Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Repeal of Obamacare

Repeal of Obamacare (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2017, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Requiring health coverage across the board isn't the most ideologically pure answer, agreed. It forces low-risk people to pay in. However, all those people *will* eventually need coverage as they get older, so it can be considered a pay-in-now, get-back-later deal. And it's far preferable to leaving problems unaddressed.
I think you just described the NHS.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2017, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Fair enough. I was trying to address the OT

From your last source:
You didn't answer my question. Was that health system the best in the world by far?

The fact that we are able to spend more regardless of the effectiveness of that spending is my point.
From a different direction - health care providers are able to charge more, and Americans have not always been able to afford it, hence the #1 cause of bankruptcy being unpaid medical bills.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2017, 11:20 AM
 
Quick aside but the GOP MINUS Susan Collins voted against an amendment protecting the pre-existing conditions clause.

Ithasbegun.gif
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2017, 01:39 PM
 
Susan Collins is generally a reasonable person.

Also in the middle of the night, GOP voted to remove support for vets, children, rural hospitals, kids up to 26, etc etc etc.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2017, 01:56 PM
 
Basically everything that people like that some GOP claim will not be killed. Including Trump, I believe.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2017, 01:57 PM
 
Also, I didn't know the ACA had such a profound effect on vets. All the more shameful.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 03:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm here to see whether people think the current GOP strategy for repeal now then replace replace later is good governance.
It's shitty governance.

Long before the ACA was passed, it was obvious to me Obama was unable to form enough of a consensus to stop it from going up like the Hindenburg as soon as the winds changed direction. Lo and behold, Obama hasn't even left the building and his keystone achievement looks to be a flaming ruin.

Is that good governance?

I don't think I was born with oracle-like powers. This is such basic, basic politics, I'm confounded one of the greatest operators of my lifetime didn't see it coming.

The beef with the Republicans is they don't have a strategy. Fair accusation. What exactly was the strategy here? I'm not seeing one.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 07:16 AM
 
Gruber convinced the Democrats it was a good idea. Tells you a lot about liberal problem solving.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is that good governance?
Obama was the first president since FDR to fundamentally change health care, 20+ million more Americans have health insurance now. So in terms of real life politics, I think it was impressive that Obama got ACA passed at all under the circumstances that prevailed.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The beef with the Republicans is they don't have a strategy. Fair accusation. What exactly was the strategy here? I'm not seeing one.
I think that's a much bigger problem. I see a lot of actions of the GOP in Congress these days as a collection of unforced errors, as if they lack the confidence that they really have the majority. Remember that when you read repeal of the ACA, that's only the spending but not the regulations part. So they put themselves under enormous pressure to actually find a compromise with which to replace the ACA with. And if they fail and millions of Americans either lose (sufficient) insurance coverage, that'll be a PR nightmare for them, and one for which they'll surely be punished during the next election. Other issues where they unnecessarily put the pedal to the medal are these simultaneous confirmation hearings, not even waiting for a clean bill of ethics from the proper government offices.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's shitty governance.

Long before the ACA was passed, it was obvious to me Obama was unable to form enough of a consensus to stop it from going up like the Hindenburg as soon as the winds changed direction. Lo and behold, Obama hasn't even left the building and his keystone achievement looks to be a flaming ruin.

Is that good governance?

I don't think I was born with oracle-like powers. This is such basic, basic politics, I'm confounded one of the greatest operators of my lifetime didn't see it coming.

The beef with the Republicans is they don't have a strategy. Fair accusation. What exactly was the strategy here? I'm not seeing one.
Obama is smart enough to know that the GOP is boxed in here even though they are holding all the cards now. He knows that they will have devil of a time coming up with a more conservative, private insurer based health insurance program that covers the same or greater people at the same or lower cost while maintaining the most popular provisions of Obamacare. The reason is quite simple and has been discussed on the forum ad nauseam.

The ACA is essentially a GOP idea.

