When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
@Patvann: I’m not buying any of those numbers. There’s no way 52% stayed home. I have no idea what they are basing it on and considering that it’s Wikipedia I’m not even going to try.
And yes, “cons” and “repubs” is about the same thing.
@Brian H: Not so simple, guy. If we’re going to play the grammar game, you’ll have to broaden your definitions to the mutiple uses. As Merriam-Webster says, “principal” can be both a noun or an adjective…. therefore “principals” does not solely refer to people.
Main Entry: prin·ci·pal
Pronunciation: \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin principalis, from princip-, princeps
Date: 14th century
1 : most important, consequential, or influential : CHIEF (the principal ingredient) or (the region’s principal city)
2 : of, relating to, or constituting principal or a principal
Will agree that Patvann’s usage of such was meant as a noun, but didn’t want you to mislead by oversimplifying our English language.
Mike’sA, you are ever the optimist and, judging by your Christmas fun post, don’t have a bah humbug bone in your body. LOL But “masterful”? Too benevolent and too high of praise, IMHO.
I think you shortchange the financial news press who did a lot of digging prior to Congressional mouthpieces coming out with talking points. And the CBO didn’t hurt either. I’ll give them credit for standing some ground, but the game isn’t over yet. I’ve yet to see a vote, and if they show any “compromise” throughout the process. i.e. some have teetered if there was an anti-abortion clause. Others if the public option disappeared. Take those two items out and it’s still an expensive pile of manure that will sink the US economy for decades to come, while never addressing the cost of medical services.
If one considers the House bill passage, there was one GOP defector, but credit must also be given to the 39 Dems who bucked their own party.
Point is, this whole notion of confusing financial reform with health care restructuring is a can of worms that was likely to be opened because of the enormity… both in legal doublespeak over a thousand pages long, and for the fiscal impacts. So I’m not as quick to be shocked and awed by the GOP merely because they are smart enough to say no.
I would, however, been far more impressed had they gotten a cogent alternative out to the public in the form of a bill instead of just piece meal talking points that grew over time. Having an alternative plan, even possibly for the CBO to analyze, in the form of proposed legislation that was posted for the public to read would have been the cat’s meow for “masterful”. However if they stick to talking points and generalities instead of constructing legislative language (even in their own back room meetings…), they remain at risk of simply being labeled “the party of no”.
For now, I’ll take any body that throws themself in front of the train wreck. But a smart body would be holding up the bill behind door number two that actually addresses the cost of medical services.
Behind door number two was HR3218. But a day or two later the Dems came out with yet another giant version. Because the major-media never bothered covering it, and the ensuing maelstrom that occurred on talk-radio over the Dem monstrosity, it died a lonely, undeserving death
If you read more carefully, you will notice that I specified “principals” and “principles”, since those could only be noun plurals, and therefore my concise definitions are accurate (as I was principally concerned with communicating the principles that distinguished them.) 8-P
John Cooper
13 years ago
@ Mike’s America wrote:
But I disagree that our GOP friends are being fooled. They know this sucks too (well maybe not Susan Collins).
The question is: what could they do to stop it that they haven’t already done THAT WOULD WORK?
Well that’s the question, isn’t it? What would work? Being in the minority, the only option they have is to delay the bill by any means until the American people take the time to learn what’s in it and pressure those on the other side. That seems to be happening, so I say “Keep doing it, only harder”. The other option is to create FUD among the democrats. That seems to be working, too. As I said previously, if it was the republican plan all along to “play nice” while tossing shoes in the works, then I applaud them. We will know very soon.
Oh, and if you were implying that I’m a liberal troll, I take offense at that. I may be wrong on this issue, but I’m probably more a lot conservative than you are.
(snip) At this point, what is clear is that the Barack Obama Project is still too big to fail. It is, indeed, bigger than America in the hearts and minds of its creators and if America has to fail so that they can give the kid something, anything, to sign before the historic first anniversary of his historic inauguration then that’s what will happen.
It’s not just the Obamacare bill that is the culmination of so many traitorous American’s life’s work. Obama himself is the culmination of that long delayed dream. If Obamacare dies, the myth of Obama dies with it. This can’t be allowed to happen. Deep down Obama is as shallow as a toddler’s wading pool. He can’t be allowed to drown in it.
G. Vanderleun
The Dem’s will give up everything for a Healthcare Bill. They now they are cornered, and will fight even themselves to get SOMETHING to pass. They don’t even care if they lose every future election, as long as they can fulfill not only Obama’s dream, but Roosevelt’s.
