Conservatives near revolt on Senate health care negotiations

[XenaLee]

Really.  Remember the various Reagan-inspired tax reforms in 1986?  The first parts came in 1983, culminating in the 1986 comprehensive tax reform.  The republicans got started early, and brought it to a crescendo in 1986.  All I needed was one example.  Game.  Set.  Match.

Now, you show me where an overweaning emphasis on ideological purity has gotten anyone anything, other than dead.  Put up or shut up, sport.

You're living in the past there, old sport.  Plus, you're attempting rather stupidly to compare apples to oranges.  For one thing, the Dems controlled the House during those years.  They, rightly so, lost control of both houses last November... which means the Reps have more power now to get what they want passed.... not what the rats want.

And in case you haven't noticed, things have become much more partisan and divided since then.  (duh)   You know all these things.... but your penchant for playing fast and loose with truth is well-established here by now.

One thing's for sure.   The Democrats are no doubt applauding, cheering and approving of YOUR stance on this.

[Oceander]

You're living in the past there, old sport.  Plus, you're attempting rather stupidly to compare apples to oranges.  For one thing, the Dems controlled the House during those years.  They, rightly so, lost control of both houses last November... which means the Reps have more power now to get what they want passed.... not what the rats want.

And in case you haven't noticed, things have become much more partisan and divided since then.  (duh)   You know all these things.... but your penchant for playing fast and loose with truth is well-established here by now.

One thing's for sure.   The Democrats are no doubt applauding, cheering and approving of YOUR stance on this.

Sorry sport, I was asked - and you insisted on - an example, just one itty-bitty example, where republicans started, then came back and finished up.  And I did.  I'm sorry that you don't like being proven a fool, but such is life.

[XenaLee]

Sorry sport, I was asked - and you insisted on - an example, just one itty-bitty example, where republicans started, then came back and finished up.  And I did.  I'm sorry that you don't like being proven a fool, but such is life.

Lol..... you might want to check a mirror on that, old sport.  Seriously.

[Oceander]

Lol..... you might want to check a mirror on that, old sport.  Seriously.

Are you stalking me?  Seriously. 

[XenaLee]

Are you stalking me?  Seriously.

Stop telling other members here to "run along".  Seriously.

[Oceander]

Stop telling other members here to "run along".  Seriously.

Yeah, I thought you were.  You're dangerous.

[XenaLee]

Yeah, I thought you were.  You're dangerous.

And yet.... you're the one obnoxiously telling a member here that she is wasting everyone's time and to "run along". 

[Oceander]

And yet.... you're the one obnoxiously telling a member here that she is wasting everyone's time and to "run along". 

And that justifies your stalking me?  Are you doxxing me as well?  You're just like Katzenjammer. 

[MOD3]

Topic locked.

[Smokin Joe]

So you think the Dems that take their place, putting Pelosi and Schumer in the Speaker/Majority Leader positions, will vote for conservative ideas? Do you actually want MORE liberal Supreme Court Justices?

I never said that. I just have the unfathomable temerity to recognize that the GOP only cements the gains of the Democrats, it doesn't reverse them--which is the whole point of having a Party in opposition to the Democrats, to UNDO some of the damage they have done.Since the GOP has failed in their role as opposition, let's try some more Democrat, and maybe, just maybe, that will whet the appetite of America for people who will do what they say. If the Democrats say they are going to tax you pi$$le$$, steal your land, rape your wife and shoot your dog, you can count on that at a minimum. If the Republicans say they will lower taxes, keep your land and wife safe, and your little dog, too, You'd better put up a good fence, keep watch on your dog, and arm your wife, too. Because you can't count on them to do jack. Those B@st@rds are in office to oppose the Democratic policies, and they aren't doing it. If that means suffering through another round of Dems to get them out and hopefully get someone in there who will reverse those Liberal gains and more, lets get it done.

Somehow you seem to think the GOP is taking care of business with half measures and consolidated Liberal gains, but that just isn't so.

The Republicans you refer to are generally in moderate to liberal districts....so they have little choice but to bear SOME resemblance to their constituencies...you teaching them a lesson won't give us more "truly" conservative reps from those districts in the future. All that will do is give us more Liberal governance, for longer periods of time, with even more radically liberal justices and legislation ensuing. And you think that is a good idea?

