Nixon and Kennedy tried to get healthcare bill in the 1970s

Bfgrn said:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Waterloo - David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

David Frum - Speechwriter for George W. Bush

BTW, Frum was fired for writing that column from his $100,000/year job at the American Enterprise Institute, where he’d been since 2003.



"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting article but only one guys accusation...so its suspect at the least....

I found two very interesting items in that article....
1...This is believable...
Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

2...This is not...
Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible.

The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
============================================================
This guy says he was fired....
AEI says "We are pleased to have welcomed him as a colleague for seven years, and his decision to leave in no way diminishes our respect for him."
I see absolutely no advantage for AEI to lie about it....not even a hint of animosity toward him...
-------------------------------------------------------------
I could buy some of it if it wasn't for the hysterical tone of the entire article....I find if contrived...

Then to say "Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible" ?...I find that accusation and conclusion unbelievable...
Secret deals, made behind closed doors are the norm in DC...the Republican voting base need never be aware of any deals of any kind...there was no reason not to deal, the bill was going to get passed and that is an undeniable fact, regardless of deals....R's had no power at all, that too is a fact no matter what the Dems claim...

Its fact that Obama failed to ever even make a phone call to Republican leaders in these past 21 months...it is fact. There was no attempt to 'reach out' to the minority....even he doesn't deny that.
He bragged about winning.....and that elections have consequences....repeated by his administration over and over (see video)
The party bragged about a super majority....
They bragged they would pass the HC bill even in the face of opposition of the people...."you'll find out what it says after we pass it".....and then the hahahaha..like thats a joke (in a way, it was)

There are a lot of other facts to consider besides this one mans unfounded and unprovable accusations....if there was any corroboration of his claims I would reconsider.... for now I say bullshit....
 
Last edited:
Being the "crazy" person I am, I would like to just toss out a hypothetical question here....

What color would the cow have been, that Democrats would have had, if our beloved President George W. Bush had sauntered out one day from the East Wing, and announced an executive order for all Americans to have to purchase health insurance? Now, that's basically what we have with HCR, the mandate that every American purchase health insurance, cloaked in 2,200 pages of legalese to accompany the mandate. And we have liberals celebrating that "everyone" now has health care coverage. Dubya could have done that with the stroke of a pen in about 30 seconds, without the 2,200 pages... but what color would the cow have been? Just curious!
 
Dixie said:
Being the "crazy" person I am, I would like to just toss out a hypothetical question here....

What color would the cow have been, that Democrats would have had, if our beloved President George W. Bush had sauntered out one day from the East Wing, and announced an executive order for all Americans to have to purchase health insurance? Now, that's basically what we have with HCR, the mandate that every American purchase health insurance, cloaked in 2,200 pages of legalese to accompany the mandate. And we have liberals celebrating that "everyone" now has health care coverage. Dubya could have done that with the stroke of a pen in about 30 seconds, without the 2,200 pages... but what color would the cow have been? Just curious!
Click to expand...
It is one of the provisions what needs to be worked out, but you can't throw out the baby with the bath water, like the President said, there are things that need to be changed. They have done it with Social Security and Medicare, so it shall be with health care.
 
Damocles said:
Nixon was hardly conservative.

Imagine a conservative supporting price controls, working for socialized health care, etc. I think your malfunction here is where you believe that if somebody has an "r" by their name they are also conservative.
Click to expand...

He was hardly a socialist either, unless you know otherwise. He is best characterised as a social conservative.

Social conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg" class="image"><img alt="Text document with red question mark.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Its an interesting article but only one guys accusation...so its suspect at the least....

I found two very interesting items in that article....
1...This is believable...
Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

2...This is not...
Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible.

The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
================================================== ==========
This guy says he was fired....
AEI says "We are pleased to have welcomed him as a colleague for seven years, and his decision to leave in no way diminishes our respect for him."
I see absolutely no advantage for AEI to lie about it....not even a hint of animosity toward him...
-------------------------------------------------------------
I could buy some of it if it wasn't for the hysterical tone of the entire article....I find if contrived...

Then to say "Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible" ?...I find that accusation and conclusion unbelievable...
Secret deals, made behind closed doors are the norm in DC...the Republican voting base need never be aware of any deals of any kind...there was no reason not to deal, the bill was going to get passed and that is an undeniable fact, regardless of deals....R's had no power at all, that too is a fact no matter what the Dems claim...

