So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

News and events of the day
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:07 pm You mention Obama and how he gave the Republicans everything they asked for. Except that wasn’t how it worked. Bob Woodward has a reputation for pissing both parties off. He wrote a book on that process. He interviewed everyone in the process. All the players. Checked, double checked, cross referenced. It doesn’t agree with your assessment. Offering to let you vote on their bill while not allowing amendments isn’t meeting in the middle. It isn’t compromise. The President had enough difficulty rounding up enough support in his own party. The opposition to the bill was bipartisan. The support was highly partisan. Lastly, ACA was passed in a lane duck session of Congress after a wave election. Even in the lane duck session, the vote was rushed before Scott Brown was able be sworn into office to replace Ted Kennedy. So much for listening to the will of the people and not making big decisions so close to an election.
Joe, I just looked for your book. I don't find a book by Bob Woodward on ObamaCare. If find two about the Obama era:

Obama's Wars (2010) about the Obama administration's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ISBN 978-1439172490

and

The Price of Politics (2012) about President Obama and congressional Republican and Democratic leaders' attempt to restore the American economy and improve the federal government's fiscal condition over 3.5 years. ISBN 978-1451651119.

So, I call bullshit. Show me the book. I want to read it. A Bob Woodward book specifically about the entire ObamaCare process.

Of course, I don't believe you ever read a book, because you like to keep ignorant. Plus, you've never been able to intelligently debate health care. You've never been able to come up with alternatives.

And BTW Joe, some reality check:
The day after she was one of three Republican senators to vote against her party's proposal to repeal chunks of the Affordable Care Act, Susan Collins of Maine posted a press release that said: "Democrats made a big mistake when they passed the ACA without a single Republican vote. I don't want to see Republicans make the same mistake."

It was a nice nod in the direction of bipartisanship. But it also perpetuates a deceptive narrative, repeated often by Republicans, that they were completely excluded from the process that resulted in Obamacare. While it is true that no Republican voted for the final bill, it is blatantly untrue that it contains no GOP DNA. In fact, to make such an assertion is like researching your ancestry and going no further back than your mother and father.

Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion, but it's a cinch that the ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats, hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time and effort wooing GOP senators — only to find themselves gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues, Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to public scrutiny.

Let's set the record straight. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (known as the HELP Committee), chaired first by Edward Kennedy and later by Christopher Dodd, held 14 bipartisan round-table meetings and 13 public hearings. Democrats on that committee accepted 160 Republican amendments to the bill. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Montana Democrat Max Baucus, was writing its own version of the ACA. It held 17 bipartisan round-table sessions, summit meetings and hearings with Republican senators.

On the House side, the Republican leadership made it clear to members that they were not to cooperate in any way with the effort to create the health insurance program proposed by President Obama. McConnell, then the Senate minority leader, was equally disapproving of cooperation. Despite that, a few Republican senators, such as Finance Committee members Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming, were in discussions with the Democrats until McConnell warned both men that their future in the party would be in jeopardy if they supported the bill.

By the summer recess in August 2009, Republicans like Grassley were back in their states and hearing from the Tea Party movement that cooperating with Democrats on health care reform was akin to trading with the enemy. Nonetheless, a few Republicans such as Maine senator Olympia Snowe continued to work with Finance Committee Democrats. Remarkably, the bill before the committee was based on a plan devised by the Republicans more than a decade before — including now familiar elements of Obamacare such as the individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance, and state exchanges or marketplaces with plans offered by private insurers.

Cooperation with Republicans had the blessing of the highest Democratic authority. President Obama, seeking a "grand bargain" on health reform, conferred his benediction to continue discussions with any Republican senator willing to participate, but by the fall of 2009 it was clear that having the support of only one or two GOP senators would not be enough Republican DNA to support a plausible claim of bipartisanship. It was at this point that the work did move behind closed doors and into the leadership suite of Democratic leader Harry Reid.

The day after she was one of three Republican senators to vote against her party's proposal to repeal chunks of the Affordable Care Act, Susan Collins of Maine posted a press release that said: "Democrats made a big mistake when they passed the ACA without a single Republican vote. I don't want to see Republicans make the same mistake."

It was a nice nod in the direction of bipartisanship. But it also perpetuates a deceptive narrative, repeated often by Republicans, that they were completely excluded from the process that resulted in Obamacare. While it is true that no Republican voted for the final bill, it is blatantly untrue that it contains no GOP DNA. In fact, to make such an assertion is like researching your ancestry and going no further back than your mother and father.

Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion, but it's a cinch that the ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats, hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time and effort wooing GOP senators — only to find themselves gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues, Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to public scrutiny.

Let's set the record straight. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (known as the HELP Committee), chaired first by Edward Kennedy and later by Christopher Dodd, held 14 bipartisan round-table meetings and 13 public hearings. Democrats on that committee accepted 160 Republican amendments to the bill. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Montana Democrat Max Baucus, was writing its own version of the ACA. It held 17 bipartisan round-table sessions, summit meetings and hearings with Republican senators.
Get the Opinion newsletter in your inbox.

On the House side, the Republican leadership made it clear to members that they were not to cooperate in any way with the effort to create the health insurance program proposed by President Obama. McConnell, then the Senate minority leader, was equally disapproving of cooperation. Despite that, a few Republican senators, such as Finance Committee members Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming, were in discussions with the Democrats until McConnell warned both men that their future in the party would be in jeopardy if they supported the bill.

By the summer recess in August 2009, Republicans like Grassley were back in their states and hearing from the Tea Party movement that cooperating with Democrats on health care reform was akin to trading with the enemy. Nonetheless, a few Republicans such as Maine senator Olympia Snowe continued to work with Finance Committee Democrats. Remarkably, the bill before the committee was based on a plan devised by the Republicans more than a decade before — including now familiar elements of Obamacare such as the individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance, and state exchanges or marketplaces with plans offered by private insurers.

Cooperation with Republicans had the blessing of the highest Democratic authority. President Obama, seeking a "grand bargain" on health reform, conferred his benediction to continue discussions with any Republican senator willing to participate, but by the fall of 2009 it was clear that having the support of only one or two GOP senators would not be enough Republican DNA to support a plausible claim of bipartisanship. It was at this point that the work did move behind closed doors and into the leadership suite of Democratic leader Harry Reid.

It is always a mistake to infer from a vote on final passage of a bill in Congress that bipartisan cooperation was wholly absent from the process. You cannot assume that even a bill with no votes at all from the other party was not significantly influenced by the opposition at earlier stages in its development.

It may be politically useful for firing up your political base to accuse the other party of exclusionary tactics, but in most cases it just ain't so. Bipartisanship is encoded in much of the work that Congress does. Polarization is a much more compelling narrative, but it is rarely the whole story.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 6:05 am Joe, I just looked for your book. I don't find a book by Bob Woodward on ObamaCare. If find two about the Obama era:

Obama's Wars (2010) about the Obama administration's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ISBN 978-1439172490

and

The Price of Politics (2012) about President Obama and congressional Republican and Democratic leaders' attempt to restore the American economy and improve the federal government's fiscal condition over 3.5 years. ISBN 978-1451651119.

So, I call bullshit. Show me the book. I want to read it. A Bob Woodward book specifically about the entire ObamaCare process.

Of course, I don't believe you ever read a book, because you like to keep ignorant. Plus, you've never been able to intelligently debate health care. You've never been able to come up with alternatives.

And BTW Joe, some reality check:
The price of politics was the book. You should read it. As I recall I recommended it several times and nobody was interested in reading anything that didn’t line completely up with the accepted version.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:30 pm The price of politics was the book. You should read it. As I recall I recommended it several times and nobody was interested in reading anything that didn’t line completely up with the accepted version.

In the book Woodward is critical of both sides. I guess that’s why no one on this board wanted to read it at the time.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 7678
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by carmenjonze »

Today in Covfefe:
JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:30 pm The price of politics was the book. You should read it. As I recall I recommended it several times and nobody was interested in reading anything that didn’t line completely up with the accepted version.
JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:35 pm The price of politics was the book. You should read it. As I recall I recommended it several times and nobody was interested in reading anything that didn’t line completely up with the accepted version.

In the book Woodward is critical of both sides. I guess that’s why no one on this board wanted to read it at the time.
But you don't read anything. You're too lazy to even link to the book or anything about it.

Don't they teach basic English at Bell Buckle Bible College?
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:30 pm The price of politics was the book. You should read it. As I recall I recommended it several times and nobody was interested in reading anything that didn’t line completely up with the accepted version.
Um, you lied. You said the book was all about the entire ObamaCare law. Here's what the blurb from the publishing company:
Now it’s happening again. In fall 2013, Washington faces a new round of budget and fiscal wars that could derail the American and global economies.