If the country is so far gone they'd let a Democrat win rather than elect a Conservative, then it is better to get it over with while I am still young enough to teach my great grandchildren some woodcraft, because it isn't going to change, and will only prolong the inevitable. Why inevitable? Because of the people who have surrendered and are willing to eat half a turd to keep from eating the whole thing.

Bon appetit!
Don't save me a seat at that table.

[Hoodat]

@Smokin Joe

Awesome post.  100% correct.  Republicans recognize that Obamacare will fail as is.  Yet instead of ending it, they are working towards fixing it to save it.

[Hoodat]

And then they realized that they'd have to replace it, and that's where all the trouble is.

Uh, no.  Your premise is patently false.  They don't "have to replace it".  They simply have to get government the hell out of the way.

But it is quite revealing to see you defend a new government entitlement administered by the IRS.  It proves to everyone that you are no Conservative.

[jmyrlefuller]

We are heading for single payer one way or another unless the primary principle - That government has no business being in health care - Is upheld. (...) What we want, is government out of health care. (...) NONE of that is in this bill, and NONE of that is being supported by Republicans, despite what they SAY they are for.

Do you want to know why your notion of separation of government and health care isn't being pushed by Republicans? Because almost NOBODY—not in this country, not even on this planet—actually believes that. The reason, of course, is that under that Ayn Rand dream world, if someone gets sick and cannot pay, they either die or end up enslaved to debt, and nobody wants to see people lose their life or liberty at the hands of capitalism, no matter how rigid certain Republicans want to be about it.

It is no exaggeration that the United States was the last remaining country on planet Earth to not demand everyone be "covered." There's some good things to be said about that. However, the issue that medical costs are far too high, and cannot be lowered substantially because of massive overhead (driven by education costs among other things), is one that is not going to be solved easily.

[roamer_1]

Do you want to know why your notion of separation of government and health care isn't being pushed by Republicans? Because almost NOBODY—not in this country, not even on this planet—actually believes that. The reason, of course, is that under that Ayn Rand dream world, if someone gets sick and cannot pay, they either die or end up enslaved to debt, and nobody wants to see people lose their life or liberty at the hands of capitalism, no matter how rigid certain Republicans want to be about it.

@jmyrlefuller

Typical liberal nonsense. NONSENSE. There is NO ONE here without medical care, with the exception of lower middle class, especially self-employed - which I was, without insurance, paying cash for service most of my life, because I was never eligible for insurance, or rather, because of my ineligibility, the cost for insurance was far too high...

I fell ill, wound up in a wheelchair, in screaming pain, for seven years. Lost absolutely everything other than my house and a couple cars, went medically bankrupt, wound up disabled. Through it all, I was never denied care, and in fact, was delivered BETTER healthcare once I was disabled and without means.

Your argument is bullsh*t, because I lived it. There is a very robust safety net at the bottom.

It is no exaggeration that the United States was the last remaining country on planet Earth to not demand everyone be "covered."

It is also no wonder why people come here to get well - Socialist systems don't work. I personally know two people who sold everything they had to come here to be healed, when their medical system denied them care - Both cancer patients, both would have died... Yet they came here and were cured.

There's some good things to be said about that. However, the issue that medical costs are far too high, and cannot be lowered substantially because of massive overhead (driven by education costs among other things), is one that is not going to be solved easily.

More bullcrap. It can be solved simply. What will not solve it is letting the government take a rake off the top and fix prices and services, which is where we are going.

It cannot be cheaper for someone else to pay your bills. It is further away from cheaper for the government to pay someone else to pay your bills. Is it any wonder that the cost is high? you are going exactly in the wrong direction.

[txradioguy]

It is no exaggeration that the United States was the last remaining country on planet Earth to not demand everyone be "covered."

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact we don't demand that either.

