Let's be very clear about this: the current GOP echo-chamber that is endlessly

[Atticus]

chanting "start over" with "blank sheet of paper" on HCR is nothing but disrespectful political hacks looking the people in the eye and lying through their teeth.

The "incrementalism" that they so passionately urge as a solution to the partisan gridlock (which THEY have engineered!) is designed not to achieve progress, but to stop HCR and, in the bargain, pass several of their pet projects.

The Republican chorus earnestly pleads with the Democrats to "adopt a series of cost-cutting measures upon which there is general agreement". They go on to list medical malpractice reform, buying insurance across state lines and other relatively minor issues which, they say, could be "on the President's desk" in short order.

Yeah, right.

This amounts to saying, as Republicans always seem to get around to saying, "Give us what we want first and then we'll discuss what you unAmerican socialists want".

Their idea of "tort reform" or "medical malpractice reform" is simply to put a cap on a patient's right to recover damages for a doctor's negligence. If you or I run a red light and cause someone permanent and painful injuries, none of our assets are shielded from recovery; i.e., there are no limits on the amount of the judgment that the injured person could get against us.

If, however, the same injuries resulted from medical malpractice, Republicans want to assure the doctor that damages for pain and suffering, for example, won't be permitted to exceed $250,000.

Sound fair?

That is the type of elitist "got mine, to hell with you" CRAP that these smarmy bastards are trying to peddle as "true bipartisanship" and "the reasoned approach". They need to be called on it EACH time they trot it out and we should be raising hell with any talking heard that let's them get away with it.

[RKP5637]

1. Well said!!! n/t

[Mugweed]

2. They already had their chance and squandered it, anyway.

When the republicans held a majority in Congress and had a republican acting as president (not President, just acting as president), all they could do was tout the benefits of endless single-party rule and a unitary executive. They ensured the government could not negotiate with drug companies over the price of medicines, and ensured that cheaper medicines could not be imported from other countries. They concentrated the majority of their focus on portraying as unpatriotic anyone who questioned the highly suspect reasons for invading and occupying other countries or lowering taxes for the richest among us. They never started in the first place, so why should we give them a chance to "start over"?

[SlingBlade]

3. Forget Republicans, They are political Nobodys Right Now....

Concentrate on Democrats. They have the power, They have the tools to pass REAL
HCR that the majority of the American People want.

Stop playing the Republican Card, It's a useless ploy for the slack jawed partisans
who don't know, Don't care and are quietly sleeping right now as one of the biggest
hoaxes in modern political history is attempting to be pulled off by DEMOCRATS.

Want TRUE HRC ?
It's called, The Public Option WITH Single Payer

Everything else is Corporate Bullshit, No more, No less.

[Atticus]

6. Well, that is the first time I've been called a "slack jawed partisan who does not know,

doesn't care and is quietly sleeping---etc."

While I agree we should ALSO be holding Democratic feet to the fire, your suggestion that we "forget Republicans" seems more than a little myopic. We're supposed to be the folks who can walk and chew gum at the same time, remember?

[SlingBlade]

7. Please, Republicans Control, NOTHING !

[Atticus]

10. Michael Steele must love you. nt

[SlingBlade]

13. Save it Pal, That Brain Dead Crap doesn't work with me

[Atticus]

18. Au contraire, obviously. nt

[SlingBlade]

19. Whatever, Now go back to sleep, Your disturbing the neighbors.

[leftstreet]

8. [phone]

[tularetom]

4. Let's have tort reform across the board (not just for doctors)

And limit judgments to 10% of someones assets.

If I drive drunk and kill a Senator's kid, and I have a net worth of $50,000, any judgment against me would be limited to $5,000.

The insurance companies would love it. Or maybe not. Fewer individuals would buy insurance and the premiums would go way down.

[Atticus]

9. Sorry, this makes no sense at all.

If someone's net worth is in the red and they "kill a Senator's kid", should the Senator pay them???

The amount of damages has nothing to do with ability to pay.

And, if you drive drunk and kill MY kid, your bank account would not be your main concern: I'd want a piece of your ass.

[bobbolink]

12. Absolutely. Let's make it even MORE impossible to collect for damages.

After all, there is an abundance of JUSTICE in the U.S. now.

Need I add..... :sarcasm:

[tularetom]

16. My apologies to the sarcasm challenged among us

Sometimes it doesn't seem even necessary to add the

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

But there's an extra one just in case.

[onethatcares]

5. what is so important about being able to buy insurance across

state lines? I mean, you can't buy automobile or homeowners insurance from a carrier in another state. Why is this so important to them?

[Atticus]

11. In many instances, it WOULD be cheaper. What they are not telling you, though, is

that insurance in some states is cheaper because there is little or no oversight and regulation of the insurance industry in those states. If we let them sell freely across state lines, they will ALL soon be incorporated in a state where campaign contributions to the "right" candidates solve all insurance disputes.

[lazarus]

15. yes, you can

My dad worked in this field for years. He was with USAA, which sells insurance all over the country, but is based in Texas.

What gets both of us is this: in property and casualty insurance, home and car insurance, iow, you have to deal with each state's insurance regulations. So his company had a bunch of people who did nothing but ensure compliance with each state they were in.

Why would health care insurance be different? Why would health care insurance across state lines lead to a race to the bottom when that hasn't happened in property and casualty?

[EFerrari]

14. The Democrats can't argue against incrementalism. Sorry. n/t

[gulliver]

17. "Go slow" is just "no"

The GOP's "step-by-step" BS is just a delaying tactic in support of their real position: the Party of No. We should not let them off the hook when they try to delay. No one in their right mind thinks they want anything but what they have stated they wanted from the beginning, a Waterloo for the Dems on healthcare, a giant "no" on the subject to set it back decades.