Dissatisfaction with both political parties runs deep

[TheQueen]

It has been more than four decades since the Congress of the United States has been able to summon the will to pass a major piece of social legislation. Not since 1965, when Medicare and the Voting Rights Act both overcame decades of opposition to become law, has Congress proved itself up to the task.

Significant healthcare reform is all but dead for this session, and the chances of substantively addressing the regulatory breakdown that allowed Wall Street's irresponsible speculation to precipitate the worst global financial crisis since the Depression seem to recede with each passing day. So too the prospects for passage of further stimulus measures to remedy the crisis of unemployment and underemployment that continues to ravage the lives of families in states from Michigan to California.

In the face of these daunting issues, what was it that preoccupied the Senate on the eve of its long weekend recess? The legislative drama du jour is the standoff between the White House and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who has put a personal hold on more than 70 executive branch appointments until the Obama administration agrees to fund a couple of pork-barrel projects he has earmarked for his state. One involves tens of millions of dollars for an FBI laboratory focusing on improvised explosives -- something the bureau doesn't think it needs. The other involves contract specifications for an aerial tanker that Northrop Grumman and Airbus would manufacture in Alabama, if they win the deal. (Boeing also is competing for the plane, which it would build in Topeka, Kan., and Seattle.)

Unless the administration agrees to give Shelby what he wants, he intends to invoke an archaic senatorial privilege that allows him to prevent the chamber from considering any of the administration's nominees to executive branch vacancies, no matter how crucial. Without the 60 votes to force cloture -- another archaic convention -- there's nothing the Democrats or the White House can do.

Outside the Senate, Shelby's conduct would be called extortion; inside the chamber, it's a "parliamentary tactic."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten6-2010feb06,0,1034960.column

[Oscar Brito]

This is my fix to the problem:

-Campaign finance reform. No private financing of campaigns for federal positions (including side groups that could assist). No loopholes either. Goodbye Swift Boaters and MoveOn.org ads.
-Do away with the party political system. No parties period. Goodbye party fundraisers.
-One primary date for all elected positions.
-Goodbye Electoral College. Hello popular vote.
-Congress and president only get one term (no exceptions). The Representatives can have a term of four years. The Senators can have a term of six years. The President a term of six years.

:dunno

[Garyhoov]

This is my fix to the problem:

-Campaign finance reform. No private financing of campaigns for federal positions (including side groups that could assist). No loopholes either. Goodbye Swift Boaters and MoveOn.org ads.
-Do away with the party political system. No parties period. Goodbye party fundraisers.
-One primary date for all elected positions.
-Goodbye Electoral College. Hello popular vote.
-Congress and president only get one term (no exceptions). The Representatives can have a term of four years. The Senators can have a term of six years. The President a term of six years.

:dunno

Those are some interesting ideas:thumbs

. . . of course none of them will ever happen since most of them would require the people in power to give up some of that power.:lookaroun

The popular vote idea could probably fly . . . but it would require a constitutional ammendment and I just don't think anyone will bother to put the effort in since it won't give either side a clear advantage.

If it was something that either the Republicans or Democrats thought would help them, you can bet we'd be hearing a lot more about the idea.:rollseyes As it stands, the only time anyone will ever mention it is when one party can claim the current system robbed them of the election . . . and then it will fade away a few months later.

I think the only real answer to fixing how screwed up everythint is will have to come from us. . . and since people are likely to always vote based on stupid points . . . it's probably basically hopeless.:covereyes

I've seen the same BS repeated over and over again to the point I feel like I'm stuck in "Groundhog Day". My logical side keeps telling me the best thing to do is ignore it all and remember that it's all just a bunch of noise and the things that really matter come from the people who are out there working every day . . . not the self-important politicians who think they're a lot more important than they are.

When you read newspapers from 200 years ago, you see people saying they same things we say today. It just keeps rolling along and we survive because our society is much bigger and more powerful than our "leaders".

I just have to try to remember that and not get caught up iin the theater. When you maintaint the right attitude, politics really can be entertaining.

. . . which is why I'm supporting Sarah Palin in 2012.:whistle:lol

[Christy]

I just have to try to remember that and not get caught up iin the theater. When you maintaint the right attitude, politics really can be entertaining.


I think so too, sometimes, until I realize how all our lives are affected, and then it's "Oh shit!" :lol :lookaroun

[figmentmom]

I just have to try to remember that and not get caught up in the theater. When you maintain the right attitude, politics really can be entertaining.



It can, but I get so upset that it ceases to be entertainment and becomes aggravation. I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with both parties,and particularly disappointed in the Democrats (I EXPECTED this from the Republicans, but the Democrats have proven themselves to be not one bit better!) They have rendered it almost impossible for Obama to accomplish anything at all. It's disgusting.