[Bigun]

I never said that. I just have the unfathomable temerity to recognize that the GOP only cements the gains of the Democrats, it doesn't reverse them--which is the whole point of having a Party in opposition to the Democrats, to UNDO some of the damage they have done.Since the GOP has failed in their role as opposition, let's try some more Democrat, and maybe, just maybe, that will whet the appetite of America for people who will do what they say. If the Democrats say they are going to tax you pi$$le$$, steal your land, rape your wife and shoot your dog, you can count on that at a minimum. If the Republicans say they will lower taxes, keep your land and wife safe, and your little dog, too, You'd better put up a good fence, keep watch on your dog, and arm your wife, too. Because you can't count on them to do jack. Those B@st@rds are in office to oppose the Democratic policies, and they aren't doing it. If that means suffering through another round of Dems to get them out and hopefully get someone in there who will reverse those Liberal gains and more, lets get it done.

Somehow you seem to think the GOP is taking care of business with half measures and consolidated Liberal gains, but that just isn't so.
If the country is so far gone they'd let a Democrat win rather than elect a Conservative, then it is better to get it over with while I am still young enough to teach my great grandchildren some woodcraft, because it isn't going to change, and will only prolong the inevitable. Why inevitable? Because of the people who have surrendered and are willing to eat half a turd to keep from eating the whole thing.

Bon appetit!
Don't save me a seat at that table.

@Smokin Joe

"The statists believe in a powerful, activist central government that advances a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion. The hide behind misguided notions of empathy and push token talking points about fighting for the little guy, all the while empowering the federal government to coercively and blatantly undermine state-, local-, and self-governance.” pg. 320

“The truth is, I don’t care what party the statist is in. The fact of the matter is, it is the statist, and those who support or enable him, who is the problem. For too long he has undermined this country by empowering the national government at the expense of liberty. An America defined by the statist in Washington is an America doomed to fail.” ” pg. 338

(both quotes from Perry, Rick; Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington.

Regardless of anyone's opinions of them, they are right as rain here!

[XenaLee]

Uh, no.  Your premise is patently false.  They don't "have to replace it".  They simply have to get government the hell out of the way.

But it is quite revealing to see you defend a new government entitlement administered by the IRS.  It proves to everyone that you are no Conservative.

Bingo!

[XenaLee]

And that justifies your stalking me?  Are you doxxing me as well?  You're just like Katzenjammer.

Myst.... could you PM me about this post of his?  I have a question.  @mystery-ak

[Mesaclone]

If you can't do it, just say so.  No need to get nasty.  You don't know a thing about me.  In fact, I would love for you to be correct and prove me wrong.  I'm not too stubborn to admit that I am wrong in the face of proof that I am.

Easy peasy. Lincoln first barred slavery in ONLY the states in revolt. Then came back later to ban it in the non-revolting border states via constitutional amendment. Case in point.

[RoosGirl]

Easy peasy. Lincoln first barred slavery in ONLY the states in revolt. Then came back later to ban it in the non-revolting border states via constitutional amendment. Case in point.

Great. We have been given one e,ample from 30 years ago that is dubious because the dems contrled the House both times and one example from 150 ysars ago.  I guess technically I have been proved wrong, but I think I won't hold my breath.

[jmyrlefuller]

It can be solved simply.

Then why hasn't it been solved? Is the New World Order/Illuminati somehow repressing the Truth?

I fell ill, wound up in a wheelchair, in screaming pain, for seven years. Lost absolutely everything other than my house and a couple cars, went medically bankrupt, wound up disabled. Through it all, I was never denied care, and in fact, was delivered BETTER healthcare once I was disabled and without means.

Your argument is bullsh*t, because I lived it. There is a very robust safety net at the bottom.

Your post proves my point. You were sick and COULD pay. Others can't. When you ran out, it was most likely GOVERNMENT that bailed you out. That robust safety net is GOVERNMENT. If you had received your wish, you would still be in screaming pain.

[XenaLee]

Great. We have been given one e,ample from 30 years ago that is dubious because the dems contrled the House both times and one example from 150 ysars ago.  I guess technically I have been proved wrong, but I think I won't hold my breath.

Neither "example" is even remotely comparable to the situation we have now.  Which perfectly illustrates that they (those who argue against repeal) have NOTHING in the way of a substantive point as to why the GOP should not stick to following through on what they promised and campaigned on.