We must therefore look at their motives the same way we look at the Taliban’s motives. They have this same sort of Kamikaze outlook in several areas that we MUST not give ANY quarter, because even the smallest incarnation will transform this country into what it was never meant to be.
@MataHarley: You’re not suggesting the GOP doesn’t have any alternative health care reforms to offer? How many are there? A dozen?
@John Cooper: You would have every right to be offended if I implied you are a liberal troll. I’m sorry if the last sentence in my comment #47 wasn’t clear. But I am sure you can agree that there are likely to be a number of lib trolls out there who would vote dissatisfied.
Frankly, I didn’t know whether you had voted dissatisfied but I am guessing now that you did?
Anyway, The whole thing seems to be a bit of a holding pattern this morning. I don’t hear any new hints that Dems have their solid 60 votes or that there are any new roadblocks to them getting to 60 so they may be on track.
The question now is whether Mitch McConnell will use the few delaying tactics he has available to keep this thing from getting voted on before Christmas or not. I’d be in favor of him doing so, but he may realize that the bill’s passage is inevitable and that such tactics will only invite harsher criticism than the faint praise he would get from some on our side for doing it.
I always liked Jim DeMint’s request that the bill be read and was disappointed that he withdrew it. Especially since no one has actually seen the latest bill it would be valid request.
But in the end, if Dems have the votes it won’t matter what the GOP does. Slowing it down until after Christmas would make me feel better but wouldn’t alter the outcome.
I guess the next big question is: should the GOP try and placate that fraction of conservatives who seem never to be happy no matter what or should they try and continue winning the moderates and independents?
No, Mike. I’m not suggesting the GOP doesn’t have ideas. What I’m suggesting is that at no time did the GOP put all their ideas for cost reform and expanded coverage into one bill… as the Dems have done in both chambers.
As @Patvann pointed out, the only effort I saw was HR 3218 back in July, which was introduced and sent on to the Ways and Means committee. It’s now December, and what have they done since – even with increasing public opinion on their side?
That particular bill was woefully incomplete as a solution, only addressing tax credits for your insurance premiums, expanding the amount of individual groups that can be created allowing members to tap into “group” insurance rates that do not allow for denial because of pre’existing conditions by law, and sending on some matching federal funds to the states for high risk pools.
These are three good ideas, but in and of itself, is not a complete picture of reform that would even put a dent in lower costs as a stand alone bill.
What of tort reform to cut both physicians and providers overhead? The ability to opt out of Medicare without losing your SS benefits? How about doing more to equalize the Medicare payments so the privately insured aren’t picking up the slack with higher premiums? Streamlining the bureaucratic red tape that adds to providers costs? Creating tiered health plans that accommodate different levels of coverage from the regular preventive care paid out of a tax credit medical account, a second midline tier which is care for accidents, broken bones, etc, and catastrophic care for the long term illnesses? Then there’s the ability to negotiate pricing for drugs, equipment, etc… providing tax incentives for facilities that purchase and offer state of the art equipment.
And since the states can mandate their own “extras”, each insurance provider can provide state specific riders… all portable interstate… so that everyone can package the basic tiers they want from national competition, and supplement with the state rider.
What I am suggesting is that if the Dems have tome Exhibit A that essentially restructures our health care while doing nothing to curb costs; and if the GOP present a lesser tome as Exhibit B with all their ideas into one single bill; then we joe blow citizens could read both bills and see exactly the ideas each party was presenting as a way to stem rising medical costs which drives up premiums…. the single issue which everyone can agree upon.
To my knowledge, there has been no such complete reform bill out of the GOP. Thus I’ll have to give them a C+ myself. LOL
Now I know they are the minority party, and their complete bill would not be given a shot in the current Congressional. However it would surely end the debate of being “the party of no”, and the bills would be posted on all legislative sites such as Thomas, GovTrack etc for transparency. It would also be interesting to see the complete ideas as contrasted thru CBO accounting. Then the American citizens could lobby and voice their opinion on what they want more intelligently… restructure, or genuine cost reform.
@Brian H… LOL! Yes, as I said, you were correct as far as Patvann’s particular usage as a noun. However I did want to point out why our language is so complex for many as their second language…. as the use of principal(s) as an adjective was completely different than it’s use as a noun. I did not disagree with you, I expanded on it’s use… ala the principal (adjective) ingredient does not refer to a person. Didn’t want people to walk away and assume that principal was only in reference to humans.
Then of course, there is the their-there-they’re syndrome. Then-than options. The nuances go on and on. It’s a very difficult language for most to learn, and yet most developed nations’ are relatively versed in it’s use as a second language in their countries. And probably the universal finance language used.