If the GOP just blindly takes away health insurance from 20+ million people they will get crushed in the 2018 mid-terms. If they try to replace the ACA with Health Savings Accounts (HSA) they will be revealed as a party that is hellbent on putting ideology over practicality. Because the people most in need of the ACA can't afford to save those types of funds. They certainly won't go for a single-payer approach like every other advanced nation does because that would be too much like right. And if they maintain all the popular provisions of the ACA then it will fundamentally be the ACA under a different name. The good news is that Trump is pressuring them to repealing replace immediately and not repeal and replace later. Which significantly increases the likelihood that it will be a tweaked Obamacare with a different name.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's shitty governance.

Long before the ACA was passed, it was obvious to me Obama was unable to form enough of a consensus to stop it from going up like the Hindenburg as soon as the winds changed direction. Lo and behold, Obama hasn't even left the building and his keystone achievement looks to be a flaming ruin.

Is that good governance?

I don't think I was born with oracle-like powers. This is such basic, basic politics, I'm confounded one of the greatest operators of my lifetime didn't see it coming.

The beef with the Republicans is they don't have a strategy. Fair accusation. What exactly was the strategy here? I'm not seeing one.
You're arguing politics rather than real-world impact. I've said before, the ACA is flawed but it's the best we could get. Leaving the status quo would be bad governance.

I'm not sure how you reach consensus with people who are so spiteful they refuse to expand an already existing government program like Medicaid in their own state, hurting their own constituents.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And if they fail and millions of Americans either lose (sufficient) insurance coverage, that'll be a PR nightmare for them, and one for which they'll surely be punished during the next election..
"I was doing fine before Obamacare then Obama had to come in and mess everything up and my GOP congressmen are just trying to fix the mess Obama made."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"I was doing fine before Obamacare then Obama had to come in and mess everything up and my GOP congressmen are just trying to fix the mess Obama made."
People who don't give a shit will likely be outnumbered by those who lost coverage. At the very least the latter will be more politically motivated.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 11:36 AM
 
When people lose their coverage how many will think "thanks, Obama"?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 11:45 AM
 
Having coverage that is too expensive to use due to high deductibles is the same as no insurance. Thanks to Obama.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Having coverage that is too expensive to use due to high deductibles is the same as no insurance. Thanks to Obama.
A valid point. Unfortunately I haven't seen any breakdowns on the % of people suffering under this problem.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Having coverage that is too expensive to use due to high deductibles is the same as no insurance. Thanks to Obama.
And having "insurance" that doesn't cover much of anything because of low deductible is the same as no insurance.

Beware The Great Health Insurance Scam Of 2014 | Forbes.com

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And having "insurance" that doesn't cover much of anything because of low deductible is the same as no insurance.

Beware The Great Health Insurance Scam Of 2014 | Forbes.com

OAW
Also a valid point. It's why the ACA mandated certain coverage minimums.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
Like men need abortion funding? the ACA was poorly though out and a giant pile of steaming shit. Unfortunately, that was the best the Democrats could do.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're arguing politics rather than real-world impact. I've said before, the ACA is flawed but it's the best we could get. Leaving the status quo would be bad governance.

I'm not sure how you reach consensus with people who are so spiteful they refuse to expand an already existing government program like Medicaid in their own state, hurting their own constituents.
I'm arguing politics because politics has real-world impact. The ACA going down in flames isn't real enough?

Consensus is built with spiteful people the same way it's done with anyone else. Offer them something they want in exchange for cooperation.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm arguing politics because politics has real-world impact. The ACA going down in flames isn't real enough?

Consensus is built with spiteful people the same way it's done with anyone else. Offer them something they want in exchange for cooperation.
This reminds me of ebuddy arguing that it was the Democrats fault for the shutdown in 2013 because they wouldn't negotiate. When I asked what the GOP was offering he replied, "Keeping the government open."

Sorry, at some point the line is drawn on reasonable negotiation. If the GOP are willing to condemn people to death and possibly hurt the medical system over spite so be it. Blaming Obama however is completely dishonest.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Like men need abortion funding? the ACA was poorly though out and a giant pile of steaming shit. Unfortunately, that was the best the Democrats could do.

