Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Do you believe there are too many people on Earth?

The mainstreamed anti-humanist beliefs of Malthusians now dominate left-wing environmentalism and thus Democratic Party politics. Sometimes subtly, sometimes explicitly, we talk about people like parasites. How many times does population-bomb quackery have to be debunked for science-loving Democrats to treat it with the contempt it deserves? Unlike discussion about the validity of evolution, some ideas hold serious policy implications for the rest of us. This is one of them.

I thought this thinking died out decades ago. I haven't heard anyone serious talking about overpopulation.

Is nuclear power the safest energy in the world?

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, around 70 percent of scientists support nuclear power development because it is. Yet large number of liberals oppose and stand in the way of science.

Bullshit. And I'm a nuclear energy supporter. How can anyone say that it is safer than solar?

This also reads like an attack piece and ignores the influence of NIMBY concerns regardless of political ideology. As someone who lives in the same county as Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, the public perception around here has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with their weak safety record.

Do you believe GMOs are safe?

According to scientific consensus they are. Polls show that liberals are more inclined to believe this incredible technological advancement – one, that in some form or another has been with us almost since the start – is unsafe. Since the hoi polloi take their cues from political leadership, surely it’s worth ferreting out what potential presidential candidates think about scientific consensus. Or, at least as important as a symposium on speciation.

This still ignores the debate over GMO labeling, and the lack of any FDA oversight and testing whatsoever. Isn't it up to the consumer to decide if they want to eat GMO food?

Fun fact: I used the term hoi polloi in a paper freshmen year and can called an elitist.

 

[EddytoNow]

If he weren't relevant, no one would be talking about this. People would laugh, brush it off, and it would have no legs. It does.

As a side note, it's fun to watch liberals' heads explode over outspoken conservatives who hold no public office and have no influence on our government (Rudy might have beaten out Sarah Palin for the #1 spot).

Actually, the more Conservatives spout this nonsense the better the Liberals look in comparison. How many elections have the Conservatives lost because the media reported on what the Conservatives really think by using their own words against them.

When a Conservative is caught expressing what they really think or feel, the American public is often appalled at the mean spiritedness of their comments. Romney's downfall was his comment ripping 49% of the population. It's hard to win an election when you trivialize the problems of almost half of the population.

Liberals just have to sit back and watch the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot. Conservatives shouldn't fear their Liberal opponents as much as they should fear the general public learning what the Conservative beliefs truly are.

 

[IrishLax]

Actually, the more Conservatives spout this nonsense the better the Liberals look in comparison. How many elections have the Conservatives lost because the media reported on what the Conservatives really think by using their own words against them.

When a Conservative is caught expressing what they really think or feel, the American public is often appalled at the mean spiritedness of their comments. Romney's downfall was his comment ripping 49% of the population. It's hard to win an election when you trivialize the problems of almost half of the population.

Liberals just have to sit back and watch the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot. Conservatives shouldn't fear their Liberal opponents as much as they should fear the general public learning what the Conservative beliefs truly are.

Please enumerate "what the Conservative beliefs truly are," since you're so omniscient about what the monolith that is "Conservative beliefs" is.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Actually, the more Conservatives spout this nonsense the better the Liberals look in comparison. How many elections have the Conservatives lost because the media reported on what the Conservatives really think by using their own words against them.

When a Conservative is caught expressing what they really think or feel, the American public is often appalled at the mean spiritedness of their comments. Romney's downfall was his comment ripping 49% of the population. It's hard to win an election when you trivialize the problems of almost half of the population.

Liberals just have to sit back and watch the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot. Conservatives shouldn't fear their Liberal opponents as much as they should fear the general public learning what the Conservative beliefs truly are.

I'll be the first to criticize the GOP as a party of monied interests cynically posturing about social conservativism for political gain, but the hubris in the above post is staggering, Eddy. It would be less offensive if you changed "conservative" to "Republican".

Regardless, it's never a good idea to drink your own Kool-Aid.

