ForumGarden

Now that the House and Senate have both passed separate health care reform bills, the legislative process shifts to ironing out the differences. This typically involves having a formal conference committee containing members of both the House and the Senate. The goal is to reconcile the two bills, creating a final bill that both chambers will vote on. In a surprise turn, according to Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic, Democrats intend to employ an obscure tactic, informally known as "ping-pong," to shut Republicans out of the final negotiations and speed the bills toward completion. In "ping-pong" the legislation is bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate, controlled by just the Democratic leadership in each chamber and the White House, until a final agreement can be reached.

Full Story: Democrats hoping to ‘ping-pong’ Republicans right out of final health care reform negotiations - Yahoo! News

Jazzy, I read recently that the only way to get anything serious done in Washington now is to do this kind of thing. Compromise is dead. In the past, you could actually have discussions and a little bipartisanship.

Today, however, any party affiliate is too scared or too polarized to go against their party. any attempt to pass a bill by bipartisan support will either result in a watered-down and ineffective piece of legislation or a complete failure.

That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson was worried about.

(So, what the heck...the devil with the NEOCONS. The Democrats need to do it all themselves.):p

What is especially annoying in the Senate is this 'super majority' rule. The two parties do this as a courtesy to one another. The democrats could suspend that rule any time they choose, but refuse to because they want the same rule if the republicans take the senate. If they had suspended the rule and just went with simple majority voting then a lot more would get done and we would not have to had put up with Baucus, Nelson and Lieberman holding health care hostage for their own agenda's.

Ahso!;1279295 wrote: What is especially annoying in the Senate is this 'super majority' rule. The two parties do this as a courtesy to one another. The democrats could suspend that rule any time they choose, but refuse to because they want the same rule if the republicans take the senate. If they had suspended the rule and just went with simple majority voting then a lot more would get done and we would not have to had put up with Baucus, Nelson and Lieberman holding health care hostage for their own agenda's.


Bingo, and yet I suspect the way things are going, they may NOT get that consideration. If I were them, I'd suspend it now and get as much fixed as possible.

so where is the so called "reform" here?



do we get to shop around for drugs overseas?....NAW

do we get to shop between states for a better deal on insurance......NAW

will our premiums go down..............NAW

HMMM.....



Ok so how about more choices in plans.............NAW



So premiums remain the same, drugs cost the same....... YIPPERS ol Pelosi and Harry got er going on....



Thought the demoRats were all about change AND choice!!!:(:(

BTS;1279387 wrote: so where is the so called "reform" here?



do we get to shop around for drugs overseas?....NAW

do we get to shop between states for a better deal on insurance......NAW

will our premiums go down..............NAW

HMMM.....



Ok so how about more choices in plans.............NAW



So premiums remain the same, drugs cost the same....... YIPPERS ol Pelosi and Harry got er going on....



Thought the demoRats were all about change AND choice!!!:(:(I believe there has already been reform on the drug issue and we can now get drugs from Canada and if I remember correctly, Mexico. The republican ideas being overturned, of course.

isn't it up to the insurance companies to offer more choices in plans? Thats the free market, right?

Premiums going down is the responsibility of the insurance companies streamlining or reducing their huge bureaucratic overhead, no?

Your party let this happen by refusing to be part of the process. You have them to thank for this as well as the democrats.

BTS;1279387 wrote: so where is the so called "reform" here?

Thought the demoRats were all about change AND choice!!!:(:(


Well, we seem to have a problem getting anything done because the NEOCONS oppose everything just to be contrary and mean-spirited. Kind of like your post.

What's the matter? Don't you want health care reform? Or do you think everything is fine the way it is?

Personally, when just one of my medications costs $2000 a month, I'd say something's seriously wrong.:-3

Ahso!;1279391 wrote: I believe there has already been reform on the drug issue and we can now get drugs from Canada and if I remember correctly, Mexico. The republican ideas being overturned, of course.



isn't it up to the insurance companies to offer more choices in plans? Thats the free market, right?



Premiums going down is the responsibility of the insurance companies streamlining or reducing their huge bureaucratic overhead, no?



Your party let this happen by refusing to be part of the process. You have them to thank for this as well as the democrats.