[Christy]

It can, but I get so upset that it ceases to be entertainment and becomes aggravation. I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with both parties,and particularly disappointed in the Democrats (I EXPECTED this from the Republicans, but the Democrats have proven themselves to be not one bit better!) They have rendered it almost impossible for Obama to accomplish anything at all. It's disgusting.

I am sure you would find some who would say that's not a bad thing.

Not that I'm one of them :whistles :lookaroun

[jmaxwell007]

It can, but I get so upset that it ceases to be entertainment and becomes aggravation. I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with both parties,and particularly disappointed in the Democrats (I EXPECTED this from the Republicans, but the Democrats have proven themselves to be not one bit better!) They have rendered it almost impossible for Obama to accomplish anything at all. It's disgusting.I feel the same way. I think it frustrates me (especially in my neck of the woods here in the deep south) that the Republicans I know, would sabotage any good that could potentially come from the administration to prove a point that they didnt want democrats to succeed. It is almost like, they could come up with any idea and it would get undressed just because it is "their" idea.

I really wish everyone could see the bigger picture and get on the same page. It just makes me not want to even watch, listen or read anything about it.

[figmentmom]

I feel the same way. I think it frustrates me (especially in my neck of the woods here in the deep south) that the Republicans I know, would sabotage any good that could potentially come from the administration to prove a point that they didnt want democrats to succeed. It is almost like, they could come up with any idea and it would get undressed just because it is "their" idea.

I really wish everyone could see the bigger picture and get on the same page. It just makes me not want to even watch, listen or read anything about it.

What absolutely INFURIATES me is that the Democrats haven't been much better. It just seems to me that every member of Congress is there for his or her own glory and ego, and no two of them can sit down and have a reasonable discussion about ANYTHING any more. The chances of them seeing beyond their own noses, and getting anything positive accomplished, dim every day.

[Oscar Brito]

GOP or Dem vote them out in November! That will scare them.

[figmentmom]

GOP or Dem vote them out in November! That will scare them.

Seriously. My OWN CONGRESSMAN, Democrat Scott Murphy (who was narrowly elected last year to fill Democrat Kirstin Gillbrand's seat, after she was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat) voted against the health care package in the House! Idiot! What does he think we elected him FOR? And his "reasoning" was totally bogus, and self-serving. He claimed that it eliminated a tax cut for the paper mill industry, and therefore would be "wrong" for his constituency. BULL - that "tax cut" was a loophole in the law that will be closed, and rightly so, in a couple of months ANYWAY! His vote was out-and-out pandering to the Republican voters in the district - he just wants to be re-elected, and knows he only won by the skin of his teeth. Democrats are a huge minority up here, and let me tell you, we took his defection VERY POORLY. :mad Wait 'til primary time, Scottster. :mad

[BeeJay]

This thread reminds me of one of my favorite Simpsons jokes, in the episode where Bart wins a radio call-in show and demands the gag prize of an elephant instead of taking $10,000. (And this is from 1994.)

----
Boss: Look, our ratings are down, and the station is being swamped with angry calls and letter-bombs. And it’s all your fault!

Bill: Yes it is, ma’am.

Boss: This is the DJ 3000. It plays CDs automatically, and it has three distinct varieties of inane chatter.

[presses a button]

DJ 3000: Hey, hey. How about that weather out there?
Woah! That was the caller from hell.
Well, hot dog! We have a weiner.

Bill: Man, that thing’s great!

Marty: Don’t praise the machine!

Boss: If you don’t get that kid an elephant by tomorrow, the DJ 3000 gets your job.

[Marty punches it]

DJ 3000: Those clowns in congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.

Bill: [laughs] How does it keep up with the news like that?

[Doug11]

GOP or Dem vote them out in November! That will scare them.

How do we get rid of the professional staffers who stay behind no matter who gets re-elected or is new to the job. Aren't they the people who are really running our government? :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

This thread reminds me of one of my favorite Simpsons jokes, in the episode where Bart wins a radio call-in show and demands the gag prize of an elephant instead of taking $10,000. (And this is from 1994.)

----
Boss: Look, our ratings are down, and the station is being swamped with angry calls and letter-bombs. And it’s all your fault!

Bill: Yes it is, ma’am.

Boss: This is the DJ 3000. It plays CDs automatically, and it has three distinct varieties of inane chatter.

[presses a button]

DJ 3000: Hey, hey. How about that weather out there?
Woah! That was the caller from hell.
Well, hot dog! We have a weiner.

Bill: Man, that thing’s great!

Marty: Don’t praise the machine!

Boss: If you don’t get that kid an elephant by tomorrow, the DJ 3000 gets your job.