Now to return to our originally scheduled topic…. how “masterful” the Senate GOP is in “derailing”.
Old Trooper
13 years ago
Mike’s America:
“I guess the next big question is: should the GOP try and placate that fraction of conservatives who seem never to be happy no matter what or should they try and continue winning the moderates and independents?”
Right now the Anti-Socialist Party needs All the Friends that they can get and needs to purge their ranks of Socialist leaning GOP members by supporting candidates to replace them, ie: Snowe and a few others that are neither fiscally conservative or represent traditional values. Both Fiscal and Social conservatives are needed.
@Old Trooper: A purge would only make it that much harder to win back control of either House.
Look at the lessons from Reagan above for more on that subject.
Snowe may end up voting for some version of health care. But right now, she’s one vote that is preventing the Dems from taking this monstrosity to final passage with a majority vote. Would you throw that away?
@MataHarley: Should they really put all that effort into a bill that will go nowhere? I’d rather have them spend their time doing something more productive.
But I will be happy to support your candidacy for U.S. Senate in 2010!
Mike’sA: Should they really put all that effort into a bill that will go nowhere? I’d rather have them spend their time doing something more productive.
Yes, absolutely they should. Doing so would be *very* productive for them politically, and for the nation at large. It’s a formal presentation of a complete reform idea that cannot escape attention with it’s prominent display on the websites that track government bills. A complete alternative bill would be picked up by media and blogs alike.
And it’s sure a fur piece more productive than simply pointing out the flaws in restructuring the health care system. It’s the “don’t present the problem without including the solution” syndrome.
I would be happy to have your Senate vote, but Gore’s global warming would never allow for a hard core conservative, such as I, to be elected in Oregon. (i.e. that hell freezes over bit first… LOL) Then again, I have a feeling that the Pelosi and Reids would be spending a great deal of time trying to dig up dirt on me to silence any pittance of influence I may have in the chamber. Could keep ’em busy and less able to cause trouble!
John Cooper
13 years ago
Yes, Mike, I voted “dissatisfied”, but I’m getting more satisfied by the moment:
The debate on the health care reform bill stalled Wednesday as Senate Republicans forced the Senate clerk to read a 767-page amendment establishing a government-financed health care system.
“Republicans have a number of tools at their disposal that can be used, this is an option that was discussed for some time and our conference is unified in its execution,” said a Senate Republican leadership aide.
I take this as a sign that the Republican leadership is finally coming around to my way of thinking, which is: This is a war for America itself and we should win by any means necessary.
Not only that, but I just heard a radio advertisement by Michael Steele which begins “The Democrats are accusing us Republicans of trying to delay and stonewall their government takeover of health care. You know what? They’re finally right..”
@MataHarley: They have laid out alternatives. Doing even more work on that lost cause is pointless.
You mean you don’t want to run in Oregon? Oh come on… surely all our conservative friends will come and help you win.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
Republicans need to start being more pro-active. We know what the major issues are, and we know pretty much which issues the Democrats are going to be pushing in the near future. We need conservative leadership that will get to work on creating bills that will address these issues before the Democrats introduce their versions. Republicans elucidated various proposals on how health-car can be reformed utilizing market forces yet where is the bill. I’m not sure to this day if they’ve actually authored and submitted a bill and the Democrats have utilized this inaction to bludgeon the Republicans as a “do nothing” obstructionist party.
Put it in writing:
Job growth proposals
Immigration reform – you know it’s coming and needed
Energy Independence – with a focus on energy not climate
Maybe they could write a bill that requires congressmen/women to pass a written exam on the meaning of the Constitution before they could be appointed to any committee.
oops…. there I go again… “laws I’d like to see”
and the list goes on….
We don’t necessarily need such legislation introduced right away but we should have well developed and well thought out bills ready for introduction when the time is appropriate. What we don’t need is to try to ammend our way out of bad bills introduced by the Democrats.
Donald Bly: We need conservative leadership that will get to work on creating bills that will address these issues before the Democrats introduce their versions. Republicans elucidated various proposals on how health-car can be reformed utilizing market forces yet where is the bill. I’m not sure to this day if they’ve actually authored and submitted a bill and the Democrats have utilized this inaction to bludgeon the Republicans as a “do nothing” obstructionist party.
~~~
What we don’t need is to try to ammend our way out of bad bills introduced by the Democrats.
My point exactly to your reproduced paragraph one, Donald. Talking points never hit home the same way proposed legislation does. Nor can CBO analyze talking points. If the GOP ideas are cost savers, an introduced bill is the only way to substantiate that claim. So my only difference with your similar comment is that I *would* like the bills introduced right away instead of stalling and naysaying. Put the talking points where the mouth is.
