Barack Obama in 2004:
BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
Just wow. Unbelievable. CF posted in another thread:
"If it has been broken for 15 years, why do we need to fix it NOW NOW NOW! Why can't we take the time to read the bill, understand it, and try to do things right? What is the super rush?" +1
How long do you need? Is 58 years not long enough? As far back as Truman, presidents have been trying to get health care reform enacted. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, even the Bushes all recogized the system stinks and promised reform. Each congress, fueled by the lobbyists, has successfully resisted.
These ideas being proposed are not new, in fact many of them (over 70 by one reported count from committee meetings) came from republicans who don't intend to support the final package. Why? Because they know its going to happen and they want to influence the outcome without having to tar themselves for the next election. They fear the looneys who threaten violence or refusal should it pass, but they know it needs to be done.
Really. How long do you need?
Quote from: waterboy on July 28, 2009, 07:01:46 PM
How long do you need? Is 58 years not long enough? As far back as Truman, presidents have been trying to get health care reform enacted. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, even the Bushes all recogized the system stinks and promised reform. Each congress, fueled by the lobbyists, has successfully resisted.
These ideas being proposed are not new, in fact many of them (over 70 by one reported count from committee meetings) came from republicans who don't intend to support the final package. Why? Because they know its going to happen and they want to influence the outcome without having to tar themselves for the next election. They fear the looneys who threaten violence or refusal should it pass, but they know it needs to be done.
Really. How long do you need?
Nice attempt to change the subject in this thread. The point I was making was that Obama demanded more time to review a bill in 2004 when Bush was in office, yet now we need to pass something that has not even been read. Yeah, water, whatever.
I stayed on topic best I can figure. There is little new in this legislation. We didn't have over 50 years of debate on the Patriot Act like we've had on health care issues. The republican minority has been involved with its drafting, though they are hesitant to admit it.
The weak kneed congressmen from both parties are resorting to the "rushing" complaint as a stalling tactic. The Mayo Clinic seems impressed with it, the AARP is supportive, popular support is strong. Stall till we can run some anti-ads, flood the internet with Drudge sludge, dilute support and hope for distraction.
Last time, in the early nineties, it was "you didn't include the medical industry". It will always be something.
Quote from: waterboy on July 28, 2009, 10:28:46 PM
I stayed on topic best I can figure. There is little new in this legislation. We didn't have over 50 years of debate on the Patriot Act like we've had on health care issues. The republican minority has been involved with its drafting, though they are hesitant to admit it.
The weak kneed congressmen from both parties are resorting to the "rushing" complaint as a stalling tactic. The Mayo Clinic seems impressed with it, the AARP is supportive, popular support is strong. Stall till we can run some anti-ads, flood the internet with Drudge sludge, dilute support and hope for distraction.
Last time, in the early nineties, it was "you didn't include the medical industry". It will always be something.
The sheeples buy into it...there is no outrage at this Anti American Health Industry Mafioso. Incredible.
Water: Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist under Truman. Most health coverage was pay-to-play. As a portion of income health care was a far lesser part of a family budget. I'd say there have been significant reforms and changes since Truman including the entrance of the Government into health care.
That said: How did the Patriot Act work out for us? We rushed into that "needing to get it done" and most people would agree that it was a bad idea. But at least it had an expiration date associated with it.
As you correctly point out, health care reform has been a long time in coming. So why do we need to get in done in a month? If the problem has been festering for 50 years, surely taking the time to fix it properly is better that putting a patch on it that very well make it worse.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 29, 2009, 09:27:49 AM
Water: Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist under Truman. Most health coverage was pay-to-play. As a portion of income health care was a far lesser part of a family budget. I'd say there have been significant reforms and changes since Truman including the entrance of the Government into health care.
That said: How did the Patriot Act work out for us? We rushed into that "needing to get it done" and most people would agree that it was a bad idea. But at least it had an expiration date associated with it.
As you correctly point out, health care reform has been a long time in coming. So why do we need to get in done in a month? If the problem has been festering for 50 years, surely taking the time to fix it properly is better that putting a patch on it that very well make it worse.
I saw speech excerpts of each of those presidents promising health care reforms or requesting Congress to address health care reform. Truman was no exception. We had just come out of a depression where seniors had been left to fend for themselves and the baby boom was about to commence. Its become as much a political fixture as "no new taxes". There have been changes and additions to health care, some for the better, some not. However, the process has been pharmaceutical and insurance industry driven for the most part.
My point is that this rushing complaint ignores that this isn't a plan hatched in a few months with all new material. Both candidates put forward their plans a long time ago. The details have been analyzed for decades. The very people complaining have written many of the elements of the reforms based on their years of experience. There are few surprises here, especially for the big players who helped write the legislation.
With that in mind comparing it to the Patriot Act is a red herring. It was part of the emergency mindset of 911. Even so, it represented years of "what if" planning. Did anyone give Hillary an out when she whined that she hadn't had time to analzye its features? Its expiration date is more like an extension date. Its here for a long time.
