BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?

Subject: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:03 AM

Don't take my word for it.

How about the opinion of "Axis of Evil" creator David Frum

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:10 AM

Re: thread title

It is in fact possible.

One of the most significant aspects may be something I noticed in one of Amos' articles:   that this bill does away with the "donut hole" in prescription drug benefits.   Given that the elderly are the most likely to vote and that the "donut hole" was a very sore subject for huge numbers of people of Medicare age, anybody opposing a bill which eliminates it may well be playing with fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Clontarf83
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:10 AM

Greetings from the land of "socialized medicine". Costs less than the US version, covers more people. Despite all the myths, it provides first class service if you have a real problem. The main exceptions are hip and knee issues for old folks like me, and our record here is still bad, even though it is improving.

Bottom line from Canadians--health care is a human right. Get used to that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:49 AM

Old East Anglian folk rhyme quoted by fisherman Sam Larner fifty years ago seems to sum up much of the attitude in todays US:

"If life were a thing that money could buy,
The rich would live and the poor would die."

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 06:57 AM

Waterloo? Maybe.... but I'll bet a stale biscuit that they they just change their focus and bring in umpty-leven other conservative hot-buttons and make up stories and connections to link them to ANYTHING they can about health care.....just watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 07:48 AM

Well, I recall back in the 90s when the Republican Congress wouldn't pass a Omnibus spending bill and the government was shut down... Bill Clinton made hay with that... It's there for the Dems taking in the 2010 election if the Repubs continue their lock-step obstructionism... Let's put it this way, the Repubs are walkin' on thin ice right now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:39 AM

The more that right-wing terrorists make death threats, berate Parkinson victims, call congress members racial and sexual slurs, spit on congressmen (John Lewis who'd been beaten nearly to death by Klansmen in 1961 and Selma police in 1965), shoot out the windows of representatives and cut the gas line to the home of a congress member's brother(someone could have died if they hadn't noticed the fumes in time)the more people in the center are going to recoil in revulsion from the anti-health reform forces, whether they liked the bill or not.
And prominent Republicans who refuse to strongly condemn this domestic terrorism now will be further tainted if, God forbid, another Oklahoma City type event occurs. Republicans were never perceived as being in any way involved with the militia movement back then, but this time around there is a real perception that the extreme rhetoric from conservatives in government (comparing the bill to the Holocaust, more damaging than 9/11, the death of freedom in America, etc.) is egging on the reptile-brained, knuckle dragging lunatic fringe of the radical right.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: beeliner
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:55 AM

I had lots of relatives who were loyal Republicans, and decent, caring, respectable mainline conservatives. While our politics differed, I loved them all and we had many wothwhile and downright enjoyable political discussions, only rarely ending in fisticuffs.

Were any of them still living, they would be horrified to see that their beloved party, the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, and so many other American heroes and patriots, has become a party of losers, loonies, and louts.

The 'Teabag' vote will split the GOP asunder in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Hopefully a new party of RESPONSIBLE conservatism will rise from its ashes.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 10:19 AM

"...I'll bet a stale biscuit that they they just change their focus and bring in umpty-leven other conservative hot-buttons..."


             But now that Obama has successfully duped the Hispanic Caucus, I'll bet he stays away from immigration reform.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 10:35 AM

Waterloo? Hardly.

Have more faith in the ADD-afflicted American voter. They'll forget all about it in a matter of months, if not weeks.

No one ever went broke underestimating the taste or intelligence of the American people.

    -H.L. Mencken


(PS: "Responsible Conservatism" is currently demonstrably a contradiction in terms.)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: olddude
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM

I have no problem at all with people who differ from my views. I have no problem with responsible conservatives either. My problem comes in with this ... I HAD a friend, I say Had. His non stop emails and phone calls telling me I was a socialists, a "dope smoking hippie" and so on because I answered one of his emails with logic ... like the system is broken and this step is one in the right direction at least. And hippie I may agree, but I don't smoke dope LOL. And that is the response I get from the modern day republican base. Hate, slander and harassment if you don't agree. Now that is not true for most people but it is people like this and people who fall into the Rush and Coulter ways that make it so sad. Like the views of TV preachers. They give all Christians such a bad name and make people think something as wonderful as God's love is Hate based ...

