Should Obama be lecturing anyone on Bipatisanship?

[Writewing]

During the State of the Union speech President Obama urged or lectured the Right on not being more in tune with his agenda and voting no or blocking ideas and policy formed by the Left referring to it in more than one forum as "playing Politics". Does his Sentate record in both Illinois and Washingtion really allow him to be a voice of reason?
Further for those who say the Right is just playing Politics there is a quote that may be of benefit from who many consider to be a man of great intellect and wisdom.
"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that, if I don't agree with you on something, that it must be because I'm doing that politically.'' (Barack Obama, Powder Springs, Georgia July 8 2008)
Perhaps he can remember his well reasoned words when he wants to take the Right to task.
For what its worth if he wants to show some true compromise and eagerness to work with the Right perhaps they will respond in kind but dont expect those on the Conservative side to compromise core beliefs, as our President didnt compromise his before he was our President.
In close Obama had what many consider the most lockstep Liberal voting trend in Senate during his short stint, is this a "Do as I say not as I do" moment?

[djv8ga]

The worst thing the right can do right now is NOT be the party of HELL NO!. Screw bipartisanship.

[merrylander]

When Senator Jim Demented said that healthcare reform would be Obama's Waterloo I would hardly call that being bi-partisan. The Republican position has been obstructionist right from the git go.

[noonereal]

our government is paralyzed and the republicans paralyzed it

they put party ahead of country

has it been successful politically, yes

has it been bad for the country?

yes

[Grumpy]

our government is paralyzed and the republicans paralyzed it

they put party ahead of country

has it been successful politically, yes

has it been bad for the country?

yes


Would like to add, has the way the our prez handed off every project to his party ? Yes and its lead us to where we are. Possibly worse off then we were before.

[merrylander]

WW "core beliefs" ? ROTFLMAO

[Boreas]

Would like to add, has the way the our prez handed off every project to his party ? Yes and its lead us to where we are. Possibly worse off then we were before.

I think you mean he handed them off to Congress, don't you? That's entirely appropriate since they're the legislative branch of government. I do think Obama could have shown more leadership.

John

[merrylander]

SO Senator Mary LAndrieu complains about Obama criticising the Senate, she said it was unfair. Damn glad I don't have that woman's nerve in a tooth.

[Fast_Eddie]

Would like to add, has the way the our prez handed off every project to his party ? Yes and its lead us to where we are. Possibly worse off then we were before.

Look, the way things have been managed cleary hasn't worked. I get that. But think about it- I believe he was trying to do it the "right way". He looked at what happened to Clintion and said "I'm not going to make that mistake". Let Congress make the laws. I'm sure he had a vision that they would get all dirty and he would be able to stay above it all - keeping his image untarnished.

There's merrit in the plan. How many times have we heard the right wing defend Bush by saying "he didn't make any laws, Congress makes laws". Maybe Obama wanted to actually give it a shot.

Like I said, I get it didn't work out that way. But I don't think we can knock him for letting Congress take the lead on legislation. Maybe he should have tried to find a more happy medium. But you can't condem the idea out of hand.

[Grumpy]

Look, the way things have been managed cleary hasn't worked. I get that. But think about it- I believe he was trying to do it the "right way". He looked at what happened to Clintion and said "I'm not going to make that mistake". Let Congress make the laws. I'm sure he had a vision that they would get all dirty and he would be able to stay above it all - keeping his image untarnished.

There's merrit in the plan. How many times have we heard the right wing defend Bush by saying "he didn't make any laws, Congress makes laws". Maybe Obama wanted to actually give it a shot.

Like I said, I get it didn't work out that way. But I don't think we can knock him for letting Congress take the lead on legislation. Maybe he should have tried to find a more happy medium. But you can't condem the idea out of hand.

Why could they not work together ? Wait thats a democracy and we cannot have that. Sorry but he wanted to be the president that "changed" things. Handing crap off to other people without getting his hands dirty, so as not to tarnish his image did not work not to mention it was not much of a change compared to lets say bush ( Oh no he didnt just compare bush to the great and mighty obie ) His approval ratings are at an all time low and if he does not start doing some real good for "everyone" in this country we all screwed.

I have said over and over again. I did not like bush's bail out and obies sucks too. Until we get a president in there who cares more about us, the people, and gives a shit about big biz or his party the outlook is bleak at best.

