Republicans ate my healthcare

[waitforufo]

I have read several times in this forum that ACA is a Republican health care plan. That Republicans encouraged Democrats to push for ACA at the federal level and then backed out. In effect, tricking the Democratic Party into promoting ACA alone. Some go so far as to suggest that Republicans forced Democrats to vote for ACA.

 

As I am sure you are aware, I believe all of the above is silly scapegoating. ACA is a Democratic party plan that all Democrats voted for and no Republicans voted for. Yes they may have had to bend ACA to meet the needs of their own Senate coalition but not to meet the needs or Republicans. It is obvious that Democrats did not need Republicans when building this legislation as evidenced by the final vote. If ACA works, they get all the credit. If it fails, they get all the blame. Simple accountability.

 

So for those of you that think I’m wrong, I’m wondering if you can provide any proof.

 

For example what Federal house or senate member sponsored or cosponsored a bill in congress that resembled ACA? What past Republican president promoted a law that resembled ACA? Can you provide a list of Republicans that voted no on ACA that said previously they would vote yes? Since we are speaking of ACA, I think it would be best if these examples came after Obama was elected President, but provide such evidence as you please.

 

Now of course you can bring up state level law, but ACA is a federal level law, so if you do bring up such state level laws please explain how and when federal level Republicans said that such a law should be enacted at a federal level.

 

For those of you that believe that Republicans forced Democrats to vote for ACA, please describe the force applied. Was it threats of violence against them or their family? Were these threats monetary in nature? Was there some form of blackmail applied?

Edited October 30, 2013 by waitforufo

[john5746]

The ACA belongs to the democrats. That doesn't mean they thought it was the best thing that could be done, but they thought it was better than the status quo.

 

The republicans? Well, there is a long history on this issue, but the individual mandate came from the right. According to Newt it was just something to get away from Hillary care. Present day, I tend to think republicans just want sick people to bury themselves and go away, so yeah the ACA is democrat, while sickness and death in the emergency room is republican. Happy?

Edited October 30, 2013 by john5746

[iNow]

I wonder if perhaps you are misunderstanding the position people have taken in response to your claims. If I happen to be giving you too much benefit of the doubt, then the only other option is you are intentionally misrepresenting others.

 

The idea is that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was originally proposed by a right-wing conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation back in 1989. http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

 

That plan was laid out in more detail and expanded upon in 1990 by Republicans Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/1990/pdf/bg777.pdf

 

Butler (Director of the Center for Policy Innovation at Heritage) then again outlined the plan in a 1991 lecture: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/is-tax-reform-the-key-to-health-care-reform

 

In that lecture, Stuart shared the following:

We would include a mandate in our proposal–not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households–to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family’s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items.

It's the plan Republicans pushed TWICE in 1993 (including the individual mandate as the centerpiece). Those two times include:

 

Once in the [subtitle 6: Employee Provisions] section of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) where there were 24 Republican co-sponsors: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1743

 

Again in the [subtitle F: Universal Coverage] section of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) where there were 18 Republican co-sponsors: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1770

 

And, yes... Many of those same Republicans are still in office today (or, were when Obamacare was passed): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-lot-of-republicans-supported-the-individual-mandate/2011/05/09/AFi26Z0G_blog.html

 

All of this was happening when when Democrats wanted universal care and Hillary Clinton was pushing for Medicare expansion. That's just history. Those are facts, not opinions.

 

In 2005, Newt Gingrich called for an individual mandate at the federal level, not just state level mandates: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-individual-mandate-romney_n_861017.html

 

It's the plan twice former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney implemented in his home state back in 2006 when he was a Republican governor. It's the same plan, except the federal approach with Obamacare has better cost control measures than the original Massachusetts plan had.

