Author Topic: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?  (Read 5176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #105 on: November 16, 2012, 11:35:34 AM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222
No, I was precise enough. Your evidence is that Obama was forced to compromise with members of his own party to get the legislation passed. Nothing more. You might claim that Obama would have made concessions large enough to garner republican support but you've obviously offered no evidence to back that up.
This is nothing different than what you've already stated before. As I said, it's just that you won't accept it, not that the evidence doesn't exist. Obama made high-profile overtures to members of the GOP on this issue.

It's convenient to claim that Obama simply compromised with his own party (which apparently also includes independents), but it's not accurate. The root of the line in the sand was politics, not substance, as evidenced by flip-flopping of members of the GOP as soon as it became apparent that someone wanted them to put their votes where their mouths were.

Quote
The republican proposal was the more intelligent way to solve the problem, get the spending under control before you greatly expand the program.
Supported by nothing. GOP's proposal, to the extent that you can even call it such a thing, was nibbling at the edges of the problem. There is an avalanche of evidence as to how to tackle the HC issue, since every other developed country in the world does it better than we do. Tort reform is so far from being equal to the scale of the problem that it's hilarious.

Quote
That horse has left the barn, you've already admitted that moderate democrats were the ones that caused the compromises that you've brought up. Trying to label them as conservatives or claiming that they "supported the Republican orthodoxy" isn't going to get a lot of traction.
Traction with whom? My goal isn't to convince you -- these aren't PMs, and I've already pointed out that you don't accept evidence -- it's to lay out the facts for everyone else who might be reading. The ACA contains conservative ideas, it's a matter of fact.

Quote
Actually it's a mark of the inherent unrealistic nature of your position that I had to come up with such an example.
Actually, it's the first thing that I said. Political opportunism is not unrealistic. You can even point to the 2010 midterms as evidence that it worked as a strategy.

Quote
There's no way you'll convince anyone that the health care bill was close enough to a bipartisan idea that adding a few ideas that republicans might support would be enough to tip the scales to get them to support it.
Who is trying to do that? My position is that the Republicans wouldn't agree to *anything*. The difference here is that I recognize it as intransigence, and "others" see it as a lack of outreach on the part of the POTUS.

Quote
I have a hard time believing that Obama was stupid enough to think that adding something like the individual mandate would be sufficient to get republicans to ignore everything they disliked about the bill and support it. Clearly, if Obama knew that adding those provisions to the bill would not gain him a single vote then claiming that adding those provisions was some sort of bi-partisan compromise is silly.
The individual mandate and the insurance exchanges. Why do you keep ignoring the exchanges? The only time you've ever even acknowledged that they existed, was to wrongly suppose that the insurance companies had something to do with it.

I'll bet that Obama would have given them tort reform, too, but only for an actual vote. He'll throw the Democratic trial lawyers under the bus, but after the debacle of the ARRA, he's not doing it for free, since unlike the mandate and the exchanges, he probably doesn't actually believe in it.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #106 on: November 16, 2012, 11:57:11 AM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
No, I was precise enough. Your evidence is that Obama was forced to compromise with members of his own party to get the legislation passed. Nothing more. You might claim that Obama would have made concessions large enough to garner republican support but you've obviously offered no evidence to back that up.
This is nothing different than what you've already stated before. As I said, it's just that you won't accept it, not that the evidence doesn't exist. Obama made high-profile overtures to members of the GOP on this issue.

It's convenient to claim that Obama simply compromised with his own party (which apparently also includes independents), but it's not accurate. The root of the line in the sand was politics, not substance, as evidenced by flip-flopping of members of the GOP as soon as it became apparent that someone wanted them to put their votes where their mouths were.

Quote
The republican proposal was the more intelligent way to solve the problem, get the spending under control before you greatly expand the program.
Supported by nothing. GOP's proposal, to the extent that you can even call it such a thing, was nibbling at the edges of the problem. There is an avalanche of evidence as to how to tackle the HC issue, since every other developed country in the world does it better than we do. Tort reform is so far from being equal to the scale of the problem that it's hilarious.