[Boreas]

Sorry but he wanted to be the president that "changed" things. Handing crap off to other people without getting his hands dirty, so as not to tarnish his image did not work

You're right. It didn't work but he was more or less correct to try. It was consistent with the "Separation of Powers" in the Constitution. I think Obama should have shown more leadership in trying to influence the direction Congress took.

not to mention it was not much of a change compared to lets say bush ( Oh no he didnt just compare bush to the great and mighty obie)

Well, it's quite a bit different from Bush. Bush (or Cheney) told the Republicans what to write and they wrote it. Then they used every trick and dirty dealings they could to get things passed.

They even had industry lobbyists draft legislation designed to regulate them. If Obama had done that on Health Care reform The Republicans would have been instructed to get on board.

His approval ratings are at an all time low and if he does not start doing some real good for "everyone" in this country we all screwed.

His approval ratings are, or were before the SOTU, his "personal worst" but they were far from, say, Bush's low point. I do think he wants to do what's right for the country but the Gordian knot of problems the Republicans dropped in his lap are absolutely mind numbing.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Why could they not work together ? Wait thats a democracy and we cannot have that. Sorry but he wanted to be the president that "changed" things. Handing crap off to other people without getting his hands dirty, so as not to tarnish his image did not work not to mention it was not much of a change compared to lets say bush ( Oh no he didnt just compare bush to the great and mighty obie ) His approval ratings are at an all time low and if he does not start doing some real good for "everyone" in this country we all screwed.

I have said over and over again. I did not like bush's bail out and obies sucks too. Until we get a president in there who cares more about us, the people, and gives a shit about big biz or his party the outlook is bleak at best.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. In hindsight, he probably should have played more of a leadership role. I'm just stating political reality. He saw Clinton do that and get burned. So he thought he'd try something else.

As for "doing something for 'everyone'" we'll have to agree to see it differently. I believe health care was for "everyone" and now we get it for "no one". I also believe that the Republicans are primarily to blame for this. I also think it's tragic for America that the voters rewarded their "just say no" strategy, and now everyone is saying "they should work together". We just gave the Republicans a big political boost for doing exactly the opposite. What is their motivation to change now? Hell, they can block every piece of legislation and say "See, the Democrats didn't do anything at all!" And if recent history is any idication that will result in them winning large majorities next time 'round.

That's some messed up thinking America.

[merrylander]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. In hindsight, he probably should have played more of a leadership role. I'm just stating political reality. He saw Clinton do that and get burned. So he thought he'd try something else.

As for "doing something for 'everyone'" we'll have to agree to see it differently. I believe health care was for "everyone" and now we get it for "no one". I also believe that the Republicans are primarily to blame for this. I also think it's tragic for America that the voters rewarded their "just say no" strategy, and now everyone is saying "they should work together". We just gave the Republicans a big political boost for doing exactly the opposite. What is their motivation to change now? Hell, they can block every piece of legislation and say "See, the Democrats didn't do anything at all!" And if recent history is any idication that will result in them winning large majorities next time 'round.

That's some messed up thinking America.

If by rewarding "just say no" you are referring to Mass and #42 that was not countrywide it was the voters in Mass saying"We have good health care, so screw you jack, we are not paying for yours"

[Fast_Eddie]

If by rewarding "just say no" you are referring to Mass and #42 that was not countrywide it was the voters in Mass saying"We have good health care, so screw you jack, we are not paying for yours"

Maybe I'm not giving America enough credit. I keep seeing news a polls about Republicans beating Democrats - and the take away is always the same. Somehow they relate this to the Democrats inability to be "bi-partisan".

I'll admit I don't follow the logic. So I may have it all wrong.

[finnbow]

As for "doing something for 'everyone'" we'll have to agree to see it differently. I believe health care was for "everyone" and now we get it for "no one". I also believe that the Republicans are primarily to blame for this. I also think it's tragic for America that the voters rewarded their "just say no" strategy, and now everyone is saying "they should work together". We just gave the Republicans a big political boost for doing exactly the opposite. What is their motivation to change now? Hell, they can block every piece of legislation and say "See, the Democrats didn't do anything at all!" And if recent history is any idication that will result in them winning large majorities next time 'round.