Congress has had plenty of time, and plenty of help from staff and lobbyists to know what is happening. They know that the nexus of popular support, industry support and determined leadership means the best opportunity for healthcare change is imminent. With change is even more opportunity. Thus, those representing the status quo, which sucks, have enlisted their pals to blunt or kill the effort. At least till the mid term elections are over. The big problem for them is that those afforementioned boomers are now experiencing how the status quo works, and they don't like it.
So, a simple question. How long is enough?
When few if any of those voting on it have read it, and most analysts admit they are unsure of the implications, I disagree that the plan has been around a long time. The candidates laid out their basic plans, but those were not detailed and that is not what gets made into law.
As the plan currently sits, it has been in existence for about 3 days. Which is the last time it left committee. I would very much like to have people know and understand what is in it before voting on it. However long it takes legislators, analysts, and other interested parties to know and understand the contents of the proposed reform is long enough. I don't think 3 days is in the time frame.
You give them (congress) a lot of credit for being ignorant. More than the law would give me I dare say.
So, considering they wrote the stuff and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries collaborated with them, how much time is necessary? Shall we post it all on the internet and debate it till it dies a natural death? 3 Months? 3 Years?
Seriously, we rely on doctors to distill the issues of medical procedures into very simple decisions. Do we cut the tumor out and risk brain damage or leave it in and face imminent death. We rely on them to do that. Why now, do we insist that we must not rush, but be given all the details and debate their importance? I ask out of sincerity. My generation IS the horse in this race.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2009, 10:02:49 AM
My point is that this rushing complaint ignores that this isn't a plan hatched in a few months with all new material. Both candidates put forward their plans a long time ago. The details have been analyzed for decades. The very people complaining have written many of the elements of the reforms based on their years of experience. There are few surprises here, especially for the big players who helped write the legislation.
***
Congress has had plenty of time, and plenty of help from staff and lobbyists to know what is happening. They know that the nexus of popular support, industry support and determined leadership means the best opportunity for healthcare change is imminent. With change is even more opportunity. Thus, those representing the status quo, which sucks, have enlisted their pals to blunt or kill the effort. At least till the mid term elections are over. The big problem for them is that those afforementioned boomers are now experiencing how the status quo works, and they don't like it.
So, a simple question. How long is enough?
How about long enough to read the damned thing, water. Jeez, are you that hopeychangey?
Heck, I'm prayerychangey.
I believe in meaningful, fair, deadlines. Just saying we need more time is hopeystatusquo'sy.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2009, 11:56:09 AM
Heck, I'm prayerychangey.
I believe in meaningful, fair, deadlines. Just saying we need more time is hopeystatusquo'sy.
No comment on Conyers? Figures.
If "it figures" means, I didn't have time to open it and listen. Have to work sometime.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2009, 12:51:57 PM
If "it figures" means, I didn't have time to open it and listen. Have to work sometime.
A 36 sec clip? You ain't that busy. And by "it figures", I straight forward mean you intentionally bury your head in the sand when it comes to dems talking like jacka$$es.
That's not necessary. I know lots of Dems who are jackasses, and more than a few repubs. I often do not open videos, especially if I'm at work. Are their any questions I've asked that you might consider addressing?
If I had a tumor for 50 years and it was then discovered, they would probably look long and hard at it before acting. It is doubtful they would insist they operate before looking at scans or explaining what it is to me. Which is essentially what we are being asked to do on health care.
1200 pages. War and Peace is 1200 pages. Can you imagine if War and Peace was written by ~100 different authors with input from 1,500 interested parties in chunks of several paragraphs and then stuck together? My guess is it wouldn't have worked out without careful review and editing.
I'm not attempting to stall. I'm not coming out against the plan. I'm asking that it be given a fair chance. In order to get a fair chance people have to have the ability to know the contents of the laws their legislature is asked to vote upon. I would soundly support a measure requiring all bills be posted online for a period of time before a vote can transpire. Base in on pagination if you want: 1 day per 100 pages with a minimum of 3 days. Thus, an devoted average citizen could actual know what is going on with a bill they are interested in before a vote transpires.
Under that scenario we could vote on a most measures within a week. This one in two weeks. It's been broken for 50 years according to your train of thought . . . taking 2 weeks to know what we are voting on can't be a bad idea. I research the hell out of everything I do. I don't buy a boat, car, or any product without researching it. We're talking about spending trillions of dollars effecting the lives of hundreds of millions - and waiting long enough to read the bill is too much to ask?