 

[potownhero]

His comments are relavant in the same way that The Who was relavant when they performed at the Super Bowl a few years back. They got the gig because they were once relavant and its was a curiosity to see 70 somethings performing on stage, but it didn't cause anyone to run out and buy their albums. It is sad that Rudy doesn't realize that he is a has-been. People talk about him in the same unflattering way that they talked about Roger Daltry and Pete Townshend after that dreadful performance. Suggesting that Rudy supplanted Sarah Palin as the biggest douche does not make him any more relavant ... it just contributes to his status as a mean old man desperate to rekindle his relavance, and failing to do so. Liberals are giddy that Rudy made his dumb comments, because they can attach his words to the entire party as yet another example of how they are mean spiirited and prefer personal attacks to anything of substance.

So irrelevant that 35% of the public agrees that Obama doesn't love the country and another 14% aren't sure. Can't be that irrelevant when almost 50% think he's on point.

(Rasmussen poll)

 

[connor_in]

You guys still banging pots and pans over Rudy's comments?

I should think you'd be all over the FCC and internet regulation vote by now.

 

[dshans]

You guys still banging pots and pans over Rudy's comments?

I should think you'd be all over the FCC and internet regulation vote by now.

How dare you broach a topic closer to the collective IE heart?

And quite possibly (marginally) more moldable than the hearts, minds and intentions of others.

 

[GoIrish41]

So irrelevant that 35% of the public agrees that Obama doesn't love the country and another 14% aren't sure. Can't be that irrelevant when almost 50% think he's on point.

(Rasmussen poll)

So 51 percent say he does and 14 percent are unsure? Willing to bet 100 percent of the other 35 percent are right wing republicans.

 

[dshans]

So 51 percent say he does and 14 percent are unsure? Willing to bet 100 percent of the other 35 percent are right wing republicans.

Don't go getting all mathiness and truthiness ...

 

[EddytoNow]

I'll be the first to criticize the GOP as a party of monied interests cynically posturing about social conservativism for political gain, but the hubris in the above post is staggering, Eddy. It would be less offensive if you changed "conservative" to "Republican".

Regardless, it's never a good idea to drink your own Kool-Aid.

You are correct. I used much too broad a brush by using the term Conservative when I really meant extreme supporters of the Republican party. I apologize to those Conservatives I may have offended by lumping all Conservatives together. The post to which I responded used the terms Conservative and Liberal, and I responded by using the same terms. However, my basic contention stands. Extreme Republicans are causing more harm to their own party than good. And when a relatively moderate Republican like Mitt Romney is forced to use rhetoric that appeals to the exteme elements of his own party, the Republican brand is tarnished. And when wacko Republicans claim a woman's body will reject a pregnancy caused by rape, moderate voters flee in the opposite direction.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You are correct. I used much too broad a brush by using the term Conservative when I really meant extreme supporters of the Republican party. I apologize to those Conservatives I may have offended by lumping all Conservatives together. The post to which I responded used the terms Conservative and Liberal, and I responded by using the same terms. However, my basic contention stands. Extreme Republicans are causing more harm to their own party than good. And when a relatively moderate Republican like Mitt Romney is forced to use rhetoric that appeals to the exteme elements of his own party, the Republican brand is tarnished. And when wacko Republicans claim a woman's body will reject a pregnancy caused by rape, moderate voters flee in the opposite direction.

This is weak. Politicians on both sides say dumb $hit all the time, and it's even been discussed in this thread before. In case you missed a few from the left:

"We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." Pelosi

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Obama

"Obama is electable because he is light skinned and has no negro dialect." -- Reid

 

[phgreek]

This is weak. Politicians on both sides say dumb $hit all the time, and it's even been discussed in this thread before. In case you missed a few from the left:

"We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." Pelosi

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Obama

"Obama is electable because he is light skinned and has no negro dialect." -- Reid

not a fan of either party these days...but at least the nut jobs in the Republican party aren't the operative leadership and face of the party. SMH!

 

[DonnieNarco]

So irrelevant that 35% of the public agrees that Obama doesn't love the country and another 14% aren't sure. Can't be that irrelevant when almost 50% think he's on point.

(Rasmussen poll)

Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't give it credibility or relevancy. Case in point:

 

[EddytoNow]

not a fan of either party these days...but at least the nut jobs in the Republican party aren't the operative leadership and face of the party. SMH!

I, too, am not a fan of either party these days. Both parties are more concerned with re-election and their own self-interest to take a stand on anything.