“We are primarily a blocking majority,” said Michael Sommers, Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff, summarizing the House Republican position.

It was the land of no-compromise:

On health care cuts over ten years, Boehner suggested to Obama, you are $400 billion, I’m at $600 billion. “Can we split the difference here? Can we land at $500 billion?”

“Four hundred billion is it,” Obama replied. “I just can’t see how we go any further on that.”

After making $120 billion in other concessions, Obama pleaded with Boehner, “What is it about the politics?”
“My guys just aren’t there,” Boehner replied.
“We are $150 billion off, man. I don’t get it. There’s something I don’t get.”

The Price of Politics chronicles the inside story of how President Obama and the U.S. Congress tried, and failed, to restore the American economy and set it on a course to fiscal stability. Woodward pierces the secretive world of Washington policymaking once again, with a close-up story crafted from meeting notes, documents, working papers, and interviews with key players, including President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner. Woodward lays bare the broken relationship between President Obama and the Congress.
This isn't a book about ObamaCare. At best it's a sidelight. You said: "Bob Woodward has a reputation for pissing both parties off. He wrote a book on that process. He interviewed everyone in the process. All the players. Checked, double checked, cross referenced."

He did NOT write a book about ObamaCare and the process that made it. The Price of Politics was about the budget battles of 2013. ObamaCare was passed in 2010. Here's the NYTimes review of the book, and it too does NOT mention ObamaCare AT ALL - and says "the bulk of its narrative is devoted to behind-the-scenes negotiations that took place in the summer of 2011, as the country teetered on the brink of a potentially catastrophic default over the federal debt ceiling."

While I'm sure the book mentioned ObamaCare, maybe even a few pages or a chapter about it - but you said Bob Woodward wrote a whole book about ObamaCare, with a granular dissection of how it came about, and obviously that isn't the case.

Oh, I'm going to get the book. I'm going to read it. And we already know you misrepresented the book, as the publishing company itself didn't even consider it a big enough part of the book to mention. I'm going to read it because I'm betting you never did.

And no, you didn't recommend it on the old board, because several times I went through everything you said about ObamaCare because you swore up and down that you had recommendations on how to handle the issue of health care differently than the Dems, but you weren't going to repeat yourself. If you had recommended the book, I would have read it then, because I have no trouble with facts, like you do.

But you didn't, because you love to stay ignorant of everything and act like you never heard of the facts presented. And you never had any suggestions on the conservative solution to health care issues. You still don't. Yet you say you're here on the board to debate issues, but you never can.

What I love is that the GOP no longer calls it ObamaCare, but by it's real name, The Affordable Care Act, because it's been very successful and is popular with a majority of the American people. That says it all.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:45 am Um, you lied. You said the book was all about the entire ObamaCare law. Here's what the blurb from the publishing company:



This isn't a book about ObamaCare. At best it's a sidelight. You said: "Bob Woodward has a reputation for pissing both parties off. He wrote a book on that process. He interviewed everyone in the process. All the players. Checked, double checked, cross referenced."

He did NOT write a book about ObamaCare and the process that made it. The Price of Politics was about the budget battles of 2013. ObamaCare was passed in 2010. Here's the NYTimes review of the book, and it too does NOT mention ObamaCare AT ALL - and says "the bulk of its narrative is devoted to behind-the-scenes negotiations that took place in the summer of 2011, as the country teetered on the brink of a potentially catastrophic default over the federal debt ceiling."

While I'm sure the book mentioned ObamaCare, maybe even a few pages or a chapter about it - but you said Bob Woodward wrote a whole book about ObamaCare, with a granular dissection of how it came about, and obviously that isn't the case.

Oh, I'm going to get the book. I'm going to read it. And we already know you misrepresented the book, as the publishing company itself didn't even consider it a big enough part of the book to mention. I'm going to read it because I'm betting you never did.

And no, you didn't recommend it on the old board, because several times I went through everything you said about ObamaCare because you swore up and down that you had recommendations on how to handle the issue of health care differently than the Dems, but you weren't going to repeat yourself. If you had recommended the book, I would have read it then, because I have no trouble with facts, like you do.

But you didn't, because you love to stay ignorant of everything and act like you never heard of the facts presented. And you never had any suggestions on the conservative solution to health care issues. You still don't. Yet you say you're here on the board to debate issues, but you never can.

What I love is that the GOP no longer calls it ObamaCare, but by it's real name, The Affordable Care Act, because it's been very successful and is popular with a majority of the American people. That says it all.
There is no lie here at all. Read the book and get back to me.

