Obamacare written to deceive the public.

[Esquilax]

But don't get you panties twisted about grammar......this is an internet forum.....its supposed to be informal.

Oh, your grammatical errors don't irk me. I'm just pointing out that your stones are going through your own windows. Calling someone "dummy" while posting sloppy English is not helping your point.

Use that information as you see fit.

Which in this case will be "not at all," since it isn't instant, fawning agreement with him.

[Ryantology]

Your boy Bernie Sanders wanted to attach a public option amendment to the bill and the democratic leadership was whipping against it. They were afraid it would slow down or halt the bill.

Come the fuck on. Republicans are trying too hard to kill even this lesser form of health care expansion for you to even sit there and pretend that the public option was excluded for any other reason than the fear that opposition would have been virtually insurmountable and probably nothing would have been accomplished at all.

That's what actual compromise is. Republicans know fuck all about it and don't care to learn.

[Heywood]

Your boy Bernie Sanders wanted to attach a public option amendment to the bill and the democratic leadership was whipping against it. They were afraid it would slow down or halt the bill.

Come the fuck on. Republicans are trying too hard to kill even this lesser form of health care expansion for you to even sit there and pretend that the public option was excluded for any other reason than the fear that opposition would have been virtually insurmountable and probably nothing would have been accomplished at all.

That's what actual compromise is. Republicans know fuck all about it and don't care to learn.

Negative Ryantology.

The reason the public option wasn't passed in the original senate bill is because independent Joe Liberman wouldn't allow it. The democrats wouldn't have the 60 votes necessary to break the republican fillibuster without Joe. Once the original bill passed it could be modified with a reconciliation bill....which is how they got the democrats in the house to pass it and got rid of the Cornhusker kickback/ Louisiana Purchase provisions.
The bar changed from needing 60 votes to pass to 50 votes.

At the time Bernie Sanders was threatening his amendment, at least 40 democratic senators signed a petition showing support for the public option. The reason the democratic leadership whipped against the amendment is because they feared the votes were there to pass it. If the votes aren't there vote on it and when its not passed, its not added to the reconciliation bill....nothing changes.

The democrats will tell you they didn't want to slow up or stall the bill, but once they no longer needed to break a fillibuster...they were in complete control. They didn't need the republicans and conservative democrats. The claim that giving up the public option was a compromise....doesn't really pass the smell test.

Now there are two reasons that I can think of that are more plausible:

1. The bill was intended to be a big gift to Obama's friends in the health insurance business.....and public option would contradict his goal of lining the pockets of his corporate pals.
   
2. They were truly afraid of slowing down the bill because doing so would give the American public even more time to figure out what an abortion it was. They were afraid a populous lobby would rise up and sabotage the house votes.
   

Public option left out as a compromise.....nah....not plausible at all. The leadership paid it lip service....but it was never seriously on the table to begin with.

[Ryantology]

Come the fuck on. Republicans are trying too hard to kill even this lesser form of health care expansion for you to even sit there and pretend that the public option was excluded for any other reason than the fear that opposition would have been virtually insurmountable and probably nothing would have been accomplished at all.

That's what actual compromise is. Republicans know fuck all about it and don't care to learn.

Negative Ryantology.

The reason the public option wasn't passed in the original senate bill is because independent Joe Liberman wouldn't allow it. The democrats wouldn't have the 60 votes necessary to break the republican fillibuster without Joe. Once the original bill passed it could be modified with a reconciliation bill....which is how they got the democrats in the house to pass it and got rid of the Cornhusker kickback/ Louisiana Purchase provisions.
The bar changed from needing 60 votes to pass to 50 votes.

At the time Bernie Sanders was threatening his amendment, at least 40 democratic senators signed a petition showing support for the public option. The reason the democratic leadership whipped against the amendment is because they feared the votes were there to pass it. If the votes aren't there vote on it and when its not passed, its not added to the reconciliation bill....nothing changes.

The democrats will tell you they didn't want to slow up or stall the bill, but once they no longer needed to break a fillibuster...they were in complete control. They didn't need the republicans and conservative democrats. The claim that giving up the public option was a compromise....doesn't really pass the smell test.

Now there are two reasons that I can think of that are more plausible:

1. The bill was intended to be a big gift to Obama's friends in the health insurance business.....and public option would contradict his goal of lining the pockets of his corporate pals.
   
2. They were truly afraid of slowing down the bill because doing so would give the American public even more time to figure out what an abortion it was. They were afraid a populous lobby would rise up and sabotage the house votes.
   

Public option left out as a compromise.....nah....not plausible at all. The leadership paid it lip service....but it was never seriously on the table to begin with.

You have the conspiracy theory as option 1 (and there may even be some truth to it, because there are corporatist, conservative Blue Dog Democrats). You have, as option 2, exactly what I said, re-worded to make the uneducated conservative moron zombies and their corporate masters look like heroes saving America from the scourge of having more healthy people.

Both of which clearly ignore the fact that the REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL nightmare we've had to endure from the right for almost five years would have unquestionably been far worse, and everybody knew it. It's sort of fun watching you try to skirt the obvious fact that conservative opposition to helping the poor do anything except work harder and die faster is part and parcel of why we don't have the health care model that we should.

[Heywood]

You have the conspiracy theory as option 1 (and there may even be some truth to it, because there are corporatist, conservative Blue Dog Democrats). You have, as option 2, exactly what I said, re-worded to make the uneducated conservative moron zombies and their corporate masters look like heroes saving America from the scourge of having more healthy people.