Sad state I think for our country unless we all wake up and learn respect and re-learn how to debate serious topics that need addressed

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM

Write him back and tell him he is a lesbian lumberjack, Dan!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:09 PM

BTW David Frum was asked to resign yesterday by his bosses at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Here is his original blog about the healthcare bill being a Republican Waterloo. I know long cut and paste jobs are generally frowned upon but I don't know how to make a link to a blog.

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

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.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? 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.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. 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.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:53 PM

Thank you Neil, I was hoping this thread would be more about Frum but I didn't want to cut and paste the whole article.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM

We'll get (another) chance to see if bumper sticker politics win the day.   The party in power virtually always loses seats in off-year elections, so Democrats will lose seats in the fall. How many?    Bumper sticker politics this time, of course will include: "death panels" ,"bankrupting our grandchildren" and "a bureaucrat coming between you and your doctor". How many will accept these as the last word?   Who knows?

Some people ( e.g. .Medicare Advantage recipients--our own Doug R?) will lose out. It looks like a lot more will gain. Will they realize this?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:18 PM

The David Frum article sums it up very well in that the voters ain't all that thrilled about a Repub Party being lef by Rush Limbaugh...

But now they have charted a course and it's lookin' more and more like crossing the Rubicon to Waterloo for them if they are unwilling to break ranks with the Rushies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:21 PM

Very intelligent piece by Mr Frum. If people like him are being shitcanned by conservative institutions and the GOP, their future is indeed pretty grim.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:34 PM

Sorry, Clontarf83, even a Canadian cannot change the U.S. Constitution. I refer to your statement, "Health care is a human right -get used to that idea.

As to Mr. Frum, he hasn't been in good favor with Republican Conservatives for a very long time. Not since he wrote a book suggesting that the future of the Republican Party rested in the Party purging conservatives while embracing liberal ideals.

I think Mr. Frum and his adoring liberals will get their comeuppance in November.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM

"Sorry, Clontarf83, even a Canadian cannot change the U.S. Constitution. I refer to your statement, "Health care is a human right -get used to that idea"

Is your Medicare a right?

What gives you more rights than anyone else?

"All men are created equal"

That's in a founding document. It took a couple of hundred years to fulfill that for some people. Obama and Hillary were part of the fulfillment of that. You didn't like their success, you don't like Health Care reform. Medicare is only a few decades old but young people will catch up too.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:56 PM

You thought that a year ago last November, DougR. Here is the way it looks to me. First off, the trend towards approval has already started on the health plan. Once small business owners figured out that they would get help, and parents found that they could keep their kids on until 26, and pre-existing conditions are gone, and capped benefits are gone, the trend will be the same as it was for Medicare and SS. Not good for ideologues like DR.

The President is now moving on to redoing the education system, and getting the greedy bastards who were willing to leave a generation of kids in poverty, just so they could pad a profit margin, out of the business. Look for populist moves in this area that will begin to put our system right again after the plunder by greedy Republicans.

There is already a move to rein in these greedy pricks in financial services, and that will be very popular.

According to many economists, the recession will end next week with the announcement of the jobs number. Of course the Repubs will attempt to downplay the Presidents role, even though when the numbers didn't go down they said he had to own them. But that is because they are lying pricks who really aren't about what is good for the country.

All these things will start a trend, in fact they already have. And that trend will be acceptance that we have a leader who takes a studied approach and is going to pursue the mandate he was given. And that is not good for DougR's gods.

