The NHS & the United States of America

[jAQUAN]

It was a clip from the Family Guy premier. The first dimension they visited.

[gerbick]

Yeah. I would agree with that. Though, I think that it's pretty common for people sharing a party and similar ideologies to still have varying takes on the same issue.

So without a common plan that's decided upon by the opposition, isn't that just the same (end result at least) as filibustering? Nothing brought to the table that'll actually have a chance of getting voted through could be perceived as a delay tactic and not as a discussion tactic.

How do you perceive what's being done now? Just curious.

It's the same thing on the other side of this issue. The reason Obama is having trouble has a lot to do with Democrats who object to the plan.

The lack of discussion within the Democrats, to me seems to also be a delay tactic... but nothing has really come to the table as what needs to be an option that would get passed either.

No options means that people lose out. No discussion means the anger we're starting to see. I'd love to see something different than what we're saying now.

[Frets]

Sorry, I speak too broadly and succinctly sometimes. I only meant free health care for those who don't pay into the system in some way isn't fair. At least that's what I think the right it *****ing about. At any rate, reduce redundancy, invest safely and imo no one would care that their tax dollars keep americans healthy.

Children don't pay into the system until they are employed. Would you deny children healthcare?

[gerbick]

Children don't pay into the system until they are employed. Would you deny children healthcare?

No. Their parents take that up.

[FlashLackey]

So without a common plan that's decided upon by the opposition, isn't that just the same (end result at least) as filibustering? Nothing brought to the table that'll actually have a chance of getting voted through could be perceived as a delay tactic and not as a discussion tactic.

How do you perceive what's being done now? Just curious.

I don't think that everyone has to agree to a single opposition plan in order for it to not be filibustering. Nobody is going to bother putting legislation together that they already know doesn't have the numbers to get through. Even if they had the votes, Obama wouldn't sign an opposition solution.

My perception of what's being done now is that Obama is stuck between the impractical far left and the Democrats in the house and senate that want to keep their jobs. They're trying to avoid the embarrassment of not passing what they wanted to by moving the goal posts back on each aspect until they can finally pass something they can call reform.

[gerbick]

I didn't say everyone. I said a plan that could actually pass. Unanimous is the key word I left out.

[FlashLackey]

The ideas that the two "sides" have are distinctly different. So, passing something just for the sake of doing something about it isn't desirable to the opposition. Passing Obama's plan would be worse than not passing anything at all from the perspective of conservatives. It's the same in reverse. Obama would rather not pass anything than to push for the solutions that conservatives offer.

[gerbick]

No, no.

I mean bringing up an option that actually has a chance of getting passed. No more time-wasting with outlandish claims; draft up something that a majority of the people will actually pass. Not one of ideals - people are dying whilst jaw-jacking about ideals and positions.

Bring about something that actually counters, specifies and makes a compelling reform that fits better instead of rank belly-aching that solves nothing.

I'm quite sure the logic of "Oppose it? Then solve it!" applies here easily. Instead, what's apparent is "Oppose it? Then keep opposing it!" is all I see.

I don't mean pass something just to pass something. That solves nothing. Actually take the time to point-for-point explain why you are opposing something, then draft up something that's worthwhile. Forget about fear-mongering. Forget about audio soundbytes that just... sound great. Do something that solves something.

It ain't that hard. That's why they get voted in. They can't do it, then they should be voted out.

[FlashLackey]

Nothing the opposition would draft is going to be signed into law by Obama. You can't solve anything if the person who has the final say in the solution refuses to sign. Given that he has already publicly dismissed the alternative solutions proposed, it would be a waste of time for someone to take the next step and organize it into a bill.

[gerbick]

You don't know that, you're merely speculating. This isn't Bush we're dealing with [ case in point ]

And that's the problem. Once you stop guessing "it won't get passed"... what won't get passed? What's the option being brought to the table by the "opposing team"? So far, with nothing being brought to the table other than rank opposition, it's just... opposition for the sake of living for an ideal. I cannot be the only person that sees that.