 

The same idea was supported by Republican president Richard Nixon in the 1970s and by George HW Bush during the early 1990s: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/individual-mandate-now-vi_n_517097.html

 

Then, Obama got elected and basically said, "Okay, we'll do that. It's not what we want... we'd rather have single-payer, and if we can't get single payer then we'd at least like to offer a public option to compete with private insurers... but if Republicans won't even support that and choose to continue blocking our first two preferences, then at least we know we'll have their support for these online marketplaces supported via the Republican idea of an individual mandate since it's their plan... We'll go ahead and at least implement THAT since it's something better than where we are now and will improve the current broken system... It's not our goal, but it's movement in the right direction. Let's implement your idea."

 

What happened, though? Obstruction and not a single vote. Complete demagoguery and hypocrisy and full-court press attack about how evil this socialistic takeover of healthcare is... Death panels and all sorts of other nonsense.

 

Does this help to clarify your misunderstanding, or was your position in the OP instead an intentional misrepresentation?

Edited October 30, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

I have read several times in this forum that ACA is a Republican health care plan. That Republicans encouraged Democrats to push for ACA at the federal level and then backed out. In effect, tricking the Democratic Party into promoting ACA alone

No one here has posted that. You have not read it several times, except as you were typng it yourself.

 

 

 

It is obvious that Democrats did not need Republicans when building this legislation as evidenced by the final vote.

The Dems who recognized the need for health care reform if the US were not to suffer even more serious harm as a nation, needed: rightwing corporate support to avoid a media blitz and provide at least a few outlets for favorable publicity; the Democratic Blue Dog, insurance industry corrupted, and other more extreme rightwing factions on board; and enough backroom and informal Republican compromise to get past the filibuster in the Senate.

 

Dividing the political universe into Democrats and Republicans confuses the issues of this bill and similarly compromised legislation - which is why we see the T folks and Republican propagandists working so hard to do that. Confusion benefits those not supported by reason and principle.

Edited October 30, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Does this help to clarify your misunderstanding, or was your position in the OP instead an intentional misrepresentation?

Yes, thank you, and no my OP was not intentional misrepresentation.

 

So there were Republican bills two decades ago that died in committee. Thank you. I appreciate your Obama comment was informed speculation or a paraphrase but it clearly points out that Obama picked up this then 14 year old legislation that died in committee and promoted it. Does he then not bear the responsibility for it?

 

No one here has posted that. You have not read it several times, except as you were typng it yourself.

 

The Dems who recognized the need for health care reform if the US were not to suffer even more serious harm as a nation, needed: rightwing corporate support to avoid a media blitz and provide at least a few outlets for favorable publicity; the Democratic Blue Dog, insurance industry corrupted, and other more extreme rightwing factions on board; and enough backroom and informal Republican compromise to get past the filibuster in the Senate.

 

Dividing the political universe into Democrats and Republicans confuses the issues of this bill and similarly compromised legislation - which is why we see the T folks and Republican propagandists working so hard to do that. Confusion benefits those not supported by reason and principle.

This all seems a bit conspiratorial to me. iNow's explanation is much more straight forward.

 

Our political universe is divided into Democrats and Republicans along with the coalitions they form. That is how legislation gets moved to passage. That is also why both parties push candidates with known low IQ's. Stupid people vote as they are told and the parties need majorities to pass legislation. I don't it find confusing at all. It appears to me that you have described ACA as a Democratic party bill cobbled together to gain enough support from the Democratic Party and their coalition partners for passage. It doesn't matter that some Democrats held there noses when voting yes. They voted yes. They cobbled together the coalition, they scheduled the vote, and they passed it. No Republicans participated.

 

From these two posts, if I may be afforded the luxury of my own informed speculation, Obama picked up an old dead bill and promoted it under the idea that Republicans would have to vote for it since it was their old dead bill. My recollection is that from the beginning of his Presidency Republicans said no to this. So Obama and his party held out to the bitter end and passed into law something that no Republican voted for and even Democrats thought it wasn't a particularly good plan. True?