Who are the operative leaders of the Republican party? None of the leaders can get the respective members of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives or Senate to pass legislation on long-standing issues such as immigration or health care. Instead of continually attacking the ACA, why don't the Republicans pass their alternative plan and send it to President Obama? And instead of preventing a vote on immigration legislation already passed by the Senate, why doesn't John Boehner allow members of the House of Representatives to vote it up or down.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I, too, am not a fan of either party these days. Both parties are more concerned with re-election and their own self-interest to take a stand on anything.

Who are the operative leaders of the Republican party? None of the leaders can get the respective members of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives or Senate to pass legislation on long-standing issues such as immigration or health care. Instead of continually attacking the ACA, why don't the Republicans pass their alternative plan and send it to President Obama? And instead of preventing a vote on immigration legislation already passed by the Senate, why doesn't John Boehner allow members of the House of Representatives to vote it up or down.

Who are the operative leaders of the Republican party? You could argue Reince Preibus, but i think the point phgreek was trying to make is that the most extreme on the right aren't in leadership positions like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are on the left.

ACA: Pay no attention or just like to blame Republicans? Harry Reid ran the Senate with an iron fist.
Republicans have proposed many solutions to control health care costs and improve quality, Ron Johnson says | PolitiFact

Immigration: What are you crying about? Leftists should be celebrating. Boehner and McConnell are weak and the president will get the amnesty he wants because all he needs is a phone and a pen.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obama took the Republican party to task last night during a televised town hall on the topic of immigration. I agreed with almost everything he was saying, but was still uneasy about how politicized his overall theme seemed to be -- almost as if he was in campaign mode for the Democrats. He even went so far as to urge latinos to remember whose fault it is that there is no comprehensive immigration reform legislation when they go to the polls during the 2016 election. Obama is playing serious political hardball on immigration right now -- and although I agree with virtually every point he made, I'm not sure how I feel about his tactics last night.

Obama says immigrants should be 'gathering up their papers' in town hall appearance | Fox News

 

[phgreek]

I, too, am not a fan of either party these days. Both parties are more concerned with re-election and their own self-interest to take a stand on anything.

Who are the operative leaders of the Republican party? None of the leaders can get the respective members of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives or Senate to pass legislation on long-standing issues such as immigration or health care. Instead of continually attacking the ACA, why don't the Republicans pass their alternative plan and send it to President Obama? And instead of preventing a vote on immigration legislation already passed by the Senate, why doesn't John Boehner allow members of the House of Representatives to vote it up or down.

See Leppy's answer...pretty much nailed it.

 

[EddytoNow]

Who are the operative leaders of the Republican party? You could argue Reince Preibus, but i think the point phgreek was trying to make is that the most extreme on the right aren't in leadership positions like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are on the left.

ACA: Pay no attention or just like to blame Republicans? Harry Reid ran the Senate with an iron fist.
Republicans have proposed many solutions to control health care costs and improve quality, Ron Johnson says | PolitiFact

Immigration: What are you crying about? Leftists should be celebrating. Boehner and McConnell are weak and the president will get the amnesty he wants because all he needs is a phone and a pen.

Yes, Harry Reid ran the Senate, and he was guilty of obstructing legislation. But the Republican party was also guilty of obstructing legislation through their ability to prevent a closure vote in the Senate and through their failure to allow votes in the House. The Senate is now run by Mitch McConnell. Propose the Republican health care and immigration plans. Republicans control both the Senate and the House. What are they waiting for?

The truth is the Democrats will use the same obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans when the Democrats controlled everything. They can't do much in the House of Representatives to prevent the Republicans from passing whatever legislation they want. The problem arises in the Senate, where Democrats will use the same technique of preventing a closure vote on legislation they oppose.

Obama's veto provides a final obstacle to overcome.

And any tears I shed are tears of joy. The Senate closure rule and the Presidential veto will constrain the extreme wing of the Republican party from forcing their agenda on the American public.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, Harry Reid ran the Senate, and he was guilty of obstructing legislation. But the Republican party was also guilty of obstructing legislation through their ability to prevent a closure vote in the Senate and through their failure to allow votes in the House. The Senate is now run by Mitch McConnell. Propose the Republican health care and immigration plans. Republicans control both the Senate and the House. What are they waiting for?