And most certainly amending a pile of manure never disguises the reality that it remains a pile of manure. Thus why I’m not shock and awed yet…. The game’s not over, and I wonder just how many RINOs will cave to the amendment enticement.
Brian H
13 years ago
Mata;
Challenge: construct a sentence in which “principals” or “principles” is an adjective.
Delaying tactics: after Xmas, candidates’/Senators’/Representatives’ thoughts turn exponentially more towards campaigning and cashing in on the incumbent advantage as time passes, and with the polls heading south in a massive flock, the odds of holding all the cats in the herd drop fast. I’d also expect the GOP Sens & Reps to get an earful over the holidays about sticking to their guns, and making sallies into enemy territory to inflict casualties.
About a GOP ‘package’: I’m not sure it would be wise to lock in all the elements to each other. A core GOP message is/has been that taking it slow, instituting individual changes and seeing how they go, etc., is both workable and much safer. I think that position has traction.
Good grief, Brian… it’s quite clear from the Merriam-Webster definition I replicated in the comment above …. ala “The principal ingredient in my grandmother’s apple pie is Mackintosh apples”. “The principal metropolitan area in Oregon is Salem”.
Principal is an the adjective to ingredient and metropolitan, and Mackintosh is the adjective to apples. Or, in grammar’speak, it modifies or defines the noun as distinct. Neither sentence using “principal” refer to a “person”. The point was not to confuse further the choice between the two… aka “principal” is only in reference to a person.
Principal can also be used as a noun. ala “The school principal choose to ban Christmas carols”. Or “The principals who founded the principles written into the Constitution are called the Founding Fathers”.
“Principle”, however, does not have dual use as noun/adjective… merely a noun. Thus the reason I said you were correct in that Patvann was using the incorrect version of principle v principal as a noun.
usage Although nearly every handbook and many dictionaries warn against confusing principle and principal, many people still do. Principle is only a noun; principal is both adjective and noun. If you are unsure which noun you want, read the definitions in this dictionary.
Is this bugging you? LOL Most of us type and pay little attention to spelling and grammar. We’re more interested in getting our point across, and staying somewhat on topic. But when someone feels the need to “grade” a comment, it’s always interesting to add the twist generally found in the English language with our multiple useages of words. It’s a complex language.
I agree that some of the issues need the legislation introduced right away. Other issues that are not yet high on the list of priorities should still have bills in the works for when the time is appropriate for their introduction.
I believe the point I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully, is not that an entire bill would be introduced, sail thru committee and be voted on in the chambers, Donald. Merely that packaging the entire concept in a single bill for side by side comparison would be a valuable tool in assessing which method was optimum for reigning in medical costs and rising premiums.
Personally, I wouldn’t want an “all-in-one” bill since I prefer to do it in stages. However the whole GOP enchilada with specifics is sorely needed for scrutiny at this point.
Not with that “s” still hanging on the back of the root-words, she’s not.
I took it from her elucidation that it was the root: “principal”, that can be both a noun, as you singularly pointed out to me, as well as an adjective, which she pointed out you.
Additionally, both word-roots can assume either form.
E.G.:
“He took a principled position with the principal players.”
“The principle behind the difference you see, is the removal of principal from the loan-amount.”
(Vee are zee grammar gestapo, und vee haff vays of taking over zee commentz)
12 years of Catholic schools, and PHd in advanced smart-ass, baby! (Howz B-Rob?)
Muhahahaha!!!:-)
Brian H
13 years ago
But grammar is such fun!
Mata;
You are being deliberately obfuscatory! My point was that I PURPOSEFULLY used the plural forms, as they can ONLY be nouns. My challenge was for you to attempt to use plurals as adjectives: I note that you avoid the issue entirely. 🙂
______
Patvann;
Ya, ya, that’s all obvious. Could have (and should have) gone without saying.
And what do you have against neologistical innovation?
___________
As for the GOP, I take it (from Steele’s interview, etc.) that they are “picking their shots”, and dragging things out with tactics just short of those that would trigger “reconciliation” nuke options. The battle for public image and respect is often at odds with effective legislative tactics, of course. Which brings up a point: the longer this goes on, the more glimpses the public gets of the Democrat sausage machine in operation, and the worse it looks and smells.