Quote
That horse has left the barn, you've already admitted that moderate democrats were the ones that caused the compromises that you've brought up. Trying to label them as conservatives or claiming that they "supported the Republican orthodoxy" isn't going to get a lot of traction.
Traction with whom? My goal isn't to convince you -- these aren't PMs, and I've already pointed out that you don't accept evidence -- it's to lay out the facts for everyone else who might be reading. The ACA contains conservative ideas, it's a matter of fact.

Quote
Actually it's a mark of the inherent unrealistic nature of your position that I had to come up with such an example.
Actually, it's the first thing that I said. Political opportunism is not unrealistic. You can even point to the 2010 midterms as evidence that it worked as a strategy.

Quote
There's no way you'll convince anyone that the health care bill was close enough to a bipartisan idea that adding a few ideas that republicans might support would be enough to tip the scales to get them to support it.
Who is trying to do that? My position is that the Republicans wouldn't agree to *anything*. The difference here is that I recognize it as intransigence, and "others" see it as a lack of outreach on the part of the POTUS.

Quote
I have a hard time believing that Obama was stupid enough to think that adding something like the individual mandate would be sufficient to get republicans to ignore everything they disliked about the bill and support it. Clearly, if Obama knew that adding those provisions to the bill would not gain him a single vote then claiming that adding those provisions was some sort of bi-partisan compromise is silly.
The individual mandate and the insurance exchanges. Why do you keep ignoring the exchanges? The only time you've ever even acknowledged that they existed, was to wrongly suppose that the insurance companies had something to do with it.

I'll bet that Obama would have given them tort reform, too, but only for an actual vote. He'll throw the Democratic trial lawyers under the bus, but after the debacle of the ARRA, he's not doing it for free, since unlike the mandate and the exchanges, he probably doesn't actually believe in it.

  First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything. Obviously the bill was so far to the left that it wasn't going to get any republican votes, the fact that it was so far to the left indicates a disinterest in compromise. All we saw was an attempt to get someone like Snowe to endorse such a plan when the public outcry became so significant.

  As for the exchanges, I didn't ignore them, and I didn't claim that the insurance companies had something to do with it. I merely pointed out that, although you're trying to use it as an example of bipartisan compromise, you admitted that the idea was killed by liberal democrats.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #107 on: November 16, 2012, 12:03:08 PM »

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9521
  • Tommy Points: 721
  First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.

There is no contradiction in arguing that Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and arguing that Republicans were unwilling to compromise.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #108 on: November 16, 2012, 12:08:50 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.

There is no contradiction in arguing that Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and arguing that Republicans were unwilling to compromise.

  You don't seem to seem to factor "starting from a point too far to the left to get any of the right to support the bill" into your determination of whether either side wanted to compromise. It makes more of a difference than you might imagine.


Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #109 on: November 16, 2012, 12:22:43 PM »

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9521
  • Tommy Points: 721
Compromise often means you end up somewhere other than the starting point.  Republicans seemed uninterested in offering compromises to move the bill rightward and appeared to prefer the status quo to doing anything significant in the area of health care reform.  We've been hearing the refrain of "repeal and replace" for two years, but we've heard nothing about any replacement plans.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #110 on: November 16, 2012, 12:32:42 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38894
  • Tommy Points: 1967
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
  First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.

There is no contradiction in arguing that Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and arguing that Republicans were unwilling to compromise.

  You don't seem to seem to factor "starting from a point too far to the left to get any of the right to support the bill" into your determination of whether either side wanted to compromise. It makes more of a difference than you might imagine.

You've argued this point before. However, isn't it also possible that republicans never had any intention of any elective bi-partisan efforts with the president? Seems like the only thing they compromised at all on was the debt ceiling, and that was a compromise in the same way the US and Iran 'Compromised' over the hostages in the 1981.

