House Healthcare RepealFollow

Huh!? What does this mean? A bill is "partisan" if the objective of the bill is to achieve a goal held by one party and opposed by the other. And the second we get away from broad and somewhat meaningless phrases like "health care reform" and start looking at the specifics of the bill, it's kinda obvious that it was written by Democrats for Democrats and with Democrat objectives in mind.



I'm starting to suspect you think that partisan simply means "doing something against the other side". Which, given the common usage of the term, isn't surprising. But that's not what it means. In the political sense, it means something or someone devoted to a particular political party or by extension a party agenda. So a bill passed to push forward a given party's agenda is "partisan". Period.



No. They passed the bill to accomplish an objective for their party which they believe is best for the people. You get that political parties and the members of those parties hold the positions they do, not because one side is "good" and the other "evil", but because both/all sides believe that their positions, methods, and objectives are "best for the people". That's kinda why political parties exist. It's kinda amusing how frequently people fail to get this. You believe that the agenda you support is best, and the agenda you oppose is not as good. But you need to understand that those who support that other agenda believe the same thing, just in reverse.

Saying that from your perspective, some political action you agree with is an "objective for the people" doesn't mean that it's not also partisan. You just have a hard time seeing it because it's something you agree with.



They disagree because the two parties disagree on how best to structure a health care system. Without going into any details, I hope we can agree on this. It's not a matter of "Democrats want a health care system, and the GOP doesn't". It's just not that simple. Both parties will disagree on almost everything having to do with health care. As you say, that's not surprising.

However, in this case they wrote a bill that pushed their health care agenda. And the elements they pushed are diametrically opposed by the Republicans. No amount of listing off a handful of minor gimmes agreed upon in principle in some committee changes this fact. The very idea of government managed health care is the opposite direction that the right believes we should go. Any bill which increases government management of health care will be opposed, no matter how many minor points within the bill may or may not be agreed upon.




No. It's motivated by a desire to actually repeal the health care bill. What part of that don't you get? Even if you don't think you can succeed, you try anyway, right? And given how the Senate is reacting, it was a good move. It puts the issue front and center. If it were just an empty "suck it!" move, with no substance, then the Dems could put it on the floor in the Senate and call a vote and vote it down.

That they aren't doing this means that there's more to this than you think. They are afraid to be on record supporting the health care bill (again). And that creates leverage for those of us who do want the whole thing repealed. Some experts are suggesting that it's entirely possible that if it were to come to a vote, it might just be repealed. So many Dems in the Senate are vulnerable if they vote against repeal, that it's not quite the pie in the sky, empty gesture that is being suggested. And it's not just a symbolic victory either. Until the Senate deals with it, it's a very real victory.

Edited, Jan 27th 2011 3:23pm by gbaji

What the fuck are you talking about?

The Democratic machine will never let Obama win the primary. It's gonna be all about Clinton.

That's a pretty poor and useless definition of partisan. You're defining partisan not by how willing a party is to make concession, but by how willing their opposition is to accept them. By your terms, the least reasonable team who is willing to give up the least gets to decide the terms of of a bipartisan bill.

I agree with you 100%

I suspect you're still not quite getting it. That's the only (best at least?) way to define "partisan". How does one decide if the concessions are reasonable? So if I love sushi and you hate it, and I decide that we'll go eat sushi, but I'll make a concession in that I'll buy you a beer you like during dinner, can I call you unreasonable for not taking the deal? At the end of the day, you don't want to eat sushi. Anything I attempt to do which forces you to eat sushi is "partisan" on my part. You refusing to go out to eat isn't an unreasonable response. It's equally "partisan" in this analogy, but it's only a response to my initial unreasonable demand.

A true compromise would be to find something to eat we can both agree on. What you seem to want to do, and what the Dems did with this bill, was insist that we had to eat sushi, and then declare the other person a killjoy for not wanting to.




But by yours, apparently the side you agree with gets to decide what is partisan and what isn't. If you want to talk about useless definitions, that's pretty much it. Whereas my terms are in line with how negotiations always work. At the end of the day each "side" will decide what things they can compromise on, and what things are deal breakers for them. And in the case of politics, the people they represent will respond to their positions. If the people think a side is being unreasonable, they'll let them know. And in case you missed it, that's exactly what happened last November. The voters decided that the Democrats went well beyond what they thought was reasonable.


Any other use of the term makes it completely useless. It *must* be defined within the context of what someone else is opposed to and willing to fight over. How else would you define partisan?

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 4:14pm by gbaji

You left out the half of the analogy above that could have gone thusly.

I don't like sushi so **** you I am going to stamp my feet and you go get sushi by yourself. But when asked why I didn't go along Ill just say I didn't want sushi in the first place, but Ill leave out the part where I didn't offer a solution like you get sushi I get hamburgers and we will meet in the food court and have a nice lunch.

Both sides are partisan *****, if you don't think they are you obviously do not understand politics as much as you pretend you do.

The dems are spun as the bad guy in GOP circles.
-they forced us to eat sushi, even though we don't like it.

The GOP is spun as the bad guy in Dem circles.
-they didn't come up with any alternative ideas so we got sushi anyway.

As a non partyline observer, I can happily sit back and point out both the parties are hypocritical, both parties are partisan, and there isn't a god damn thing you or any one in the genera public can do about aside from voting in a 3rd party to practically force some form of actual discussion and concessions on topics.

Otherwise one party will sit back and say no, an hope they can make a choice seem as unpopular as possible before the next general elections. Just like the Dems did in 06, and just like the GOP has done in '10.

Except that the GOPs "solution" by default is for everyone to get their own lunch. It's the Dems who want to force others to do what they want and nothing else. You get that it's unfair to compare the two directly, right? The Dems are by definition presenting a solution which requires that everyone must eat the same meal and then insisting that it be the meal they want to eat, and then complaining when people don't go along with their plan.