That's some messed up thinking America.

As frustrated as I am about the health care debacle and as much as I dislike the GOP's stance and tactics, the Dem's hosed themselves on this one. First, a 2000 page bill that few have read and nobody explained well to the public, coupled with sweetheart deals for Louisiana, Nebraska, the Unions, the insurance companies, and the trial lawyers made a lot of people highly skeptical as to whether this was the right prescription for what ails the health care system.

Also, consider for a moment that the GOP had the Presidency and 60 Senators. Do you doubt for a minute their ability to get through their party's highest priority legislation lickety-split through Congress (for better or worse)? I don't. Incompetence has its price.

Lastly, to the OP. What of the President bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship and his adversaries "playing politics?" There's absolutely nothing new in this rhetoric (when delivered from either side.) At the SOTU address, he wasn't really talking to the fools in the gallery. He was talking to the home audience and trying to "spread the blame" for the health care debacle. He couldn't just go up there and say Harry and Nancy screwed the pooch and, by the way, my leadership wasn't very good either.

[Writewing]

Well if the can add true Tort reform to clamp down on trial lawyers and abusive lawsuits, allow purchase of Healthcare across state lines to add competition and get rid of a Union tax exemption than maybe there is something to talk about.

[Boreas]

Maybe I'm not giving America enough credit. I keep seeing news a polls about Republicans beating Democrats - and the take away is always the same. Somehow they relate this to the Democrats inability to be "bi-partisan".

I'll admit I don't follow the logic. So I may have it all wrong.

The three races the media keep harping on aren't the whole story. There were many other races, congressional, mayoral, etc. where the Democrats won. Just in terms of numbers the Democrats have been kicking ass since Obama took office but you wouldn't know it by following most reporting.

Even in the three races getting all the attention, two gubernatorial and one senatorial, the problem seems to have been, as much as anything else, weak Democratic candidates. Coakley revealed herself to be arrogant and out of touch, expecting a coronation, Corzine's administration was positively riddled with scandal and corruption and Deeds campaigned so far to the Right that Democrats wouldn't vote for him but not far enough to attract Republican support.

I really don't think Democratic supporters have any hope in bipartisanship. I know that the Republican voters are actually against it. The Democrats have correctly determined that the majority of the country is on their side but what they don't realize that the country is becoming less and less sure that the Democrats are on theirs.

John

[Boreas]

Well if the can add true Tort reform to clamp down on trial lawyers and abusive lawsuits, allow purchase of Healthcare across state lines to add competition and get rid of a Union tax exemption than maybe there is something to talk about.

In other words, start acting like Republicans or fuggedabadit.

Right wing "bipartisanship".

John

[finnbow]

The Democrats have correctly determined that the majority of the country is on their side but what they don't realize that the country is becoming less and less sure that the Democrats are on theirs.

John

QFT.:o

[Fast_Eddie]

Well if the can add true Tort reform to clamp down on trial lawyers and abusive lawsuits, allow purchase of Healthcare across state lines to add competition and get rid of a Union tax exemption than maybe there is something to talk about.

I don't know about the whole "tort reform" thing. Maybe there's something there, but I have yet to be convienced of it. If someone does wrong, I want to preserve my right to my day in court. When I hear that coming from the right I think "there they go again, trying to take away my rights in favor of protecting insurance company profits."

I honestly do not know- does anyone have any figures regarding the tort issue? Is it really a significant issue (as in, would save more than a single digit percentage in overall cost) or is it another distraction to get our eye off the ball?

[Boreas]

I don't know about the whole "tort reform" thing. Maybe there's something there, but I have yet to be convienced of it. If someone does wrong, I want to preserve my right to my day in court. When I hear that coming from the right I think "there they go again, trying to take away my rights in favor of protecting insurance company profits."

I honestly do not know- does anyone have any figures regarding the tort issue? Is it really a significant issue (as in, would save more than a single digit percentage in overall cost) or is it another distraction to get our eye off the ball?

What they've done on the Right is to convince their supporters that "Tort Reform" is the magic bullet and that "Frivolous Law suits" are the reason health insurance is so high. The truth is that malpractice insurance premiums and payments account for around 2% of health care costs here.

John

[Writewing]

2% is still a large sum of money and no doubt the abuse needs to stop.

