The Bet (for Dd and Lurker)

[Partha]

SO tell me this Lurker.. what's the guys plan for Oregon? Does he have a financially working plan without a mandate?

Why would a Senator have to construct a plan for the state? Isn't that the state's job?

Oh, wait, Embar's just pulling arguments from his fundament. Nevermind.

[Lurker]

This is what he always does. He gets duped into some conclusion that fits his world view, insists that he believes it for reasons x-y-z, and then when each reason is shown to be wrong he never questions his original conclusion.

[Embar Angylwrath]

This is what he always does. He gets duped into some conclusion that fits his world view, insists that he believes it for reasons x-y-z, and then when each reason is shown to be wrong he never questions his original conclusion.

Never.. always... lots of absolutes there.

And you just can't accept that I don't agree with your conclusions. POlitics and polical messaging are nuanced, I'm sure you'll agree with that. I take Wyden's timing and message as a distancing from his vote (and support) of the bill he voted for. Why else illuminate "alternatives" if he thinks what he voted for isn't going to work for Oregon? Does he mean to imply PPACA is good for everyone but Oregon?

[Lurker]

We're almost to the point of discussion where I give up and just start openly mocking you.

Wyden is leading his opponent by 20 points. He's not doing this out of political desperation.

You claimed that Wyden flipped his position on mandates, saying that his own legislation had mandates. What you didn't know and refuse to acknowledge because nothing can penetrate your dense skull, is that Wyden's legislation also had a section titled "Sec. 632. Empowering states to innovate through waivers." His position on mandates and waivers for innovation has not changed for five years.

As to what Wyden "means to imply", his statement was so clear that even a complete moron should be able to understand it. Here it is again because you clearly didn't read it the first time.

The truth here is that I have supported both an individual mandate and a state waiver for more than five years.

Again, both the individual mandate and the state waiver were a part of legislation that I introduced in 2006. And while this provision would allow states to opt-out of the federal health insurance mandate -- which is what some politically motivated people are calling for right now -- under my approach states will only be granted a waiver if they demonstrate they can do a better job of providing health care in their state than under the new federal law. To date, I haven't seen a single one of those states currently filing lawsuits against the individual mandate propose better ways of covering their citizens. In fact, one of the reasons I have been drawing attention to the state waiver is to highlight the insincerity of those filing lawsuits. If states aren't happy with the federal law they should be spending their energy innovating ways to do better rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits that -- if successful -- would leave their state's citizens with nothing.

I continue to support the individual mandate unless a state can demonstrate that it will provide equal or better health care without one.

And again, this isn't a matter of us looking at this differently. You.were.wrong. Wyden did not change his position on mandates and waivers. He continues to support the ACA and states rights to do something on their own if they can achieve equal or better results.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Why is he suggesting a different alternative for Oregon than the one he voted for? Why is he pointing the legislature to an "out" on the mandate if he beleives in what he voted for?

As for the mocking, you're already there.

[Lurker]

Why is he suggesting a different alternative for Oregon than the one he voted for?

He's not.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Then why did he point th eOregon legislature to a path that leads away from the plan he voted for?

[Lurker]

The answer is here. And that is what he voted for.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You posted a link to a a quote already posted. I'm asking you to explain why he is pointing Oregon legislatures to a path away from the bill he voted for. I'm asking to to explain why he seems to think Oregon needs a different solution than the rest of the country.

[Lurker]

The quote explained his reasons and the legislation he voted for allows innovation.

edit: If you still don't understand, Wyden believes everyone is better off because of the ACA. He also believes that states should be able to come up with their own solutions if they can do better. For example, maybe Oregon will have a robust public option. Maybe California will have single payer.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Except he pushing for the application of the waiver BEFORE there's any alternative Oregon plan. I'd beleive you if the waiver was part of a comprehensive plan that Oregon was rolling out, but that's not the case here. There is no alternative Oregon plan. There may never be an alternative Oregon plan. And until there is an alternative Oregon plan, then touting the waiver is just another politcal positioning to distance himself from the PPACA, which he voted for, and which much of America despises.

[Lurker]

You are wrong.

[Embar Angylwrath]

See.. that's what happens when you take a political positioning letter at face value.

There is no bill headed to the Oregon state legislature. About as far as they've gotten is putting up a draft plan for comment on the OSPIRG's website. They are nowhere near a final finished product.

http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/o ... xt_session

[Lurker]

Wyden is up by 20 points in his re-election bid. He issued a statement reaffirming his support for the ACA, mandates, and a waiver for innovation. His position on mandates and waivers has not changed. He explained very clearly why he wants to move quickly on getting a waiver for Oregon after they finalize their plan.