Do you intend to hold the Republicans accountable for a viable replacement?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 02:25 PM
 
Hell YES!
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Hell YES!
In what real, tangible ways will that happen? How are you measuring the success and failure of the political figures you support? With what objective metrics will you evaluate the outcome of the repeal?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This reminds me of ebuddy arguing that it was the Democrats fault for the shutdown in 2013 because they wouldn't negotiate. When I asked what the GOP was offering he replied, "Keeping the government open."

Sorry, at some point the line is drawn on reasonable negotiation. If the GOP are willing to condemn people to death and possibly hurt the medical system over spite so be it. Blaming Obama however is completely dishonest.
The way a democracy works is individuals like ourselves or Obama don't get to decide what constitutes reasonable negotiation. A large and fractious group of duly elected representatives get to do that.

I can work within this system and succeed, or I can go against it and fail. It doesn't matter how good my policy is or how desperately it's needed.

There's a reason people hate politics.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Like men need abortion funding? the ACA was poorly though out and a giant pile of steaming shit. Unfortunately, that was the best the Democrats could do.
Like women need Viagra funding? Or prostate cancer treatment? Yet somehow I bet you aren't bitching about health insurance covering that though.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The way a democracy works is individuals like ourselves or Obama don't get to decide what constitutes reasonable negotiation. A large and fractious group of duly elected representatives get to do that.

I can work within this system and succeed, or I can go against it and fail. It doesn't matter how good my policy is or how desperately it's needed.

There's a reason people hate politics.
I think the past 10 years is a great example of how democracy can fail. The GOP has not been acting in good faith. They flatly admitted they were committed to undermining Obama. You can't negotiate with that.

I'll cede you're being pragmatic, but this is "I will negotiate with terrorists" levels of pragmatic.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Like women need Viagra funding? Or prostate cancer treatment? Yet somehow I bet you aren't bitching about health insurance covering that though.

OAW
Don't forget mental health treatment.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think the past 10 years is a great example of how democracy can fail. The GOP has not been acting in good faith.
They've done exactly what they've said they were going to do.

They flatly admitted they were committed to undermining Obama. You can't negotiate with that.
Since when has democracy ever meant actively supporting ideals and policies you disagree with?

I'll cede you're being pragmatic, but this is "I will negotiate with terrorists" levels of pragmatic.
Funny you should bring that example up, when one of the GOP's main gripes with this administration was their negotiation's with actual terrorists.

Was it pragmatic to pay Iran a ransom, then bold face lie to the American public even when the details of the transaction were coming to light? Was that worthy of GOP support?
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2017, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The way a democracy works is individuals like ourselves or Obama don't get to decide what constitutes reasonable negotiation. A large and fractious group of duly elected representatives get to do that.

I can work within this system and succeed, or I can go against it and fail. It doesn't matter how good my policy is or how desperately it's needed.

There's a reason people hate politics.
Politics and democracy are destined for failure when one side is operating as the system was intended and the other is throwing their toys like toddlers and the result is that the toddlers get voted into total control.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2017, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think the past 10 years is a great example of how democracy can fail. The GOP has not been acting in good faith. They flatly admitted they were committed to undermining Obama. You can't negotiate with that.

I'll cede you're being pragmatic, but this is "I will negotiate with terrorists" levels of pragmatic.
Honest question... what's on the master list of Obama consessions to the Republicans?

If this list is long, I withdraw my accusation. If this is short, is there not a point where it's the Republicans being asked to negotiate with terrorists?

Rahm told Obama flat-out this was a horrible idea. Is Rahm the roll-over type?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2017, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
In what real, tangible ways will that happen? How are you measuring the success and failure of the political figures you support? With what objective metrics will you evaluate the outcome of the repeal?
Thank you for jumping in. I'm going to try to remember Badkosh saying this and see if he holds true to this statement.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2017, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Politics and democracy are destined for failure when one side is operating as the system was intended and the other is throwing their toys like toddlers and the result is that the toddlers get voted into total control.
The way the system was intended to work was horse trading.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2017, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The way the system was intended to work was horse trading.
The way the system was intended to work was:

Team D: "We want A, B and C, we don't like D and we will not have E under any circumstances."
Team R: "We want D, E and F, we don't like B and we will not have A under any circumstances."