Time to be bipartisan or nothing will get passed. The fact that nothing has been brought forth in a discussion that says "Well damn, that would work too"... that's the true waste of time. A whole lot of speculation, assumption, talking... but nothing is getting done whatsoever.

I hate to bring my brand of "put up or shut the **** up" type of logic to this; however it's due time to do just that. Either stop delivering long-winded speeches on how you will not budge and bring to the table something that actually makes sense. That's on both sides of this and all other debates as far I go.

[gerbick]

Doctor lets patient die, steals Rolex... wow.

[jAQUAN]

It's so hard to google through the muck. What exactly is a public option in relation to a NHC?
Edit: Ok I'm a little clearer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6...embedded#t=286
Edit: This echo's the circular thinking I've been seeing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHysv...eature=related

[FlashLackey]

I hate to bring my brand of "put up or shut the **** up" type of logic to this; however it's due time to do just that. Either stop delivering long-winded speeches on how you will not budge and bring to the table something that actually makes sense. That's on both sides of this and all other debates as far I go.

If Obama came out and stated that he wanted to see an alternative bill, Republicans would do it. Instead, he comes out and says that opposition to his bill consists of lies and smears. Not exactly the way that you welcome a bi-partisan, co-operative effort.

[Loyal Rogue]

Instead, he comes out and says that opposition to his bill consists of lies and smears.

Are you trying to say that those opposing healthcare reform, including elected Republican officials, rightwing talking heads, and the townhallers/teabaggers, didn't use any lies or smears in doing so?

Perhaps if they had brought up relevent points and honest debate instead of "Obama wants to kill your granny" then he wouldn't have had to say anything about lies and smears in the first place.

[jAQUAN]

It's really too bad those included in that list didn't take more of a pragmatic approach. They might have some credibility today. Still, that's not to say Nothing Pelosi and Harry Greed have earned much respect.

[gerbick]

If Obama came out and stated that he wanted to see an alternative bill, Republicans would do it. Instead, he comes out and says that opposition to his bill consists of lies and smears. Not exactly the way that you welcome a bi-partisan, co-operative effort.

Care to show where he's said he wouldn't view an alternative bill? Sources?

I can't say one way or the other, just sorta don't remember hearing that. If that's actually true, that explains quite a bit. If it's not... then I'm back to my square one.

[FlashLackey]

Are you trying to say that those opposing healthcare reform, including elected Republican officials, rightwing talking heads, and the townhallers/teabaggers, didn't use any lies or smears in doing so?

There are always people on both sides of any controversial political subject that play dirty. However, in this case, Obama is pretending that that is ALL that Republicans have done. He cites the lowest common denominator in an attempt to dismiss all opposing voices, including the ones that have put forth legitimate arguments.

Perhaps if they had brought up relevent points and honest debate instead of "Obama wants to kill your granny" then he wouldn't have had to say anything about lies and smears in the first place.

Many have brought up relevant points. Complaining about the worst opposing arguments is not to address and debate the best ones.

Care to show where he's said he wouldn't view an alternative bill? Sources?

I didn't say that he said he wouldn't view an alternative bill. Watch C-SPAN. Many sound arguments have been put forth in public hearings. Obama's response: the opposition consists of lies and smears. That isn't debating the issues. That isn't compromising to get something accomplished by responding to those arguments with modifications to the bill.

[gerbick]

Prove the stuff said is 100% true. From the "Obama wants to kill my baby" - Sarah Palin to the death panels.

[FlashLackey]

What? The craziest arguments you can find don't need to be true in order for other arguments to have merit.

Are you testing the tequila vs. HFCS theory over there?

[gerbick]

I'm sober. Thanks for asking. Just finished my daily liter of water. However, have you imbibed something alcoholic? Just thought I'd ask you since you asked me. Fair is fair.

Now, care to prove your point? Or are you stating that your "argument", or whatever you're trying to state right now, is crazy and have no merit? Or do you not have any proof?