This is just another case where you started with a conclusion based on incorrect information (Wyden reversed himself on mandates!!!) and refuse to budge.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You made a statement that he is pushing the waiver because you think the legislature is nearing a solution (you linked to it when I called you on it). I provided a link that shows you what Wyden inferred in his letter was a misrepresentation.

Then you just ignored it....

[Lurker]

You provided a link that backs up my position, not yours.

This was all about innovation. Oregon has a more progressive plan in the works than could pass nationally, maybe even single payer. Wyden signalled his support for using the waiver he helped insert into the ACA because the groundwork needs to be done now. Are you really so stupid as to think they would complete, pass, and sign a bill and then hope and pray to get a federal waiver. Lately, I'm beginning to wonder.

Meanwhile, you were wrong about everything you said. Wyden was not distancing himself from the ACA as he made perfectly clear in his statement on Sept. 3rd. Why attempt to distance himself and then issue a statement of support? And he had not changed his stance on mandates or waivers in the slightest. And he's up 20 points in his re-election bid so he wasn't doing this for political reasons.

You were duped by your propaganda sources into believing a pleasing story about Wyden turning his back on the ACA. Never mind that the supporting "facts" turned out to be wrong or that Wyden himself issued a statement of support or that his actions are completely consistent with what he's been saying for five years now.

And now you can piss in the wind on this topic. I'm done talking to a stone.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You keep ignoring the obvious Lurker.

Wyden's statement of

I understand the Oregon Health Policy Board may soon complete the job of transmitting to the legislature a proposed health care benefit package that secures the flexibility, affordability, and quality that is consistent with Section 1332

is not factullay accurate. Yet he uses it as the springboard to legitimize his push to exempt Oregon from the mandate.

Oregon is nowhere near getting an alternative plan together, much less "soon". So without an alternative plan available soon, then the waiver won't apply. And if teh waiver won't apply, then why is he pushig it now?

Becuase he wants to distance himself from ACA... basically, its good for other states, but not for Oregon. That's the political positioning he's engaged in. Too bad you can't see that.

[Harlowe]

More assumptions without anything to back it up.

[Lurker]

Assumptions are his stock and trade and he never lets his ignorance about a topic get in the way of parroting the propaganda his party leaders are pushing. And hey... if one assumption doesn't pan out he just moves on to the next. The conclusion is the only thing that's unchangeable for people like Embar.

This thread has been downright comical. First he insisted this was political distancing and not about innovation, basing his conclusion on Wyden's supposed reversal about mandates. Except there had been no reversal. Now he's using a much weaker argument that the Oregon legislation won't have a plan soon. Except that Wyden never said they would. He said the "Oregon Health Policy Board may soon complete the job of transmitting to the legislature a proposed health care benefit package" consistent with the waiver he himself wrote. And wouldn't you know it, the OHPB is holding public meetings on this very topic right now.

Wyden is up 20 points in the polls. He re-iterated his support for the ACA and mandates and for innovation waivers if a state has a better solution. He also openly challenged people who want to repeal the ACA and leave their citizens with nothing, when the waiver option is available to them.

To quote Wyden again from his statement on Sept 3rd...

To date, I haven't seen a single one of those states currently filing lawsuits against the individual mandate propose better ways of covering their citizens. In fact, one of the reasons I have been drawing attention to the state waiver is to highlight the insincerity of those filing lawsuits. If states aren't happy with the federal law they should be spending their energy innovating ways to do better rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits that -- if successful -- would leave their state's citizens with nothing.

I continue to support the individual mandate unless a state can demonstrate that it will provide equal or better health care without one.

Queue Embar to idiotically repeat, "durrr... so he's saying it's good enough for other States but not for Oregon?!? durrr."

[Embar Angylwrath]

More assumptions without anything to back it up.

What assumptions Harlowe?

I gave a link to Wyden's statement that he is informing the legislature of the waiver exemption because an Oregon ahealthcare alternative is imminent.

I then gave you the link that showed an Oregon alternative is anything but imminent, it's not even a bill yet. Its a draft proposal in the early stages of public comment.

So... either Wyden doesn't know what's going on in his own state in regards to healthcare reform, OR, Wyden, a politician who knows how the PPACA is being perceived by most Americans (ESPECIALLY the mandate provision), made a political positioning statement as a strategic move in a campaign.

Which do you find more likely?