And by the way, this horseshit the teabaggers are foisting on the public about the upcoming elections giving them the ability to repeal healthcare is another example of their lying ways. It would take 67 votes to overturn a Presidential veto. The Repubs are currently at 41. There is not one chance in hell that they can pickup 16 seats. They will be hard pressed to pick up 5. But they will continue to lie and mislead. They seem to figure that if the truth doesn't suit them, just make up a new truth. But this President has them pegged. Yeah..... I am with him. Please, DougR, send letters and tell your gods to keep pursuing this lying and misleading road. See you at the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 03:03 PM

The fact that the USA doesn't recognise health care as a human right is interesting, but not conclusive. They'll catch up in time, as they did with slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:21 PM

"According to many economists, the recession will end next week with the announcement of the jobs number."


               According to the economists I've been listening to, the recession ended several months ago. It hasn't added very many jobs, though, because of massive government spending.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:35 PM

Rig

Are you saying that the jobs weren't created because of the spending?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge on the other browser
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:15 PM

Mick, may I express my admiration of your post above?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM

John McCain is saying it will be repealed soon.
His fellow Arizona Republican, Kyl said to Jim Lehrer that there was no way that could happen while Obama is in the White house.
If McCain wins the nomination the Democratic candidate will have an obvious campaign ad Of McCain saying "Soon" and Kyl saying "Can't happen" The 2010 election gets more interesting every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:13 PM

Well, JTS, I would think even you would recognize, should the Republicans regain control of the House and Senate next November, that any Bill to repeal would be vetoed by Obama! That's what Kyle was referring to.

Mick: I like your optomism. Keep it up. Why don't you folks tackle immigration next? Cap and Trade? Right, see you at the polls.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:14 PM

>>>Well, JTS, I would think even you would recognize, should the Republicans regain control of the House and Senate next November, that any Bill to repeal would be vetoed by Obama! That's what Kyle was referring to.

Yes Doug.

It is what I meant by.

"there was no way that could happen while Obama is in the White house."

So why is McCain promising that he can do it?
Why is he saying that he will be able to do it SOON, when that is not possible.

My guess is that McCain is full of shit and if he gets the nomination, the Democrats are going to be able to PROVE that he is full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:35 PM

McCain ain't the ONLY one that's full of shit - there's Doug, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:58 PM

Big Mick for President in 2016!!

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:32 PM

Vote for Sarah Palin and lose your health care...

Should be a real vote-winner in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Neil D
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 08:18 PM

I also agree with the gist of Big Mick's post. I would just point out one correction of the numbers. Repubs would have to pick up 26 seats to have enough to overturn a presidential veto.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:42 PM

The issue is not the numbers, from McCain's view and his party's. It is to keep his base angry at all costs, steamed up, stirred up, ticked off, wound up, and messed up with hatred. If he can do that, they'll jump in line like any mob and lynch anyone they're told is the right target. That's how mobs are made, how they are steered, and how they react.

All it takes is a good solid spark of group-think and a good dose of hot air.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:05 AM

That's the base for sure Amos. But they won't win with just the base.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:08 AM

A simple answer, JTS, 2012. Obama was not elected for life. With a majority in congress, Obama dumped by voters committed to preserving a capitalist economy in 2012, a new Republican president, and repeal is a slam dunk.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:22 AM

Preserving a capitalist economy? DougR have you gone over the edge? Drunk too much Koolaid? Pray tell how does this health plan threaten the nature of our capitalist economy? By ensuring the producers get well so they can keep producing? Your rhetoric is misguided, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:49 AM

Social Security and Medicare were never dumped by voters committed to preserving a capitalist economy, and they're way more socialist than the new health care law. The reason is that once people see the extent to which they themselves benefit from such programs, they are not likely to be willing to give them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:11 AM

Heh. Learn something new every day. Here's an interesting article about Alf Landon, who campaigned, in much the same way Republicans are threatening to do now, on a pledge to repeal Social Security (this was not too long after it was created)...