[Marty punches it]

DJ 3000: Those clowns in congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.

Bill: [laughs] How does it keep up with the news like that?

:rotfl

There was an absolutely GREAT video clip I remember seeing around the time of the election ( I just searched around youtube but couldn't find it ).

They started with Obama talking about how we needed change and then showed McCain talking about how we needed change, then clips of George W from 2000 talking about change . . . Clinton, Reagan, Carter etc. etc. etc. going back through to about the beginnings of campaign video.

If anyone can find that clip, I'd love to see it again.

[jmaxwell007]

Seriously. My OWN CONGRESSMAN, Democrat Scott Murphy (who was narrowly elected last year to fill Democrat Kirstin Gillbrand's seat, after she was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat) voted against the health care package in the House! Idiot! What does he think we elected him FOR? And his "reasoning" was totally bogus, and self-serving. He claimed that it eliminated a tax cut for the paper mill industry, and therefore would be "wrong" for his constituency. BULL - that "tax cut" was a loophole in the law that will be closed, and rightly so, in a couple of months ANYWAY! His vote was out-and-out pandering to the Republican voters in the district - he just wants to be re-elected, and knows he only won by the skin of his teeth. Democrats are a huge minority up here, and let me tell you, we took his defection VERY POORLY. :mad Wait 'til primary time, Scottster. :madYou can always move down to my neck of the woods. Here in Bama, we spend millions going back and forth debating bingo and gambling machine. One day they are legal, the next day the "govna" has banned it again so we spend millions of tax dollars a year on sending out sheriffs and gaming groups to shut these places down. It happens monthly. I could careless either way, just pick a side and stop going back and forth.

Supposedly, Alabama is a non-gambling state. Although, we have protected Indian reservations in the state that are throwing up casinos. The forward thinking Alabama law makers in Montgomery really seize the opportunity to make the state some money by opening its own facilities or at least regulating the ones that do open. Instead, we argue back and forth and spend millions (see above).

I guess it wouldnt irritate me so much if a) there wasnt so much wasted tax money on it and b) when the lawmakers and the govna' talk about it, you can just hear that thumping of the bible in the background.

I swear sometimes I have to get out of Alabama.

[figmentmom]

New York isn't a lot better. In fact, I can't really think of a state that IS. :rollseyes

[Doug11]

Joel, "we" across the border need Alabamians to keep voting against casinos, and then coming over here to gamble. Can I send you a little money to make it worth your while to continue to vote "no?" Ooh, I think I just became a lobbyist.

[jmaxwell007]

Joel, "we" across the border need Alabamians to keep voting against casinos, and then coming over here to gamble. Can I send you a little money to make it worth your while to continue to vote "no?" Ooh, I think I just became a lobbyist.I guess so Doug. The best ad that I have scene was one that ran during the state lottery campaign. It had supposed Georgia students ranging in age from 5-10 saying, "Thank you Alabama" followed by all the numbers of Alabamians spending their money on others lottery.

Great campaign.

[figmentmom]

Okay..wait. If politicians are elected to represent their constituency, then why are politicians not voting they way the majority of their constituency wants them to vote? In this age of instant feedback, why can't politicians be more in touch with their constituents? Have our elected officials lost touch with what their constituents sent the to Washington to do? It certainly seems that way, doesn't it?

So, Mary, what DID you elect him for? To go along party lines?

YES, Tom, I damn well DID elect him to vote along party lines on health care, because that's the platform he ran on, and those were the campaign promises he made!!! Even our ultra-conservative local newspaper called Congressman Murphy on the issue, pointing out the glaring difference between what he PROMISED to do, and what he DID. They called his vote a cynical move to win over conservative voters for the next election, which is exactly what it was.

[BeeJay]

Why is it that Obama (and the Democrats) shut out the Republicans during the heathcare debate?

Short answer: They didn't. Reid and Senate Dems gave the house away trying to please Republicans who were never going to vote for the bill anyway.

Look at all the time the Finance Committee spent soliciting input from supposedly moderate Republicans like Chuck Grassley, only to have them turn around and peddle all the BS about death panels to try and kill a bill that had been specifically crafted with them in mind.

Obama could ask John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to WRITE the healthcare bill, and as soon as he endorsed it, they'd find something wrong with it. He nailed their predicament during his appearance at their conference when he said they've painted themselves into a corner with all the ridiculous rhetoric they've endorsed or stood quietly by for. ("I'm not saying Obama's the Antichrist...I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to any judgments here.") It's to the point where they absolutely CAN'T support anything he does, or their constituents will eat them alive.

If America was a burning building, the Democrats would be too scared to pick up a hose because they wouldn't want to make the Republicans mad, who would meanwhile be busily voting down any hose-related proposals, insisting that only a red hose could put out the fire while the Democrats arrogantly insist on using green hoses.

