Health Care "Biparisanship" Phooey

As the HC Bill debate descends into a referendum on the virtues of bipartisanism as the key to solving the problem, Senator McCain on the floor accuses rank and file opponents of any health care bill as being concerned with their own economic interests. This statement really helps us see what "bipartisanship" really means to these Stockholm Syndrome republicans, as some, like McCain, in effect apologize for the primary party plank that has swept the republicans into their currently holding all three branches of government.

And without apology for their lack of "bipartisanship" during the passing of OC, Dems are now calling for the special treatment and respect that bipartisanism provides. In effect allowing Dems so much contact with the process is to give them political power they denied others on this issue to begin with, and to grant them power by political osmosis from the republican electorate.

In short calls for "bipartisanship" at this point are a clear sign of several things that amount to part of a smoke a mirror show. The other as I see it is the total lack of the insurance and health care industry speaking about it in public. All we see and hear are politicians talking and they really have never established that they even know what they are talking about or how the whole idea of the original HCA has truly effected the middle calls/workingclass. Politicians at this point simply appear to be salesman for interests that stand to gain from the bill and calls for bipartisanship is proof of that reality.

So are you saying that bipartisanship should be avoided? If so that's an even worse idea than what you laid out in the OP.

But I'm sure this reaction is the one they wanted (if that is indeed the point of this thread), trick people into thinking that bipartisanship (the two parties working together) is a bad thing.

a reply to: Logarock


"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Seven years the Republicans were United in repeal aca. Now they have god like power and have to call a sick old man from his bed to pass a bill.

No fan of McCain but he is a hero in a desert of heroes.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So are you saying that bipartisanship should be avoided? If so that's an even worse idea than what you laid out in the OP.

But I'm sure this reaction is the one they wanted (if that is indeed the point of this thread), trick people into thinking that bipartisanship (the two parties working together) is a bad thing.

Well you tell me wise person? Dems didn't give dam about "bipartisan" anything when the passed the AHCA......which never was affordable or read.

a reply to: Logarock

I can't tell you what you meant with this thread, the OP is a bit ambiguous as to what you are suggesting. I'm sure the Democrats didn't care about bipartisanship but how does that make bipartisanship a bad thing? Are you suggesting we not be bipartisan only to spite a certain party?

If your intention was to simply call out the hypocrisy then I may have missed the point entirely and I apologize.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Seven years the Republicans were United in repeal aca. Now they have god like power and have to call a sick old man from his bed to pass a bill.

No fan of McCain but he is a hero in a desert of heroes.

I wouldn't say hes much of a politician even if a hero. Besides he talks to freely negative about the economic concerns of people while he has such a great health care plan.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You know what I am saying. If its not clear I am not going to break it down to a 3rd grade level.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So are you saying that bipartisanship should be avoided? If so that's an even worse idea than what you laid out in the OP.

But I'm sure this reaction is the one they wanted (if that is indeed the point of this thread), trick people into thinking that bipartisanship (the two parties working together) is a bad thing.

Well you tell me wise person? Dems didn't give dam about "bipartisan" anything when the passed the AHCA......which never was affordable or read.

Huh? The Dems openly debated the ACA for over a year. At no point did they exclude Republicans from the debate, and they even allowed for a conservative healthcare bill (Romneycare) to shape Obamacare. Just because no Republican voted for it doesn't mean that they weren't involved with crafting the bill.

a reply to: Logarock

You do not agree with his opinions. I don't either. But his constituents do. I feel sorry for him. He's calling for bipartisanship when his own party is hopeless. Probably set his recovery back.

a reply to: Logarock

Dems and repubs working together, not working together, what difference does it make?

They all work for the same boss, and it is not the voters.

a reply to: Logarock

The ACA was in committee for over a year with plenty of input from the Republicans. The basis of the ACA was created by a Republican think tank for ****'s sake.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Agreed, the repub's hands are all over the ACA, they just were not stupid enough to vote for it.

It says something about the repubs that they would fight for a bill that is horrible and not have the guts to vote for it.

The only thing that sucks more than the dems in this are the repubs.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

AHCA was a total Dem product for #### sake. Republican input was disregarded. What we have now is bipartisanship as a cover for don't really know what we are talking about anyway.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Agreed, the repub's hands are all over the ACA, they just were not stupid enough to vote for it.

It says something about the repubs that they would fight for a bill that is horrible and not have the guts to vote for it.

The only thing that sucks more than the dems in this are the repubs.

This is all disinfo and bullcrap. Do you even know what you are talking about or are you a hack?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Weren't the GOP even allowed to insert their own amendments into the bill as it was being finalized? I could be wrong there but I remember that being part of it.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Logarock

You do not agree with his opinions. I don't either. But his constituents do. I feel sorry for him. He's calling for bipartisanship when his own party is hopeless. Probably set his recovery back.

Hes calling for it because he is a mush ball. And his constituents.......hes trying to lead the whole republican party then his considerations expand.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Weren't the GOP even allowed to insert their own amendments into the bill as it was being finalized? I could be wrong there but I remember that being part of it.

LOL. Do you understand how these things work? What does not one single republican voting for it mean to your position and several others here?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So are you saying that bipartisanship should be avoided? If so that's an even worse idea than what you laid out in the OP.

But I'm sure this reaction is the one they wanted (if that is indeed the point of this thread), trick people into thinking that bipartisanship (the two parties working together) is a bad thing.

Well you tell me wise person? Dems didn't give dam about "bipartisan" anything when the passed the AHCA......which never was affordable or read.

Huh? The Dems openly debated the ACA for over a year. At no point did they exclude Republicans from the debate, and they even allowed for a conservative healthcare bill (Romneycare) to shape Obamacare. Just because no Republican voted for it doesn't mean that they weren't involved with crafting the bill.

Republicans had no influence really and their protests simply fell on deaf ears. Now the dems want inclusion in a big way. LOL

a reply to: Logarock

What does not one single republican voting for it mean to your position and several others here?

I guess that means the Republicans refused to be bipartisan in their vote even though the Dems allowed them to insert their (R) own amendments into it either before or after the vote (not sure when they put their amendments in tbh).

Face it, neither side is bipartisan, it's all about identity politics these days and there is no compromise.