"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Bad call, Alf. Republicans lost that presidential election in a landslide. By the time they finally regained the White House -- 16 years later -- their nominee, Dwight Eisenhower, had abandoned the party's repeal platform.

More here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031902636.html

This must be why Obama is so keen for the Republicans to campaign on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM

The polls are beginning to indicate that as people begin to find out what's really in the bill, they are turning away from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:11 AM

DougR have you gone over the edge?

He's been there for quite some time - how is it you haven't noticed?

Question is why folks continue to try to have an intelligent discussion with a delusional individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:12 AM

Really? Which polls?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:17 AM

DougR is a surrogate for the GOP whose leadership has gone way further over the edge than him.

Cantor, Boehner, Steele

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:22 AM

I second JtS' question. Which polls?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:36 AM

I third the question.

Many polls show people still opposed. One Gallup poll fromthe 22d showed otherwise:

Gallup*        3/22 - 3/22        1005 A        49        40        For/Favor +9

but it is not typical. Problem is, it is difficult to interpret any of these polls without knowing who was asked what. "Do you favor Obama's communist plot?" is a different poll than "How much do the following provisions of the health care bill meet your approval...".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 11:52 AM

Or 'Which is a more practical approach to Health Care Reform, the Current law of Boehner screaming "Hell No!"'

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:26 PM

Or 'Which is a more practical approach to Health Care Reform, the Current law OR Boehner screaming "Hell No!"'

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 02:54 PM

Wouldn't an attempt to repeal Health Care, even in the event of Obama being defeated in 2012, and a Republican majority in both houses, come up against the same problem of needing 60 committed anti-health seats in the Senate to get the legislation passed?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:00 PM

they might be able to use reconciling for financial aspects.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Alice
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 03:09 PM

Regarding the opinion polls, some of those labeled unfavorable are those who wanted to eliminate the insurance companies and have true universal coverage or at least the public option. The poll numbers will change with time, as they always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:32 AM

McGrath: If the Republicans have a majority in both houses, and a Republican president, there should be enough "right" thinking Democrats to provide 60 votes for repeal(or they could always use Reconciliation of course). Thats a strategy that seems acceptable to the Democrats.

Another possiblility, of course, is simply for the Republic majority to simply cut off funding. Most of the expensive benefits don't go into effect until 2014 anyway because that's the way the Democrats planned it. They didn't want the heavy costs to influence the 2010 elections.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:43 AM

>>Reconciliation... Thats a strategy that seems acceptable to the Democrats.<<

The Republicans have never done that right? Show us your knowledge of civics Doug!


>>Another possiblility, of course, is simply for the Republic majority to simply cut off funding. <<

But if they did that they wouldn't be keeping their promise to "Repeal and Replace" They couldn't be making a promise that they do not know how to keep could they? Not the Republicans!!! Surely there is no gambling at Ricks! I am shocked!! Shocked!!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:40 AM

The vast majority of the new law was not passed using reconciliation. The vast majority of it was passed with a clear majority in the House, and a super majority in the Senate. A very small part of the new law was passed through reconciliation, and that part was a separate bill that was passed later and signed into law later. Most of the new health care law could not be repealed using reconciliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:38 AM

Show us your knowledge of civics Doug!

Show us your knowledge of ANYTHING, Doug!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM

Exactly who is it that you see that will be electable from the Republican camp in a presidential contest, Dougie... Maybe in 2016... By then this will all be a distant memory... By then, maybe, just maybe, the rednecks will have pulled off another couple Oklahoma City bombings and the nation will use them as a motivational force to finally put racism in the rear view mirror...

Now, as for the Repubs putting all their eggess into the "repeal 'n redo" basket for this Novemeber??? Bad idea...Tha American people are not in the mood for another year of bickering, debate and if the Repubs were smart they would realize this... People have had enough of partisanship and the "repeal 'n redo" is a formula for more partisanship....

