Who started the meme that congress is only allowed to debate major HC issues every 16-20 years?

[Dr Fate]

It always goes something like this:

"If we don't pass what Lieberman & the Blue Dogs tell us they want, then we will have to wait 16 to 20 years before we are ever even allowed to discuss it again, much less vote on it..."

Say what? Is this more "centrist" conventional wisdom (AKA lies)?

Is this "20 year rule" something that centrists in congress itself threatens us with, or is there really some binding rule I never heard of?

Is there really some rule in congress that says: "You may only debate major issues that the people care about every 16-20 years."?

Some will say- but that's the way it happened last time, when Clinton tried.

So what? Is there some rule in congress that says: "From here on out, everything in history must happen the same way it did when Clinton was in power. Congress must not learn from there own mistakes, but must repeat them"?

Who besides the conservatives who oppose the PO in the 1st place is going to stop congress from re-debating the PO at any point, at any time?

See what I mean-it's a rigged meme that we are supposed accept as conventional wisdom.

We either support what the centrists tell us to support, or those same centrists will hold it up and wont tell us to support for another 16 years?

Is that what REALLY what we are saying?

Makes no sense.

Is the argument that "If we don't pass it, Republicans will when in 2010 and control everything for 20 years"?- Well, that might just happen if we DO pass a shit bill with no up turn in the economy to hold it next too. Seems to me that we could avoid that situation by having congress actually FIGHTING FOR and passing a strong PO in the 1st place.

If we have to go with Lieberman because of the notion that "we will have to wait 16-20 years for DEMS to stand up and fight for HC reform again" then that is by the design of a rigged game, not some necessity.

It's a threat and an excuse given to us by the same people who oppose robust HC reform in the 1st place and I'm not buying it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. And it takes that long for everyone involved in the last defeat...

...to either retire, be defeated for re-election, or forget. In the interim, the proponents of the defeated measure conclude -- quite rightly, too -- that the electorate won't actually reward them if they carry the day.

[Dr Fate]

9. But it's false to say that the population opposes major changes. They voted for Mr. Change himself.

Seems to me like congress should give us real change in the 1st place- instead of rigging things to work the way you described.

"If you dont accept what congress tell you to accept- then you have to wait 16 years before we tell you what you have to accept from us again. You still wont accept our shit bills 16 years from now? Fine- lets make it 30"

That's exactly what they are telling us, in so many words.

The scenario you paint is more likey to happen if DEMS pass this shit bill as opposed to trying to get it right by the 2010 midterms. I'm not convinced that mandates and taxes on existing plans are going to be popular with swing voters & pro-reform moderates at all.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. No Senator lost their seat for a failure to enact HCR in 1994...

...and Harris Wofford, who ran and won a '91 election precisely on that issue, was defeated by Rick Santorum.

The issue may poll well, but it doesn't move Senate seats.

[Dr Fate]

11. In that case, there is no reason for DEMS to wait 16-20 years to do what the population wants.

If the issue does not move seats one way or the other, then that means that the "20 year rule" is just a bull shit threat/excuse.

I already knew that much.

I've been told that Blue DOgs opposed the PO b/c "their constituents would vote them out unless they vote against it."

Really? But you just said the issue doesnt move seats. Someone isnt telling me the truth here.

Are you saying that the "Blue Dogs have to oppose HCR or their seat will get moved" is yet another false meme from centrists?

If the issue does not move seats, then they can just continue fighting & debating w/o passing the shit-Liberman bill.

One of these 2 centrist memes has to be false-which one is it?

[Dr Fate]

6. The population has never knowingly been behind wars based on lies either...

...yet I've never heard anyone say that "we are only allowed to discuss or engage in wars based on lies every 16-20 years."

No- if the congress wants a war, they DO IT. They dont tell their base (AKA large corporations, the pentagon)- sorry, you have to wait 16-20 to years for the next one!

There is no rule saying that congress cant discuss & debate an issue in order to garner support from the population for massive changes.

Besides, you have not even offered any proof that the public is NOT behind massive changes, right here, right now- and I'm not convinced that DEM voters will not want continued reform next year, or even next month.

Obama was partially elected on the notion that he would bring in massive changes in HC and other things.

I'm not buying your very brief, undetailed explanation at all.

The population voted for Obama expecting massive change- so your short little sentence of a reply is false.

[dflprincess]

13. The polls indicate that's not the case

65% want a public option and a lot of that number want the public option to be single payer.

It's the "population" at the Capital that doesn't want to give up their campaign "contributions" that is the problem.

[Dr Fate]

14. That poster is either ignorant, or supplying false info on purpose.

A false "centrist" meme to explain yet another a false "centrist" meme.

I often wonder if DU's "centrists" go in circles like this on purpose, expecting us to confuse ourselves by following suit.

If one is going to defend "centrism" and their memes, then they are going to end up making false stamements- it just cant be helped.

[valerief]

3. Probably Congress. nt

[Dr Fate]

7. So its by design, not by some rule or necessity. It's a threat that they perpetuate.

n/t

[Kingofalldems]

4. Insurance companies

[Dr Fate]

8. Like I said- the so called "20 year rule" is a designed, rigged threat, not a true, necessity.

Suprise, suprise- the "centrists" have lied to us again.

[Laelth]

5. Good question. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dr Fate]

12. kick n/t

n/t

[omega minimo]

15. Shelly Winters

Oh wait, was it Ernest Borgnine?



DON KNOTTS!! That was it!! :kick:

[Dr Fate]

18. Should I assume you agree with the meme, or do you agree with my take?

Thanks for the kick, either way!

[Iggo]

16. You? I dunno. I give up. Who? (n/t)

[Dr Fate]

17. I'd like to know myself. Was not me, in fact, any time I've sepnt on it was to refute it.

My guess is that the meme was started by DEM leaders & "strategists" who are either too lazy, too corrrupt, to cowardly, or too conservative to actaully continue fighting.

Do you find validity in this "16-20 year" meme, or are you closer to agreeing with my take?

[JVS]

19. If debate happens more frequently then insurance companies will have trouble lobbying enough!

And that wouldn't be fair at all, would it?

[Dr Fate]

20. If DEMS refuse to continue the debate, it will their CHOICE to do so.

If DEMS refuise to continue the debate, that says to me that they like things just the way they are.

People seem to be repeating the "16 year rule" as if it's some religious text engraved in stone- it sounds like more "centrist" excuse making & stalling to me.

You make a good point- the longer we get HONEST deabte on the PO, the more trouble insurance would have- funny that so many DEMS are so eager to end the debate on Lieberman's high-note.

Perhaps all of this is so that Big Insurance not be put in such a position where they have trouble lobbying, etc.