I don’t call it Obamacare because all the Dems went apeshit about calling it ACA. I’ll call it whatever you like. Just make up your mind.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 7678
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:22 am There is no lie here at all. Read the book and get back to me.
Link the book you’re talking about, lazy liar.

Do you even know what you’re talking about?

Lazy-ass cons.. :problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:22 am There is no lie here at all. Read the book and get back to me.

I don’t call it Obamacare because all the Dems went apeshit about calling it ACA. I’ll call it whatever you like. Just make up your mind.
I never had a problem with ObamaCare because I knew it would be popular. It was you idiots that thought it would be bad, now you don’t want it linked to Obama.

And yes it was a lie. You said the book was about ObamaCare/ it wasn’t. If it was you’d think the publisher would mention it in their blurb, wouldn’t you?
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:33 am I never had a problem with ObamaCare because I knew it would be popular. It was you idiots that thought it would be bad, now you don’t want it linked to Obama.

And yes it was a lie. You said the book was about ObamaCare/ it wasn’t. If it was you’d think the publisher would mention it in their blurb, wouldn’t you?
If it’s soooo great why are you idiots trying to replace it? When it passed it was supposed to solve the problem. I have no problem with ACA. I think the market can work within its parameters. I see no need to replace it.

The book is about politics. It’s about the policies Obama was punching when he entered office. It was about the relationship between his administration and the Congress. ACA was a big part of that policy agenda.

So read the book and let me know what you think.
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by Drak »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:58 am If it’s soooo great why are you idiots trying to replace it? When it passed it was supposed to solve the problem. I have no problem with ACA. I think the market can work within its parameters. I see no need to replace it.

The book is about politics. It’s about the policies Obama was punching when he entered office. It was about the relationship between his administration and the Congress. ACA was a big part of that policy agenda.

So read the book and let me know what you think.
When it passed it was always meant to be expanded on.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 3122
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by ProfX »

I know this much. Originally, ACA was supposed to include a public option. That got stripped from the bill by Joe Lieberman (I-Insurance Industry) and some other Bluedogs. I really don't care much about the sausage-making of that time period; I remember reading about it as it was happening.

I think Bob Woodward writes good books on the internal workings of various administration's handling of war and foreign policy. Otherwise, I think he has a very soap opera like way of describing how the sausage is made in Washington DC when it comes to other policy. As they say "JMHO".

A public option would still be good to build on the program. It would not be replacing it; it would be adding to it. The public option would appear on the various state exchanges; as an option, you could opt for it. It just would be like Medicare or Medicaid (or the Post Office) and be offered by the government. Just like you can choose UPS, or choose the Post Office, one private, one public.

I know you're against it, Joe. No need to rehash another of your long stated positions. :D I'm only pointing out that there are still ongoing discussions about adding a public option to it, I happen to favor that, and while it would not be, per se, single payer to do that, it would still be a nice step forward (and not "replacing" the original bill). I know there are single payer fanatics who view that as the only holy way to universal health insurance; I am not one of those people. I want the goal, we can debate the method.

Cheers.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

Drak wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:02 am When it passed it was always meant to be expanded on.
So you say. But that wasn’t how it was sold. I understand that was the underlying motive but it was sold as the solution. So if it was the “solution” then why replace it? If it wasn’t the solution but rather a stepping stone, then why not say that when it was being debated before passage?
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:11 am I know this much. Originally, ACA was supposed to include a public option. That got stripped from the bill by Joe Lieberman (I-Insurance Industry) and some other Bluedogs. I really don't care much about the sausage-making of that time period; I remember reading about it as it was happening.

I think Bob Woodward writes good books on the internal workings of various administration's handling of war and foreign policy. Otherwise, I think he has a very soap opera like way of describing how the sausage is made in Washington DC when it comes to other policy. As they say "JMHO".

A public option would still be good to build on the program. It would not be replacing it; it would be adding to it. The public option would appear on the various state exchanges; as an option, you could opt for it. It just would be like Medicare or Medicaid (or the Post Office) and be offered by the government. Just like you can choose UPS, or choose the Post Office, one private, one public.

I know you're against it, Joe. No need to rehash another of your long stated positions. :D I'm only pointing out that there are still ongoing discussions about adding a public option to it, I happen to favor that, and while it would not be, per se, single payer to do that, it would still be a nice step forward (and not "replacing" the original bill). I know there are single payer fanatics who view that as the only holy way to universal health insurance; I am not one of those people. I want the goal, we can debate the method.