As it stands liberals can say that this gloriously socializes medicine for the benefit of the proletariat and conservatives can say it gives god fearing citizens medical rights to fascist bureaucrats. All I can do is listen to them go back and forth with rhetoric while no one really knows what the damn thing does. I'd rather not be informed by Rush Limbaugh or Adriana Huffington, but if all we have time for is truncated debates that's what we are left with.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
Blue Dog Bozos
by Reihan Salam
It's not the Republicans who pose the biggest threat to Obama's agenda but the infuriating Blue Dog Democrats. The Daily Beast's Reihan Salam on the renegades threatening to kill health-care reform—and the Obama presidency.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-27/blue-dog-bozos/
"It's important to keep in mind that Blue Dogs are not conservatives. Rather, they appear to be, to put it unkindly, preening bozos. Instead of offering principled alternatives, they choose to Hoover up campaign donations from the well-heeled while stabbing their Democratic allies, many of whom made real sacrifices to get them elected, in the back."
You may interpret this stall as a learning time out. It is not. It's a screen for the Health Care Industry Mafioso. Get it right.
In Oklahoma we have a name for Blue Dog Democrats...we call them Republicans.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2009, 01:37:44 PM
That's not necessary. I know lots of Dems who are jackasses, and more than a few repubs. I often do not open videos, especially if I'm at work. Are their any questions I've asked that you might consider addressing?
So, I opened the Conyers video. Not so interesting. In fact, waste of 36 seconds.
I think its funny that when Congress was a Republican majority I heard the same whining from the Democratic minority that they weren't being allowed to even read bills that were being considered. It was surprising to me how often that happened. But, the majority didn't think it mattered since they could easily steamroller any legislation they wanted. Did you carry the banner for those poor Dems? No? No one did around here. Its not tit for tat....okay it might be. Nonetheless, motives are in question here.
How much time do you think is necessary to fully analyze the bill and its impact? Should the volumes of info be put on the internet so the discriminating voters can read them and critically judge their merits? Those same people who respond to Tulsa World stories so intelligently?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 29, 2009, 02:18:59 PM
I'm not attempting to stall. I'm not coming out against the plan. I'm asking that it be given a fair chance. In order to get a fair chance people have to have the ability to know the contents of the laws their legislature is asked to vote upon. I would soundly support a measure requiring all bills be posted online for a period of time before a vote can transpire. Base in on pagination if you want: 1 day per 100 pages with a minimum of 3 days. Thus, an devoted average citizen could actual know what is going on with a bill they are interested in before a vote transpires.
Under that scenario we could vote on a most measures within a week. This one in two weeks.
You're certainly having a devil of a time walking that thin line of reasonability. Finally, some sort of answer as to time necessary and the audience for the bill.
I can't argue with 3 weeks for analyzing the bills contents. I would say, that is more consideration than the majority party has given the minority for the last 15 years. There is now some hostile payback for the disrespect they doled out. And still, they act like they are in control by using DINO's from the red states as their allies. Their motives are suspect. It must truly aggravate the new majority.
It isn't going to work to have bills scrutinized at length by the public. The sheer number of bills proffered each session would make that difficult. Then, one has to wonder just what good is gained. Sure, a few discriminating readers will be able to understand the wording and a few more will be able to deduce their implications and they likely already have access to the legislation. But not the average guy. So you add another layer of pundits, charlatins and political spinners that muddy up the water so much that no bill stands a chance. Is that the good?
When I worked in a huge oil company, we had people whose only jobs were to monitor pending legislation for its impact on our industry, lobby for legislation that would benefit the industry and disseminate the final laws to each of the affected departments. They were mostly lawyers. It worked real well. I suspect most companies still do that. The difference between lawyers and the general public though is perhaps greater than you might think or that this forum might lead you to believe. They don't understand big words and they are prone to misunderstand context. I see dozens of applicants for jobs each week. High school and college educated. They are downright dumb. One recently asked me just what the word "initiative" meant on a test question. They also believe all the conspiratorial nonsense that abounds on the net.
The media has always performed the same watchdog task for the general public that my oil company used lawyers to do. Up until media giants like Fox and friends peed in the drinking water, CBS decided news wasn't important and newspapers couldn't keep up with techology. Now no one trusts the liberal media, the conservative media or even the dang alternative press. Instead, they trust bloggers, churches, associations and internet chain letters. Posting legislative activity for 85% of the public would be a waste of energy.
I'm pretty sure I heard a blurb on NPR this morning stating the bill will be released for public consumption for the month of August before the vote.
This was led by the "Blue Dogs" to allay some fear.
If everybody is insured for healthcare, that means there will be billions of dollars in less debt for banks to charge usurious interest rates on.
Are you beginning to get the picture?
Waterboy:
I understand the timeframe would not enable the public to review all bills. But it would allow people to review matter in which they are actually interested. Anything that increases the transparency of government is a good thing. As it stands bills are passed into law and we hear about the pork or unrelated amendments/riders on CNN a few days later. We can improve on that.
Agreed. Steam released. Normalcy achieved. Rat killing commencing.
Sen. Specter steps on his d!@k at a townhall:
Just look at all those haters giving Sebelius and Specter a hard time.