Ya'll might want to trethink that strategy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:22 PM

Carol C: share that knowledge with your husband will you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 04:02 PM

Are there really that many votes in allowing insurance companies to cut off cancer treatnment to someone because they used to have acne when they were a teenager, Doug?   

I know you have some different ideas of what's right and wrong in America from most other places, as you've pointed out - but surely not that different.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM

McGrath,

You seemed to have picked up on the trend that the Republican's "all or nothing" strategy on this bill makes them look mean and stupid. How long do you think it with be before Doug realizes that?

Even more interesting how long before he admits that he realizes that?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM

Jack:

Answers: Never. and Never.

Besides, Doug LIKES looking mean and stupid; to him its a badge of honor.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

He knows, DougR. I think you misunderstood the intent of his post.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM

Greg,

I'm pretty sure that DougR realizes more than he lets on. He is pretty, sensible for a Republican.

He certainly compares favorably to Cantor and Boehner.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:40 AM

>>>>Reconciliation... Thats a strategy that seems acceptable to the Democrats.<<

The Republicans have never done that right? Show us your knowledge of civics Doug!<<

Never? What does never have to do with it? Let's talk the 18 years. THOSE are the Republicans we have to work with right now, not some imaginary or long-dead ones. And not reconciliations where the Dems laid down and died. Those are too easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: GUEST,Alf Landon
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:35 AM

hey take it easy on Alf (even though you are correct) He married my grandmother's sister, but she died in the 1918 Flu Epidemic. My great-aunt coulda been the spouse of the biggest loser in Presidential history( and as you noted, a politician who was renowned for getting it exactly wrong), if she hadn't died. That close to bein' famous-that close!
seth from Olympia

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:25 AM

""I'm pretty sure that DougR realizes more than he lets on. He is pretty, sensible for a Republican.

He certainly compares favorably to Cantor and Boehner.""

Scooby Doo compares more than favourably with Cantor and Boehner, but I wouldn't call him pretty, or sensible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:20 AM

You beat me to it, Don- I was going to comment that planaria compare favorably to Cantor and Boehner.

Where precisely Doug fits on this continuium is a matter of some debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:17 AM

From the other side of the pond I am getting more and more appaled by the wilder claimes of the republican extemists opposed to the bill. I am close to a lot of people over there and cannot believe that any of you would believe some of teh rubbish we are hearing via our news.

The UK health service lets old people die because it cannot afford to keep them alive. Oh yea? My Dad, 87 year old Polish war veteran been in this country since 1945 is just out of hospital. He had a problem a week last Monday. We took him to casualty. They kept him in and sorted the problem, have arranged health care and social work visits and he was discharged Monday just gone only when they were happy he was well enough to be let out. How much? Free. Any hastle or questions about age? No.

The UK health serveice lets children die because they have not contributed to the system. My nephew was born too early and suffered brain damage. The local childrens hospital worked absolute wonders to keep him alive and make sure he could live life to teh full. He is now over 30 and although he will never be 'normal' he has had had a full and useful time with all the help and support he and his parents could ever want. How much? Nothing? Any question of them 'turning support off' - either life support or support later? None.

The UK health service only treats major ilnesses. Minor ones are left unchecked. I have had polyps removed twice - Once privately and once on the health service. I have not had a problem since the health service procedure. I only waited about 4 weeks. The doctors see millions of people every week and treat everything from common colds to chilblains. No charge for any of it. No matter how major or minor. No matter how young or old the patient. No matter how often it happens.

When your Repuplicans tell you it is not working in the UK, I recommend you tell them it is not perfect. But it is a damn site better than they are suggesting.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 09:26 AM

Sorry - Should have linked to the news stories that are reaching here -

Here's one I'm sure you have heard more of the nonsense yourself anyway.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:04 PM

Our current crop of "Republicans" operate in a fact-free environment, David- those few left with brains are too gutless to condemn the loonies in the party. Perhaps this sort of thing should be expected from demagopgues to whom winning elections by pandering to peoples' paranoia and ignorance is standard operating procedure.