So the GOP is walking a line between precipitating an all-out voting war, which they are undermanned to win, and just nibbling on the edges. The longer it goes on, the heavier the artillery they can bring to bear, and the worse the Dem logistics and battle-lines look. To switch back to the other analogy, throwing gravel in the sausage-machine’s gears.
naw… didn’t avoid the issue, Brian. Just mistook your attempt at subtle obfuscating entrapment using pluralities for a more obsessive focus on libidinal energies involving your posterior. Patvann, however, caught your drift. LOL
Now you do know that Mikie’s about to step in as thread nanny in 3….2………..
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
@Brian
LOL!
Hay… at leased eye used reel words, knot sum maid up won!
@Patvann: I’m not buying any of those numbers. There’s no way 52% stayed home. I have no idea what they are basing it on and considering that it’s Wikipedia I’m not even going to try.
And yes, “cons” and “repubs” is about the same thing.
@Brian H: Not so simple, guy. If we’re going to play the grammar game, you’ll have to broaden your definitions to the mutiple uses. As Merriam-Webster says, “principal” can be both a noun or an adjective…. therefore “principals” does not solely refer to people.
Will agree that Patvann’s usage of such was meant as a noun, but didn’t want you to mislead by oversimplifying our English language.
Mike’sA, you are ever the optimist and, judging by your Christmas fun post, don’t have a bah humbug bone in your body. LOL But “masterful”? Too benevolent and too high of praise, IMHO.
I think you shortchange the financial news press who did a lot of digging prior to Congressional mouthpieces coming out with talking points. And the CBO didn’t hurt either. I’ll give them credit for standing some ground, but the game isn’t over yet. I’ve yet to see a vote, and if they show any “compromise” throughout the process. i.e. some have teetered if there was an anti-abortion clause. Others if the public option disappeared. Take those two items out and it’s still an expensive pile of manure that will sink the US economy for decades to come, while never addressing the cost of medical services.
If one considers the House bill passage, there was one GOP defector, but credit must also be given to the 39 Dems who bucked their own party.
Point is, this whole notion of confusing financial reform with health care restructuring is a can of worms that was likely to be opened because of the enormity… both in legal doublespeak over a thousand pages long, and for the fiscal impacts. So I’m not as quick to be shocked and awed by the GOP merely because they are smart enough to say no.
I would, however, been far more impressed had they gotten a cogent alternative out to the public in the form of a bill instead of just piece meal talking points that grew over time. Having an alternative plan, even possibly for the CBO to analyze, in the form of proposed legislation that was posted for the public to read would have been the cat’s meow for “masterful”. However if they stick to talking points and generalities instead of constructing legislative language (even in their own back room meetings…), they remain at risk of simply being labeled “the party of no”.
For now, I’ll take any body that throws themself in front of the train wreck. But a smart body would be holding up the bill behind door number two that actually addresses the cost of medical services.
@Mata
Behind door number two was HR3218. But a day or two later the Dems came out with yet another giant version. Because the major-media never bothered covering it, and the ensuing maelstrom that occurred on talk-radio over the Dem monstrosity, it died a lonely, undeserving death
That, and Republicans suck at marketing.
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2009/08/12/the-republican-health-care-reform-plan-hr-3218.htm
Sorry, Mata, UR mistooked.
If you read more carefully, you will notice that I specified “principals” and “principles”, since those could only be noun plurals, and therefore my concise definitions are accurate (as I was principally concerned with communicating the principles that distinguished them.) 8-P
@ Mike’s America wrote:
Well that’s the question, isn’t it? What would work? Being in the minority, the only option they have is to delay the bill by any means until the American people take the time to learn what’s in it and pressure those on the other side. That seems to be happening, so I say “Keep doing it, only harder”. The other option is to create FUD among the democrats. That seems to be working, too. As I said previously, if it was the republican plan all along to “play nice” while tossing shoes in the works, then I applaud them. We will know very soon.
Oh, and if you were implying that I’m a liberal troll, I take offense at that. I may be wrong on this issue, but I’m probably more a lot conservative than you are.
The Dem’s will give up everything for a Healthcare Bill. They now they are cornered, and will fight even themselves to get SOMETHING to pass. They don’t even care if they lose every future election, as long as they can fulfill not only Obama’s dream, but Roosevelt’s.
We must therefore look at their motives the same way we look at the Taliban’s motives. They have this same sort of Kamikaze outlook in several areas that we MUST not give ANY quarter, because even the smallest incarnation will transform this country into what it was never meant to be.
Healthcare
CO2/Cap n Trade
And next up:
Unfettered immigration.
@MataHarley: You’re not suggesting the GOP doesn’t have any alternative health care reforms to offer? How many are there? A dozen?