UHHMMM

My party?:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

You don't know my party...

About the drug companies, your party jumped in bed with the drug companies to the tune of 80 billion smack-olas that is why there is NO reform there.





And ahs-so, PLEASE show us the FACTS on this doozie:



"we can now get drugs from Canada and if I remember correctly, Mexico."



Butt................is it legal?



According to the FDA, the importation or re-importation of drugs into this country from a foreign source is against the law. Simply put, it is technically illegal to buy drugs from Canada that were either manufactured in Canada or manufactured in the United States and then sold to Canadian distributors. Is this dumb? Absolutely.



Soo where is this so called "REFORM"

Do you think the demoRats would go against their bedfellows (the drug companies of America))?



Oh and do tell us how the free market can work when there is NO competition between state lines and the states write all the rules keeping other insurance companies out..........PPPSSSTTT (LOBBYIST)



Oh yah this reform is looking good:driving:

You're right on the drug reform, I could have sworn I had read something recently that indicated it had changed. Perhaps at another time.

I'm not crazy about this bill either, but thats what happens when the American people are fed a pack of lies by the mainstream conservative media.

You are a free market believer, aren't you, BTS?

Saint_;1279394 wrote: Well, we seem to have a problem getting anything done because the NEOCONS oppose everything just to be contrary and mean-spirited. Kind of like your post.



What's the matter? Don't you want health care reform? Or do you think everything is fine the way it is?



Personally, when just one of my medications costs $2000 a month, I'd say something's seriously wrong.:-3


Yes I want health care reform but I want it to be real reform..........not more special interest BS!!!!!

Show us 3 good things that I can go to the bank with..........Just 3 things that are positive for ALL Americans.

If that's too tough ...just 1 will do.



And so show me where Obamacare is gonna lower that $2000 a month drug.........:-6

BTS;1279401 wrote: Yes I want health care reform but I want it to be real reform..........not more special interest BS!!!!!

Show us 3 good things that I can go to the bank with..........Just 3 things that are positive for ALL Americans.

If that's too tough ...just 1 will do.



And so show me where Obamacare is gonna lower that $2000 a month drug.........:-6Perhaps you can tell us what you would have been happy with.

Ahso! wrote:

You are a free market believer, aren't you, BTS?


Yippers..............But MOST of all I feel I am a realist;)

Ahso!;1279402 wrote: Perhaps you can tell us what you would have been happy with.


Post # 8 touches on most of my wishes

BTS;1279403 wrote: Yippers..............But MOST of all I feel I am a realist;)Is there a difference, and if so what is it?

BTS;1279407 wrote: Post # 8 touches on most of my wishesHeres post #8

BTS;1279397 wrote: UHHMMM

My party?:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

You don't know my party...

About the drug companies, your party jumped in bed with the drug companies to the tune of 80 billion smack-olas that is why there is NO reform there.





And ahs-so, PLEASE show us the FACTS on this doozie:



"we can now get drugs from Canada and if I remember correctly, Mexico."



Butt................is it legal?



According to the FDA, the importation or re-importation of drugs into this country from a foreign source is against the law. Simply put, it is technically illegal to buy drugs from Canada that were either manufactured in Canada or manufactured in the United States and then sold to Canadian distributors. Is this dumb? Absolutely.



Soo where is this so called "REFORM"

Do you think the demoRats would go against their bedfellows (the drug companies of America))?



Oh and do tell us how the free market can work when there is NO competition between state lines and the states write all the rules keeping other insurance companies out..........PPPSSSTTT (LOBBYIST)



Oh yah this reform is looking good:driving:I see where you said

a)I don't know your party (not relevant to health care)

b)Facts on the "doozie" (not health care related)

c)You talked about the FDA (not health care reform related)

d)You talked about the dems being in bed with drug companies (not relevant to what you are looking for in health care reform)

e)You said there is no competition between states ( relevant )

So, as far as I see you saying, that the only problem was "e". Correct?

Thats your fix? Just asking!

No idea's, BTS? don't tell me you're one of these people whom just opposes others idea's without offering up something constructive.

Should I not expect a conversation then?