Edited October 30, 2013 by waitforufo

[iNow]

It strikes me as very disingenuous for you to call it an "old dead bill" that "died in committee two decades ago" since it was supported by prominent Republican leaders at the federal level through 2005 and implemented by a Republican at the state level in 2006, then passed by Obama in 2009.

 

 

I appreciate your Obama comment was informed speculation or a paraphrase but...

Very little paraphrasing involved, actually... and no speculation.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

 

EDIT: More here - http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/

 

If reading is too hard for folks and the link above too comprehensive, here's a video driving home the point:

 

 

From the video: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately."

Edited October 30, 2013 by iNow

[waitforufo]

It strikes me as very disingenuous for you to call it an "old dead bill" that "died in committee two decades ago" since it was supported by prominent Republican leaders at the federal level through 2005 and implemented by a Republican at the state level in 2006, then passed by Obama in 2009.

Newt Gingrich was not in congress in 2005, and has-been Republican is more like it. (Does anyone really listen to Jimmy Carter anymore.) State level plans are just that, state level.

 

Edit.......

 

Sorry I didn't see the rest of your post. I meant no insult by paraphrase or informed speculation. I assumed your comments were genuine, informed, and on the mark.

 

By the way, one could look at your video and say ACA is just a planned bait and switch by the Democrats. In effect lets create a plan that is bound to fail and then the pliable public will be ready for single payer. Maybe not such a bad plan, but if it fails too fast the public may be turned off to any federal health care plan.

 

Remember that I have often said single payer would be much better than ACA.

Edited October 30, 2013 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Newt Gingrich was not in congress in 2005, and has-been Republican is more like it.

And yet he was a key contender for president in the 2012 Republican primary. You're really grasping at straws at this point, my friend.

Remember that I have often said single payer would be much better than ACA.

I know, and we definitely agree on that point, even though we probably arrive at it for different reasons. Cheers.

[waitforufo]

Key contender? I don't know a single Republican or conservative that thought he would win the nomination. I don't even remember how many states or delegates he won. Did he even make it past the spring primaries? I always personally speculated that the Democrats picked the Massachusetts health care plan because they knew Romney would be Obama's second term contender. Republicans have a bad habit of picking presidential candidates based on party loyalty in stead of electability. That explains Nixon, Reagan, Bob Dole, Romney and I am sure others. By going against Romney, Gingrich just further angered republican leaders. Gingrich had little chance of wining the nomination.

Edited October 31, 2013 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Key contender? I don't know a single Republican or conservative that thought he would win the nomination. I don't even remember how many states or delegates he won.

He came in 3rd with nearly 15% of the popular vote, behind only Santorum (with 20%) and Romney (who won the nomination with 52%). Gingrich won 143 delegates at the convention.

 

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R

Edited October 31, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

This all seems a bit conspiratorial to me. iNow's explanation is much more straight forward.

Just following the public debates and Congressional doings and the public justifications and explanations - its called history, not conspiracy. And INow's explanation agrees fully.

 

The White House rejection of single payer, first by the Clintons and then even more firmly by Obama (it had no hearing at all in between) has always been justified on those and similar grounds, as a negotiation with the rightwing domination of the US Congress.

 

 

 

Our political universe is divided into Democrats and Republicans along with the coalitions they form.

If you attempt fo divide the health care issue on Party lines only, you will overlook the Blue Dogs and the financial/ insurance industry influence on some - but not all - Democrats. That will remove you from any hope of comprehension in that matter.

 

That is also why both parties push candidates with known low IQ's.

You think either of the Clintons have low IQs? Obama? Gore? Please. Or perhaps you are thinking of national Congressmen - an apparent IQ rank order in my State leads with four or five Dems (Franken and Klobuchar, Tim Walz, Keith Ellison, in olden days James Oberstar) and ends with a drag tail of embarrassments that by some strange chance are Republicans (formerly Chip Kravaack, Michelle Bachmann, Erik Paulsen).

 

As a rule of thumb, these days any sentence that deals with a current situation and begins with "both Parties" will end in expressing falsehood.

