The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"California... hyberbole hyperbole... except hyperbole hyperbole."

So we'll take your approach.

California is wonderful, there are no economic problems, except some minor ones which can't be fixed by taxing the hell out of corporations and individuals and most voters will love us for our bounteous gifts of life everlasting.

Dems have nothing to fear as all voters desire expensive health care reforms no matter the cost, and the Dems will never lose because Pallin sucks.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sour grapes? That doesn't even make sense- not when Democrats were poised for the first time in decades to accomplish one of their highest priority agenda items.

I fixed your sentence.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am well aware of the purpose of the Senate. It was YOUR argument that a majority of Americans don't support Democrats. A strong majority is what elected the Democrats to office in the first place. You seem to be of the opinion that now that they have been elected, they should live and die by each poll which is released, even if it requires totally changing their opinions on the very subjects which got them elected in the first place. The most accurate poll is the one taken on voting day, and on that day Democrats did extremely well. Better than any party has since the 1970s. Your quote on Kennedy is amusing as it seems to suggest Democrats are in the minority now. They have 59 seats in the US Senate, not 44. You didn't cite poll numbers from Kennedy's day- instead you looked to seats in the Senate in that example to show "minority" status. Flip your argument and you have clear majority status now for Democrats.

As for what I am willing to lose to get health care reform done- all of it. This is why we have elections. So things can get done. I want my party to get done what they ran on, no matter the political cost to them. I am not interested in perpetuating any political career. I am interested in results. Get the results, even if it costs your job. If, as I believe, the results will be a net positive, the voters will come back soon enough and you can then get more results. Politics isn't a game. All the wrangling, all the arguing, all the posturing and positioning, is for one reason- to get results. Instead, to you and others, the wrangling, arguing, posturing and positioning appear to be the actual desired result with accomplishments a distant second. I'm not interested in that model.

The irony is when the very results that you seek is what drives you from power. Politics isn't a game? Neither is democracy. Representatives of the people who refuse to listen to their constituents will find themselves no longer being representatives of the people.

Yes, election day is the poll that matters most. But it isn't the only one. Dems right now are engaged in a racing game: "how much unpopular legislation can we ram through Congress before the people take our power away"? That's no way to govern.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I fixed your sentence.



The irony is when the very results that you seek is what drives you from power. Politics isn't a game? Neither is democracy. Representatives of the people who refuse to listen to their constituents will find themselves no longer being representatives of the people.

Yes, election day is the poll that matters most. But it isn't the only one. Dems right now are engaged in a racing game: "how much unpopular legislation can we ram through Congress before the people take our power away"? That's no way to govern.

What's the problem, then? That you find the potential result "ironic?"

Again, are you advocating for an approach whereby members of Congress only do what polls tell them to do? If not, what are you advocating?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What's the problem, then? That you find the potential result "ironic?"

Again, are you advocating for an approach whereby members of Congress only do what polls tell them to do? If not, what are you advocating?

I might ask you the same question.

This little discussion started when you suggested that the percentage of the population represented by Democrats in the Senate somehow implied the majority of Americans approves of their health care agenda.

I demonstrated what a meaningless and illogical position that is by pointing out the population-minority-friendly nature of the Senate, underscored by Ted Kennedy making this same claim while Dems were in the governing minority. He actually said (I'm paraphrasing), "We're in the minority, but we represent a majority of Americans." Um, ok, Ted.

So which is it? Is the only justification required for any policy change (to say nothing of the magnitude of this health care bill) to simply point a finger at the last election and shout, "Scoreboard"? If so, someone should tell all these congressmen to stop commissioning polls, stop holding town meetings, and stop accepting mail and phone calls from their constituents.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I might ask you the same question.

This little discussion started when you suggested that the percentage of the population represented by Democrats in the Senate somehow implied the majority of Americans approves of their health care agenda.

I demonstrated what a meaningless and illogical position that is by pointing out the population-minority-friendly nature of the Senate, underscored by Ted Kennedy making this same claim while Dems were in the governing minority. He actually said (I'm paraphrasing), "We're in the minority, but we represent a majority of Americans." Um, ok, Ted.

So which is it? Is the only justification required for any policy change (to say nothing of the magnitude of this health care bill) to simply point a finger at the last election and shout, "Scoreboard"? If so, someone should tell all these congressmen to stop commissioning polls, stop holding town meetings, and stop accepting mail and phone calls from their constituents.

Um, no, I am not advocating a "follow the poll" approach. My point about the seats in the Senate has nothing to do with the polls (I thought I had made that abundantly clear by now), it has everything to do with the fact that an overwhelming number of Democrats were elected to do a job, and health care reform comprises part of that job. They have now gone through a lengthy process and emerged with a very good bill and they should now pass it. It's what they were elected to do. If the public thinks the bill they ultimately pass isn't what it wanted, they will vote the Dems out of office, and that's perfectly fine by me.

The question stands: are you advocating a "follow the polls" approach? If not, what are you advocating?

Have you noted, once again, you are not responding to direct questions?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here's what Chris Matthews (that rabid right-winger) thinks of reconciliation. The video is priceless.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ering-netroots

If the R's can find a decent candidate for the 8th district, there's no way Grayson survives 2010.

Some more examples of why Matthews has no idea what he is talking about.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...59&emailView=1.