Cheers.
The public option is just M4A in disguise. But there is a way to prove your point. Go do It in California. As a matter of fact, go do M4A in California. Proof of concept. It’s supposed to be cheaper and better. So do it in the state that is heavily dominated by democrats who should heartily support such a policy. How bout that? It’s a chance to put your money where your mouth is.
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:58 am If it’s soooo great why are you idiots trying to replace it? When it passed it was supposed to solve the problem. I have no problem with ACA. I think the market can work within its parameters. I see no need to replace it.

The book is about politics. It’s about the policies Obama was punching when he entered office. It was about the relationship between his administration and the Congress. ACA was a big part of that policy agenda.

So read the book and let me know what you think.
It's far better than what we had - and politics is the art of the possible. It's what we could do. You have no alternatives. You never did.

But the real problem with our health care system is that the for-profit model doesn't work when life and death are on the rate sheet. But you love it, because you're making big money on it. You've got a vested interest.

And I'll read the book, I'm in Wisconsin now for a music festival, my free time will be minimal till I get back home next week, but I'll read it, you can bet on it. And you said the whole book was about the ACA, you lied. But we're not like you, Joe. We give a link, you never open it, because you want to be ignorant. But I'm quite sure what the book says is a LOT different than what you are saying it says.
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:26 am The public option is just M4A in disguise. But there is a way to prove your point. Go do It in California. As a matter of fact, go do M4A in California. Proof of concept. It’s supposed to be cheaper and better. So do it in the state that is heavily dominated by democrats who should heartily support such a policy. How bout that? It’s a chance to put your money where your mouth is.
This shows your ignorance. Medicare is not a state program, it's a national program. You can't do Medicare for all in just one state.

But again, this just shows you have ZERO solutions, WE are the only ones that have any solutions at all. So, you always play this rearguard action - Oh, ObamaCare is horrible it'll destroy the nation! Then, ObamaCare passes, and oh, you were for it all the time, it's great, but we don't need anything else. Pretend you were never against it.

Make the same arguments you made before, rinse and repeat.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 4471
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by Libertas »

They have solutions...hint hint. Isolate one word there.
I sigh in your general direction.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:00 pm It's far better than what we had - and politics is the art of the possible. It's what we could do. You have no alternatives. You never did.

But the real problem with our health care system is that the for-profit model doesn't work when life and death are on the rate sheet. But you love it, because you're making big money on it. You've got a vested interest.

And I'll read the book, I'm in Wisconsin now for a music festival, my free time will be minimal till I get back home next week, but I'll read it, you can bet on it. And you said the whole book was about the ACA, you lied. But we're not like you, Joe. We give a link, you never open it, because you want to be ignorant. But I'm quite sure what the book says is a LOT different than what you are saying it says.
Read it and then get back to me.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:05 pm This shows your ignorance. Medicare is not a state program, it's a national program. You can't do Medicare for all in just one state.

But again, this just shows you have ZERO solutions, WE are the only ones that have any solutions at all. So, you always play this rearguard action - Oh, ObamaCare is horrible it'll destroy the nation! Then, ObamaCare passes, and oh, you were for it all the time, it's great, but we don't need anything else. Pretend you were never against it.

Make the same arguments you made before, rinse and repeat.
Sure you can. All you need is a waiver from POTUS. There is absolutely nothing to prevent CA or any state from implementing an alternative.

As far as ACA is concerned, I’m not looking to replace it. That’s you. It was sold as the answer and yet the folks who sold it are now saying we need to replace it with something else.

If your solution is the “answer” then go implement it in the progressive utopia that is CA. Demonstrate the concept in this country. Perfect opportunity to prove the concept works.

California dreaming.
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:53 pm Sure you can. All you need is a waiver from POTUS. There is absolutely nothing to prevent CA or any state from implementing an alternative.
So you say.
As far as ACA is concerned, I’m not looking to replace it. That’s you. It was sold as the answer and yet the folks who sold it are now saying we need to replace it with something else.
It wasn't sold as the answer. I guess you didn't read the book you said was all about ObamaCare (when it wasn't). The public option was sold as what we really needed, and your side blocked it, along with a lot of other stuff.
If your solution is the “answer” then go implement it in the progressive utopia that is CA. Demonstrate the concept in this country. Perfect opportunity to prove the concept works.