 

 

 

Stupid people vote as they are told and the parties need majorities to pass legislation.

No wonder you keep seeing conspiracies in the big world outside.

 

I don't it find confusing at all

It's your invention, one would hope you could follow it. Others will have more trouble, especially with oddities like this:

 

Republicans have a bad habit of picking presidential candidates based on party loyalty in stead of electability. That explains Nixon, Reagan, Bob Dole, Romney and I am sure others

Nixon and Reagan were picked mostly for their electability - they rode Nixon's southern strategy to bring loads of racially bigoted white male voters (formerly Democrats, out of Civil War grudge) into the Republican ranks. Bob Dole was picked out of Party loyalty as a sacrifice, and given an honorable exit. Romney was picked for his electability only - questions about his Party loyalty dogged his every move. McCain was questioned for his loyalty - one of the reasons Palin was brought on board. Anybody else?

 

 

 

By going against Romney, Gingrich just further angered republican leaders

Gingrich is a Republican political leader, and one of the key proponents of Party loyalty above all. Has been for going on twenty five years now. He deserves as much credit as anyone for the ascendency of the Republican Party in the US - his contribution has been large and critical.

Edited October 31, 2013 by overtone

[swansont]

Four documented instances of Romney publicly encouraging the president to adopt the system he got working in Massachusetts (three videos and an op-ed). Of which party was Romney a member and candidate?

 

Mitt Romney Suggested Three Times In 2009 That Obama Imitate Romneycare

 

I have read several times in this forum that ACA is a Republican health care plan. That Republicans encouraged Democrats to push for ACA at the federal level and then backed out. In effect, tricking the Democratic Party into promoting ACA alone. Some go so far as to suggest that Republicans forced Democrats to vote for ACA.

 

As I am sure you are aware, I believe all of the above is silly scapegoating. ACA is a Democratic party plan that all Democrats voted for and no Republicans voted for. Yes they may have had to bend ACA to meet the needs of their own Senate coalition but not to meet the needs or Republicans. It is obvious that Democrats did not need Republicans when building this legislation as evidenced by the final vote. If ACA works, they get all the credit. If it fails, they get all the blame. Simple accountability.

 

So for those of you that think I’m wrong, I’m wondering if you can provide any proof.

 

 

I think you're wrong for the simple reason that this is a straw man, and does not represent that position that people have presented.

[waitforufo]

He came in 3rd with nearly 15% of the popular vote, behind only Santorum (with 20%) and Romney (who won the nomination with 52%). Gingrich won 143 delegates at the convention.

 

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R

Republicans primaries for president are simply a coronation of the party selected candidate that has shown longstanding party loyalty. Name one surprise Republican presidential candidate since Ford? The purpose of Republican presidential primaries is primarily to select the next presidential candidate and/or the vice president. If their presidential candidate does not win the vice presidential candidate generally is not considered the automatic heir apparent. That generally falls to the party loyalist also ran. Yes, there could be a surprise candidate that wins but when has it last happened? That is why I said that Obama knew who is likely opponent would be for his second term.

 

Newt's last run was simply a desperate attempt on his part to get back into the game. He is currently an outcast in the Republican party. This outcast status was only worsened by his presidential run. Why do you think he is now on crossfire? Knowing that, my guess is knowing Romney would be is opponent helped Obama pick up ACA.

 

 

If you attempt fo divide the health care issue on Party lines only, you will overlook the Blue Dogs and the financial/ insurance industry influence on some - but not all - Democrats. That will remove you from any hope of comprehension in that matter.

My comprehension on this matter is complete. If a party doesn't have a majority they have no power to move their agenda. Do you disagree with this? Obviously the Democrats do because they keep the Blue Dogs in their ranks. What part of that don't you comprehend? I also appreciate that some politicians are influenced by the financial/insurance industry. Politicians in both parties. Democrats caved to these interest in creating ACA. You know, just based on the above comment from you I'm surprised you don't go along with my opinion that it's all a circus provided for our entertainment.