Republican leadership made it pretty well known that stonewalling any legislative efforts by the democrats and Obama was priority number one. You say they started out 'too far of left', but the healthcare remains overwhelmingly privatized, and incorporated numerous ideals that were formerly parts of republican healthcare platforms.

I don't agree with your assessment of what happened vis-a-vis compromise vs no compromise, but even if you're saying the president was unwilling to compromise based on your assumed motives for the guy, based on what republicans were actually saying leading up to his inauguration and the opening salvos of the healthcare bill, you have to admit there is an extremely good chance that there was no true compromise to be had with the republicans regardless. They were not going to co-operate in any way that they absolutely didn't have to with the president.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #111 on: November 16, 2012, 01:54:06 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
  First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.

There is no contradiction in arguing that Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and arguing that Republicans were unwilling to compromise.

  You don't seem to seem to factor "starting from a point too far to the left to get any of the right to support the bill" into your determination of whether either side wanted to compromise. It makes more of a difference than you might imagine.

You've argued this point before. However, isn't it also possible that republicans never had any intention of any elective bi-partisan efforts with the president?

  Yes.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #112 on: November 16, 2012, 02:13:37 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222
First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.
Two things that are not in conflict with each other. To refresh memories:

"Obama/Reid/Pelosi had zero interest in bipartisan compromise when they were working on the health care bill."

Never mind that you can't actually substantiate the "interest" level of any of these people, the facts available show that they did attempt to compromise (which suggests non-zero interest), particularly in the case of Obama.

Quote
Obviously the bill was so far to the left that it wasn't going to get any republican votes, the fact that it was so far to the left indicates a disinterest in compromise. All we saw was an attempt to get someone like Snowe to endorse such a plan when the public outcry became so significant.
You say "obviously" as if it were a point beyond argument. Liberals hate the supposedly-left ACA, because it 1) isn't single payer, 2) leaves a lot of power to the states, 3) relies on a market-based solution for the individual market that they don't think will work, 4) doesn't get rid of the pre-tax employer-provided healthcare benefits, 5) has no employer mandate,  and a host of other things.

Some liberal cram-down. It has markets for individual insurance coverage, regulation on minimum credible coverage (this is controversial?), an individual mandate, an expansion of Medicaid, subsidies to protect low income people from the cost of insurance, new taxes, pilot programs to reduce costs systemically (like bundling), an advisory panel to weigh in on rationing acceptable expenses, etc.

It's no right-wing fantasy bill either, but if everything to the left of "cuts costs with tort reform and unspecified other magical asterisks" is "too left", you can't even have a discussion about it.

Quote
As for the exchanges, I didn't ignore them, and I didn't claim that the insurance companies had something to do with it. I merely pointed out that, although you're trying to use it as an example of bipartisan compromise, you admitted that the idea was killed by liberal democrats.
Liberal Democrats didn't kill the exchanges; they think that exchanges are dumb. The liberals gave up on the public option, a compromise, so that the bill could actually get passed.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #113 on: November 16, 2012, 03:38:21 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4005
  • Tommy Points: 352
First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.
Two things that are not in conflict with each other. To refresh memories:

"Obama/Reid/Pelosi had zero interest in bipartisan compromise when they were working on the health care bill."

Never mind that you can't actually substantiate the "interest" level of any of these people, the facts available show that they did attempt to compromise (which suggests non-zero interest), particularly in the case of Obama.

Quote
Obviously the bill was so far to the left that it wasn't going to get any republican votes, the fact that it was so far to the left indicates a disinterest in compromise. All we saw was an attempt to get someone like Snowe to endorse such a plan when the public outcry became so significant.
You say "obviously" as if it were a point beyond argument. Liberals hate the supposedly-left ACA, because it 1) isn't single payer, 2) leaves a lot of power to the states, 3) relies on a market-based solution for the individual market that they don't think will work, 4) doesn't get rid of the pre-tax employer-provided healthcare benefits, 5) has no employer mandate,  and a host of other things.