(OK, that answer wasn't as short as I expected.) :king

[figmentmom]

Short answer: They didn't. Reid and Senate Dems gave the house away trying to please Republicans who were never going to vote for the bill anyway.

Look at all the time the Finance Committee spent soliciting input from supposedly moderate Republicans like Chuck Grassley, only to have them turn around and peddle all the BS about death panels to try and kill a bill that had been specifically crafted with them in mind.

Obama could ask John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to WRITE the healthcare bill, and as soon as he endorsed it, they'd find something wrong with it. He nailed their predicament during his appearance at their conference when he said they've painted themselves into a corner with all the ridiculous rhetoric they've endorsed or stood quietly by for. ("I'm not saying Obama's the Antichrist...I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to any judgments here.") It's to the point where they absolutely CAN'T support anything he does, or their constituents will eat them alive.

If America was a burning building, the Democrats would be too scared to pick up a hose because they wouldn't want to make the Republicans mad, who would meanwhile be busily voting down any hose-related proposals, insisting that only a red hose could put out the fire while the Democrats arrogantly insist on using green hoses.

(OK, that answer wasn't as short as I expected.) :king

Short, no. Apt, yes.

[Oscar Brito]

Short answer: They didn't. Reid and Senate Dems gave the house away trying to please Republicans who were never going to vote for the bill anyway.

Look at all the time the Finance Committee spent soliciting input from supposedly moderate Republicans like Chuck Grassley, only to have them turn around and peddle all the BS about death panels to try and kill a bill that had been specifically crafted with them in mind.

Obama could ask John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to WRITE the healthcare bill, and as soon as he endorsed it, they'd find something wrong with it. He nailed their predicament during his appearance at their conference when he said they've painted themselves into a corner with all the ridiculous rhetoric they've endorsed or stood quietly by for. ("I'm not saying Obama's the Antichrist...I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to any judgments here.") It's to the point where they absolutely CAN'T support anything he does, or their constituents will eat them alive.

If America was a burning building, the Democrats would be too scared to pick up a hose because they wouldn't want to make the Republicans mad, who would meanwhile be busily voting down any hose-related proposals, insisting that only a red hose could put out the fire while the Democrats arrogantly insist on using green hoses.

(OK, that answer wasn't as short as I expected.) :king

It all started with the stimulus bill...and it was all down hill from there....compromises made for nothing. Of course, the leadership knew this (surely), so it makes you wonder why they still made the concessions they made.

If politicians followed the people...among other things, there would be no wars, universal health care, a better education system, and yes a fairer distribution of the wealth in this country...not to mention we would not be running deficits or have such a large debt. At various points in our history these have been (continue to be) strongly favored by the majority....but the minority is (has always been) louder....and well funded.

Before we visit the liberal and conservative aspects of the issues we face (and both sides I feel can make valid contributions)...."we the people" need to fix the system that gets in the way of progress.

The question is: can the system be fixed? I don't think it would be unreasonable to say, "no". But I want to be optimistic....so I'll say, "yes".

(that depends on us)

[figmentmom]

Yep, I don't want to give up the ship completely, either, Oz. Keep on keepin' on, huh? :lol

[BeeJay]

The question is: can the system be fixed? I don't think it would be unreasonable to say, "no". But I want to be optimistic....so I'll say, "yes".


Honestly, I come down on the side of "no, it can't...but it can get better."

I don't think it's possible to have a political system where money doesn't entitle some to an inordinate amount of influence. It's just human nature. It's always been that way, and will probably take the Second Coming or another few stages of evolution (depending on your beliefs) to overcome.

But things do improve over time, I believe. We don't have 5-year-olds working in coal mines or black men living their lives as property any more in this country, and both of those things had very strong economic incentives behind them. Honestly, I think it says a lot about this country that we've gotten to the point where the biggest travesties we're fighting are things like people lacking health insurance. Not to say that's a small thing, but it's a lot less onerous than some of the injustices we've overcome before now.

[Garyhoov]

Honestly, I come down on the side of "no, it can't...but it can get better."

I don't think it's possible to have a political system where money doesn't entitle some to an inordinate amount of influence. It's just human nature. It's always been that way, and will probably take the Second Coming or another few stages of evolution (depending on your beliefs) to overcome.

But things do improve over time, I believe. We don't have 5-year-olds working in coal mines or black men living their lives as property any more in this country, and both of those things had very strong economic incentives behind them. Honestly, I think it says a lot about this country that we've gotten to the point where the biggest travesties we're fighting are things like people lacking health insurance. Not to say that's a small thing, but it's a lot less onerous than some of the injustices we've overcome before now.