 

 

You think either of the Clintons have low IQs? Obama? Gore? Please. Or perhaps you are thinking of national Congressmen - an apparent IQ rank order in my State leads with four or five Dems (Franken and Klobuchar, Tim Walz, Keith Ellison, in olden days James Oberstar) and ends with a drag tail of embarrassments that by some strange chance are Republicans (formerly Chip Kravaack, Michelle Bachmann, Erik Paulsen).

No, not the Clintons. No, not Obama. No not Al Gore, but he is still just a spoiled Senator's child. I'm sure you will have no problem selecting your own idiot republicans. If he hadn't become an independent I would have offered up Jim Jeffords. Republicans constantly had to keep there thumb on him making sure he didn't expose his stupidity in public. That dropped away as soon and he became an independent and he started sounding like Baghdad Bob. From my state, Patty Murray and Jim McDermott. Yes these are Democrats but the Democratic party does not hold a monopoly on idiots. These idiots are in congress simply because their parties want majorities. More of the circus.

 

As a rule of thumb, these days any sentence that deals with a current situation and begins with "both Parties" will end in expressing falsehood.

One more step and you will see it is all just for our entertainment.

 

 

No wonder you keep seeing conspiracies in the big world outside.

We have been conversing in this way for only a short time. While it is off topic, please list all the conspiracies I have been seeing or promoting.

 

 

Nixon and Reagan were picked mostly for their electability - they rode Nixon's southern strategy to bring loads of racially bigoted white male voters (formerly Democrats, out of Civil War grudge) into the Republican ranks. Bob Dole was picked out of Party loyalty as a sacrifice, and given an honorable exit. Romney was picked for his electability only - questions about his Party loyalty dogged his every move. McCain was questioned for his loyalty - one of the reasons Palin was brought on board. Anybody else?

Nixon worked diligently as a party insider after losing to Kennedy. This party loyalty payed off with the nomination. Reagan was picked after he bowed out and through his political clout behind Ford. There you go again with your "southern strategy" slander. Gee how did Nixon miss the Blue Dogs? Nixon's southern strategy simply pulled Democrats tired of racism over the Lincolns party of freedom. It was the beginning of the end for the solid Democratic South and 40 years of Democratic majorities. Perhaps this is the driving force behind your slander. Romney was picked for the same reason as Reagan. He bowed out before he damaged the heir apparent and he worked to get Bush elected. McCain is and has always been a loyal Republican, but on this one you are likely correct. Bob Dole is the most interesting case. I did not know one Republican that thought he could win. Clinton was very vulnerable. Almost any Republican could have beat him. Dole's long standing party loyalty made him the heir apparent and the rest is history.

 

 

In conclusion, Newt is a has-been Republican. The party pays no attention to him because he is all about Newt. He held no office in 2005. His opinions about ACA are irrelevant to the Republican Party.

Edited October 31, 2013 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

Republicans primaries for president are simply a coronation of the party selected candidate that has shown longstanding party loyalty. Name one surprise Republican presidential candidate since Ford? The purpose of Republican presidential primaries is primarily to select the next presidential candidate and/or the vice president. If their presidential candidate does not win the vice presidential candidate generally is not considered the automatic heir apparent. That generally falls to the party loyalist also ran. Yes, there could be a surprise candidate that wins but when has it last happened? That is why I said that Obama knew who is likely opponent would be for his second term.

 

Newt's last run was simply a desperate attempt on his part to get back into the game. He is currently an outcast in the Republican party. This outcast status was only worsened by his presidential run. Why do you think he is now on crossfire? Knowing that, my guess is knowing Romney would be is opponent helped Obama pick up ACA.

 

So you're maintaining that Newt Gingrich is NOT a power to be reckoned with in the Republican party because coming in third in the last presidential primary doesn't make him a key contender in your opinion? And that, in any case, it's all about party loyalty and not accomplishments for the party? Those are some pretty specific cherries you're picking there just to discredit Newt's support of the public healthcare option.