The truth is the Democrats will use the same obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans when the Democrats controlled everything. They can't do much in the House of Representatives to prevent the Republicans from passing whatever legislation they want. The problem arises in the Senate, where Democrats will use the same technique of preventing a closure vote on legislation they oppose.

Obama's veto provides a final obstacle to overcome.

And any tears I shed are tears of joy. The Senate closure rule and the Presidential veto will constrain the extreme wing of the Republican party from forcing their agenda on the American public.

Indeed, what are they waiting for?

I do not think the Dems will use the same obstructionist tactics the GOP has for the past 4 years, however. I doubt they fillibuster everything that comes up for discussion, for example. But, we shall see, I guess.

 

[pkt77242]

Who are the operative leaders of the Republican party? You could argue Reince Preibus, but i think the point phgreek was trying to make is that the most extreme on the right aren't in leadership positions like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are on the left.

ACA: Pay no attention or just like to blame Republicans? Harry Reid ran the Senate with an iron fist.
Republicans have proposed many solutions to control health care costs and improve quality, Ron Johnson says | PolitiFact

Immigration: What are you crying about? Leftists should be celebrating. Boehner and McConnell are weak and the president will get the amnesty he wants because all he needs is a phone and a pen.

See Leppy's answer...pretty much nailed it.

Forget immigration for a second. Did either of you actually read the Politfact article? They have given just about 0 options to improve quality and even their solutions to control costs don't really control them.
The one area that might really save some costs (and by really we are still talking less then 1%) would be Tort reform, everything else is a mixed bag.

So either you believe that our healthcare system doesn't need major changes (which is fine, then just say that) or if you do believe that our healthcare system needs major changes then the Republicans "fixes" are not adequate as they don't do much to stem the costs and does nothing about the quality.

I think that the ACA could have and should have been done better. I think the idea should be to fix it not tear it down (unless we go single payer, then count me in).

Here is an interesting article from the 2004 election about Bush's healthcare ideas
An Examination of the Bush Health Care Agenda

Interesting how many of his ideas ended up in the ACA such as expanding medicaid and tax credits for low income families. I wonder if conservatives would have been calling Bush a socialist if his idea of healthcare reform had been passed.

 

[Wild Bill]

Forget immigration for a second. Did either of you actually read the Politfact article? They have given just about 0 options to improve quality and even their solutions to control costs don't really control them.
The one area that might really save some costs (and by really we are still talking less then 1%) would be Tort reform, everything else is a mixed bag.

Attorneys need money too.

Interesting how many of his ideas ended up in the ACA such as expanding medicaid and tax credits for low income families. I wonder if conservatives would have been calling Bush a socialist if his idea of healthcare reform had been passed.

To be fair, Bush drove conservatives nuts with his haphazard spending.

 

[phgreek]

Forget immigration for a second. Did either of you actually read the Politfact article? They have given just about 0 options to improve quality and even their solutions to control costs don't really control them.
The one area that might really save some costs (and by really we are still talking less then 1%) would be Tort reform, everything else is a mixed bag.

So either you believe that our healthcare system doesn't need major changes (which is fine, then just say that) or if you do believe that our healthcare system needs major changes then the Republicans "fixes" are not adequate as they don't do much to stem the costs and does nothing about the quality.

I think that the ACA could have and should have been done better. I think the idea should be to fix it not tear it down (unless we go single payer, then count me in).

Here is an interesting article from the 2004 election about Bush's healthcare ideas
An Examination of the Bush Health Care Agenda

Interesting how many of his ideas ended up in the ACA such as expanding medicaid and tax credits for low income families. I wonder if conservatives would have been calling Bush a socialist if his idea of healthcare reform had been passed.

...I made a point that the wackos from the left are actually operatively leading the democratic party....ie they were elected to office and their crazy shit is more than headlines and punchlines.

Next, in response to that there was some form of ...yea but the republican leadership sucks...here is why. Fine I can roll with tangential arguments...I do it too...off we go.

One of the points was ACA, and how Harry stifled legislative responses. And now, we are rehashing rather those were any good? There is tangential, then there is hijacking the discussion because you have an agenda. The point of the politifact citation was to show there were indeed ideas presented in an effort to address the last tangential argument... do you guys talk and plan to do shit like this?