The GOP would be perfectly fine with everyone just buying their own health care and not having the government mandate anything at all.



Yes. I've already said this several times. Being partisan means supporting the things you agree with and opposing the things you don't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


What *is* wrong is doing that, but labeling the thing you support as "bi-partisan" and then saying that only the other guy is acting in a partisan way by refusing to do what you want him to do. When someone on the Left tries to argue that the health care bill was "bi-partisan" and it was the GOP who were acting in a partisan manner by opposing it, they are lying. I have never said that the GOP's response wasn't partisan. What I've said repeatedly is that their response was no more partisan than the health care bill they were responding to.



Yup. And then insisted that eating sushi wasn't their idea, it's normal and natural and anyone who doesn't eat sushi has something wrong with them. But they're not partisan at all, those other guys are!



Really? They didn't come up with an alternative so we forced them to do what we wanted to and *they* are the bad guys?


Darth Vader: Well... Since you haven't given me the plans to the rebel base, I guess I'll just have to destroy Adebaron. If only you'd presented us with an alternative course of action, this all could have been avoided. Oh. And that makes you the bad guy, not me".


You don't see this? Really?

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 6:08pm by gbaji

Isn't the Mandate pretty much stating that you can not be denied insurance, and that there is no excuse not to have insurance. So now if you do not have insurance it is because you are either A. To lazy to get it. Or B. Can't afford the private rates.

If A. Go to
Not having a form of health insurance by 2014 will result in a fine. There is no reason for you to not get insurance so the Govt will no longer help you to pay off the bill, and if they are billed you get fined.

If B. Go to
The government option, the cheaper option as it is partly government subsidized partly patient paid. It is the poorer people that can not afford private rates.

Basically all that has happened is the Govt has said there is no reason to not have insurance. Either Private or Govt assisted. Really the only thing different is now insurance companies can not block you if you can afford the plan. IE, no more pre existing condition clause, and if you can't use government assistance option. Essentially Obama has said we are no longer paying for you to get help with operations for you to get service, if you do not have insurance and are treated you are going to be fined.

Sounds like a pretty solid plan, unless I misunderstood it basically the govt is making it illegal to bill the state/feds for your healthcare. You either buy a private or public package. Either way the govt makes money in the end.

Yes. I'm sure that wont have any impact on the other members of his party at all.

What do you mean by "no excuse"? When did not buying something end out as something I need an excuse for?



Or C. You are a healthy person who would rather not pay for insurance for something you likely will not need, and almost certainly will cost you more than you get. You're willing to pay for your own health costs right out of your pocket because it'll be cheaper.

That's the choice that is being removed. And it's a biggie. No amount of labeling someone "lazy" because they chose not to buy something makes it so. Doubly so when most of those who choose not to buy health insurance will statistically save money by making that choice.




And I don't agree with that. Let's say that I'm a reasonably healthy person in my 20s. Let's say that I could pay $5k per year on health insurance. But let's also say that if I were to simply pay for health care out of my pocket, my costs will only be $500 per year. That includes a yearly checkup, and the occasional over the counter costs for the mild ailments I may get over the course of a typical year.


What possible reason can the government have to decide that there is no reason not to have insurance? There's a very good reason! It's less expensive. For me; the individual; the guy who's supposed to have a right not to have his property taken away for no reason at all.




No. The difference is that now I have no right to choose not to purchase health care at all.


That's a pretty huge difference. Surely you agree?




What you have completely misunderstood is the nature of the mandate and the reason people oppose it. It has nothing to do with what may or may not be denied to you, in terms of health coverage. It has everything about being forced to buy health insurance in the first place.

I disagree with your assessment of how much it matters.

I mean, that's all nice talk and whatnot, but the reality is that there were lots of bills written by the Dems and passed with bi-partisan support in the last two years. If what you're saying was true, we'd never have passed anything at all. Which clearly wasn't the case.

Your right, a lot of great bridges were named after dead people. Hosah! Together we can change the world, brother!

That case will most likely come after the next election cycle though.



It's not just the vote the GOP wants though. It's not about voting for or against here. It's about voting at all. It's about being willing to stand up and be counted. The longer he avoids it, the more the Dems will look like they as a party are unwilling to stand up for their own convictions. It'll make people wonder where they really do stand. You can expect lots of questions of Democrat Senators like "If Reid were to call a vote, what would your vote be?", likely followed by squirming.

To be fair, it's a no-win situation for the Dems. But that should only highlight just how far on the wrong side of this issue they are. I don't blame Reid for not calling a vote, but I also think it'll cost him and his party. I guess the larger point for me is that once again the Dems are choosing to protect their agenda at the cost of their political position, which from a purely ideological perspective, is not a bad thing. We often pine away for politicians willing to do the right thing even if it costs them politically. Obviously, from my point of view this is far from the "right thing" though.



Like I said, the GOP doesn't have to do more than just bring it up periodically. Just add it to the list of economically unsound things the Dems are doing and keep running with it. Heck. Follow it up with a bill to roll back spending to 2008 levels (in most spending areas) and you've got a great dovetail going on if the Dems pull the same trick again (which they almost certainly will). The GOP kinda already starts off with an advantage in the "we need to cut spending" battle.

The only way the Dems stay ahead is if they can successfully turn the conversation into balancing the budget and/or reducing the deficit and then manage to put tax increases on the same footing as spending cuts. Which is exactly what they're trying to do of course, but it's hard to say how well it'll work. I'm as much of a realist about the stupidity of the average voter as the next guy, but I suspect that at some point the BS the Dems will have to shovel to sell that will sink through to even the most dense people out there.

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 8:12pm by gbaji