[Fast_Eddie]

2% is still a large sum of money and no doubt the abuse needs to stop.

Like I said, there may be merit to this thought. But don't you think it would make more sense to take a bigger swing at it than that? My concern is that the Republicans work on some Tort Reform measure, find a TV camera and declare "There! We fixed it!".

Thing is, if that's all we did, the two percent could easily be eaten up by the insurance companies who now have no fear of screwing people even more. Can't sue them. I'd guess if we did that alone, the costs would go up.

So, what now? Add it to the package they have? The one that everyone says is already too big and, even though it's been around for weeks now, they keep saying no one has read?

They must be *very* slow readers. Or just lazy. And they sure did find a lot of stuff in there they don't like, I mean for something they haven't read.

[Writewing]

Tort reform doesnt mean you cant sue a Insurance company it would simply put a cap on punitive damages and avoid these often way overbloated awards.

[Fast_Eddie]

Tort reform doesnt mean you cant sue a Insurance company it would simply put a cap on punitive damages and avoid these often way overbloated awards.

We don't know what it would mean until they write it. A lot of people thought Health Care Reform meant Government Run Health Care. Still do. Some oppose it for that even though that's not what they wrote. Some don't like what they wrote because that's not what it is.

Maybe they could write Tort reform in a fair manner. But I'm not in a big hurry to give up my rights to protect the insurance industry. They would have to do a mighty good job for me to support it. Done right, however, I might be able to get behind it. I just don't think it's the first priority. There are bigger fish to fry.

[noonereal]

We don't know what it would mean until they write it. A lot of people thought Health Care Reform meant Government Run Health Care. Still do.
.

Just like folks were duped into believing Saddam had something to do with 911.

Folks, these two things alone should tell you your party is dangerous.

[d-ray657]

Well if the can add true Tort reform to clamp down on trial lawyers and abusive lawsuits, allow purchase of Healthcare across state lines to add competition and get rid of a Union tax exemption than maybe there is something to talk about.

I would love to see increased competition in the provision of healthcare insurance. I would welcome competition across state lines if there was a unified system of regulation. I would not, however, permit insurers to find the state with the weakest oversight, sell all of their policies from that state, and force residents from other states to accept that state's law to govern their coverage. (Of course, no opponent of federal intervention in state affairs would want the feds to step in to prevent any state from enforcing its own laws. No need for federal intervention to keep states from setting the minimum standards to apply when insurers sell insurances to their citizens.)

A cap on punitive damages is not going to make much of an impact on the 2% figure identified elsewhere. In injury to a young person caused by the negligence of the person entrusted with his or her care could amount to huge expenses and lost earning capacity for that person for the remainder of his life. Similarly, bad medical results caused by negligence will amount to substantial medical expenses to treat the harm caused by the negligence. When you note that the 2% includes malpractice insurance, remember that the insurance rates include the cost to the insurance companies in defending against the claims.

Even if punitive damages were excluded from the cost, the reduction would only amount to a small fraction of the total cost of providing a remedy to individuals who have suffered injury as a result of negligence in the provision of medical care. In other words it would be a fraction of the 2%. Besides the Supreme Court, in its wisdom:rolleyes:, has already established strict criteria for the circumstances in which punitive damages may be awarded in any action. Accordingly, so-called "tort reform" would provide a minimal cost production, but would remove the incentive to avoid the most egregious conduct that medical providers would show to their patients.

If there is an assertion that benefits for union members should be taxed, then all who receive benefits as an aspect of their compensation package should be equally taxed. This would have to eliminate cafeteria plans that permit employees use pre-tax dollars to pay for their share of the premiums and other co-pays and deductibles. Any tax should not single unions out simply because they pioneered the concept that employers should provide health benefits as a part of the total compensation package. It should also extend to other perks provided to employees, such as country club memberships, golf trips, Las Vegas junkets, access to a private jet for personal use, and other expenditures that some have come to expect as a privilege of status.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Well if the can add true Tort reform to clamp down on trial lawyers and abusive lawsuits, allow purchase of Healthcare across state lines to add competition and get rid of a Union tax exemption than maybe there is something to talk about.


So if a doctor screws up and puts someone at age 25 in a wheelchair for life where should the cap be??