[swansont]

Republicans primaries for president are simply a coronation of the party selected candidate that has shown longstanding party loyalty.

 

I don't see how you can advance this idea at the same time you claim that the ACA is not a republican idea, owing to the similarity with Romneycare and how hard Romney was pushing for its adoption in 2009. Romney was the party-selected candidate, after all. The opposition to it only happened after the left dropped the single-payer/government option idea.

[iNow]

The purpose of Republican presidential primaries is primarily to select the next presidential candidate and/or the vice president. If their presidential candidate does not win the vice presidential candidate generally is not considered the automatic heir apparent.

Nobody said they were, but none of this response you've shared changes the fact that a person who comes in third out of numerous other possibilities is accurately described as a "key contender for president."

[waitforufo]

Nobody said they were, but none of this response you've shared changes the fact that a person who comes in third out of numerous other possibilities is accurately described as a "key contender for president."

Well, If what I provided didn't dismiss the fact that Newt was never a "key contender for president" then you can't be convinced. Newt is a Republican. He can run for president as a Republican. Sure there was an off chance that he might have pulled off an upset. The fact that he did not shows his opinions are moot as far as Republicans are concerned. Newt is a side show. He is not even under the big top.

 

I don't see how you can advance this idea at the same time you claim that the ACA is not a republican idea, owing to the similarity with Romneycare and how hard Romney was pushing for its adoption in 2009. Romney was the party-selected candidate, after all. The opposition to it only happened after the left dropped the single-payer/government option idea.

This is a much stronger argument. Romney was the standard bearer.

 

Oops, got a meeting.

[swansont]

 

This is a much stronger argument. Romney was the standard bearer.

 

 

The idea did not spring from his head fully formed, like Athena from Zeus. Where did the ideas behind Romneycare originate? (Hint: not the democrats)

 

Unless one is simply rewriting history, it's not a question of whether the ACA was based on a republican idea (which is the actual point being made, not the straw man), but when the republicans withdrew their support of the idea. It coincided with the time that Obama started backing it, in accordance with the GOP doctrine of the last ~5 years: if Obama's for it, we are a'gin it.

[john5746]

Remember that I have often said single payer would be much better than ACA.

You think this is the best method? If so, what is the best shot to getting this done? Democrat supermajority!

[overtone]

My comprehension on this matter is complete

Could be, but your assertions -

 

that Republicans almost always choose perceived Party loyalty over perceived electability in their candidates, that the Democrats and Republicans are equaivalent in their promotion of obedient stupidity in their ranks, that the two Parties's division of political power is mirrored by a two-body equivalent division of ideological stance and political agenda -

 

are nonsense: flatly contradicted by the physical facts and historical events, completely without support in evidence or argument.

 

Look at this:

 

There you go again with your "southern strategy" slander. Gee how did Nixon miss the Blue Dogs? Nixon's southern strategy simply pulled Democrats tired of racism over the Lincolns party of freedom

These folks have so boxed themselves in they now have to claim that Nixon's southern strategy was aimed at attracting Democrats "tired of racism". That can't be parodied - the best way to handle that in the Onion would be to print it straight, exactly as waitforufo wrote it.

 

He's talking about this:

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,^[11] but merely popularized it.^[12] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

 

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

 

So we see the extent to which physical and historical reality has to be stood on its head to sell this "both sides" framing, to argue for equivalence between the political behaviors and agendas and competencies of the two Party's Congressmen and every ideology with a name, to sell the Murdoch line that the whole thing is just entertainment and everybody involved in it is equivalently incompetent or badly motivated.

 

And the goal, for the corporate rightwing elites to avoid accountability for the past thirty years and gain power for the next thirty, is thereby advanced: the subversion of reason and perversion of rhetoric and destruction of historical record favors the criminal, the powerful, and the authoritarian.