Its not that the discussion before you hopped in was all that substantive...but good hell how about a verbal signpost you were making a tangential argument to a tangential argument and bundling everyone into the response...JM&J!

Now...to your point. Some ideas were ok, but most proposed legislation was missing big pieces. However had they had DISCUSSIONS, and brought things to the floor and argued the merits, I'm sure they could have subsequently come up with something better...but those things never made it...Why? And your answer really speaks to the earlier discussion.

 

[pkt77242]

...I made a point that the wackos from the left are actually operatively leading the democratic party....ie they were elected to office and their crazy shit is more than headlines and punchlines.

Next, in response to that there was some form of ...yea but the republican leadership sucks...here is why. Fine I can roll with tangential arguments...I do it too...off we go.

One of the points was ACA, and how Harry stifled legislative responses. And now, we are rehashing rather those were any good? There is tangential, then there is hijacking the discussion because you have an agenda. The point of the politifact citation was to show there were indeed ideas presented in an effort to address the last tangential argument... do you guys talk and plan to do shit like this?

Its not that the discussion before you hopped in was all that substantive...but good hell how about a verbal signpost you were making a tangential argument to a tangential argument and bundling everyone into the response...JM&J!

Now...to your point. Some ideas were ok, but most proposed legislation was missing big pieces. However had they had DISCUSSIONS, and brought things to the floor and argued the merits, I'm sure they could have subsequently come up with something better...but those things never made it...Why? And your answer really speaks to the earlier discussion.

So first off this whole thread is one tangent after another.

LOL. You do realize in the beginning that Obama and the Senate democrats tried to get Republican input but Republicans were dead set against being involved and refused to participate. They were steadfast against any healthcare law being passed. You are acting as if the Republicans actually wanted to pass a healthcare reform bill when they did not. They even shit on ideas that some of them had previously endorsed such as the individual mandate (A lot of Republicans supported the individual mandate - The Washington Post this link provides some names of Republicans who had supported it previously including some who then opposed it when Obama tried to use it).

 

[ACamp1900]

So first off this whole thread is one tangent after another.

LOL. You do realize in the beginning that Obama and the Senate democrats tried to get Republican input but Republicans were dead set against being involved and refused to participate. They were steadfast against any healthcare law being passed. You are acting as if the Republicans actually wanted to pass a healthcare reform bill when they did not. They even shit on ideas that some of them had previously endorsed such as the individual mandate (A lot of Republicans supported the individual mandate - The Washington Post this link provides some names of Republicans who had supported it previously including some who then opposed it when Obama tried to use it).

The idea that the Republicans had no ideas and just opposed anything and everything is just plain false and a completely partisan attempt at reinvention of fact... I can remember at least a few different health care bills that the Republicans put out there and many more attempts to get any of their current ideas into what was eventually rammed through... the majority democrats wouldn't let any of them see the light of day... Let's not pretend opposing the others health care ideas is a strictly right side of the isle 'thing'

 

[GoIrish41]

The idea that the Republicans had no ideas and just opposed anything and everything is just plain false and a completely partisan attempt at reinvention of fact... I can remember at least a few different health care bills that the Republicans put out there and many more attempts to get any of their current ideas into what was eventually rammed through... the majority democrats wouldn't let any of them see the light of day... Let's not pretend opposing the others health care ideas is a strictly right side of the isle 'thing'

After dozens of attempts to repeal the ACA, I heard for the first time in the Republican response to this year's State of the Union the term "repeal and replace." Baby steps. All they have to do now is come up with the "replace" idea and start circulating it. Who knows, maybe it will catch fire and people will jump on board. Unfortunately, I have not heard any proposals. Can you provide any information on the health care proposals that the Republicans put out there? The only one I can remember is what got approved and became the ACA.