@John Cooper: You would have every right to be offended if I implied you are a liberal troll. I’m sorry if the last sentence in my comment #47 wasn’t clear. But I am sure you can agree that there are likely to be a number of lib trolls out there who would vote dissatisfied.
Frankly, I didn’t know whether you had voted dissatisfied but I am guessing now that you did?
Anyway, The whole thing seems to be a bit of a holding pattern this morning. I don’t hear any new hints that Dems have their solid 60 votes or that there are any new roadblocks to them getting to 60 so they may be on track.
The question now is whether Mitch McConnell will use the few delaying tactics he has available to keep this thing from getting voted on before Christmas or not. I’d be in favor of him doing so, but he may realize that the bill’s passage is inevitable and that such tactics will only invite harsher criticism than the faint praise he would get from some on our side for doing it.
I always liked Jim DeMint’s request that the bill be read and was disappointed that he withdrew it. Especially since no one has actually seen the latest bill it would be valid request.
But in the end, if Dems have the votes it won’t matter what the GOP does. Slowing it down until after Christmas would make me feel better but wouldn’t alter the outcome.
I guess the next big question is: should the GOP try and placate that fraction of conservatives who seem never to be happy no matter what or should they try and continue winning the moderates and independents?
No, Mike. I’m not suggesting the GOP doesn’t have ideas. What I’m suggesting is that at no time did the GOP put all their ideas for cost reform and expanded coverage into one bill… as the Dems have done in both chambers.
As @Patvann pointed out, the only effort I saw was HR 3218 back in July, which was introduced and sent on to the Ways and Means committee. It’s now December, and what have they done since – even with increasing public opinion on their side?
That particular bill was woefully incomplete as a solution, only addressing tax credits for your insurance premiums, expanding the amount of individual groups that can be created allowing members to tap into “group” insurance rates that do not allow for denial because of pre’existing conditions by law, and sending on some matching federal funds to the states for high risk pools.
These are three good ideas, but in and of itself, is not a complete picture of reform that would even put a dent in lower costs as a stand alone bill.
What of tort reform to cut both physicians and providers overhead? The ability to opt out of Medicare without losing your SS benefits? How about doing more to equalize the Medicare payments so the privately insured aren’t picking up the slack with higher premiums? Streamlining the bureaucratic red tape that adds to providers costs? Creating tiered health plans that accommodate different levels of coverage from the regular preventive care paid out of a tax credit medical account, a second midline tier which is care for accidents, broken bones, etc, and catastrophic care for the long term illnesses? Then there’s the ability to negotiate pricing for drugs, equipment, etc… providing tax incentives for facilities that purchase and offer state of the art equipment.
And since the states can mandate their own “extras”, each insurance provider can provide state specific riders… all portable interstate… so that everyone can package the basic tiers they want from national competition, and supplement with the state rider.
What I am suggesting is that if the Dems have tome Exhibit A that essentially restructures our health care while doing nothing to curb costs; and if the GOP present a lesser tome as Exhibit B with all their ideas into one single bill; then we joe blow citizens could read both bills and see exactly the ideas each party was presenting as a way to stem rising medical costs which drives up premiums…. the single issue which everyone can agree upon.
To my knowledge, there has been no such complete reform bill out of the GOP. Thus I’ll have to give them a C+ myself. LOL
Now I know they are the minority party, and their complete bill would not be given a shot in the current Congressional. However it would surely end the debate of being “the party of no”, and the bills would be posted on all legislative sites such as Thomas, GovTrack etc for transparency. It would also be interesting to see the complete ideas as contrasted thru CBO accounting. Then the American citizens could lobby and voice their opinion on what they want more intelligently… restructure, or genuine cost reform.
@Brian H… LOL! Yes, as I said, you were correct as far as Patvann’s particular usage as a noun. However I did want to point out why our language is so complex for many as their second language…. as the use of principal(s) as an adjective was completely different than it’s use as a noun. I did not disagree with you, I expanded on it’s use… ala the principal (adjective) ingredient does not refer to a person. Didn’t want people to walk away and assume that principal was only in reference to humans.
Then of course, there is the their-there-they’re syndrome. Then-than options. The nuances go on and on. It’s a very difficult language for most to learn, and yet most developed nations’ are relatively versed in it’s use as a second language in their countries. And probably the universal finance language used.
Now to return to our originally scheduled topic…. how “masterful” the Senate GOP is in “derailing”.
Mike’s America:
“I guess the next big question is: should the GOP try and placate that fraction of conservatives who seem never to be happy no matter what or should they try and continue winning the moderates and independents?”
