans even went so far as to refuse a meeting they were invited to by the Democrats - and then publicly blamed the Democrats for not wanting to meet.

I just don't see how Republicans can complain about a lack of bipartisanship from the Dems when they themselves have repeatedly obstructed for the sake of personal gain. I mean, they threatened to filibuster over 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than it's ever been used since its inception. And so we moved to Deem and Pass, a perfectly legal method for passing legislation that the Republican party's used 35 times in one session and over 100 times in all.

People are going to feel wronged for a long time on this one either way.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And the dems didn't? If you watched the health care summit, every argument that was made for the bill centered on a personal sob story. They constantly said that the bill needed to be passed NOW or else everyone was going to die and families were going to suffer.

Meanwhile the Dems offered fake numbers to the CBO so that they could pretend their bill cuts costs and deficits. Think about that: They basically lied to the CBO, the opposition party and all of us on national TV, so that we would tolerate their bill. They went into a bipartisan summit quoting those fake numbers that the opposition knew were fake. How do you compromise with a party that holds out an olive branch while at the same time lying right to your face?

As I said, if you want to point fingers, both sides can be held accountable, but in balance I have no idea how anyone could hold the Republicans more accountable for the lack of compromise.

I'm sorry both most of those things were at the end of the process, from what I do know. I could be mistaken.

And human self interest stories are not the same as death panels, gov't funded abortions, going through gov't agents to get any type of treatment, cutting Medicare, killing grandma and turning this into a socialist country.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

And human self interest stories are not the same as death panels, gov't funded abortions, going through gov't agents to get any type of treatment, cutting Medicare, killing grandma and turning this into a socialist country.

And then we wonder why the general public was so against the bill. I realize there are legitimate reasons to vote against it, but with misinformation like this - fear mongering is done for a reason, it's effective.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I'm sorry both most of those things were at the end of the process, from what I do know. I could be mistaken.

And human self interest stories are not the same as death panels, gov't funded abortions, going through gov't agents to get any type of treatment, cutting Medicare, killing grandma and turning this into a socialist country.

So, you see a massive difference in the Dems saying the poor were going to die and the Repubs saying grandma and babies were going to die? Don't you think we're splitting hairs? Both are equally wrong. But only one lied to get a bill passed.

Also, try not to confuse conservative blowhards with Republican public servants. Palin/Limbaugh/etc. was never a part of this debate and their stupid comments shouldn't be considered. If you listened to the debate at the health care summit, the Republicans did not make any asinine statements about death panels or grandma dying, but the dems did talk about the poor dying. The republicans did talk about corruption and how the numbers don't add up, though, and still no one has really addressed either of those issues.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Also, try not to confuse conservative blowhards with Republican public servants. Palin/Limbaugh/etc. was never a part of this debate and their stupid comments shouldn't be considered.

Didn't you vote for Palin to be the vice president? Palin says there will be death panels, Obama says there won't be. We report, you decide.

I think what's really broken is the Media..

Anyway, for the topic.. I don't think there's really a right or wrong answer. I think it's a matter of perception. But I think, due to the obtructionist actions and language used by the republican party.. it's hard for me not to blame them.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So, you see a massive difference in the Dems saying the poor were going to die and the Repubs saying grandma and babies were going to die? Don't you think we're splitting hairs? Both are equally wrong. But only one lied to get a bill passed.

Also, try not to confuse conservative blowhards with Republican public servants. Palin/Limbaugh/etc. was never a part of this debate and their stupid comments shouldn't be considered. If you listened to the debate at the health care summit, the Republicans did not make any asinine statements about death panels or grandma dying, but the dems did talk about the poor dying. The republicans did talk about corruption and how the numbers don't add up, though, and still no one has really addressed either of those issues.

But the public believes those people. When you say that the public didn't approve of the bill, don't you think it matters that they were incredibly misled by right-wing media? I don't deny that there has been misinformation on both sides, but right-wing media tends to make a far more sensational story out of theirs more often than not.

