• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

GOP responds to Obama's Health Care Summit invite

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
GOP responds to Obama's Health Care Summit invite: No Thanks?
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
02/13/10 10:36 PM EST

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement late Saturday in response to President Obama's Friday invite to a bipartisan Health Care Summit at the White House.

Boehner and other Republican leaders are complaining that the event is simply political gamesmanship and that Obama is planning to have a health care deal finalized before anyone even sits down at the meeting, which is scheduled to take place on Feb. 25.

Here's Boehner's statement:



A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper. We now know that instead of starting the 'bipartisan' health care 'summit' on Feb. 25 with a clean sheet of paper, the president and his party intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats -- a backroom deal that will transform one-sixth of our nation's economy and affect every family and small business in America. They will then engage a largely handpicked audience in a televised 'dialogue' according to a script they have largely pre-determined. They will do this as a precursor to embarking on a legislative course that Democratic congressional aides acknowledge has also been pre-determined -- a partisan course that relies on parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and engineer a pre-determined outcome. It doesn't sound much like bipartisanship to me.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
When it comes to health care, Obama just don't get it and he never will.

He is inviting them to come look at what he wants? How many Americans don't want anything? Can't he just take a small listen one time?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
That he's inviting Republicans to a bipartisan meeting on healthcare now is proof that the claims he and the Democrats have been making about bipartisanship on this issue in the past year or so was nonsense.

It sure lets you know how much to believe them in the future.
 

Tam

Well-known member
The dumbest thing the Repubicans can do is not go. They need to go with a list of ideas including Tort Reform, and present them to the Dems while the cameras are running. So when the bill comes out and Tort Reform is not included it will prove that the Dems were putting on an act for the Cameras. If they stay away it will give Obama the right to say he extented my hand and they didn't except the offer. They have to go or the Dems will use it to their advantage to push through their plan with a 51% vote.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
The dumbest thing the Repubicans can do is not go. They need to go with a list of ideas including Tort Reform, and present them to the Dems while the cameras are running. So when the bill comes out and Tort Reform is not included it will prove that the Dems were putting on an act for the Cameras. If they stay away it will give Obama the right to say he extented my hand and they didn't except the offer. They have to go or the Dems will use it to their advantage to push through their plan with a 51% vote.

That sounds good in theory, but it would not be the way the Legislative process is designed to work.

The President has no legislative authority. He can propose laws—indeed, we expect him to do so—that are then introduced by legislators in Congress. He can sign a bill or veto it once it has been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He can mediate disputes among legislators to broker agreements. But the President cannot intervene directly in the legislative process until it is over.

The discussion that President Obama has proposed with Republicans for February 25th was, no doubt, inspired by his success at a question-and-answer session with the GOP last month. However, the new event is beginning to assume the trappings of a formal legislative session. Republicans will be asked to propose changes to the Senate version of the health care bill, and the President will offer compromises.

http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2010/02/16/health-care-summit-conflicts-with-constitution/
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tam said:
The dumbest thing the Repubicans can do is not go. They need to go with a list of ideas including Tort Reform, and present them to the Dems while the cameras are running. So when the bill comes out and Tort Reform is not included it will prove that the Dems were putting on an act for the Cameras. If they stay away it will give Obama the right to say he extented my hand and they didn't except the offer. They have to go or the Dems will use it to their advantage to push through their plan with a 51% vote.

That sounds good in theory, but it would not be the way the Legislative process is designed to work.

The President has no legislative authority. He can propose laws—indeed, we expect him to do so—that are then introduced by legislators in Congress. He can sign a bill or veto it once it has been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He can mediate disputes among legislators to broker agreements. But the President cannot intervene directly in the legislative process until it is over.

The discussion that President Obama has proposed with Republicans for February 25th was, no doubt, inspired by his success at a question-and-answer session with the GOP last month. However, the new event is beginning to assume the trappings of a formal legislative session. Republicans will be asked to propose changes to the Senate version of the health care bill, and the President will offer compromises.

http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2010/02/16/health-care-summit-conflicts-with-constitution/

It doesn't matter what Obama does or can do, all that matter right now is the Republicans need to show up and present their side. If they are going to show the Dems (ie Pelosi and Reid) as the far left partisan party that they are, the public needs to see them trying and the Dems tossing it back in their faces. If the Public sees the Dems passing a Health Care bill that 65% of Americans don't want, witha 51% vote with no accepted Republican amendments, it will be all over in Nov.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
It doesn't matter what Obama does or can do, all that matter right now is the Republicans need to show up and present their side. If they are going to show the Dems (ie Pelosi and Reid) as the far left partisan party that they are, the public needs to see them trying and the Dems tossing it back in their faces. If the Public sees the Dems passing a Health Care bill that 65% of Americans don't want, witha 51% vote with no accepted Republican amendments, it will be all over in Nov.

I see your point, but I guess if I was the GOP, I would explain why obama intervening in the talks would not be considered separation of powers. Outline the GOP plan in a public forum and explain that the GOP is more than happy to participate in Congressional debate and legislation on Health Care reform.

When explaining separation of powers, it could also be explained that "We the People" are losing their influence in DC, due to Congress losing more and more influence to the Executive Branch, through executive orders, appointments during recess etc.

The GOP needs to get into the game.

If the Dems use "reconicilation" to pass any Health Care reform bill, they are cutting their own throats. They still have a majority in the Senate, and in Congress. Let the bills be debated like they are supposed to be. It will allow the public to see how each member is leaning/voting.