[Sanguine]

Do you want to know why your notion of separation of government and health care isn't being pushed by Republicans? Because almost NOBODY—not in this country, not even on this planet—actually believes that. The reason, of course, is that under that Ayn Rand dream world, if someone gets sick and cannot pay, they either die or end up enslaved to debt, and nobody wants to see people lose their life or liberty at the hands of capitalism, no matter how rigid certain Republicans want to be about it.

It is no exaggeration that the United States was the last remaining country on planet Earth to not demand everyone be "covered." There's some good things to be said about that. However, the issue that medical costs are far too high, and cannot be lowered substantially because of massive overhead (driven by education costs among other things), is one that is not going to be solved easily.

@jmyrlefuller, let me say upfront, that I find you a very thoughtful and considerate poster.  But - this post of yours scares the hell out of me.  If this is really what you believe, and to some extent representative of younger conservatives, we have gone way, way off course. 

There are many problems with a populace that accepts that a "separation of government and healthcare" is not the right way. 

#1 argument against those feelings is that our nation was formed based on the idea that our rights come from God, and are inherent and cannot be taken from us by a legitimate government.  The Constitution is the legal document that binds us together as a nation.  It's not just old words on old parchment, but the binding contract that justifies our nation.  So, that leaves us with the fact that either the government can't do this, or is illegitimate.  If it does it, the contract has been broken.

#2 argument:  stuff happens.  Some of us do better out of this life than do others.  Crappy things happen to all of us, as evidenced by Roamer (and, me, for that matter).  Whether the stuff happens because of decisions we make or pure luck or providence or whatever, we do not have any right to force the consequences of our personal misfortunes onto other people.  We just don't.  And, when you take a large portion (or small or middle-sized) of what I work for and own to take care of yourself, that is just flat wrong.  We have agreed, through the Constitution, to give up a small amount of those personal resources for some very specific and limited purposes.  Paying for my neighbor's appendicitis, or some guy's addiction treatment, or you paying for my cancer treatment is not a part of our federal compact.  Sorry, but it's just not.

Another part of argument #2 is that when you take my resources away from me, I am less able to provide for me and mine, and must, of necessity, become more dependent on the government, which breaks down familial/societal bonds and hastens the society of dependence and entitlement that is so damaging and that we rail against regularly here.

And, every penny taken out of citizens' hands is a penny out of the economy that is now not useful and weakens the economy....making it harder to take care of oneself and more dependent....etc.

I hope I misunderstood your comment.  I really do.

[Smokin Joe]

Easy peasy. Lincoln first barred slavery in ONLY the states in revolt. Then came back later to ban it in the non-revolting border states via constitutional amendment. Case in point.

No, it isn't.
Lincoln banning slavery by decree in the Confederacy had as much effect as the US Congress passing a law that all German Gasthauses have to serve Coors or that Brazilians have to speak Urdu, or a law repealing Obamacare when Obama is in office.
IOW, no effect at all.
He was operating outside his jurisdiction. The only reason the 'border' states were not "in revolt" or at least contested was that they were militarily occupied, Habeas Corpus had been suspended. If there's any doubt, I refer you to the First line of the MD state song, which referred to the invasion by Northern Troops.

"The despot's heel is on thy shore..."

, written by an expatriate Marylander in Louisiana in 1861.

The Constitutional Amendment to ban slavery (The Thirteenth Amendment) in the Union had to pass through Congress and be ratified, and was a whole new deal.

On April 8, 1864, the Senate passed an amendment to abolish slavery. After one unsuccessful vote and extensive legislative maneuvering by the Lincoln administration, the House followed suit on January 31, 1865. The measure was swiftly ratified by nearly all Northern states, along with a sufficient number of border and "reconstructed" Southern states, to cause it to be adopted before the end of the year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Hoodat]

Easy peasy. Lincoln first barred slavery in ONLY the states in revolt. Then came back later to ban it in the non-revolting border states via constitutional amendment. Case in point.

Great example.  Lincoln and most of the GOP was not willing to fight for the 13th Amendment.  It was only because of those like John Fremont standing on principle who won that fight.