Right now the Anti-Socialist Party needs All the Friends that they can get and needs to purge their ranks of Socialist leaning GOP members by supporting candidates to replace them, ie: Snowe and a few others that are neither fiscally conservative or represent traditional values. Both Fiscal and Social conservatives are needed.
@Old Trooper: A purge would only make it that much harder to win back control of either House.
Look at the lessons from Reagan above for more on that subject.
Snowe may end up voting for some version of health care. But right now, she’s one vote that is preventing the Dems from taking this monstrosity to final passage with a majority vote. Would you throw that away?
@MataHarley: Should they really put all that effort into a bill that will go nowhere? I’d rather have them spend their time doing something more productive.
But I will be happy to support your candidacy for U.S. Senate in 2010!
Yes, absolutely they should. Doing so would be *very* productive for them politically, and for the nation at large. It’s a formal presentation of a complete reform idea that cannot escape attention with it’s prominent display on the websites that track government bills. A complete alternative bill would be picked up by media and blogs alike.
And it’s sure a fur piece more productive than simply pointing out the flaws in restructuring the health care system. It’s the “don’t present the problem without including the solution” syndrome.
I would be happy to have your Senate vote, but Gore’s global warming would never allow for a hard core conservative, such as I, to be elected in Oregon. (i.e. that hell freezes over bit first… LOL) Then again, I have a feeling that the Pelosi and Reids would be spending a great deal of time trying to dig up dirt on me to silence any pittance of influence I may have in the chamber. Could keep ’em busy and less able to cause trouble!
Yes, Mike, I voted “dissatisfied”, but I’m getting more satisfied by the moment:
Senate debate stalls as GOP forces reading from Politico:
I take this as a sign that the Republican leadership is finally coming around to my way of thinking, which is: This is a war for America itself and we should win by any means necessary.
Not only that, but I just heard a radio advertisement by Michael Steele which begins “The Democrats are accusing us Republicans of trying to delay and stonewall their government takeover of health care. You know what? They’re finally right..”
See and listen to the ad: Steele’s New Radio Ad: You’re Right, The GOP Is Trying To Stonewall Health Care Reform
@John Cooper: You and I are moving along parallel lines today. Check my newest post:
@MataHarley: They have laid out alternatives. Doing even more work on that lost cause is pointless.
You mean you don’t want to run in Oregon? Oh come on… surely all our conservative friends will come and help you win.
Republicans need to start being more pro-active. We know what the major issues are, and we know pretty much which issues the Democrats are going to be pushing in the near future. We need conservative leadership that will get to work on creating bills that will address these issues before the Democrats introduce their versions. Republicans elucidated various proposals on how health-car can be reformed utilizing market forces yet where is the bill. I’m not sure to this day if they’ve actually authored and submitted a bill and the Democrats have utilized this inaction to bludgeon the Republicans as a “do nothing” obstructionist party.
Put it in writing:
Job growth proposals
Immigration reform – you know it’s coming and needed
Energy Independence – with a focus on energy not climate
Maybe they could write a bill that requires congressmen/women to pass a written exam on the meaning of the Constitution before they could be appointed to any committee.
oops…. there I go again… “laws I’d like to see”
and the list goes on….
We don’t necessarily need such legislation introduced right away but we should have well developed and well thought out bills ready for introduction when the time is appropriate. What we don’t need is to try to ammend our way out of bad bills introduced by the Democrats.
We need to lead not react.
My point exactly to your reproduced paragraph one, Donald. Talking points never hit home the same way proposed legislation does. Nor can CBO analyze talking points. If the GOP ideas are cost savers, an introduced bill is the only way to substantiate that claim. So my only difference with your similar comment is that I *would* like the bills introduced right away instead of stalling and naysaying. Put the talking points where the mouth is.
And most certainly amending a pile of manure never disguises the reality that it remains a pile of manure. Thus why I’m not shock and awed yet…. The game’s not over, and I wonder just how many RINOs will cave to the amendment enticement.
Mata;
Challenge: construct a sentence in which “principals” or “principles” is an adjective.
Delaying tactics: after Xmas, candidates’/Senators’/Representatives’ thoughts turn exponentially more towards campaigning and cashing in on the incumbent advantage as time passes, and with the polls heading south in a massive flock, the odds of holding all the cats in the herd drop fast. I’d also expect the GOP Sens & Reps to get an earful over the holidays about sticking to their guns, and making sallies into enemy territory to inflict casualties.
About a GOP ‘package’: I’m not sure it would be wise to lock in all the elements to each other. A core GOP message is/has been that taking it slow, instituting individual changes and seeing how they go, etc., is both workable and much safer. I think that position has traction.