Lose the bullcrap about selling across state lines as we all are aware that this is simply a ruse for "I will setup my insurance company in the state with the loosest laws and thumb my nose at the ones with tougher laws". You must think we are all as dumb as the Republicans.:D

[Boreas]

Lose the bullcrap about selling across state lines as we all are aware that this is simply a ruse for "I will setup my insurance company in the state with the loosest laws and thumb my nose at the ones with tougher laws". You must think we are all as dumb as the Republicans.:D

Ya see, Rob, Republicans, being as dumb as Republicans, don't get this. :)

John

[Grumpy]

So if a doctor screws up and puts someone at age 25 in a wheelchair for life where should the cap be??

Lose the bullcrap about selling across state lines as we all are aware that this is simply a ruse for "I will setup my insurance company in the state with the loosest laws and thumb my nose at the ones with tougher laws". You must think we are all as dumb as the Republicans.:D


Quick story.

Some years ago i had hernea surgery. I warned the doc that I had a blood disorder that caused me to heal slower. He says no prob and still took out the staples in the normal 7 days.

I get home and am sitting in a chair when my daughter comes in and says daddy whys your white shirt red. I lift up my shirt and my stomachs split open like a zipper. Back to the the emergency room where im rushed in for emergency hernea op again. Seems once it opened up they felt the need to re-perform the entire surgery to sterilize it.

So the doc does not listen to me, I have two suergerys in 10 days. Get billed an additional $13.000.00 and am out of commison for 2 more weeks.

At first I did not want to talk to a lawyer. Then I got the hospital bill. Called 4 lawyers as was told the same thing by all. The doc was wrong. I had an excellent case but not in Michigan which protects its doctors from anything. They told me sorry.

[BlueStreak]

Yes, he should.

[BlueStreak]

My cousin tells me Tort Reform is essential to bringing healthcare costs down. One of his arguments against Healthcare reform is; "If the government takes over healthcare, you can't sue them.". So, I guess we keep it fully privatized, then make it difficult to sue private industry. That way if your doctor fu**s up..............................................

My cousin is an Asshole.

Dave

[Fast_Eddie]

"If the government takes over healthcare, you can't sue them."

It's amazing isn't it? They say "government take over" enough times and the truth becomes a footnote.

[BlueStreak]

Funny how people are so paranoid that the government wants to run their lives and exploit them. But when private industry does the EXACT SAME THING----it's no big deal.

Again;

Where did do you suppose that opinion came from, and how much have they paid for it?
Oh, that's right. Republicans don't fall for propagandistic trickery...............Bwahahahah................! !!

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

Funny how people are so paranoid that the government wants to run their lives and exploit them. But when private industry does the EXACT SAME THING----it's no big deal.

This seems to be changing. I heard some recent polling data that had people with a very low level of trust in government but an even lower level of trust in big business. Small business did pretty well.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Funny how people are so paranoid that the government wants to run their lives and exploit them. But when private industry does the EXACT SAME THING----it's no big deal.


Exactly right. I don't believe government does everything right. I think they lie and I think they're wasteful. But I do think there are some in government who care about the American people and if they mess up too badly, we have a voice in replacing them.

I don't trust industry at all. I *know* that none in industry care about anything but profit. I *know* that if they chose people over profit there is a board of directors who has all the say in replacing them with someone who will focus only on profit.

[noonereal]

I trust government much more than any corporation.

[Boreas]

I don't trust industry at all. I *know* that none in industry care about anything but profit. I *know* that if they chose people over profit there is a board of directors who has all the say in replacing them with someone who will focus only on profit.

Even if there are individuals in the corporate world who care about people (and I'm sure there are) the institutions themselves are at best indifferent to and at worst hostile to human welfare. Profits are the name of the game.

An executive can be removed for insufficient attention to share value. When was the last time you heard of one being fired because the steps he took to increase profits polluted the environment or poisoned consumers?

I mean look at Madoff! Why is he going to jail? Because he ripped off other members of the club. Haliburton? They just ripped off the taxpayers so they get to continue playing their games.

John

[Boreas]

I trust government much more than any corporation.

So do I. The lack of consideration for the public good is built into corporate capitalism. They can only harm the general welfare.

John

[merrylander]

I believe I am on record here as stating that if you want something FUBARed give it to private industry.