So question...

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

But I just feel that the poll is leading. Like both options kind of make the Rebs look bad, but that's just me.

Well the poll is exactly what happened. Most republicans say it isn't bipartisan because they didn't vote for it, and most democrats are saying it is bipartisan because they included their ideas.

I'm just curious about what the forum thinks.

[Professor S]

I think both sides didn't want to work with one another, but for a very legitimate reason. As was shown in the health care summit, both of these parties are coming to this issue from different planets.

The Democrats want to have centralized control of the health care system to mandate coverage and cost.

The Republicans mainly want to open competition, increase choices and limit legal damages to allow market forces to create a consumer friendly private marketplace to lower costs and increase coverage.

The philosophy is so divergent there really is nothing to compromise about, as pretty much any acceptable compromise by either side completely destroys their point of view.

If I had to "blame" one side over the other, it would be the dems because:

1) They had the supermajority and I believe that puts the responsibility of inclusion on them as they could have just as easily completely ignored their opponents (and they would have IMO if not for the public outcry against the plan)

2) Republicans were never invited to help create the bill, only to either vote on it or add limited amendments.

3) The Republicans actually got bipartisan support for their opposition to the bill. Not one Republican was in favor of what passed.

4) Instead of trying to create a more moderate bill once they lost the supermajority, the Dems decided to use a budgetary process tactic to avoid a filibuster, and then used another process measure to "deem and pass" once it passed the house so they could avoid any further debate on the subject. This does not seem like the actions of a party that much cares about working with the other party.

[thatmariolover]

HCR was never a bipartisan goal, so I think it's natural for Repubicans to feel cheated. On the other hand, Dems did try fairly hard to include Republicans in the debate and in the vote. Whether you agree with how it ended up, there's a fair bit of compromise in the bill.

Republicans even went so far as to refuse a meeting they were invited to by the Democrats - and then publicly blamed the Democrats for not wanting to meet.

I just don't see how Republicans can complain about a lack of bipartisanship from the Dems when they themselves have repeatedly obstructed for the sake of personal gain. I mean, they threatened to filibuster over 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than it's ever been used since its inception. And so we moved to Deem and Pass, a perfectly legal method for passing legislation that the Republican party's used 35 times in one session and over 100 times in all.

People are going to feel wronged for a long time on this one either way.

[TheGame]

This post is completly out of boredom.

Originally Posted by Professor S

If I had to "blame" one side over the other, it would be the dems because:

1) They had the supermajority and I believe that puts the responsibility of inclusion on them as they could have just as easily completely ignored their opponents (and they would have IMO if not for the public outcry against the plan)

So the fact that they chose not to ignore their opposition, and tried to reach out to them makes them less bipartisan? I don't get the logic behing that point. If they weren't trying to be bipartisan, they could have just passed a bill that they believe in with no compromise.

2) Republicans were never invited to help create the bill, only to either vote on it or add limited amendments.

They were invited to help mold the bill on a public forum, and they could have used that time to make legitamate criticizms of the bill.. which they did, but they spent more time trying to kill the bill then trying to help mold it. And, much like this point, they wasted too much time and energy trying to oppose how the bill was written, instead of opposing actual content in the bill.

I really don't think that can be blamed on the democrats..

3) The Republicans actually got bipartisan support for their opposition to the bill. Not one Republican was in favor of what passed.

That's because the republicans are united in their exteme right-wingness. The Democratic party now has conservitives, centrists, and people on the left. Which is a big reason they built the majority to begin with. I'm waiting for an article to come out asking why the house democrats voted against it. I'm sure the reasons will range from the bill being too weak, and not including the public option at least.. all the way to democrats who are more sold on the conservative ideology.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't "bipartisan" opposition to the bill for the same reasons.

And as for the last point.. introducing unreasonable tax cuts, not putting it up for debate, and not even pretending to be interested in what the opposition has to say about it... then putting it up for vote instantly with the same "tactic" the dems used for healthcare... and saying 'if you don't vote for this you're for raising taxes, and we're going to pass it if you vote for it or not'... worked fine for getting votes.

I wouldn't personally call it bipartisan though.

But then again.. it got the votes.

So like I said earlier.. it's a matter of perception.