California dreaming.
Again, can't do Medicare for all in one state. But you just want to keep the money rolling in, don't you?
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:58 pm So you say.

It wasn't sold as the answer. I guess you didn't read the book you said was all about ObamaCare (when it wasn't). The public option was sold as what we really needed, and your side blocked it, along with a lot of other stuff.

Again, can't do Medicare for all in one state. But you just want to keep the money rolling in, don't you?
Sure it was. The fact it didn’t include a public option wasn’t because Republicans blocked it but rather there were Democrats that didn’t support it.

ACA wasn’t passed as a stopgap. It was passed as the solution. Someone called it a “Big Fucking Deal” as I recall. One member on this board told me that it would hold medical inflation under 4%. I remember how it was sold to the public. If you had tried to sell it as a stopgap, it wouldn’t have passed. If you had tried to sell the public option, it wouldn’t have passed. If you hadn’t passed it in a lame duck session of Congress, it wouldn’t have passed. If you had been honest and said the individual mandate wasn’t a “fine” but rather a tax, it wouldn’t have passed.

But pass it did. It’s now the law of the land. Your parties plan. Your parties solution. Your party passed it on its own. So live with it and stop complaining it isn’t good enough. If you have a better solution go implement it in CA or another blue state that’s willing to take the risk. You are all for these plans as long as somebody else bears the risk of failure. Do it in a state full of believers willing to take the risk before you try to sell us on another one of your “solutions”.
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 2:21 pm Sure it was. The fact it didn’t include a public option wasn’t because Republicans blocked it but rather there were Democrats that didn’t support it.

ACA wasn’t passed as a stopgap. It was passed as the solution. Someone called it a “Big Fucking Deal” as I recall. One member on this board told me that it would hold medical inflation under 4%. I remember how it was sold to the public. If you had tried to sell it as a stopgap, it wouldn’t have passed. If you had tried to sell the public option, it wouldn’t have passed. If you hadn’t passed it in a lame duck session of Congress, it wouldn’t have passed. If you had been honest and said the individual mandate wasn’t a “fine” but rather a tax, it wouldn’t have passed.

But pass it did. It’s now the law of the land. Your parties plan. Your parties solution. Your party passed it on its own. So live with it and stop complaining it isn’t good enough. If you have a better solution go implement it in CA or another blue state that’s willing to take the risk. You are all for these plans as long as somebody else bears the risk of failure. Do it in a state full of believers willing to take the risk before you try to sell us on another one of your “solutions”.
If we had the public option, it WOULD be held under 4%. Because the for-profits can't compete with non-profit. Medicare Advantage is a complete disaster. And you know it.

And the GOP wouldn't even come to the table on a committee if the public option was there. Obama had to remove it first. I remember how it all went down.

So tell me what YOUR solution is, Joe. You're good at throwing rocks, buy your side can't do anything but destroy. Go ahead, tell me what the conservative solution is.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:16 pm If we had the public option, it WOULD be held under 4%. Because the for-profits can't compete with non-profit. Medicare Advantage is a complete disaster. And you know it.

And the GOP wouldn't even come to the table on a committee if the public option was there. Obama had to remove it first. I remember how it all went down.

So tell me what YOUR solution is, Joe. You're good at throwing rocks, buy your side can't do anything but destroy. Go ahead, tell me what the conservative solution is.
Thanks for admitting that the public option is just M4A. You are correct, government prints it’s own money. You can put them in any business and they can put all the competition out of business. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It gives the government a monopoly unto itself. If you want to destroy the medical industry, then give the government a monopoly in it.

Since you claim the GOP “blocked” all these things that you folks wanted to see in ACA. They were in the minority in both houses. There were only 40 GOP Senators as I recall. What exactly did they block? You are such the expert on government and parliamentary procedure. Tell me how many GOP Representatives that voted for the ACA would you have lost if ACA had contained a public option? How many GOP Senators that voted for ACA would you have lost if ACA had contained a public option or any other of the numerous things you claimed they blocked? Name em.
gounion
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:34 pm Thanks for admitting that the public option is just M4A. You are correct, government prints it’s own money. You can put them in any business and they can put all the competition out of business. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It gives the government a monopoly unto itself. If you want to destroy the medical industry, then give the government a monopoly in it.
You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? No, a public option isn't Medicare for all. Having a public option means that people can elect to either buy insurance from a for-profit company on the exchange, or opt into Medicare at cost. That's NOT universal coverage.