 

[pkt77242]

The idea that the Republicans had no ideas and just opposed anything and everything is just plain false and a completely partisan attempt at reinvention of fact... I can remember at least a few different health care bills that the Republicans put out there and many more attempts to get any of their current ideas into what was eventually rammed through... the majority democrats wouldn't let any of them see the light of day... Let's not pretend opposing the others health care ideas is a strictly right side of the isle 'thing'

Previously, yes Republicans had put out bills (Hell I have provided links to different ideas of theirs including George Bush's) but when the ACA was being passed they were against comprehensive healthcare reform . That was stated by them. The funny part about the previous Republican healthcare bills that you mention is that they usually included some form of the individual mandate (though not all of them did) which Republicans did generally agree with back then but for some reason once Obama borrowed their idea it became "unconstitutional". Again when healthcare reform came up under Obama Republicans were against it and did everything in their power to block it (mostly because of their stated goal that he be a one term President and them not wanting him to have a signature piece of legislation that was bi-partisan). To argue that Republicans wanted to pass any form of Healthcare legislation after Obama took office is re-imagining the facts afterwards. Again, the Republicans were not acting in good faith, they never had any intent to even consider the bill (besides, Snow and Collins).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obama took the Republican party to task last night during a televised town hall on the topic of immigration. I agreed with almost everything he was saying, but was still uneasy about how politicized his overall theme seemed to be -- almost as if he was in campaign mode for the Democrats. He even went so far as to urge latinos to remember whose fault it is that there is no comprehensive immigration reform legislation when they go to the polls during the 2016 election. Obama is playing serious political hardball on immigration right now -- and although I agree with virtually every point he made, I'm not sure how I feel about his tactics last night.

Obama says immigrants should be 'gathering up their papers' in town hall appearance | Fox News

Everyone should be asking every Democrat, starting with Obama, why amnesty wasn't passed in 2009 or 2010 when there was a super majority. Why wait until now?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes, Harry Reid ran the Senate, and he was guilty of obstructing legislation. But the Republican party was also guilty of obstructing legislation through their ability to prevent a closure vote in the Senate and through their failure to allow votes in the House. The Senate is now run by Mitch McConnell. Propose the Republican health care and immigration plans. Republicans control both the Senate and the House. What are they waiting for?

The truth is the Democrats will use the same obstructionist tactics employed by the Republicans when the Democrats controlled everything. They can't do much in the House of Representatives to prevent the Republicans from passing whatever legislation they want. The problem arises in the Senate, where Democrats will use the same technique of preventing a closure vote on legislation they oppose.

Obama's veto provides a final obstacle to overcome.

And any tears I shed are tears of joy. The Senate closure rule and the Presidential veto will constrain the extreme wing of the Republican party from forcing their agenda on the American public.

Pull yourself together lol. Democrats forced their agenda on the American public for a few years with a super majority.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Forget immigration for a second. Did either of you actually read the Politfact article? They have given just about 0 options to improve quality and even their solutions to control costs don't really control them.
The one area that might really save some costs (and by really we are still talking less then 1%) would be Tort reform, everything else is a mixed bag.

So either you believe that our healthcare system doesn't need major changes (which is fine, then just say that) or if you do believe that our healthcare system needs major changes then the Republicans "fixes" are not adequate as they don't do much to stem the costs and does nothing about the quality.

I think that the ACA could have and should have been done better. I think the idea should be to fix it not tear it down (unless we go single payer, then count me in).

Here is an interesting article from the 2004 election about Bush's healthcare ideas
An Examination of the Bush Health Care Agenda

Interesting how many of his ideas ended up in the ACA such as expanding medicaid and tax credits for low income families. I wonder if conservatives would have been calling Bush a socialist if his idea of healthcare reform had been passed.

Eddy said Republicans only criticize Obama (waaaaahhhh) and have no alternatives for ACA. I just proved that is incorrect. They did have plans. The rest can be argued one way or the other.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Previously, yes Republicans had put out bills (Hell I have provided links to different ideas of theirs including George Bush's) but when the ACA was being passed they were against comprehensive healthcare reform . That was stated by them. The funny part about the previous Republican healthcare bills that you mention is that they usually included some form of the individual mandate (though not all of them did) which Republicans did generally agree with back then but for some reason once Obama borrowed their idea it became "unconstitutional". Again when healthcare reform came up under Obama Republicans were against it and did everything in their power to block it (mostly because of their stated goal that he be a one term President and them not wanting him to have a signature piece of legislation that was bi-partisan). To argue that Republicans wanted to pass any form of Healthcare legislation after Obama took office is re-imagining the facts afterwards. Again, the Republicans were not acting in good faith, they never had any intent to even consider the bill (besides, Snow and Collins).

There was no point! Democrats were going to do what they were going to do. They had the House, Senate, and White House.