Bipartisan health care forum

[myp]

The bipartisan health care forum is happening right now. The President and several Congressman from both sides of the aisle are at the meeting to discuss health care reform and where to go from here.

You can stream it live right now here: http://interactive.foxnews.com/livestream/live.html?chanId=5

 

[dave]

I listened to some of it while driving. The Republicans made some good points and seemed to stay focused on specific items. They would have had better luck talking to a wall, the Democrats were polite but stuck to their talking points.

The best I heard was when a Republican said that there was a fundamental difference in principle, the Dems wanted big government solutions and a massive change in the entire system, the Republicans wanted smaller changes to empower the individual. Obama responded with the same old double speak - no, the democrats want to protect the individual, they will reduce costs, they don't want to take over health care.

The Republicans did a good job, better than the Dems.

Now, if Obama had come in and sat down and said, "OK, forget all the bills, we are starting over. We are going to go around the room, everyone make one suggestion, we will vote on it right here, the items that we can all agree on we will go back and make into a bill." That would have made Obama a 2 term President.

 

[myp]

I watched a couple of hours of it as well and I agree in that neither side really budged. One thing that did annoy me was the sob stories that the Democrats try to use to pass the bill. Sure there are bad cases that happen with whatever policy you have, but a policy should not be based on the experience of any one person if it is going to affect millions of others as well. Policy, in my opinion, should be based on looking at the big picture as best as possible and the smaller positions will fall into place. Helping one person and screwing over another ten gets us nowhere.

Also, the matter of the budget crisis did not receive enough attention from the Democrats. With social security and Medicare both in horrible financial standing, they really should look at how they will pay for all of this and what will happen if Medicare does go into the red, etc.

 

[omej]

I tried to have a bipartisan image in my mind but it was nothing more than a publicity stunt to make Republicans look bad. Here are some numbers:
233 - Total Democrat Minutes Talking (includes Obama)
119 - Total Minutes President Obama talked
114 - Total Minutes all other Democrats talked
110 - Total Minutes all Republicans talked

The Democrats dominated the debates and really didn't accomplish much.

 

[dave]

I tried to have a bipartisan image in my mind but it was nothing more than a publicity stunt to make Republicans look bad. Here are some numbers:
233 - Total Democrat Minutes Talking (includes Obama)
119 - Total Minutes President Obama talked
114 - Total Minutes all other Democrats talked
110 - Total Minutes all Republicans talked

The Democrats dominated the debates and really didn't accomplish much.

Where did those numbers come from?

It makes sense that Obama spoke one third of the time. It fits his idea that all he has to do is give a speech and his persona will carry the day. And that people that disagree with him do so out of ignorance, and if they can just be educated, they will see the light and follow him.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Health versus profits. When the greenback is not simply a means of evaluating but an end in itself with greater importance than all other ends, including the health of millions of Americans, democracy is failing. Never forget that the American Revolution was not brought about simply by democratic or republican ideals. It was caused by the failure of government to meet the peoples' needs.

 

[Dirk]

Health versus profits. When the greenback is not simply a means of evaluating but an end in itself with greater importance than all other ends, including the health of millions of Americans, democracy is failing.

But, that presumes they had it in the first place?

If anything, it was representative democracy - but a very diluted form even of that. What's more, the system discriminates against those that aren't rich.

 

[chuck schmidt]

But, that presumes they had it in the first place?

If anything, it was representative democracy - but a very diluted form even of that. What's more, the system discriminates against those that aren't rich.

We all know you feel that way. Except for where you want to go I might agree, and then I only disagree for the practical reason that you have failed to satisfy me that your idea is workable. But what does that have to do with health reform?

 

[dave]

There won't be a bipartisan bill. The Democrats will slide in a couple of Republican ideas, but the basic agenda will not change. Democrats are already saying in press conferences that they will pass the framework and will modifiy it later in the year to include single payer/govt run health care.

The idea of passing legislation on a simple majority vote is the dangerous aspect of this. There is a reason a super majority is used. We have 2 parties, one party will always have a simple majority and sometimes one party will have a simple majority in both houses. It will be a winner take all situation. The Dems have the majority now, they will manipulate the rules to suit their own agenda and will try to pass health care. Soon, maybe as early as January, the Reps will have the majority...what will they do? All they need is 50% + 1, they can repeal the Dems health care plan, pass whatever tax policy they want, pass thier own health plan. Every few years when power changes, the nation is going to be slammed from one political extreme to the other.