So what YOU are saying is that government is superior to business. Well, I don't agree, but you can have your beliefs. But when it comes to medicine, the free market does fail, as you can't do life and death on supply and demand.

Medicare takes money in, and pays out for medical service rendered, same as insurance. The difference is that Medicare operates on a 1-2% overhead. In other words, of every dollar it takes in, it gives out between 98 and 99 cents for service. The rest is the cost of administering the system.

Business can't do that. Hell, they want 20% just for profit. Then they want the private jets and fancy headquarters and multi-million dollar CEO pay packages, and that has to be on top the money they pay out for services. THAT'S why they can't compete. It's not about printing money.

ObamaCare stipulated that the insurance companies HAD to spend at least 80% on care - and since Medicare spends up to 99% on care, THAT'S why they didn't want the public option. They can't compete with that.

And let's be clear: If you haven't turned 65 already, I am QUITE sure that as soon as you turn 65 YOU will be signing up for Medicare from Uncle Sugar. You complain about the government, but if we shut down Medicare, as the people you vote for want to do, how will we pay for senior care? Show me the for-profit corporate plan to pay for that.

You don't have one. You can't do it. So you'll enjoy that government largess, even though the people you vote for want to do away with it. And you know what? You'll like it. Polls show that over 90% of Medicare recipients are happy with it and the quality of care they receive, and they have far fewer complaints than they do with their previous insurance.

We SHOULD move to a system where we simply cover everyone with Medicare. That's NOT government controlled health care, the providers can still be for-profit. It's just a single-payer system. No, it doesn't put insurance companies out of business, there's plenty of other insurance to sell.

But think what this would do for companies. Joe, they pay thousands of dollars per employee EVERY MONTH to provide health insurance. It's a HUGE expense for them. You could increase their Medicare taxes and still save them millions in the long run.

It's a no-brainer.
Since you claim the GOP “blocked” all these things that you folks wanted to see in ACA. They were in the minority in both houses. There were only 40 GOP Senators as I recall. What exactly did they block? You are such the expert on government and parliamentary procedure. Tell me how many GOP Representatives that voted for the ACA would you have lost if ACA had contained a public option? How many GOP Senators that voted for ACA would you have lost if ACA had contained a public option or any other of the numerous things you claimed they blocked? Name em.
Obama wanted the health care proposals to be done openly, as opposed to the closed system they tried in the nineties during the Clinton administration. He wanted both Republicans and Democrats on the committee crafting the law. The Republicans refused to even be ON the Committee if there was a public option, they were so scared of it. So he pulled it off the table before they even started. The Dems gave into damned near ever demand the Republicans wanted, and even then, after all that, not one of them would vote for it. That's how Republicans do things.

It's funny you didn't know this. You really ARE that special kind of stupid.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 3122
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by ProfX »

Some of us have memories, and we do remember that stuff as it was going down in 2009. (Passage of the ACA).

As always, I see stuff being said which goes against things in that political moment I remember happening quite differently. And yes, I was paying attention. Granted, at the time, I remember some crusty lefty baggers mostly whining about how Obama sold them out. They screamed they weren't going to vote in 2010's midterms. And ya know what, it looks to me like they didn't, ... and we know what happened next.

I say this to all so-called sides in politics - it's so weird how the dog wakes up once its jaws are on the bumper. :| Cuz we didn't get much else on the Dem agenda after 2011. Just a lot of Grand Bargains, which were not very art of the deal deals. This is really mostly what Woodward deals with in Price of Politics; it barely mentions Obamacare. He also has some really bad things to say about Boner, err, Boehner, and Eric Cantor, too. Basically, everybody was asleep at the wheel. According to him, anyway. Without a little bit of soap for the opera, he couldn't sell more books. And if you say "all sides are to blame" everybody buys your book. :D

Shrug. We do often seem to be inhabiting different planes of the multiverse these days.

BTW, as soon as I get elected governor of CA, I intend to follow through what Joe keeps asking me to do. :mrgreen:
Last edited by ProfX on Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1586
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:28 am You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? No, a public option isn't Medicare for all. Having a public option means that people can elect to either buy insurance from a for-profit company on the exchange, or opt into Medicare at cost. That's NOT universal coverage.

So what YOU are saying is that government is superior to business. Well, I don't agree, but you can have your beliefs. But when it comes to medicine, the free market does fail, as you can't do life and death on supply and demand.

Medicare takes money in, and pays out for medical service rendered, same as insurance. The difference is that Medicare operates on a 1-2% overhead. In other words, of every dollar it takes in, it gives out between 98 and 99 cents for service. The rest is the cost of administering the system.

