LibriumArcana.Games

Link

[quote]WASHINGTON — Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.

“The Republican leadership,â€

Yeah I read those. Now I'm gonna be honest, I wasn't nearly as alarmed by the dude with the pistol as John Stewart was. But then I'm used to folks having guns and hanging around. Course then he opened his mouth and started talking...

The main problem with this for me isn't the guns. It's the intent. This is nothing less then armed intimidation, an attempt to bully anyone who disagrees with them into silence through an unspoken threat of force.

This is not a good thing for a democracy.

Considering I've been been at work with no access to TV news, I'd appreciate links Nitram.

I'll be watching them when I get home on Wednesday.

He'll post them when he wakes up.

I love the way single payer has never even been considered by the White House.

Even with them saying they will go on their own, it still isn't being considered. What the hell is that about?

I wonder how many millions the death panels insurance companies gave the Obama campaign.

Destructionator XV wrote:I love the way single payer has never even been considered by the White House.

Even with them saying they will go on their own, it still isn't being considered. What the hell is that about?

I wonder how many millions the death panels insurance companies gave the Obama campaign.

Single Payer will be presented as an amendment to the Bill in the House.

As for the question, you could go look it up.

SirNitram wrote:Single Payer will be presented as an amendment to the Bill in the House.

Yes, there are a handful of congresspeople and one or two senators talking about it, but the president only mentions it when he is attacking it as wrong for America.

Destructionator XV wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Single Payer will be presented as an amendment to the Bill in the House.

Yes, there are a handful of congresspeople and one or two senators talking about it, but the president only mentions it when he is attacking it as wrong for America.

Except where he said it was what he would prefer to do, but didn't think it'd happen. link

What with him not repeating Clinton's mistakes and not writing the bill in the White House and letting the Legislative body do it's job.

In fact, the only reference to Obama and Single Payer in a non-advocating it way, was Max Baucus of all the dishonest barnacles on the ass of America, saying Obama took it off the table due to political feasibility. And if you believe Max Baucus for what Obama's views are, you're a fool.

I'll trust Obama's early comment over what he says to play to crowds. He's a great speaker, and part of that is being careful what you say, considering who is right in front of you.

Aaaand it seems Rahm Emanuel shot his mouth off without knowing what he's on about again. NPR says the White House has denied the NYT's story.

Rogue 9 wrote:Aaaand it seems Rahm Emanuel shot his mouth off without knowing what he's on about again. NPR says the White House has denied the NYT's story.

When you're elected because of bipartisanship promises, do you really think you're gonna admit this strategy, or will you employ someone with a rep of going on his own to do the stuff that might upset centrists, while pretending to be above the fray?

Oh yea, Reid is now firmly saying 'By Any Means Necessary'. When Reid gets a spine, you know the White House leaned hard.

Look I'm gonna be honest, I don't give a damn about single payer and I find the screaming and moaning about it to be a bit like whining that you didn't get cookies to go with your ice cream. As long as we get a public option that covers the folks who are swinging naked in the wind it doesn't fucking matter.

Hell for that matter, consider this, if this gets passed it changes the nature of the debate, shifting it left. That means you can always bring up single payer later. Right now let's just get an improvement that will pass. It's all well and good to fantasize about perfection and such but our solutions have to operate in the real world, which means compromises. Not with the Republicans, who won't compromise but with the conservative Democrats who at least might be blackmailed into it. For those of you about to have the screaming fit that you shouldn't have to compromise on this... Tough. You do. Suck it up and live in the real world.

I wonder if they had to steal a spine from a hobo to plant it in Reid...

The statement that best describes the situation is 'Politics is the art of the possible', because any system gets enough hands in it to be influenced in ten different directions. However, there is a corollary skipped by those constantly excusing golden-mean obsessed 'centrists' and their ilk: Great men redefine the possible.

The mere fact that Reid and Pelosi are ready to go to the mat, the conversation of what will be needed to pass the House is no longer the minority Blue Dog phonies, but the Progressive Caucus which has the votes to guarantee a strong public option.

Healthcare reform is more possible today than any time in American history barring FDR's original call for it in 42.

Hell, FDR wasn't the first. Didn't Teddy Roosevelt try to push some form of Health Care reform through?

