'The Democrats have been nicer to our own friends than we have,' wail the Republicans.

[seafan]

Hell, it's probably the primary reason Republicans want this health care bill to fail-- they can't take any of the credit for all these goodies lavished on their corporate friends.

Democrats just outdid them.


It seems that the Democratic Party has now become what was the Republican Party, and what is left of the Republican Party has morphed into the teabag fringe.






From poster Knoxville on the 'inter-tubes':

March 19th, 2010 at 9:26 am

In response to Frank33 @ 8

This is a health bill for the political health of President Obama. He tied himself to a corrupt PhRMA and they now own him.

As demi says in comment @ 14:

Isn’t it just awful when you have to agree with Boehner? What a world.

True, but Boehner’s only complaining about it because the Dems have scored for AHIP, PhRMA, and other special interests. The Republicans could easily have been the ones to have drafted legislation like this, full of giveaways and gifts for the corporations. The Democrats beat them to it.

So isn’t it just awful (when) Democrats are trying to beat Republicans by acting like Republicans and then accusing their own base of disloyalty when we complain about it.

That really describes the Alice in Wonderland haze that's blanketing everything around us right now.

[Ken Burch]

1. K&R before the "STFU patrol" shows up.

It's true.

[grantcart]

4. Good I hope they show up so we can take care of those basterds

[Ken Burch]

5. Are you EVER going to stop with the snark?

n/t.

[grantcart]

6. It is snarky but it serves the purpose - ridiculous claims are better exposed

by ridiculous responses that can only encourage the writer that they are being taken seriously.

This is a discussion board and people disagree. If you are unable to handle the disagreement then you probably want to source a site that is more homogenous and in total agreement with your point of view.

Now the irony is that you don't respond to the substance of issues but you try and get people to stop making comments.

Your "Are you EVER going to stop with the snark?" is the closest to STFU I see around here.

I am being serious on the point that if I do see anyone expressing anything rude and in harmony with a STFU sentiment then I alert on it.

While you very occassionaly see someone telling people to STFU it is very rare. Complaints about people saying STFU however are very very common.

Answer: No I intend to make a satirical response everytime I see someone complain about STFU police or its equivalent, especially in the absence of any real evidence to the actual effect.

[Ken Burch]

11. There's nothing ridiculous in what I've said.

There are going to be a lot of people showing up in this thread to act like the OP is just being silly rather than actually debate on the merits. You don't have to use the phrase "STFU" to be expressing the concept.

Besides, as a person who claims to be for single-payer(as I assume you still do)you should be on the same side as the rest of those who object to the verbal bullying of the left that goes on around here.

[grantcart]

15. I'll let the readers of the thread judge what is serious and what is silly

I support single payer


In this article I took the time to research every single party in every major democracy to document the fact that out of 60 political parties only one, The Republican Party (US) is against single payer

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/188


Here I have documented out the US capitalist system has no problem with government/private enterprises like a single payer health care system, for example single payer airports, single payer seaports and single payer stadiums.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/194


Argued that the bill had to have the Public Option

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/222

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/220


Advanced a purely 'capitalist' argument for the public option

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/223


Explained why the current bill is a path to single payer and not a path away


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/240

Before the Senate passed out its bill I said that there were two things that it must have(without the public option) control over MLR and OPM control over the exchanges


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/254




Once the Senate finally passed the bill I read it. I was surprised that it included such a large increase in federal authority in health care. Not single payer and no public option but it gives OPM a hell of a lot of authority. Everyday in my job I meet federal employees and I talk to them about their benefits and health plans. The OPM does a great job. The CBO projects that 26 million Americans will get these plans. Bottom line it will save money and save lives.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/256
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/255

It also opens the door to state public options

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/257


So in actually reading the bill I found that there was a lot more strong progressive measures in it that the people who hadn't read the bill said there was.

Then I read the CBO report and they said that 26 million would use the exchanges.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/281





In reading about single payer systems in other countries it turns out that single payer systems came about by one of three routes; 1) Where a catastrophic event causes the country to make a gigantic step together in a wide consensus - England after the war 2) Long historical consensus of shared responsibility - Germany has a shared compact that goes back 100 years or 3) After an initial increase in federal power gradual increases until widespread consensus - Canada - a 20 year journey.

It is unlikely that we will get there by 1 or 2 and have to settle on 3.


And finally you cannot be bullied here for your ideological point of view (currently there is a poll showing that a majority of DUers consider the President's performance unsatisfactory) you can only be 'bullied' if you don't have the facts to back your argument.

[cali]

8. don't you ever tire of your passive aggressive victim shtick?

[Ken Burch]

10. Do you ever tire of pretending this is personal with me when it's not about me?

I speak out on this issues, like the rest of those who agree with the positions I take. Also, we value the idea that everyone in the party should be treated with respect and as an equal.

No one should find either of those things threatening.

[cali]

12. no, you attacked anyone who disagrees with you in your initial post. duh.

you could simply have k&r'd without the passive aggressive swipe. simple really.

[Ken Burch]

13. I didn't attack those who are willing to engage and debate on the merits

The only ones I attacked are the ones who take that "you kids shut up back there" tone. And they deserve it. It's not their place to act as if their position is somehow privileged and that they're entitled to look down on the rest of us.

[bbgrunt]

2. yep, it's true. k n r

[Nite Owl]

3. Excellent rundown

[cali]

7. silliness reigns on all sides of this here at DU.

[ShortnFiery]

9. K & R

Meet the new boss!

[louis-t]

14. It's the old "HE"S STEALING OUR THUNDER" whine

they used on Clinton.