This is a GREAT point. "Fixing" the system is like "fixing" health care. Different people want different things. If Democrats get what they want, they'll consider things "fixed" . . . but Republicans will be upset and vice versa.

Our system is resistant to change, and, in many ways, that's a good thing. Think about what happens when something hits the news such as a school shooting. Everybody gets up in arms and starts talking about legislation. But legislation shouldn't be developed based on rare, sensationalized events. Legislation shouldn't be based on the things national news outlets choose to cover.

Legislation should be based on real, broad problems. The goal of legislation can't be to prevent anything bad from ever happening to anybody. . . but when something bad does happen to someone, politicians feel they have to offer "solutions" when the best course likely is to do nothing. I don't think our founding fathers saw the goal of federal government as a body designed to prevent anything bad from ever happening to anybody . . . yet when something bad does happen, people (led by the media) often seem to look to the federal government and ask them what they're going to do about it.

So a lot of people talk and nothing ever happens and some people see that as a problem. Personally, I see it as the system working and preventing knee-jerk reactions that cause more harm then good. When there are real, definable problems (such as you mentioned above), we can get things done. When we have a situation in which better legislation is CLEARLY the answer (and that's a rare occurance), neither party will stand in the way. I believe that, in the coming years, something will be done to allow better access to health care and prevent refusal based on pre-existing conditions, etc. . . . we won't have free health care for everyone, but, obviously that's not a real possibility.

The key problems with health-care are access and cost. If/when legislators introduce legislation that logically and rationally addresses those two issues, it will pass. That hasn't happened yet.

[Christy]

Why is it so impossible to believe that people are voting against the health care reform bill, so far, because they think it's bullshit? :lol *edit: and is it bill or bills because I honestly have no idea. I'm so impressed you guys know what's going on :king I used to get my news from tv, but that proved too biased, no matter who you watch, so I come to you all now :thumbs :lookaroun

And freaking stimulus package... is it true Obama wants another $100 billion when there's $500 billion still left unspent? How many generations of kids are going to have to pay this crap off for us?

[ogryn]

If you have a spare 6 minutes, watch this short film... it's quite thought provoking. I'm sure it's just as relevant over there as it is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kggld0A3ssM

This is a film about how all of us have become Richard Nixon. Just like him we've all become paranoid weirdos. It's the story of how Television and Newspapers did this to us, and how it has paralysed the ability of politics to transform the world for the better.
FYI. Labour ~ Left-Centre Socialists, Conservatives/Tories ~ Right-Centre Conservatives :D

[BeeJay]

Why is it so impossible to believe that people are voting against the health care reform bill, so far, because they think it's bullshit? :lol

It'd be easier for me to believe that if A.) they'd just say that instead of using retarded arguments about death panels and socialism to oppose it, and B.) if the same party hadn't passed a massive Rx drug entitlement without a peep a few years ago.

I heard on TV (granted this might have been from someone less than scrupulously honest) that these bills (there are two, actually, to answer your other question...House and Senate approved versions) don't go as far as Richard Nixon(!) proposed when he wanted to overhaul healthcare in the '70s.

Today's Republicans seem to have one guiding principle: spend all the money you want, as long as you don't have to raise any along the way. That really is my biggest problem with them. They'll fight two wars on a credit card, jack up entitlement spending against the deficit, but propose any increase in spending that you actually PAY FOR with a tax increase and Jesus Christ, you'd think you'd proposed a bill legalizing Grandma sodomy.

It's not that I think the Democrats are heaps better, but I just feel like the GOP has completely excused itself from reality, so by default, we have one remotely serious political party in this country.

Anyway...you asked a simple question. My simple answer is that based on what I've seen and heard during this debate and in the past, I'm convinced that a lot of the opposition to this bill is based 98% on politics and 2% on principle. From the perspective of ordinary people who are opposed to the bill, it's probably all the same as long as the end result is to stop it.

[Oscar Brito]

Sure laws are passed, but too often those laws regarding those terrible issues are not enforced. The government drags its feet when it is not held accountable.

BJ you mentioned kids working in a coal mine. It's true, we have come a long way from those dark days at the beginning of the twentieth century. But those changes didn't occur because someone in government said, "today I think I'll tackle those pesky Labor issues". The people stood up, and fought for change with protests, strikes, unionization (children back in the day marched alongside their adult colleagues). The government gave in, and I think its fair to say, that it did so to avoid things getting out-of-hand. That's the beauty of the system, I think, we're "free" to protest and cause changes that affect it.

But again, laws are sometimes just words. Currently in this country, there are children working. Illegal immigrant families working in fields. Where's the immigration reform? The one that gets to the root of the problem...employers and companies who use this new kind of slavery to save money and have a chance at greater profits. Isn't it logical to assume that if people can't find work, they won't come? Has this economic crisis not proven that? Yet why isn't the government enforcing the law? Could it be that the system (the establishment) profits from looking the other way?