Some liberal cram-down. It has markets for individual insurance coverage, regulation on minimum credible coverage (this is controversial?), an individual mandate, an expansion of Medicaid, subsidies to protect low income people from the cost of insurance, new taxes, pilot programs to reduce costs systemically (like bundling), an advisory panel to weigh in on rationing acceptable expenses, etc.

It's no right-wing fantasy bill either, but if everything to the left of "cuts costs with tort reform and unspecified other magical asterisks" is "too left", you can't even have a discussion about it.

Quote
As for the exchanges, I didn't ignore them, and I didn't claim that the insurance companies had something to do with it. I merely pointed out that, although you're trying to use it as an example of bipartisan compromise, you admitted that the idea was killed by liberal democrats.
Liberal Democrats didn't kill the exchanges; they think that exchanges are dumb. The liberals gave up on the public option, a compromise, so that the bill could actually get passed.

That's rich, thanks. Power to the states? They have to run these exchanges according to federal guidelines, and if they operate it themselves, there is no guarantee there will be federal funding after the first few years. The states have little power, what you're saying is 100% incorrect. Having no choice but to implement a federal program does not give states much power.

My favorite part of your post is this
Quote
an advisory panel to weigh in on rationing acceptable expenses, etc.

I'm sure cutting costs of course won't involve rationing, they'll just recommend buying cheaper band aids and bed covers, or they'll just give grandma a pill...

Quote
relies on a market-based solution for the individual market that they don't think will work, 4) doesn't get rid of the pre-tax employer-provided healthcare benefits, 5) has no employer mandate,  and a host of other things.

A bill that contains price controls and regulations determining level of coverage are not market based. Forcing everyone into buying a product is not a market based idea, not is subsidizing(which I'm sure we can afford) the purchase of insurance. You have a weird interpretation of what "market based" means.

Employers will have incentive to drop coverage, and as we have seen already from a few large employers, reduce hours and staff.





Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #114 on: November 16, 2012, 04:17:34 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1968
  • Tommy Points: 222
That's rich, thanks. Power to the states?
You heard me. Liberals don't like it, unless you're Vermont and want to try to use it as a way to implement single payer in your state.

Quote
I'm sure cutting costs of course won't involve rationing
I'm sure that it will. You appear to have missed my point. We already ration by means, maybe in the future we can ration by outcomes and means both.

This is one of the great tragedies of the Republican intransigence on this issue; we could have had a national conversation about rationing. The other tragedy, is missing the chance to kill tax-free employer health benefits forever (Democrats can never do this alone because of unions).

Quote
A bill that contains price controls and regulations determining level of coverage are not market based. Forcing everyone into buying a product is not a market based idea, not is subsidizing(which I'm sure we can afford) the purchase of insurance. You have a weird interpretation of what "market based" means.
It means, strangely enough, "based on markets", which the exchanges are. It does not mean that all of the component parts are straight-line laissez-faire.

Quote
Employers will have incentive to drop coverage, and as we have seen already from a few large employers, reduce hours and staff.
This is great. I hope that the employer-based health care system dies an un-mourned death.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2012, 04:20:24 PM »

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9521
  • Tommy Points: 721
Some liberals online are crowing that Republican governors refusing to implement the exchanges in their state and making the federal government do it are moving this country closer to single-payer by empowering the feds.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #116 on: November 16, 2012, 04:37:04 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
First of all, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Obama tried to compromise with republicans and that there was no compromise because the republicans wouldn't agree to anything.
Two things that are not in conflict with each other. To refresh memories:

"Obama/Reid/Pelosi had zero interest in bipartisan compromise when they were working on the health care bill."

Never mind that you can't actually substantiate the "interest" level of any of these people, the facts available show that they did attempt to compromise (which suggests non-zero interest), particularly in the case of Obama.

  I don't think that democrats compromising with other democrats constitutes bipartisan compromise and I don't see why you keep trying to claim that it does.

Quote
Obviously the bill was so far to the left that it wasn't going to get any republican votes, the fact that it was so far to the left indicates a disinterest in compromise. All we saw was an attempt to get someone like Snowe to endorse such a plan when the public outcry became so significant.
You say "obviously" as if it were a point beyond argument.