Edited October 31, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Could be, but your assertions -

 

that Republicans almost always choose perceived Party loyalty over perceived electability in their candidates, that the Democrats and Republicans are equaivalent in their promotion of obedient stupidity in their ranks, that the two Parties's division of political power is mirrored by a two-body equivalent division of ideological stance and political agenda -

 

are nonsense: flatly contradicted by the physical facts and historical events, completely without support in evidence or argument.

 

Look at this:

 

These folks have so boxed themselves in they now have to claim that Nixon's southern strategy was aimed at attracting Democrats "tired of racism". That can't be parodied - the best way to handle that in the Onion would be to print it straight, exactly as waitforufo wrote it.

 

He's talking about this:

 

So we see the extent to which physical and historical reality has to be stood on its head to sell this "both sides" framing, to argue for equivalence between the political behaviors and agendas and competencies of the two Party's Congressmen and every ideology with a name, to sell the Murdoch line that the whole thing is just entertainment and everybody involved in it is equivalently incompetent or badly motivated.

 

And the goal, for the corporate rightwing elites to avoid accountability for the past thirty years and gain power for the next thirty, is thereby advanced: the subversion of reason and perversion of rhetoric and destruction of historical record favors the criminal, the powerful, and the authoritarian.

I love how you blame the blue dogs for every folly of the democratic party but see no hypocrisy in your comments about republicans.

 

I'm done. Enjoy your echo chamber.

[John Cuthber]

I love the way that you started a thread with

"I have read several times in this forum that ACA is a Republican health care plan. ...

As I am sure you are aware, I believe all of the above is silly scapegoating. ...

So for those of you that think I’m wrong, I’m wondering if you can provide any proof."

yet,though that proof has been provided,

("The idea is that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was originally proposed by a right-wing conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation back in 1989. http://healthcareref...l_americans.pdf "etc)

you keep arguing.

Presented with this

"It's the plan twice former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney implemented in his home state back in 2006 when he was a Republican governor. It's the same plan, except the federal approach with Obamacare has better cost control measures than the original Massachusetts plan had.

you say

"So there were Republican bills two decades ago that died in committee. Thank you. I appreciate your Obama comment was informed speculation or a paraphrase but it clearly points out that Obama picked up this then 14 year old legislation that died in committee and promoted it. "

Well, if that policy is 14 years old then you must be posting from (roughly) the year 2020.

Can you let me know what happens? Because from my point of view you are half a dozen years in the future and I could make serious money from that.

Can I trouble you to look up the winning numbers for the UK national lottery for November 2013 please?

Or is it that you just ignored reality "but see no hypocrisy in your comments"

[overtone]

I love how you blame the blue dogs for every folly of the democratic party - -

You bother to quote an entire post, then simply ignore everything in it. You write one sentence of response, and everything in it is shit you made up, used to attack.

 

There's a general explanation for this kind of phenomenon:

 

One of the problems faced by the US in general, not merely their political enemies, is that the national level Republican Congressmen have cornered themselves, as a body and as individuals - what they have been doing has had consequences, which now confront them:

 

and all of their reality based options begin with an unprecedented series of personal enlightenments followed by a long and excruciating period of humiliating public acknowledgments, losses of power, jail sentences, etc. That's not happening.

 

We are about to see what they are going to do instead. They still have a great deal of power, the Federal budget under their management, the backing of the corporate and military elite for almost anything within their range - and no foothold in reason or sense.

 

So what's it going to be, eh?

Edited October 31, 2013 by overtone

[jduff]

It is all good! I am quite content with democats taking the ball(ACA) and rolling with it! Especially knowing lots of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYyMMs-WO4U

are coming out to spread the word!

[iNow]

Yet 93% of hospital executives think Obamacare will make healthcare in the United States better, both in terms of costs and quality. Notice also that says "hospital executives," and not "insurance company executives." Golly.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/19/93-percent-of-hospital-executives-think-obamacare-will-make-health-care-better/