Both of which clearly ignore the fact that the REPEAL REPEAL REPEAL nightmare we've had to endure from the right for almost five years would have unquestionably been far worse, and everybody knew it. It's sort of fun watching you try to skirt the obvious fact that conservative opposition to helping the poor do anything except work harder and die faster is part and parcel of why we don't have the health care model that we should.

The democratic leadership could have put the public option to a test but were afraid too(and consequently whipped against it) because the votes might have actually been there to pass it. The primary purpose of this bill was not to help the American people....but to help big business so the public option was never an option.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the reason that the republican leadership spent so much time working up their base about "Obamas communist plan" was because it didn't benefit -their- buddies in big business...right....riiiiight?

[Heywood]

-and the reason that the republican leadership spent so much time working up their base about "Obamas communist plan" was because it didn't benefit -their- buddies in big business...right....riiiiight?

The plan is an abortion and should be repealed. The government should stop subsidizing health care(which drives up its cost) and instead produce health care(which lowers its cost).

Its funny but the left railed against Ryan's plan to change medicare into a voucher(subsidy) system so seniors can buy healthcare insurance on the open market.....but defend Obamacare which is essentially a voucher system so people can buy healthcare insurance on the open market.

The problem with republicans is they believe healthcare is a system in which the free market will be efficient. It isn't. Most of the time efficiency is gained by everyone acting in their own interest....but sometimes it isn't. Healthcare is one of those things in which a totally free market isn't going to work.

Imagine a line of pike-men about to face a cavalry charge(think Braveheart). Some of those pike-men will get killed. Self interest would demand a pike-men abandoned his pike and run away, let the others risk death by holding the line. However if the all the Pike-men did that...the line would crumble and most of the pike-men would be cut down as they fled. What is the solution? An intervention by an authority. A knight is placed behind the pike-men line with instructions to cut down any pike-men who attempts to put the value of his life over his comrades. Regulation maximizes the amount of people saved. I a okay with regulations and government interventions in the rare instances were if everyone acts in their self interest we all suffer.

Healthcare is one of those situations. With healthcare, we all know our fellow citizens aren't going to let us die if they can help it. So instead of securing healthcare ahead of time(through insurance) we can take advantage of everyone else and not get it....knowing that if we need it...we will still get it even if we don't have the money to pay for it.

In my opinion the solution to health care is this. Let the private market stand. However at the same time the government should be going out and building hospitals, and clinics, and training an army of nurses and doctors all of which provide medical care free of charge. This will also drive down prices in the private market as the supply of healthcare increases. Don't like socialized medicine? Hire your own doctor or use a private hospital....and then be responsible for your own bill.

[The Grand Nudger]

Self interest actually demands that the pikeman hold the line, because he can't outrun a horse anyway (still works that way, btw, you take care of the guy to your left and right, they take care of you). But that's besides the point. You spun a deliciously cynical tale (that, I have to say, appeals to me greatly, I'd be willing to call that the truth even if it weren't, on some level..lol) that you then dumped on one faction of our government but you seem reluctant when it comes to painting the other side of the aisle with that brush. It's almost as if you think that we can neatly divide the heroes and villains in government by party affiliation. I'll ask again, since you quoted me without responding to the question. Is it possible that the "problem with republicans" is that they also vote (and drum) for whatever is in the interests of -their- buddies in big business, in general - but also specifically when it comes to their opposition to the ACA?

I like your solution, btw. Eeerily similar to how it already works (and it doesn't seem to have the effect that you think it will), but meh.

[Ryantology]

The democratic leadership could have put the public option to a test but were afraid too(and consequently whipped against it) because the votes might have actually been there to pass it. The primary purpose of this bill was not to help the American people....but to help big business so the public option was never an option.

They could have. Or, they could expect the worst. As events have proven decisively, going that route would have ended up with fiercer resistance and very likely not even the flawed improvement we got. After all, there were plenty of Democrats who remembered Republicans doing precisely that when health care reform was attempted in the 90s. They were dealing with very moneyed interests and their army of troglodyte voters, who are still hell-bent on undoing it.

The other edge of democracy's sword is that stupid, selfish and brainwashed people have votes that are worth just as much as those who actually want to make things better for people.

You don't think plenty of Democrats would love your optional private health care, backed by a publicly-funded healthcare system that was cheap or free for your average person? I think most of them would like the idea. It's certainly a better idea than the ACA. And as long as we have Republican majorities in any of the three branches of government, it will never, ever, ever ever happen, or it will be neutered all to hell and fought tooth and nail at the waste of billions of dollars. It will be derided as socialism, as well as the other two or three -isms your average conservative idiot has in his or her vocabulary and applies to anybody left of Atilla the Hun.

And I know that you're being deliberately dishonest rather than stupid. You know that's precisely the way it is. You're blaming Democrats for being pragmatic and not going after a bigger prize they had a much smaller chance of winning.

Socialized medicine is coming, but America is presently full of selfish, temperamental toddlers on the right. The ACA is the training pants we have to wear before we catch up with the rest of the developed world, just as we had to go "separate but equal" before we achieved integration, or how we had to go with civil unions before we recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

[Heywood]

I like your solution, btw. Eeerily similar to how it already works (and it doesn't seem to have the effect that you think it will), but meh.

How it already works is this: The government doesn't do anything to increase the amount of health care(or not much). The government just buys healthcare for people in the private market. The government just increases demand. Now this increase in demand might lead to higher wages and such for doctors....thereby creating an incentive for people to become doctors to fulfill that demand....but the government stifles that effect by imposing arbitrarily low prices for government paid healthcare. This government intervention causes an increase in demand but hinders an increase in supply.

To answer your question....I think voters vote for candidates who support issues that are important to them. Pro-life is very important to me. I would vote for a pro life communist over a pro abortion capitalist.