Business can't do that. Hell, they want 20% just for profit. Then they want the private jets and fancy headquarters and multi-million dollar CEO pay packages, and that has to be on top the money they pay out for services. THAT'S why they can't compete. It's not about printing money.

ObamaCare stipulated that the insurance companies HAD to spend at least 80% on care - and since Medicare spends up to 99% on care, THAT'S why they didn't want the public option. They can't compete with that.

And let's be clear: If you haven't turned 65 already, I am QUITE sure that as soon as you turn 65 YOU will be signing up for Medicare from Uncle Sugar. You complain about the government, but if we shut down Medicare, as the people you vote for want to do, how will we pay for senior care? Show me the for-profit corporate plan to pay for that.

You don't have one. You can't do it. So you'll enjoy that government largess, even though the people you vote for want to do away with it. And you know what? You'll like it. Polls show that over 90% of Medicare recipients are happy with it and the quality of care they receive, and they have far fewer complaints than they do with their previous insurance.

We SHOULD move to a system where we simply cover everyone with Medicare. That's NOT government controlled health care, the providers can still be for-profit. It's just a single-payer system. No, it doesn't put insurance companies out of business, there's plenty of other insurance to sell.

But think what this would do for companies. Joe, they pay thousands of dollars per employee EVERY MONTH to provide health insurance. It's a HUGE expense for them. You could increase their Medicare taxes and still save them millions in the long run.

It's a no-brainer.

Obama wanted the health care proposals to be done openly, as opposed to the closed system they tried in the nineties during the Clinton administration. He wanted both Republicans and Democrats on the committee crafting the law. The Republicans refused to even be ON the Committee if there was a public option, they were so scared of it. So he pulled it off the table before they even started. The Dems gave into damned near ever demand the Republicans wanted, and even then, after all that, not one of them would vote for it. That's how Republicans do things.

It's funny you didn't know this. You really ARE that special kind of stupid.
Oh I understand what a public option means. It’s a back door attempt to implement M4A. You could put the government in competition with any business in any industry and you would drive out all competition. They have examples of this in Europe and Asia. I wouldn’t say the results are superior. If your competitor cares nothing about loss or risk because they have the ability to print money and they operate under different rules and regulations, you don’t stand a chance. But fortunately that is not how things operate in this country.

Medicare does not operate at 98% efficiency. They have more than 2% in fraud alone. So unless you think a fraudulent payment is a legitimate benefit payment, your argument fails. Do you think all the losses from smash and grab store thefts are “sales”? That’s laughable and ridiculous. It’s a special kind of stupid as you put it.

As for M4A, it give government a huge majority of the medical insurance market. He who controls the money controls. It gives the government the ability to dictate coverages and prices to the medical industry. It gives the government control over the industry. Otherwise, why do it? It’s about control. Government already controls a sizable portion of the market thru Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare. They do not need more. Further it doesn’t guarantee lower costs and better outcomes. If you are so confident it does, then implement it in one or more blue states and demonstrate the concept. According to you, it’s a no brainer. So do it in CA. Sell your no brainer to them. Show them how the numbers work. Show them the savings they and the state will reap. Of course, you should also explain, that if it doesn’t work, they pay the downside. That’s the risk cause CA can’t print money.

As for ACA, YOU implied the GOP blocked the public option and a number of things and yet you ignore the fact the GOP didn’t have the votes to block a single amendment. You totally ignore the fact that the bill passed without GOP support, so provided the Dems were all on the same page, they could have passed whatever they wanted. But the Dems were not all onboard with the public option were they? That’s why ACA didn’t have a public option. So your statement that GOP blocked the things Dems wanted wasn’t accurate. Was that a “lie”? That’s what you would call it if someone else made the statement.

Your statement that Obama made all kinds of concessions to the GOP isn’t quite accurate either according to my recollection nor according to Woodward’s book. He was more than happy to give them an opportunity to vote for his bill if you want to call that a concession. He expected the GOP to just go along. He felt he had a mandate (he might have). He felt he didn’t really need Republicans with the majorities he had in both houses. He didn’t need Republicans but he did need all the Dems in the Senate. So if you didn’t get what you wanted it’s because some members in your party didn’t want or couldn’t support them. But prove me wrong. Tell me which GOP house member or Senator’s vote you would have lost? Can’t lose what you didn’t have to begin with.
Post Reply