Overall...things slowly improve, you're right BJ. But it needlessly takes a painful amount of time. From day one, the slavery issue could've been addressed at the inception of the country....we had to wait almost a hundred years to finally sort out the initial problem and another hundred to solve the resulting issues.

We're all human, but is it unrealistic to expect that people can work together for the betterment of society?

Gary, you said that if Dems see it fixed, the GOP would find it broken. It's an interesting point. Facts are just not important anymore. Points of view distort them. Supposed "experts" exist to support any distortion, and the media gives them the medium to express their views.

Impulsive change is bad. But this continued stubbornness only impedes our progress and undermines our future existence. Out of control spending. Huge debt. And who is benefiting? People often forget that much of the spending relates to military and "defense". Maybe I'm too much of an isolationist, but is it wrong of me to think that we should fix our problems here at home before we spend BILLIONS in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a liberal, I'm upset with the healthcare reform bill. But large part of me is happy that it won't pass (too many crazy things in it). It really doesn't address the main problems and creates new ones. I'm all for a single-payer system (this is the part where someone would call me a socialist). But that's an issue for another thread. "Free" healthcare for all, is not a dream...if countries like Cuba can do it...then why can't we? If a liberal and conservative sat down (and didn't owe their career to some insurance company) I'm sure they could come up with some kind of system that would see the best liberal and conservative ideals work FOR the people.

It all comes down to priorities.

The priorities of the government and that of the people are very different right now. History shows, that when the public become disillusioned some change is enacted to quell the masses, once that doesn't work...a new external "monster" is created to distract and silence. I'm just waiting for the new monster. Witches, loyalists, traitors, immigrants, Nazis, communists, terrorists...have been used, what's next?

Maybe you're right Dave, maybe we're all paranoid like Nixon. I think the more disillusioned I become the more paranoid I get. Stupid illusions. :shrug

[Oscar Brito]

Today's Republicans seem to have one guiding principle: spend all the money you want, as long as you don't have to raise any along the way. That really is my biggest problem with them. They'll fight two wars on a credit card, jack up entitlement spending against the deficit, but propose any increase in spending that you actually PAY FOR with a tax increase and Jesus Christ, you'd think you'd proposed a bill legalizing Grandma sodomy.

It's not that I think the Democrats are heaps better, but I just feel like the GOP has completely excused itself from reality, so by default, we have one remotely serious political party in this country.

Anyway...you asked a simple question. My simple answer is that based on what I've seen and heard during this debate and in the past, I'm convinced that a lot of the opposition to this bill is based 98% on politics and 2% on principle. From the perspective of ordinary people who are opposed to the bill, it's probably all the same as long as the end result is to stop it.

There was a new poll out that had Republican approval in congress lower than Democrat approval...the funny thing is, both are under 50%. I don't remember the exact numbers. It wasn't good though.

Maybe we'll see a new party soon? But what politician would be brave enough to start THAT movement?

[BeeJay]

Oz, you were born in the wrong decade. (Where's that damn flower child smilie we had on the old forums?) :lol

In a way, I feel like I'm both more pessimistic and more optimistic than you at the same time. Pessimistic in the sense that I just don't feel inspired by "we the people" or "yes we can" or "let's all work together" type expressions anymore. Grassroots organization can make a difference, but the fact is if the problems we have today were simple, we would have solved them by now. Our ancestors sorted out the easy calls (like slavery = bad), so what we're left with is the stickier stuff (like how much economic freedom should a society surrender to achieve a measure of economic security for its citizens, and how does it ensure it doesn't go so far that it stifles creativity and innovation). That's not an easy question!

Also pessimistic in the sense that I'm resigned to the fact that moneyed interests will always get more of a hearing than they rightfully deserve, and that naked appeals to fear will always have more impact on the political process than the facts would warrant. We're still only a few millenia removed from tribal societies, who weren't all that removed from apes. We're just wired to be selfish, irrational, apathetic and gullible (all of which it's quite possible I'm being in this very thread), no matter how many speeches we hear about the power of working together.

But I'm also optimistic in that I don't think it's all that bad. It irritates me to see the political process so easily derailed, but then I think Gary has a point that it isn't necessarily a bad thing that it's hard to get shit done in this country. If a large majority of Americans decide they want something specific, like a system that guarantees some form of medical coverage womb to tomb, and not just meaningless boilerplate like "healthcare reform," then I believe that's what will happen. As it is, we have a relatively uninformed, tuned out citizenry, so the fact that we even have hospitals and medical insurance at all is pretty cool. I think we could do a better job of taking care of those without means, but that's no reason to despair. It might not be perfect, but the fact is if you get sick in this country and can get to an ER and...survive 5 hours, you'll probably get some decent care that costs you nothing. Perfect? Far from it. But a reason to take up pitchforks and torches? Eh, I just don't see it.