I don't think the Dems can paint the Repubs "obstructionists" anymore than they have already attempted.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Well I believe it was on Meet The Press where it was pointed out that quite a bit of what the Republicans wanted was in the Health Care Bill. Now if the guy was lying, there wasn't a rebuttal by his rep. counterpart, only the fact that the Republicans wanted to start over. Why start over when some of what you want is already there. :???: I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
TSR said:
I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.

Disagree. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that we didn't need a third party, what we needed was a new, revitalized Republican Party. All Ross Perot got done was to get Slick Willie elected.

There is nothing wrong with being the "Party of NO", particularly at this point in time.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
TSR said:
Well I believe it was on Meet The Press where it was pointed out that quite a bit of what the Republicans wanted was in the Health Care Bill.

That is one of the most biased left wing television shows you can possibly watch. I have to turn it off.
 

TSR

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
TSR said:
Well I believe it was on Meet The Press where it was pointed out that quite a bit of what the Republicans wanted was in the Health Care Bill.

That is one of the most biased left wing television shows you can possibly watch. I have to turn it off.

Well its been on for quite a few years with probably more people from both sides than any other Sunday morning newscast. But I know what you mean, I have to do the same with Hannity.
 

TSR

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
TSR said:
I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.

Disagree. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that we didn't need a third party, what we needed was a new, revitalized Republican Party. All Ross Perot got done was to get Slick Willie elected.

There is nothing wrong with being the "Party of NO", particularly at this point in time.

But if saying "No" doesn't in some way check the power of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical giants or for that matter, if saying "Yes" doesn't do the same I would have to wonder, what is it going to take? Ssomething different that what we have or what we have had imo.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
loomixguy said:
TSR said:
I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.

Disagree. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that we didn't need a third party, what we needed was a new, revitalized Republican Party. All Ross Perot got done was to get Slick Willie elected.

There is nothing wrong with being the "Party of NO", particularly at this point in time.

But if saying "No" doesn't in some way check the power of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical giants or for that matter, if saying "Yes" doesn't do the same I would have to wonder, what is it going to take? Ssomething different that what we have or what we have had imo.

You want to "check" a 2-4% profit margin, by the insurance industry?
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
Well I believe it was on Meet The Press where it was pointed out that quite a bit of what the Republicans wanted was in the Health Care Bill. Now if the guy was lying, there wasn't a rebuttal by his rep. counterpart, only the fact that the Republicans wanted to start over. Why start over when some of what you want is already there. :???: I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.

Speaking from a country that has 5 national parties, if you can consider THE BLOC and the Green Party national parties, the problem with more than two national parties is you will have the vote split and the party you want the least will slip up the middle and take or retain power for a very long time. If the minority party holding office can't get one of the other parties to back their plans they get absolutely nothing done. And in Canada if those not in power get together they can force an election. If you think having a Presidential election is expensive every four years try it every year. :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tam said:
TSR said:
Well I believe it was on Meet The Press where it was pointed out that quite a bit of what the Republicans wanted was in the Health Care Bill. Now if the guy was lying, there wasn't a rebuttal by his rep. counterpart, only the fact that the Republicans wanted to start over. Why start over when some of what you want is already there. :???: I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.

Speaking from a country that has 5 national parties, if you can consider THE BLOC and the Green Party national parties, the problem with more than two national parties is you will have the vote split and the party you want the least will slip up the middle and take or retain power for a very long time. If the minority party holding office can't get one of the other parties to back their plans they get absolutely nothing done. And in Canada if those not in power get together they can force an election. If you think having a Presidential election is expensive every four years try it every year. :wink:

it's even harder when you have one regional party, that is given preferential treatment as a National Party.
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
loomixguy said:
TSR said:
I've said this for quite a while and I heard it on TV this weekend by a noted columnist that our country is at a point where it is ripe for a third party. I believe it finally might be.

Disagree. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that we didn't need a third party, what we needed was a new, revitalized Republican Party. All Ross Perot got done was to get Slick Willie elected.

There is nothing wrong with being the "Party of NO", particularly at this point in time.

But if saying "No" doesn't in some way check the power of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical giants or for that matter, if saying "Yes" doesn't do the same I would have to wonder, what is it going to take? Ssomething different that what we have or what we have had imo.

TSR who had the Close Door Meeting with the Insurance companies, Pharmaceuticals giants, Unions and Lawyers to get their support for their Health Care Bill Plans? Hint it wasn't the so called Party of NO :wink: :roll:

I would think what it is going to take to check the power of some of the players is not having meetings with them and allowing them to write the bill that is to regulate them. It is kind of like letting the Fox guard the hen house. :wink: :roll:

Do you think Lawyers are going to support Tort Reform? NO and that is why Obama is not including any meaningful Tort Reform after their closed door meeting even though that is one of the things the Republicans want.

Do you think the Unions are going to support taxing Cadillac Insurance Policies? NO that is why Obama exempt them after their Closed Door Meeting!! :wink:

Do you think Insurance Companies are going to give up their State monopolies? No, so is this why Obama has not included Cross border Health Care insurance, something else the Republicans want?


What was promised the Pharmaceuticals after their Closed door meetings with Obama? :?

This was a guy that promised all negotiations would be on CSpan so why were these close door meeting not included? I'd said it was because Obama didn't want the public to see HIM making the dirty deals to get support for his partisan bill.

BTW Who had the closed door meeting with Democrat Senators to bribe them to vote for the Health Care bill? Again it wasn't the so called party of NO.

The Republican Party might be thought of as the Party of "No" But the Dems are definitely the "What are you going to give me for my vote Party"!!!!
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Compared to TWAP and his cronies and cohorts, Tony Soprano and his crew look like a bunch of Boy Scouts and altar boys.......... :roll: :shock:
 
Top