The Democrats started busting a hole through the super majority requirement, the Republicans expanded the hole into a door, and now the Dems are going to bust it wide open. The lack of wisdom is amazing.

 

[Dirk]

The Dems have more difficulty passing bills than the Reps, even when they have a majority, due to the make-up of the party.

 

[myp]

The Dems have more difficulty passing bills than the Reps, even when they have a majority, due to the make-up of the party.

While the Republicans also have a drastic variety (Ron Paul vs. John McCain anyone?) part of the Democrats diversity in ideology in this Congress is also because many conservative areas voted in Democrats last election simply because their Republican counterparts were just awful. The district that my family lives in is an example as it is traditionally a strong conservative area, but we currently have a Democrat rep. He is one of the "Blue Dog" Democrats, Democrats in traditionally conservative districts and as such he knows that we will easily vote him out unless he listens to us and most of us are against this bill.

The fact that there are so many Democrats in this Congress is very misleading when it comes to the idealogy of most people in the country.

 

[David]

While the Republicans also have a drastic variety (Ron Paul vs. John McCain anyone?) part of the Democrats diversity in ideology in this Congress is also because many conservative areas voted in Democrats last election simply because their Republican counterparts were just awful. The district that my family lives in is an example as it is traditionally a strong conservative area, but we currently have a Democrat rep. He is one of the "Blue Dog" Democrats, Democrats in traditionally conservative districts and as such he knows that we will easily vote him out unless he listens to us and most of us are against this bill.

The fact that there are so many Democrats in this Congress is very misleading when it comes to the idealogy of most people in the country.

The Dems are hardly a Leftist party as you pointed out. They've got a scary number of Nazis for example.

 

[chuck schmidt]

The Dems are hardly a Leftist party as you pointed out. They've got a scary number of Nazis for example.

A US liberal is a conservative in most other countries. That is why America has become so scary.

 

[deanhills]

A US liberal is a conservative in most other countries. That is why America has become so scary.

Right, it is very interesting how the UK sees the TOP 20 Liberals and TOP 20 Conservatives in the US. Refer links below:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6991000/The-most-influential-US-liberals-20-1.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html

There is obviously a huge gap.

 

[Dirk]

A US liberal is a conservative in most other countries.

In terms of political science, the US has also perverted (not meaning in an unkind sense) the meanings of words. I was thinking of explaining the European definitions, but I think myp would be quite mortified if I started talking about him as a hardcore liberal.

 

[chuck schmidt]

In terms of political science, the US has also perverted (not meaning in an unkind sense) the meanings of words. I was thinking of explaining the European definitions, but I think myp would be quite mortified if I started talking about him as a hardcore liberal.

What? There is a problem with mortifying myp? :giggle:

 

[deanhills]

In terms of political science, the US has also perverted (not meaning in an unkind sense) the meanings of words.

Seen from an English or European point of view maybe. I would rather see it as the political terms have evolved as the political system of the US has evolved. The meanings are different. Not perverted.

 

[Dirk]

Seen from an English or European point of view maybe. I would rather see it as the political terms have evolved as the political system of the US has evolved. The meanings are different. Not perverted.

They are different, yes, but have also been perverted. Words were taken and misused. How is this not perversion? My example was the word liberal. myp is a massive liberal in the terms described by liberal philosophers. Do you see myp as a liberal?

And yet he is someone that John Locke, J.S. Mill, Adam Smith or Thomas Hobbes would marry! (Were they living in modern times and homosexual).

 

[deanhills]

They are different, yes, but have also been perverted. Words were taken and misused.

Now that sounds very British. Languages have evolved and grown for centuries long. There cannot be a possible static measure of language.

 

[Dirk]

Now that sounds very British. Languages have evolved and grown for centuries long. There cannot be a possible static measure of language.

How many words do you know where the meaning has completely changed?

It only happens with political terms, because an agenda is being served by perverting their meanings.