  I don't see why it wasn't. The actual voting seems to bear this out.

Quote
As for the exchanges, I didn't ignore them, and I didn't claim that the insurance companies had something to do with it. I merely pointed out that, although you're trying to use it as an example of bipartisan compromise, you admitted that the idea was killed by liberal democrats.
Liberal Democrats didn't kill the exchanges; they think that exchanges are dumb. The liberals gave up on the public option, a compromise, so that the bill could actually get passed.

  Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say "although you're trying to use it as an example of bipartisan compromise, you admitted that the idea was killed by *moderate* democrats".

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #117 on: November 17, 2012, 09:09:02 AM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Obamacare is simply not conservative or market based.

It's not conservative because its a massive, radical, change to government power in direct contrast to the American tradition of limited gov't and federalism. You cannot put lipstick on that pig. It's like saying the Vietnam War was in the tradition of pacifism because we planned to stop fighting once we achieved our victory. The federal government mandating states to do something is not an example of federalism, the federal government mandating individuals buy something or face a penaltytax is not either.

It might be a MINO program: market based in name only. I have giant healthcare customers and can tell you first hand the result of Obamacare. Big insurance companies win. The rules on how much profit you take require massive scale to cover the overhead. This is the end of innovation in the healthcare market. The regulation of the market services is so tight that you will see each company offering the same plans nationwide.

I don't know how you can say there was compromise or even attempts at compromise. As Nancy Pelosi famously stated: "we have to pass it to find out what's in it." Any principled legislature, progressive, liberal, libertarian, or conservative should vote against a bill written in such a way that only after its voted on can you determine what's in it. This was an old school majoritarian cram down from the Dems in control of Congress. Obama's leadership was MIA on the issue, other than bullying Republicans for PRINCIPLED objections to the bill. Lest we forget, this was not an issue Obama ran on, this was Obama and Emmanuel making sure they didn't "let a crisis go to waste." The Democrat senators did their part by cramming the bill through reconciliation.

In my view the organization of tea party protests and the resulting Republican take over of the people's house was a pure revolt against the incompetence of Nancy Pelosi and the over reach of the Democrats across the board. But it was also strongly ANTI-INCUMBENT which is why we saw numerous "establishment" type candidates fall in primaries too (incumbents and insiders.)

I saw a poll (might have been an exit poll) that said in 2012 Obamacare was unpopular with over 50% of the voters, but repeal did not have 50% support. The lack of support might be around the lack of clear explanation from repealers about what would replace Obamacare, even if they don't like it.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #118 on: November 17, 2012, 12:44:35 PM »

Offline OmarSekou

  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 721
  • Tommy Points: 93
All I remember from when Obamacare was proposed was Obama asking for debate and Republicans saying it wouldn't work. When he asked "why?" no one really stepped up, and then there was a whole bunch of talk on death panels and how the bill was long.

As far as filibustering, it makes no sense to me. Set a deadline for when things need to get done and make it so whoever is filibustering must offer specific criticism for why they oppose a bill and an alternative solution. Then have news sources cover these proceedings/debates and fact check them so the public has an idea of what's going on.

Filibustering is basically political flopping. Imagine the NBA if it was in the official rules that flopping was okay.

Re: Will filibuster reform be the Senate's first big test?
« Reply #119 on: November 17, 2012, 01:48:10 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8088
  • Tommy Points: 472
Quote
Obamacare is simply not conservative or market based.

Wrong.  Your so malinformed that is very sad.   Most all of the ideas in Obamacare were GOP ideas.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/obamacare_republicans_support_5_issues.php

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/239725-romneycareobamacarenixoncaredolecare

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein

It pays to read up on the past.   It was a GOP idea and this not something you can debate unless you completely ignore the facts.   Everytime I read a post like yours I am thankful for the electoral college and understand it's purpose to protect us from the people who are not informed.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.