A Conservative View

[Hawkeye2j]

Republicans promised political tragedy for Democrats if they passed health care reform, but one conservative commentator and former high-ranking GOP operative asserted that the "disaster" will be faced by his own party.

Invoking Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) infamous remarks last July that killing the legislation would be President Obama's "Waterloo," David Frum offered a dire assessment of the GOP's fate. "[I]t's Waterloo all right: ours," he wrote on his blog Frum Forum.

"Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s," said Frum, a former speechwriter and adviser to President George W. Bush. "It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster."

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat," he explained, on the day the House of Representatives cleared the historic legislation for the president to sign into law.

Frum sternly rebuffed the predominant right-wing memes about the allegedly partisan process, alleging the "blame" for their forthcoming political woes lies with conservatives and Republicans for adamantly refusing to compromise on any level with President Obama and Democrats.

[doctordog]

Republicans promised political tragedy for Democrats if they passed health care reform, but one conservative commentator and former high-ranking GOP operative asserted that the "disaster" will be faced by his own party.

Invoking Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) infamous remarks last July that killing the legislation would be President Obama's "Waterloo," David Frum offered a dire assessment of the GOP's fate. "[I]t's Waterloo all right: ours," he wrote on his blog Frum Forum.

"Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s," said Frum, a former speechwriter and adviser to President George W. Bush. "It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster."

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat," he explained, on the day the House of Representatives cleared the historic legislation for the president to sign into law.

Frum sternly rebuffed the predominant right-wing memes about the allegedly partisan process, alleging the "blame" for their forthcoming political woes lies with conservatives and Republicans for adamantly refusing to compromise on any level with President Obama and Democrats.


How in the fuck can a party compromise when they aren't invited to the meetings?:confused:

1165

[Hawkeye2j]

How in the fuck can a party compromise when they aren't invited to the meetings?:confused:

1165
Cut the crap. Obama reached out from the beginning and the Republicans made clear they weren't interested in getting a bill passed. These meetings took place after every effort was made to bring Republicans into the process.

[mwillman]

How in the fuck can a party compromise when they aren't invited to the meetings?:confused:


They were invited to all kinds of meetings, starting over a year ago.
They instead decided to just say No and now they are going to pay for it.

[Lazarus]

Hmmmm...... I seem to remember the "Gang of Six" of the Senate Finance Committee, headed by Max Baucus. A gang with 3 Dems, and 3 Repubs. It didn't have to be 3 on 3, seeing the Dems had the majority. Baucus wanted it that was. Also, how many Repub Amendments are in the Senate bill? I don't know the exact number, but I believe it is quite a few. Not invited to the meetings???? Gimme a break! Spin away!

[Scottbrown2012]

Hmmmm...... I seem to remember the "Gang of Six" of the Senate Finance Committee, headed by Max Baucus. A gang with 3 Dems, and 3 Repubs. It didn't have to be 3 on 3, seeing the Dems had the majority. Baucus wanted it that was. Also, how many Repub Amendments are in the Senate bill? I don't know the exact number, but I believe it is quite a few. Not invited to the meetings???? Gimme a break! Spin away!
Last count I heard was at 100 republican amendments in the bill. The Repukes just have sour grapes because it was not 100 percent their bill.

[doctordog]

They were invited to all kinds of meetings, starting over a year ago.
They instead decided to just say No and now they are going to pay for it.

No, we are going to pay for it, even you dipshit.:thumbsup:

[doctordog]

Cut the crap. Obama reached out from the beginning and the Republicans made clear they weren't interested in getting a bill passed. These meetings took place after every effort was made to bring Republicans into the process.

Only because no compromise was ever offered, it was our way or the highway. We will see how it goes now as all of their futures are riding on this bill.

So do you have insurance in that new job you took 6 months ago or so?

[Hawkeye2j]

Only because no compromise was ever offered, it was our way or the highway. We will see how it goes now as all of their futures are riding on this bill.

So do you have insurance in that new job you took 6 months ago or so?

You are so full of crap. The liberals were pissed at Obama for giving in to the Republicans.

[doctordog]

You are so full of crap. The liberals were pissed at Obama for giving in to the Republicans.

No Kid, you are full of crap and if you aren't careful you might slip and fall in it.

[Citizen]

The problem is the direct (and indirect) effects of government are too difficult to quantify because every government intrusion distorts the market. It distorts price signals. It causes people to make (less efficient) choices that they otherwise would not make. Government has been meddling in medicine over the past 80 years - from the FDA to taxes to insurance restrictions to insurance subsidies to targeted employer tax breaks to licensing laws to Medicare...

It goes on and on. It's always very difficult to argue the limited government point because it's so hard to document the specific cost increases and the direct and indirect consequences of government intervention that have a ripple effect throughout the economy. It's easier to appreciate however, if you can accept the very real fact that government intervention does NOT lower costs. It raises them - both directly and indirectly.

This bill, for instance, does nothing to actually lower medical costs. It raises them. Now you're thinking, "What does he mean it doesn't lower costs? So many more people will be able to afford health insurance." But look at the wording. Yes, more people will be able to afford health INSURANCE because this bill transfers the burden of paying the price from some Americans onto others. It doesn't actually lower the COST required to produce the medical equipment/drugs/service. Instead it further skews the market by artificially putting more people into high coverage insurance which means less selective shopping for cheaper treatments and, as a result, higher prices.

[Hawkeye2j]

The costs would be controlled had their been a public option. That is what the Democrats wanted and couldn't get.

[John Galt]

The costs would be controlled had their been a public option. That is what the Democrats wanted and couldn't get.
If they 'wanted' it, they would've gotten it.

They're whores too....they just love to hide that fact, the way reps. like to hide their gay tendencies.

[Pat]

The problem is the direct (and indirect) effects of government are too difficult to quantify because every government intrusion distorts the market. It distorts price signals. It causes people to make (less efficient) choices that they otherwise would not make. Government has been meddling in medicine over the past 80 years - from the FDA to taxes to insurance restrictions to insurance subsidies to targeted employer tax breaks to licensing laws to Medicare...

It goes on and on. It's always very difficult to argue the limited government point because it's so hard to document the specific cost increases and the direct and indirect consequences of government intervention that have a ripple effect throughout the economy. It's easier to appreciate however, if you can accept the very real fact that government intervention does NOT lower costs. It raises them - both directly and indirectly.

This bill, for instance, does nothing to actually lower medical costs. It raises them. Now you're thinking, "What does he mean it doesn't lower costs? So many more people will be able to afford health insurance." But look at the wording. Yes, more people will be able to afford health INSURANCE because this bill transfers the burden of paying the price from some Americans onto others. It doesn't actually lower the COST required to produce the medical equipment/drugs/service. Instead it further skews the market by artificially putting more people into high coverage insurance which means less selective shopping for cheaper treatments and, as a result, higher prices.
I wonder if the increased taxes on manufactures of medical equipment will raise prices?
Actually, I don't.
I know they will.
So much for lowering costs for medical care.