And you're right that laws are only as good as the paper they're written on, but I think it makes a difference. Does the number of underage migrant workers compare to the number of on the books child laborers 100 years ago? I don't know the answer, but I doubt it. So again, we might not have "fixed" the problem, but I think the instances that require attention get smaller and less dire over time.

[BeeJay]

So why do the Democrats feel the need to shove healthcare "reform" down the throats of the American people? Wasn't it obvious back during the summer with the townhall meetings that a majority of Americans didn't want what the Democrats were proposing?

In my opinion, that was far from obvious. I'm not convinced that a few people ginned up by Fox News to yell at their congressmen constitute a national majority. (After all, didn't Nixon say the majority was silent? :lookaroun)

Beyond that, the people who got on TV last summer were just plain kooky. Tinfoil hat types who were just as concerned about Obama's birth certificate as preventing a "socialist" takeover of the healthcare system. (That is, except when they were demanding the government leave Medicare and Medicaid — those pillars of the free market — alone.)

Here's a dirty little secret the GOP hopes stays that way: Poll after poll shows a majority of people support the SPECIFIC proposals in the healthcare bill. They just oppose the bill ITSELF. Republicans have done a masterful job of convincing people they should oppose a bill whose proposals they actually support! That tells me the opposition is based more on all the nebulous fear the right-wing media has ginned up than on anything that's actually in the bill.

I'm convinced the emperor has no clothes as far as this idea that most people oppose HCR is concerned. But then, I'm not trying to get elected this November, either. :lol

[Oscar Brito]

In the beginning most approved of what the Dems were doing...polls even showed that people were divided on the most controversial aspect being considered: the public option. There was no a clear statistical majority either way. Then the lies came. And well the Dems dropped the ball, by not explaining the major pieces of the bill and well not keeping it simple....

Tom, I don't know what exactly is handed to the undocumented in a "silver platter"....But I agree, the government needs to enforce the laws, deport those here illegally, go after the corporations and businesses that hire undocumented workers, and make it easier to come here legally.

[BeeJay]

Yes, they wanted some sort of reform, but NOT a bloated governmental agency. We already have that now: Medicare / Medicaid.

One thing I do think you're onto here is that Democrats might pay a short-term political price over the current HCR bill. We have a midterm election coming up where the "out" party is very jazzed and pissed off. That means turnout in November is likely to favor the GOP. So we could (and very likely will) see a hard rightward adjustment this fall.

I'm not convinced that this bill is very controversial among the electorate at large.

As armchair political analyst, I would suggest the Dems either pass the Senate bill as is, or break it up into smaller pieces. The angry vote is going to be there this November whether the bill passes or not...the fact that it even got this far, combined with the fact that Obama is still going to be president, will be more than enough to motivate the chunk of voters who hate this. They're not staying home, and they're not voting Democrat.

The only question is whether you can motivate enough of the (IMO) more sensible voters out there to go to the polls in an off-year election. Passing major healthcare legislation might motivate them; debating major healthcare legislation, then NOT passing it and complaining about the minority party definitely won't.

[Christy]

In the beginning most approved of what the Dems were doing...polls even showed that people were divided on the most controversial aspect being considered: the public option. There was no a clear statistical majority either way. Then the lies came. And well the Dems dropped the ball, by not explaining the major pieces of the bill and well not keeping it simple....

Tom, I don't know what exactly is handed to the undocumented in a "silver platter"....But I agree, the government needs to enforce the laws, deport those here illegally, go after the corporations and businesses that hire undocumented workers, and make it easier to come here legally.

That free healthcare that everybody else seems to want so badly :lol :lookaroun

Don't believe me? Spend an afternoon in a hospital in Phoenix. Your choice :whistles

I guess my beef with the healthcare reform is why all or nothing? Why? Why can't we start small and build and fix things as we go? :dunno

[BeeJay]

I guess my beef with the healthcare reform is why all or nothing? Why? Why can't we start small and build and fix things as we go? :dunno
I've had the same thought. It sounds like a reasonable approach, but the more you look into it, there are so many interconnected parts that some kind of "go big" approach is probably the only way to avoid a disaster (if you do anything at all).

One example: It's very popular to say that insurance companies should be banned from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. Congress could pass that tomorrow if they wanted to. But it would probably be a huge mistake, if that's all they did.

Here's a bit from somebody smarter than me (Steven Pearlstein at the Washington Post) explaining why:



Then there is the big question of what to do about health care now that the voters have allegedly turned against the president's proposal.