Its fact that Obama failed to ever even make a phone call to Republican leaders in these past 21 months...it is fact. There was no attempt to 'reach out' to the minority....even he doesn't deny that.
He bragged about winning.....and that elections have consequences....repeated by his administration over and over (see video)
The party bragged about a super majority....
They bragged they would pass the HC bill even in the face of opposition of the people...."you'll find out what it says after we pass it".....and then the hahahaha..like thats a joke (in a way, it was)

There are a lot of other facts to consider besides this one mans unfounded and unprovable accusations....if there was any corroboration of his claims I would reconsider.... for now I say bullshit....
Click to expand...

The Frank Luntz talking points memo parroted by Republican legislators REP. JOHN BOEHNER, SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, SEN. JON KYL, REP. JOE WILSON, REP. TOM PRICE, REP. ZACH WAMP

Please watch this video starting at 4:40 to 8:12.


I know it is way too much to ask one of you 'conservatives' to watch a whole interview with a former insurance company executive with 15 years experience. It would be an epiphany.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html
 
Dixie said:
Being the "crazy" person I am, I would like to just toss out a hypothetical question here....

What color would the cow have been, that Democrats would have had, if our beloved President George W. Bush had sauntered out one day from the East Wing, and announced an executive order for all Americans to have to purchase health insurance? Now, that's basically what we have with HCR, the mandate that every American purchase health insurance, cloaked in 2,200 pages of legalese to accompany the mandate. And we have liberals celebrating that "everyone" now has health care coverage. Dubya could have done that with the stroke of a pen in about 30 seconds, without the 2,200 pages... but what color would the cow have been? Just curious!
Click to expand...

Had g. w. bush done that, it would have been the only thing I truly respected him for over his entire eight years in office.
 
Rana said:
That word has gotten such a bad reputation, lately, I hate to call myself one!
Click to expand...
M'eh. Most people realize that there is a reason we are a republic rather than a direct democracy. It has a negative connotation simply because of that.

Imagine what we'd have going on now if we really were a democracy. The health care debacle never would have passed as most of the US was against it...

Anyway, populism is short-sighted and based on what government can "do" for me. It is almost entirely, actually that kind of thing is entirely, against my core beliefs. The first question we should ask is, "Can we do this without government intervention?" if the answer is "Yes" then we should do it that way, the second question is, "Where is the direct victim?" if there is no answer, if you have to go into "Well it might cost society" or some other such thing, then we should not create a law at all.

The government should be the absolute last option and is the worst type of force employed on a free people.
 
Damocles said:
M'eh. Most people realize that there is a reason we are a republic rather than a direct democracy. It has a negative connotation simply because of that.

Imagine what we'd have going on now if we really were a democracy. The health care debacle never would have passed as most of the US was against it...

Anyway, populism is short-sighted and based on what government can "do" for me. It is almost entirely, actually that kind of thing is entirely, against my core beliefs. The first question we should ask is, "Can we do this without government intervention?" if the answer is "Yes" then we should do it that way, the second question is, "Where is the direct victim?" if there is no answer, if you have to go into "Well it might cost society" or some other such thing, then we should not create a law at all.

The government should be the absolute last option and is the worst type of force employed on a free people.
Click to expand...
I guess we have different ideas of populism...as we do conservatism.
 
Rana said:
I guess we have different ideas of populism...as we do conservatism.
Click to expand...

I question the remark that "the health care debacle never would have passed as most of the US was against it..."

The American people apparently have short memories. Obama campaigned for two years and reforming health care was always part of his platform. Then Obama won the election with 53% of the vote. If health care was a deal breaker then more Americans would have voted for McCain. Nobody here was getting a pig in a poke.
 
christiefan915 said:
I question the remark that "the health care debacle never would have passed as most of the US was against it..."

The American people apparently have short memories. Obama campaigned for two years and reforming health care was always part of his platform. Then Obama won the election with 53% of the vote. If health care was a deal breaker then more Americans would have voted for McCain. Nobody here was getting a pig in a poke.
Click to expand...
However, when it came to a vote in Congress, 67% were against it. It was the form that it took that they were against. Obama ran on giving insurance to 15 Million uninsured, not on forcing you to buy crappier insurance than you already have.

If we were a Democracy, we wouldn't have a President, BTW.
 
Damocles said:
However, when it came to a vote in Congress, 67% were against it. It was the form that it took that they were against. Obama ran on giving insurance to 15 Million uninsured, not on forcing you to buy crappier insurance than you already have.

If we were a Democracy, we wouldn't have a President, BTW.
Click to expand...
It forces you to buy crappie insurance, okay Damo, I don't often challenge you, but I gotta see the proof of this! I think this is one of the insurance myths, they don't mess with you if you have insurance, it is just those who don't, but it could just be me reading into this what I want it to say! You know me! I have that problem. A real what was that word dis, dis, oh, never mind!
 