Good grief, Brian… it’s quite clear from the Merriam-Webster definition I replicated in the comment above …. ala “The principal ingredient in my grandmother’s apple pie is Mackintosh apples”. “The principal metropolitan area in Oregon is Salem”.
Principal is an the adjective to ingredient and metropolitan, and Mackintosh is the adjective to apples. Or, in grammar’speak, it modifies or defines the noun as distinct. Neither sentence using “principal” refer to a “person”. The point was not to confuse further the choice between the two… aka “principal” is only in reference to a person.
Principal can also be used as a noun. ala “The school principal choose to ban Christmas carols”. Or “The principals who founded the principles written into the Constitution are called the Founding Fathers”.
“Principle”, however, does not have dual use as noun/adjective… merely a noun. Thus the reason I said you were correct in that Patvann was using the incorrect version of principle v principal as a noun.
Is this bugging you? LOL Most of us type and pay little attention to spelling and grammar. We’re more interested in getting our point across, and staying somewhat on topic. But when someone feels the need to “grade” a comment, it’s always interesting to add the twist generally found in the English language with our multiple useages of words. It’s a complex language.
@MataHarley
I agree that some of the issues need the legislation introduced right away. Other issues that are not yet high on the list of priorities should still have bills in the works for when the time is appropriate for their introduction.
I believe the point I was trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully, is not that an entire bill would be introduced, sail thru committee and be voted on in the chambers, Donald. Merely that packaging the entire concept in a single bill for side by side comparison would be a valuable tool in assessing which method was optimum for reigning in medical costs and rising premiums.
Personally, I wouldn’t want an “all-in-one” bill since I prefer to do it in stages. However the whole GOP enchilada with specifics is sorely needed for scrutiny at this point.
Brian
RE: Challenge
Not with that “s” still hanging on the back of the root-words, she’s not.
I took it from her elucidation that it was the root: “principal”, that can be both a noun, as you singularly pointed out to me, as well as an adjective, which she pointed out you.
Additionally, both word-roots can assume either form.
E.G.:
“He took a principled position with the principal players.”
“The principle behind the difference you see, is the removal of principal from the loan-amount.”
(Vee are zee grammar gestapo, und vee haff vays of taking over zee commentz)
LOL Patvann. And here I thought you couldn’t top your earlier comment…
Lighten up on the grammar critique, and pay attention to the content, Brian. :0)
@Mata
12 years of Catholic schools, and PHd in advanced smart-ass, baby! (Howz B-Rob?)
Muhahahaha!!!:-)
But grammar is such fun!
Mata;
You are being deliberately obfuscatory! My point was that I PURPOSEFULLY used the plural forms, as they can ONLY be nouns. My challenge was for you to attempt to use plurals as adjectives: I note that you avoid the issue entirely. 🙂
______
Patvann;
Ya, ya, that’s all obvious. Could have (and should have) gone without saying.
And what do you have against neologistical innovation?
___________
As for the GOP, I take it (from Steele’s interview, etc.) that they are “picking their shots”, and dragging things out with tactics just short of those that would trigger “reconciliation” nuke options. The battle for public image and respect is often at odds with effective legislative tactics, of course. Which brings up a point: the longer this goes on, the more glimpses the public gets of the Democrat sausage machine in operation, and the worse it looks and smells.
So the GOP is walking a line between precipitating an all-out voting war, which they are undermanned to win, and just nibbling on the edges. The longer it goes on, the heavier the artillery they can bring to bear, and the worse the Dem logistics and battle-lines look. To switch back to the other analogy, throwing gravel in the sausage-machine’s gears.
naw… didn’t avoid the issue, Brian. Just mistook your attempt at subtle obfuscating entrapment using pluralities for a more obsessive focus on libidinal energies involving your posterior. Patvann, however, caught your drift. LOL
Now you do know that Mikie’s about to step in as thread nanny in 3….2………..
HI MIKE!
PubbiesRepublicans sure are kickin butt!!@MataHarley: Did someone call me? I’m too busy keeping an eye on Patvann!
He’s busy testing the thread nanny knocking at both the back and front doors simultaneously…. you may have to work overtime. heh
HE STARTED IT!!!
Yeah… that’s because mom always like you *best*!
Depends what “it” means … 8)
seriously off track now… I expect Ian to show up any second and tell us how nasty we are.
He’s looking over here…
Quick, hide behind this:
(don’t let him see the author)
*thick Russian accent*
“Bah! Ian an diss Rob! I smeshed dem like bugs wiss ClueBat of Doom!”
Oi!