According to a recent poll:

• 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
  
• 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
  
• 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
  
• Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

[Vampyr]

I don't remember the dems saying that people were going to die - they were saying it was possible for people to lose everything they had worked their entire lives for because they didn't have coverage.

I watched the entire process the other night, and I don't remember anyone saying people were dying - other than the fact that a person may not seek care because they were afraid of the cost.

And Republicans are acting like they never used "deem and pass", the "nuclear option", "self executing rule", or whatever other names they've cooked up to make reconciliation sound scary, during their time of power.

But you did have people shouting 'baby killer'. And before that you had republicans reading fake memos.

But like I said in the other thread, I'm happy they forced it through, one way or the other. Republicans did a lot of things I hated during their time - I don't understand why it should fall to me to be the better person and give up the things I want during a time when we finally have the majority - because the other side isn't going to do it when they get power back.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

But the public believes those people. When you say that the public didn't approve of the bill, don't you think it matters that they were incredibly misled by right-wing media? I don't deny that there has been misinformation on both sides, but right-wing media tends to make a far more sensational story out of theirs more often than not.

Why do people act as if I am absolving all Republicans? I have already stated there is plenty of blame to go around, but the right wing media did not feed the CBO fake numbers, the democrats did. The right wing media didn't remove half a billion dollars from medicare, the democrats did, and the Republicans rightly pointed it out. The right wing media didn't write nation changing legislation behind closed doors, the democrats did.

As for the tit for tat argument regarding reconciliation and deem and pass (two separate things), well that's yet another red herring. These procedural tactics have NEVER been used for this type of legislation, its a budgetary process, and most of the time when they were used there was bipartisan support.

COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, was major social legislation in that it mandated an insurance program giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment. But reconciliation absolutely was not needed to enact the statute. The original Senate bill passed on a 93-6 vote. The reconciled bill (the one incorporating compromises with the House bill) then passed by a voice vote, indicating that the outcome was so apparent that no tally was required. If you’re interested, the voting record on COBRA is here.

President Clinton’s welfare reform statute, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, was also a relatively sweeping piece of social legislation (though not nearly as sweeping as the Obama health insurance reform proposal, which mandates a reordering of one-sixth of the U.S. economy). Again, though, the statute had significant bipartisan support and did not depend on the reconciliation process for its enactment. On the final vote, there were 78 Yeas and 21 Nays, with one Democrat not voting. Twenty-five Democrats (the minority party) joined 53 Republicans in supporting the bill. The voting record is here.

S-CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, was created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Again, S-CHIP involves matters beyond mere revenue issues. But, again, reconciliation played no role in ensuring passage of the legislation. The statute at issue was enacted on a vote of 85 Yeas to 15 Nays. Forty-two Democrats (the minority party) joined 42 Republicans in supporting the bill. The voting record is here.

That brings us to the first Bush tax cuts, which were accomplished by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This reconciliation bill passed the Senate with 58 Yeas and 33 Nays. Two senators voted “present” and 7 senators didn’t vote. (Voting record here.) Aha! A statute that wouldn’t have passed without reconciliation! Well, I’m not so sure. Two of the seven non-voting senators were Republicans (Senators Domenici of New Mexico and Enzi of Wyoming). Had they voted in favor of the bill, it would have commanded a 60-vote majority. I assume they would have done so had the reconciliation procedure not applied; each voted in favor of the second Bush tax cuts, which were far more controversial. It’s also possible that one or two of the non-voting Democrats would have voted in favor of the bill. After all, twelve Democrats joined the Republican majority in supporting the legislation. This is hardly analogous to the current proposal, where there are zero minority party Senators in favor of the pending legislation and the majority is incapable of passing the bill following the normal (non-reconciliation) procedures.

According to a recent poll:

• 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
  
• 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
  
• 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
  
• Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

Mana, I remember going through that poll before, and I think we all debunked it together. If you look closely at it, a significant percentage of DEMOCRATS also believe Obama might be the Anti-Christ. The poll was nonsense. Please post the source, the poll is actually quite funny.

[manasecret]

Wasn't me