And the news for Dems gets even better- the person who rules on what is appropriate for reconciliation in the Senate... Joe Biden.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Um, no, I am not advocating a "follow the poll" approach. My point about the seats in the Senate has nothing to do with the polls (I thought I had made that abundantly clear by now), it has everything to do with the fact that an overwhelming number of Democrats were elected to do a job, and health care reform comprises part of that job. They have now gone through a lengthy process and emerged with a very good bill and they should now pass it. It's what they were elected to do. If the public thinks the bill they ultimately pass isn't what it wanted, they will vote the Dems out of office, and that's perfectly fine by me.

The question stands: are you advocating a "follow the polls" approach? If not, what are you advocating?

I believe public office is a continuum of both making good on the agenda on which you ran, and listening to your constituency. We are a representative government. Just because elections are periodic doesn't mean an elected official should wait until the next election to find out what his constituents want.

"I hold office, therefore I am right," is a self-defeating proposition, pun intended. Moreover, it's totally unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Have you noted, once again, you are not responding to direct questions?

I've noted that you, once again, are still whining.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I believe public office is a continuum of both making good on the agenda on which you ran, and listening to your constituency. We are a representative government. Just because elections are periodic doesn't mean an elected official should wait until the next election to find out what his constituents want.

"I hold office, therefore I am right," is a self-defeating proposition, pun intended. Moreover, it's totally unrealistic.

Then why are you suggesting Democrats shouldn't "make good on the agenda on which they ran?" They quite clearly should. If a poll approval rating for an agenda item of between 40-50% is enough to get you to conclude Democrats shouldn't promote health care, your continuum isn't valuing "agenda items on which candidates run" with any serious weight.

I've noted that you, once again, are still whining.

Let me simply point out I made a factual statement, you replied with a snarky statement. So be it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then why are you suggesting Democrats shouldn't "make good on the agenda on which they ran?" They quite clearly should. If a poll approval rating for an agenda item of between 40-50% is enough to get you to conclude Democrats shouldn't promote health care, your continuum isn't valuing "agenda items on which candidates run" with any serious weight.

It all boils down to this: as an elected official, you make adjustments as you go, or the electorate will make the adjustments for you. Successful politicians do not behave as you suggest. Obama is, and that's a big reason why he's failing.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Let me simply point out I made a factual statement, you replied with a snarky statement. So be it.

I'm going to answer this once, and this will be the last time, so pay attention.

You are a "Tex won't take a position; Tex won't answer questions" broken record. It's so broken, the record needle has been worn down to the nub.

I don't feel an obligation to answer every one of your questions, or to take a position on every issue that you demand I do. This is not a cross-examination. It's a discussion on an Internet message board, one among many of which you've hardly been troubled to be polite through over the years. Sometimes your questions are unnecessarily inflammatory, sometimes they are an attempt to entrap, and sometimes they're just plain stupid. Rather than distract from the discussion by openly calling them what they are, my preferred method of handling them is to just ignore them.

You feel a need to constantly point out how I debate, rather than focus on the substance. You're welcome to continue to do so, if that provides you some satisfaction, but I'm not going to feel any guilt because Cali Coug didn't get the exact answer he was looking for. Deal with it.

This thread is about the disastrous monstrosity that is the health care bill, and I would prefer it to stay that way, so this is my last word on this topic. You want to discuss it more ... go start a "Tex dodges my questions" thread and talk with yourself about it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It all boils down to this: as an elected official, you make adjustments as you go, or the electorate will make the adjustments for you. Successful politicians do not behave as you suggest. Obama is, and that's a big reason why he's failing.

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to your argument, which is that he SHOULDN'T pass healthcare reform at this point, not that passing it will be a political liability. If you take the position he SHOULDN'T pass healthcare reform, as you appear to do, then my question remains unanswered: why? Do you think he must follow the polls, particularly given they show 40-50% support the healthcare reform efforts? You vaguely answered with a "continuum" argument, but how is the actual 2008 election weighted in your continuum?

I'm going to answer this once, and this will be the last time, so pay attention.

You are a "Tex won't take a position; Tex won't answer questions" broken record. It's so broken, the record needle has been worn down to the nub.

I don't feel an obligation to answer every one of your questions, or to take a position on every issue that you demand I do. This is not a cross-examination. It's a discussion on an Internet message board, one among many of which you've hardly been troubled to be polite through over the years. Sometimes your questions are unnecessarily inflammatory, sometimes they are an attempt to entrap, and sometimes they're just plain stupid. Rather than distract from the discussion by openly calling them what they are, my preferred method of handling them is to just ignore them.

You feel a need to constantly point out how I debate, rather than focus on the substance. You're welcome to continue to do so, if that provides you some satisfaction, but I'm not going to feel any guilt because Cali Coug didn't get the exact answer he was looking for. Deal with it.

This thread is about the disastrous monstrosity that is the health care bill, and I would prefer it to stay that way, so this is my last word on this topic. You want to discuss it more ... go start a "Tex dodges my questions" thread and talk with yourself about it.

A "discussion," Tex, requires a two way conversation. In that conversation, yes- you can expect to get questions. You almost never actually respond to those questions, especially (in my opinion) when you sense that the answer will expose a flaw in your logic. If you want a "discussion," then respond to questions. Otherwise, you are just having a soliloquy interrupted from time to time by loud comments from the audience.