Gibbs: Enzi Has Decided To Walk Away From The Table

more at cspan.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• robert gibbs
• mike enzi
• health care reform
• bipartisanship

[wmg111]

Come up to Canada. We're hip deep in insurance companies. They just don't control healthcare. They've adapted, and they turn a profit.

Universal healthcare is an investment towards a healthy, productive populace, not an attack on civil liberties.

You will still have the same rights, in fact you get a new one. The right to keep your savings if you get sick.

[mayaluvsmusic]

only a moron thinks a public option would turn the us into the ussr.

[OriginalLictre]

Yeah, the conservatives have intervened in the marketplace, when they exempted the health care insurance providers from anti-monopoly legislation, effectively allowing them to engage in collusive bargaining and price-fixing.

If free-market capitalists are so sure that the government is incapable of competing in a competitive marketplace, why are they convinced that a gov't-run program will drive private insurers out of business? Is the business model of medical insurance that weak?

[OriginalLictre]

That may be the case, but when the prior administration claimed to have a 'mandate', with barely 51% of the acting electorate, they rather lowered the bar on what's needed to claim a mandate.

However, when more than 70% of the people surveyed, regardless of party affiliation, are in favor of having an option to buy in to a medicare-style coverage, I think THAT can fairly be considered a mandate.

[MooseOfReason]

OriginalLictre, You know I'm not suggesting that.

[OriginalLictre]

The only legislative body that required 100% agreement to make a change in their national procedures THAT I'M AWARE OF, was the pre-WWII Polish government. That led to such drastic gridlock to change in any sense that when the Wehrmacht came over their border, among the units that had to try to fight them were horse-mounted cavalry using sabers and single-shot rifles, facing motorized infantry with MG support, modern artillery, and TANKS.

Good luck insisting on 100% agreement on anything.

[MooseOfReason]

fishhead06, No. I'm saying 100% would be a mandate. Less than that, namely around 53% of people who are registered to vote and actually came out to vote, is not a mandate.

[tj5555555]

f-06: Canadian novel semantics perhaps. Here we are on a political page, that should be the main topic. One's Christian or in your case "spiritual" beliefs may influence the flavor of the discussion, but the topic is American socio-econo-political at the core. It's not semantics to use the terms of "our" founding fathers to identify the actual kind of government that is the USA's government, it's a matter of US history and facts. We enjoy foreign opinion, but it is our terms that are our own. tj

[fishhead06]

I did address your issue about Biblical authority. The authority is the living word of Christ - not the "dead letter" of the law. I don't approve stoning disobedient children or ajudicating on hair length, either. As for your other point, I have to admit that calling a democractic system of election anything other than a democracy is a novel approach to semantics.

[tj5555555]

f-06: There are "parts" that the demons "agree" upon, and tremble. Agreement in part leaves one in parts and not whole. You did not address the issue. We have been given a Republic form of government based upon a contract, The US Constitution, that provides for a democratic (popular) election process. That is NOT a Democracy, which was intentionally excluded as being known to lead to rule by the mob, as was much like the French revolution a few years after our War for Independence. tj

[fishhead06]

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are useful." I agree with St. Paul on that.

[MVX12]

fuck mike enzi.