You compromise and end up with B, C, D and F

What you've had is

Team D: "We want A, B and C, we don't like D and we will not have E under any circumstances."
Team R: "We want D, E and F, and we will not have A, B or C under any circumstances."
Team D: "OK, we'll give you D and F if you let us have C and G
Team R: "We will not have A, B, C or G under any circumstances."
Team D: "OK, how about we give you D, E and F and you let us have H?"
Team R: "We will not have A, B, C, G or H under any circumstances."

Team D forces the compromise through and you get B, C, D and F as you should.
Team R: "You're tyrants, you didn't negotiate at all."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 06:59 AM
 
Where is the part about you have to vote for it to see what is in it? Republicans had no say in Obamacare.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The way the system was intended to work was:

Team D: "We want A, B and C, we don't like D and we will not have E under any circumstances."
Team R: "We want D, E and F, we don't like B and we will not have A under any circumstances."

You compromise and end up with B, C, D and F

What you've had is

Team D: "We want A, B and C, we don't like D and we will not have E under any circumstances."
Team R: "We want D, E and F, and we will not have A, B or C under any circumstances."
Team D: "OK, we'll give you D and F if you let us have C and G
Team R: "We will not have A, B, C or G under any circumstances."
Team D: "OK, how about we give you D, E and F and you let us have H?"
Team R: "We will not have A, B, C, G or H under any circumstances."

Team D forces the compromise through and you get B, C, D and F as you should.
Team R: "You're tyrants, you didn't negotiate at all."
I again ask for examples of Republican demands which were acquiesced to.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Where is the part about you have to vote for it to see what is in it? Republicans had no say in Obamacare.
I know that's what you want to tell yourself but the facts show otherwise.

Almost no one is noting the extraordinary influence Republicans had on the healthcare reform bill crafted by the Senate, as it made its way through the committee process last year. The bill approved by Sen. Christopher Dodd’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, for instance, included 161 amendments authored by Republicans. Only 49 Republican amendments were rejected out of 210 considered. Yet the bill got zero Republican votes when it passed out of the committee.

You’ll all remember the Senate Finance Committee process, chaired by Montana Sen. Max Baucus. Baucus and President Obama empowered a bipartisan “Gang of Six” from the committee, three Democrats and three Republicans, and they spent the summer locked in negotiations that, again, never produced one Republican vote for the bill in committee. The Finance Committee ultimately scuttled the public option in its version of the bill, looking for GOP (and conservative Democratic) support.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein has noted that the final Democratic proposals have contained multiple GOP planks. To mention just a few:

- Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do

- Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower healthcare costs

- End junk lawsuits

- Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines

Maybe most disturbing to liberal Democrats, the White House didn’t include the public option in the outline of the strong healthcare reform compromise the president wants to see. Even though Obama seems ready to use reconciliation to pass elements of the bill, he’s telegraphing his unwillingness to use it for the popular but controversial public option (even though, at one time at least, it likely had 50 votes). The final concession: Sen. Jay Rockefeller, once the public option’s most ardent supporter, now opposes using reconciliation to pass the measure because he fears it would be too divisive.

To recap: Senate Democrats have accepted at least 161 Republican amendments to their healthcare reform legislation, they’ve incorporated core GOP planks, and they’ve scuttled an aspect of the plan most popular with its base, the public option, because of opposition by Republicans as well as red state Democrats.

But they haven’t compromised with Republicans? It seems as though the GOP’s definition of compromise and collaboration involves the president and the Democrats dropping all of their ideas and passing the Republican platform. That’s OK; it’s their job to push their party line. But too much of the media seems to be falling for it.
Fact-checking the GOP on healthcare reform - Salon.com

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I again ask for examples of Republican demands which were acquiesced to.
Obama's SC nominee for one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 04:46 PM
 
Which one and how?
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 09:53 PM
 
Any of them and the fact they refused to do their jobs and appoint one. They got away with it completely. Even the voters let them off.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2017, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Any of them and the fact they refused to do their jobs and appoint one. They got away with it completely. Even the voters let them off.
So not Sotomayor or Kagan, who weren't exactly compromise appointments.