One reasonable-sounding idea is that the president should reduce it down to just a few of its most popular provisions, such as the one requiring that insurance companies be barred from refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions or charging them sky-high premiums.

The problem with that, of course, is that if you don't require everyone to buy insurance, then there will be lots of people who will wait to buy their policies until they get sick and then demand coverage at the "community" rate. That's a great way to drive up premiums, which in turn will drive even more healthy people to drop coverage, which will raise premiums even further.

To prevent this kind of debilitating "insurance spiral," you could add one more feature -- a mandate requiring everyone to buy at least a basic insurance package. Unfortunately, there are lots of low-income households for which the newly mandated premiums could eat up as much as a half of after-tax income, which hardly seems fair. So you'd probably want to make sure that there's enough competition among insurers to keep premiums down, which is what those government-supervised exchanges are all about. And you'd want to have some subsidies to limit the financial hit to low-income families. To pay for the subsidies, you'd either have to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas.

And that, basically, is the outline of Obama's health plan, just as it was Clinton's health plan and the Nixon plan before that. In fact, if you want a health-care system that's universal and affordable and based on a competitive market of private insurers and health-care providers, that's pretty much where you have to start. There is no simple solution to this puzzle.

Basically requiring insurance companies to cover every sick person leads to requiring every healthy person to buy insurance (to keep the pools solvent), which leads to some government regulation over competition and subsidies to make the new mandate affordable for all. If you try to remove any part of that equation, the whole thing collapses and you might as well go home.

I don't consider myself a "big government" person (does anybody? :lookaroun), but this logic makes sense to me and that's why I'd like to see this bill passed. We can fix any real problems with it after the fact, but unless this type of outline is agreed to, we might as well just stop talking about trying to cover everybody.

[BeeJay]

P.S.: Somebody slap me if I start dominating the thread. I feel like I'm becoming "that guy" with all the phone book length posts. :lookaroun

[figmentmom]

In my opinion, that was far from obvious. I'm not convinced that a few people ginned up by Fox News to yell at their congressmen constitute a national majority. (After all, didn't Nixon say the majority was silent? :lookaroun)

Beyond that, the people who got on TV last summer were just plain kooky. Tinfoil hat types who were just as concerned about Obama's birth certificate as preventing a "socialist" takeover of the healthcare system. (That is, except when they were demanding the government leave Medicare and Medicaid — those pillars of the free market — alone.)

Here's a dirty little secret the GOP hopes stays that way: Poll after poll shows a majority of people support the SPECIFIC proposals in the healthcare bill. They just oppose the bill ITSELF. Republicans have done a masterful job of convincing people they should oppose a bill whose proposals they actually support! That tells me the opposition is based more on all the nebulous fear the right-wing media has ginned up than on anything that's actually in the bill.

I'm convinced the emperor has no clothes as far as this idea that most people oppose HCR is concerned. But then, I'm not trying to get elected this November, either. :lol

I completely agree. I took my mother for a mammogram back in January, and we sat in a waiting room filled with women complaining about their insurance companies. Some women were insured by companies that didn't cover mammograms - or anything else considered "routine" - some had huge co-pays, some were there for repeat mammograms and/or ultrasounds, and were afraid they would be denied coverage. The only women in the room NOT worried about coverage for their procedures were the women over 65 covered by Medicare. ALL agreed that insurance companies are a glutted monopoly, and the government does, indeed, need to step in. Illness, or fear of illness, makes it all much more real, believe me. :huh


I've had the same thought. It sounds like a reasonable approach, but the more you look into it, there are so many interconnected parts that some kind of "go big" approach is probably the only way to avoid a disaster (if you do anything at all).

One example: It's very popular to say that insurance companies should be banned from excluding people with pre-existing conditions. Congress could pass that tomorrow if they wanted to. But it would probably be a huge mistake, if that's all they did.

Here's a bit from somebody smarter than me (Steven Pearlstein at the Washington Post) explaining why:



Basically requiring insurance companies to cover every sick person leads to requiring every healthy person to buy insurance (to keep the pools solvent), which leads to some government regulation over competition and subsidies to make the new mandate affordable for all. If you try to remove any part of that equation, the whole thing collapses and you might as well go home.

I don't consider myself a "big government" person (does anybody? :lookaroun), but this logic makes sense to me and that's why I'd like to see this bill passed. We can fix any real problems with it after the fact, but unless this type of outline is agreed to, we might as well just stop talking about trying to cover everybody.

I had seen Pearlstein's article before, and it makes sense. We need health care reform, and we need it now. I'm not a "big government" person, either, but this is an area where we NEED government to step in. Yes, Virginia, we ARE our brother's keepers.