Will the Republicans show up for this meeting? Thus far, Republicans have said they won't show unless Obama agrees to a list of concessions which they know are totally unacceptable (e.g. to start over from scratch, to nix reconcilliation as an option, etc). So will they show? And what happens if they don't show up? Is that a good strategy for the GOP? Is it a good strategy for the country?
I think America is probably too big and too diverse to have a national health care option. Tax payers don't like to think they are paying for some dead beat's anything (even though they are anyway). It's just the national psyche. Also I don't like that Obama fixated on health care reform. If he wanted a reform then he should have simply proposed opening up many many many MANY more medical schools and started training a hell of a lot more MDs and DOs. THEN let the market do it's thing. AND then he could have focused on more pressing issues like THE ECONOMY and GETTING BACK THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in TAX PAYER FUNDED BONUSES from the disgustingly filthy sickly corrupt Banking Elite. I feel like health care reform is a sideshow meant to divide the republic again on Dems -vs- GOP and draw attention away from the real culprits pulling the strings: The Corrupt Banking Elite ruining American.
Here is the actual letter from the reps... You'll notice how the letter touches on all of Obamas campaign promises and then outlines what hes actually delivered. I think the letter intends to point out hypocrasy, but if bi-partisanship is the real goal, both sides will have to follow through. That said, it is common knowledge among those opposed to the bill, that the reps were never consulted on the design of the healthcare bill at the start of the process, and no time since.
He has to open up more medical schools and should also look at how medicine is practiced. But he also has to break the health insurance trusts. And he has to open the prescription drug markets to competition. He also needs to make corporations more competitive. Shareholders need to have the ability to vote out existing management if they do not server shareholder interests. Today, voting as a shareholder exactly like voting in a communist country. You get one choice. You can vote for director x or vote against director x or not vote at all. That is not much choice. Corporate executives should have to compete for their jobs. If they do well, then they should be paid well. But if they drive their companies into the ground, they should not be rewarded for doing so which is the case today in many instances.
Well the letter is certianly not written in the spirt of bipartisanship, and contains a thy typical Republian litany in response to healthcare. There is nothing true in any part of that letter. Recent polls show that over 66% of Americans want congress to work together and move forward on heatlhcare reform. So I would love to see Republicans take this attitude to the meeting on the 25th or better yet just not show up. But I don't think Republican leadership is that stupid, of course they could suprise me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Come on Joe, is that what you really think? And a large number of those 66% mean starting over and working together. This bill is 2000+ pages filled with back room deals, bribes, pork, midnight calls to votes. I say scrap it and start over.
Exactly Nav, that is the massage from New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, the Democrats are not the one reaping the benefits of their call for bipartisanship. The People have sent a clear message in these elections, and they want a do over, and if they could they would have a do over on the election to.
The operative word in that survey was "continue" not start over. However there is a segement that wants them to start over. But there is also a lot public misunderstanding of the healthcare bill because of all of the partisan and industry sponsored and funded misinformation. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...keep-working-on-health-care/?fbid=LiiRYW6-9qg
Not quite Buffalo, do you have any proof of this claim? No you do not, just like all of your other claims. How do you know that Brown won because he ran a better campaign? Brown did not advertise himself as a Republican. He ran as an outsider. that is hardly and endorsement of the Republican Party establishment.
Michael, do you like medicare? Or do you think it should be shut down (like Tony abbott secretly wants to do)
I call BS! The average American is smarter than you insinuate and they spoke in the past few elections. If you can't see that, maybe you can grasp the fact that all the confusion could have been avoided, by keeping his own words no less. Besides, that was the whole vision behind airing the debates on CSPAN, so the people knew what was going into the bill.
I don't see how the airing of all of the private meetings would have done anything to help overcome the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by Republicans and the healtcare industry. Most people would not watch the meetings even if they were aired. And what is to stop congressmen from meeting without TV coverage? Should politicians not be allowed to utter words unless a TV camera is around? Actually, that might not be a bad idea, but not very practical.
You sure move the goal posts around alot. You claimed people were confused about the content of the bills, not that they were trying to overcome spending that both sides are guilty of. If people were really as confused as you imply, I bet they would watch the debates. And since Obama is the POTUS and he posed the idea, wouldn't it be his responsibility to police the politicians to make sure that the creation of the bills is done in an open and transparent way?
Please explain what you mean by moving goal posts around. That is something that just does not make sense. What is confusing about all the misinformation that was spread around by Republicans and the healthcare industry? Do you recall all the nonsense around "death panels"? Do you have any proof if people were confused about healthcare that they would watch debates? All of the committee hearings were aired and televised. Most Americans go to work, come home do things with their families and watch their favorite shows....which does not include CSPAN. I never watch CSPAN. I think the bill was created in an open and transparent way. It was posted on the congressional website...still is. All the committe hearings were public and televised. And I don't see where in the Consititution where it gives the president the responsibility to "police politicians" to ensure they make laws in an open transparent manner. Congress has never been as transparent as it has with the healthcare reform bills of 2009. Can you show a more transparent legislative process in congress? No you cannot.
Were you not claiming the desire to start over was based on confusion in the bill? You moved the goal post when you injected overcoming spending which has nothing to do with the confusion about the existing bill that makes people want to scrap it. Airing the debates would have cleared up some of the confusion and televising the debates raises the level of accountability quite a bit. I guarantee you it would help cut spending and eliminate alot of pork riders. What would you call an official or group of officials that determine what life saving treatment is within budget and which life saving treatment is denied? the committee hearings are for expressing talking points. The actual crafting of the bill was done behind closed doors. Obama is the one that put the responsibility on himself, he said he would make it happen.
I never made such a claim. The desire to start over on the part of some individuals is basically a repeat of the Republican Party line being repeated by Republican/limbaugh devotees. It is silly to start over and makes no sense. No ad spending by the healthcare insurance lobby and Republican groups has everything to do with spreading misinformation. Frankly, I don't know how you can say otherwise. The ad spending and misinformation campaign is what caused the misinformation on healthcare. So no goal posts have moved. I think you may have some difficulty that ads are not always very honest. Committee hearings were aired, so what more do you want? Do you want legislators to call in the cameras everytime the two or more of them discuss the issue. That is a logistics nightmare, and frankly makes no sense either. You see the result of those discussions by what shoes up in the bill. As mentioned previously, the bill was and remains publicly posted for all those who want to read it. The people who insisted on adding pork to the bill have been identified and are now paying the consequences. I see you yourself are a victim of misinformation. There is nothing in the bill that interjects the state between the physician and patient. There are no death panels. There are no public officials denying healthcare. However, today there are corporate individuals who are paid and bonused to deny care to patients. Why do I not hear you complaining about them? Why should healtcare reform legislation be different from any other legislation passed in Congress? Show me one bill that congress has ever passed that was not drafted behind closed doors. The Declaration on Independence was drafted behind closed doors...so was the Consititution. He did not put himself in the roll of policeman. He said he would be transparent. You can argue he has not been as tranparent as you would like. But show me a president who has been more transparent or even as transparent as Obama. You cannot because there has never been such a president.