General Havoc wrote:Hell, FDR wasn't the first. Didn't Teddy Roosevelt try to push some form of Health Care reform through?

Yes, and female suffrage.

SirNitram wrote:Except where he said it was what he would prefer to do, but didn't think it'd happen. link

That's exactly what I'm talking about. "But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system."

He brings it up just to shoot it down for various bullshit reasons.

What with him not repeating Clinton's mistakes and not writing the bill in the White House and letting the Legislative body do it's job.

The Congress already wrote an excellent bill: HR 676. He should have used that as a starting point instead of ignoring the work already done in favor of this meandering middle crap.

frigidmagi wrote:Hell for that matter, consider this, if this gets passed it changes the nature of the debate, shifting it left.

Iff it is a good bill, yeah, this is valid. But the bill going around isn't a good bill. It is corporate welfare disguised as reform.

If it has a strong, affordable to everyone public option that is widely accepted, I can live with it. But the public option isn't, and by some reports, has never been a deal breaker with the President.

They are willing to let that go. Then, all that will be left in the bill is a requirement for me to give my hard earned money to death panels. If we're lucky, they will be weakened death panels, but still death panels, now made mandatory.

You can't honestly think that's a good idea. At least under the current system, I have the "freedom" (as if threat of bankruptcy, pain and death is freedom, but whatever) to tell those evil insurance fucks to go rob someone else.

It's all well and good to fantasize about perfection and such but our solutions have to operate in the real world, which means compromises.

If you were going to buy something listed for $10,000, would you start off by offering the dealer $9,500 or would you start lower? Even if you were willing to pay $9,500, why not at least shoot for a better deal?

If he countered by offering to sell it to you for $10,500, would you even consider accepting that?

That's what Barack Obama and the Democrats did.

Not with the Republicans, who won't compromise but with the conservative Democrats who at least might be blackmailed into it.

This might be valid, but doesn't forgive what Obama did and is still doing here. He is bending over backwards for the Republicans, while ignoring a sizable chunk of his own party. If it was compromise between the liberals and the blue dogs, it wouldn't be so bad (my preference would be to cut those blue dogs right out of the party unless they obey, but do what works).

But this is compromise between the centrists and the hardcore Republicans, with the liberals (and the nation) just being left out to dry.

For those of you about to have the screaming fit that you shouldn't have to compromise on this... Tough. You do. Suck it up and live in the real world.

Someone needs to tell that to the right wingers. Obama isn't.

How the fuck do you propose to "cut those blue dogs right out of the party," Destructionator? If they choose to join the Democratic Party, the party can't stop them. Fred Phelps is a Democrat; you think the Democrats like that? They're not allowed to kick people out if they want to stay.

Don't they have any control over campaign finances? Removing general support? That sort of thing?

Hotfoot wrote:Don't they have any control over campaign finances? Removing general support? That sort of thing?

That's it: take all the party money and put it to someone else for campaign financing. Take away any committee chairmanships they have.

Socially and financially abandon them in favor of a new competitor in the next primary.

edit: In other words, make it clear that "you're either with us, or against us".

The trouble is that doing that is a sure-fire way to lose most of the districts the Blue Dogs come from. To use an example I'm familiar with, my own Congressman, Baron Hill, is a Blue Dog, and I will tell you right now that if the Democratic Party yanked the rug out from under him and ran a more liberal candidate in this district, they'd basically hand the seat to Mike Sodrel (who has been Hill's Republican opposition for the last four races, and won one of them).

Hell, I'm not even sure if that would work; he could probably still win the Democratic primary anyway at this point. Hill is Lee Hamilton's handpicked successor for the seat, and Hamilton was wildly popular in the district all the way until his retirement, having served as the district's representative to the House from 1965 until 1999. Even cut off from Party funding, he's still a local fundraising powerhouse as far as the Democrats are concerned; all it would accomplish is handing the race to Sodrel (or possibly another Republican; the margin between the two has gotten wider in both races since the Republicans took the seat by 1500 votes in 2004, so they may choose to field someone else next year).

'The Bill Being Passed Around'.

Uh-huh. Would that be the House Bill, with the strongest form of Public Option, the Senate HELP bill, whose Public Option is based on the House's, or are you presuming Max Baucus, whose been told 'Here's a deadline, miss it and we go without you', is the end-all-be-all?