But what's more disturbing are the numbers of presumably intelligent human beings who BELIEVE this bullshit in the face of conclusive evidence that it IS bullshit.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:16 PM

>>Scooby Doo compares more than favourably with Cantor and Boehner

rruh rroh!!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:23 PM

I'm from Canada, when I had the best type of corporate health care, first HMO then PPO, Aetna, United Health Care and Blue Cross Blue Shield, my family got as good a service as I did, as fast, with more choices. I had to pick my doctors from lists and I couldn't see the same doctors when I switched providers. My family could, and still can go to any doctor with an appointment available.

Don't let the government get between you and your doctor the Republicans say.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:27 PM

But David, don't despair, anyone who wants real news can get it.

Keep in mind that Fox News and Murdoch's "Sun" news papers in this country pandering to and reinforcing ignorance. Instead of "Fair and Balanced" it should be "Giving the ignorant what they want."

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

Is there any kind of procedure for making newspapers in the USA who tell direct lies publish corrections? Or would that be seen as interfering with free speech?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:05 PM

THere is supposed to be an innate ethic in the industry that prompts them to the act, but that was before they discovered they could make more money with electrifying but false stories than with dry true ones.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:11 PM

The only procedure I know of is to sue them.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:13 PM

McGrath of Harlow, I think that would interfere with the business model of selling lies to those who want to read them.

Do Murdoch's media tell the truth in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:15 PM

That was back in the 1860's, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:16 PM

You can only sue, if the lie is about you, it is proven to be intentional, you have suffered monetary damages and you are not a public figure (politician).

That leaves a lot of lies that can be told unfettered.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:19 PM

"There is supposed to be an innate ethic in the industry

In other words, "No!!!"

There are newspapers with ethical standarsds, and journalists who'd like to have ethical standards - but, in any country, "the industry" never has any standards, unless it is forced to, either by law or maybe by unionised journalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:48 PM

""An email widely circulated among US voters, of uncertain origin, claims that anyone over 59 in Britain is ineligible for treatment for heart disease.""

Really strange that one.

In October 2005 I was diagnosed with Aeschemic Heart Disease. By Jan 16th 2006, I'd had all the necessary tests, followed by an Angioplasty performed at St. Thomas' Hospital in London (one of the finest in the World), and was into the first week of a five month course of Cardiac Rehabilitation.

I was 65 years old in Feb 2006.

My father had his first hip replacement at the age of 65, and being a very keen and active golfer, needed a second replacement, which he received at the age of 84.

My mother was treated for Pancreatic Cancer at the age of 87. She died age 88, and my father went into a care home after treatment, at age 88 for an Oesophagal Cancer, where he was looked after until his death last July at the age of 89.

Not one of these treatments involved money changing hands, and the care was as good as any in the World, and better than most.

One last point. N.I.C.E. do not refuse drugs which offer a realistic chance of a cure, no matter what the cost. Where they draw the line, is at the point of spending many thousands of pounds on a drug which may possibly extend the life of some terminally ill persons by two or three months, or may have no effect whatever. This makes sense to most reasonably intelligent people, though of course it is very hard on the patient and his/her family.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican Waterloo? Health Care?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:19 AM

If you look at the article, Keith, it makes it quite clear that they are reporting 'half-truths and innacuracies', in their own terms. Trouble is, it is reported in yet another newspaper so what can be believed?

I am in complete agreemnet with you JtS - I think the Media have an awful lot to answer for in the world and the ability to broadcast those half-truths and inaccuracies to many more people has made matters even worse. I would be in favour of a complete embargo on all such reporting but for the worry that we would then be in a similar situation to countries where the only news you get is censored by the state:-(

Basicaly, if everyone just didn't beleive a word they printed we would be a lot happier, but what chance do we have of that!

Cheers

DeG