As for Garland, the way horse trading works is if one can get away completely with offering price X, one does not offer less.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 12:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for Garland, the way horse trading works is if one can get away completely with offering price X, one does not offer less.
With Garland the GOP didn't want to negotiate at all. I remember Lindsey Graham's quote very well: even if Obama proposed him, he'd refuse to vote on his own nomination. There was no willingness to compromise one millimeter.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jan 16, 2017 at 12:48 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So not Sotomayor or Kagan, who weren't exactly compromise appointments.

As for Garland, the way horse trading works is if one can get away completely with offering price X, one does not offer less.
To be honest I try to contribute and I think I'm probably being fair when I suggest I do much better at US political discussion than most of you would at UK politics, but there are only so many boring old bastards I can keep track of. I've heard both these names but I don't know jack about either one.

Ora seems to be following my gist though. The Republicans caught on to the tactic of not negotiating at all. As tactics go, its effective. They either get what they want, a better deal than they should have got or they get ammunition to moan about what a tyrant Obama was, flinging his executive orders about when they gave him no other choice. And of course their voters don't really care what they do, I don't think the Dems would ever have that luxury.

You can point to Hillary screwing over Bernie as the best (if not only) example to the contrary, but I think a lot of people worried that he wouldn't be able to win because of the rights' hatred of socialism and if Trump isn't extenuating circumstances anyway then I don't know what is.
Its another reason that to an observer who really is more impartial than he appears to be, US politics looks like good versus evil. One side is curtailed by the rules, the other side doesn't have any when it comes down to it. Maybe that needs a thread of its own though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Honest question... what's on the master list of Obama consessions to the Republicans?

If this list is long, I withdraw my accusation. If this is short, is there not a point where it's the Republicans being asked to negotiate with terrorists?

Rahm told Obama flat-out this was a horrible idea. Is Rahm the roll-over type?
You're ignoring the point. Can reasonable negotiation be had if one side has no interest in what you're proposing or in helping you?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 01:19 PM
 
Reasonable negotiation can be had with:
"I won't negotiate [unless something I actually want is offered]."

It cannot be had with:
"I won't negotiate [no matter what]."

If what's being given as an example of Obama's horse trading is replacing two centrist judges with lefty ones, and one of the most conservative justices in modern history with a centrist, I think an argument can be made nothing they actually want has been offered.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To be honest I try to contribute and I think I'm probably being fair when I suggest I do much better at US political discussion than most of you would at UK politics
If one has to choose between the two, they could do worse than picking the one that actually matters.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Reasonable negotiation can be had with:
"I won't negotiate [unless something I actually want is offered]."

It cannot be had with:
"I won't negotiate [no matter what]."

If what's being given as an example of Obama's horse trading is replacing two centrist judges with lefty ones, and one of the most conservative justices in modern history with a centrist, I think an argument can be made nothing they actually want has been offered.
What's being given as an example is what we've been talking about previously. You seem to be convinced the GOP would come to the table if they were offered something. Given how much they hated Ibama I'm skeptical but assuming an enticement existed I feel even more strongly it would not have been an equitable trade given their negotiating position.

I think we're at a stalemate of differing analysis on the unknowable. The evidence I present in my defense is a reasonable group wouldn't shut-down the government over spite. And now that they're in power, a reasonable group wouldn't repeal the popular aspects of the law rather than amend it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 02:41 PM
 
Trump Signals 'Insurance for Everybody' in Health Care Replacement - NBC News

I'm sure Priebus will be along to tell us he meant access and not coverage.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I feel even more strongly it would not have been an equitable trade given their negotiating position.
If what you mean by negotiating position is enough votes in Congress, and enough of a constituency to back it up... that's how it works.

If I have a better negotiating position, I get to demand inequitable terms.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2017, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If what you mean by negotiating position is enough votes in Congress, and enough of a constituency to back it up... that's how it works.

If I have a better negotiating position, I get to demand inequitable terms.
That's part of the position but it's not all of it.


Doesn't history show they had little-to-no negotiating position?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,