Rana said:
It forces you to buy crappie insurance, okay Damo, I don't often challenge you, but I gotta see the proof of this! I think this is one of the insurance myths, they don't mess with you if you have insurance, it is just those who don't, but it could just be me reading into this what I want it to say! You know me! I have that problem. A real what was that word dis, dis, oh, never mind!
Click to expand...
I said crappier. My insurance is much better than this crappy coverage that I will be forced to purchase in the future.
 
Damocles said:
I said crappier. My insurance is much better than this crappy coverage that I will be forced to purchase in the future.
Click to expand...
Nope, you don't understand the law, as most don't. You can buy better insurance if you wish. Like I said, I would need to see this in writing, I think you have read wrong! There are so many misconceptions, like my daughter says and Obama was a fool not to educate the public more on what is in this law!
 
Rana said:
Nope, you don't understand the law, as most don't. You can buy better insurance if you wish. Like I said, I would need to see this in writing, I think you have read wrong! There are so many misconceptions, like my daughter says and Obama was a fool not to educate the public more on what is in this law!
Click to expand...
You can if you aren't priced out of the better insurance because of the increase in costs that were supposedly not going to happen.

The reality is that many will be including, very likely, myself. My children will have less coverage as a direct consequence to this bill. I believe that these were intentional consequences, in order to force a failure of the market so that government can step in and "save" us all. I base that on the fact that Obama stated that you have to work incrementally toward what you want, which he stated several times was a centralized single-payer (government) system.

Saying that the bill doesn't have consequences and that it could not force changes on people who didn't want them is a short-sighted mistake.
 
christiefan915 said:
Oh, really? That's funny, I've never had an employer benefit me with housing and subsistence, clothing, healthcare, education benefits, travel, etc.

And before the naysayers weigh in, this is not about whether these benefits are deserved, just that the average business doesn't provide them as bravo stated.
Click to expand...
The average business almost ALWAYS provides some kind of employee benefits....the form those benefits take varies, as anyone, even most pinheads would know.

I didn't claim ALL benefits of ALL companies are identical, pinhead...and you know it....benefits from Company A are the same as from Company B no matter what form they take.....they are ALL CALLED BENEFITS....
At a diner it might be free dinners and at a car wash it might be a free weekly car wash....THEY ARE ALL BENEFITS, nevertheless....

\Can't you help being a fuckin' pinhead, or what....?:palm:
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
The Frank Luntz talking points memo parroted by Republican legislators REP. JOHN BOEHNER, SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, SEN. JON KYL, REP. JOE WILSON, REP. TOM PRICE, REP. ZACH WAMP

Please watch this video starting at 4:40 to 8:12.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuhHQWQs2-8

I know it is way too much to ask one of you 'conservatives' to watch a whole interview with a former insurance company executive with 15 years experience. It would be an epiphany.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html
Click to expand...

Excellent informative video.

One of the arguments used against government health care is that bureaucrats will come between the patient and the doctor. That argument is presented because currently people know that when they require medical care the doctor checks with their health care provider to see if a certain procedure is covered AND if the provider feels such a procedure is necessary. So, the implication is made the government would replace the health care provider and the government (a bureaucrat) would decide whether a procedure is covered AND whether it's necessary. The truth is that's completely false. That is not how government health care operates.

Universal health care, government health care, starts with the same policy covering everyone. That means more illnesses/medical procedures are covered than by almost any individual policy because the government policy has to cover everyone.

For example, let's look at a home insurance policy. Certain areas will have certain coverage included in most policies. If one lives in a low lying area near a large river flood insurance would most likely be included. Or a person living in Kansas would most likely have tornado insurance included in any policy as opposed to someone living in Alaska. However, if there was one government home insurance policy everyone would be covered for floods and tornadoes by virtue of other people requiring it. Simply stated, a government home insurance policy would be more inclusive just as a government health insurance policy would be more inclusive.

As for the government (a bureaucrat) coming between the patient and doctor government health plans do not operate that way. The decision is strictly between the doctor and the patient. There is no one in government who determines if a medical procedure is necessary. It is either covered or it isn't. If a doctor and a patient agree on a procedure and that procedure is covered no one else is involved. The government pays the doctor for his/her services.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as dropping or limiting coverage. Every citizen is entitled to what ever and how many medical procedures are required.

It's understandable why so many are opposed to universal health care considering the deliberate misinformation. On the up side people will slowly realize the benefits of the HCR package as certain provisions come into effect.

Thankfully, Obama was smart enough to push that through when he did. Even if the "House" goes into gridlock the clock will keep ticking and the provisions will still come on line. Either the Repubs will co-operate moving things along and grab what few acknowledgments they can or they will stall and the people will still realize benefits from the plan. Either way it's a win-win for the Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top