What, no thread on health care yet?

Like I said earlier, it isn't a republican or democrat problem. It's all of them.

Toyman01 wrote: Like I said earlier, it isn't a republican or democrat problem. It's all of them.

so you vote out all the people.. and vote in new ones..

How do they not do the same thing.

It's not the Congress. It's the attitude of the voters and the general populace.

If we never push our Congressmen about debt, they will never do anything about it.

If we want entitlements, they'll be happy to give them.

If we don't raise the expectations, they'll do fine without us.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

If the next batch doesn't learn we replace them too. We keep doing that until they understand what is expected of them.

Toyman01 wrote: If the next batch doesn't learn we replace them too. We keep doing that until they understand what is expected of them.

Why don't you think that has happened up until now?

Isn't that how our government is founded?

SVreX wrote: It's not the Congress. It's the attitude of the voters and the general populace. If we never push our Congressmen about debt, they will never do anything about it. If we want entitlements, they'll be happy to give them. If we don't raise the expectations, they'll do fine without us. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Bingo.

booger bingo.

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote: No it's not. Remember, Warren Buffet says it's OK.

He's not perfect, but the dude has been pretty dead on for many many years. He's rich for a reason..

So the fact that he's personally rich (meaning he damn sure doesn't run a personal deficit)means he's qualified to say the country as a whole will be fine with deficit spending?

Riiiight.

ignorant wrote: Why don't you think that has happened up until now?

Because people like Ted Kennedy were in office for 40 years. Because we (collective "we") keep re-electing the same people that have been doing the same thing for year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year....

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

SVreX wrote: It's not the Congress. It's the attitude of the voters and the general populace. If we never push our Congressmen about debt, they will never do anything about it. If we want entitlements, they'll be happy to give them. If we don't raise the expectations, they'll do fine without us. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Bingo.

trOOf.

The problem is that over the years the meaning of a politician in this country has morphed from the original 'citizen legislator' to a more or less permanent ruling class. We have let these E36 M3heads blandly say 'we need to stay indefinitely so we can do the people's work' when what they really mean is 'we need to be able to make a wad as a lobbyist when we are done slurping at the public trough'.

The great majority of the sheeple in this country say 'well ol' Joe Schmoe is sendin' bacon back home' and vote Schmoe right back in. Then they bitch because the country is running huge deficits etc never realizing when you multiply 'good ol' Joe Schmoe' x 535 there's yer problem.

Vote the bastiges out. Put term limits in place. Then we will see who truly wants to serve their country rather than just serve their own selfish interests.

Bobzilla wrote:

ignorant wrote: Why don't you think that has happened up until now?

Because people like Ted Kennedy were in office for 40 years. Because we (collective "we") keep re-electing the same people that have been doing the same thing for year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year....

who put ted kennedy into office. Did not they have to vote him into office every 4 years?

Do you not think what is being done up top is, when you get right down to it, the will of the people and people are only miffed right now because the economy is down and they don't have jobs?

People vote congressional offices by rote. IMO the majority pays no attention to what their candidate have done, are doing or what tehy plan to do and either follow party lines or vote for the name they recognize. Spend enough money on the boob tube and get elected.

IMO, we shuld not allow TV campaign ads. Period.

At the darkest hour, things were looking up, insurance companies were fighting back:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/dpgonc-insurance-companies-find-loopholes-in-new-health-bill-fc-20100329_6808217

Yesterday, the Insurance companies turned yellow and ran at the best shot we had of preventing this thing from taking over all of our freedoms. By supporting these companies in denying children with pre existing conditions medical coverage, we had our best talking point, something Americans could really resonate with.. Outrageously these children will be forced to accept government mandated medical care. We will not be able to manure the tree of freedom with these children- UNLESS you contact your congressperson now and demand they stop this outrage!

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/148954

"The other night, health insurers stated that they would comply with the clearly defined regulations requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions put forth by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

"In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, [Karen Ignagni, President of America´s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)] said her members recognized the ´significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,´ and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing." [Wall Street Journal; 3/30/10]"

I've always maintained that we need to spend more time selecting our congressmen than we do the president. If we had decent people in congress, then no president could do as they liked, they would have to obey the law as it is written.

In reply to Shaun:

Take a pill and calm down, Shaun.

No rational person advocates denying health-care to anyone (let alone children) with or without pre-existing conditions. And, insurance companies will voluntarily comply as they know their premium increases will cover the potential loss.

Now, our esteemed Congress and President just have to address the issue of limited access and unfettered cost - while still ignoring the root causes of public discontent.

racerdave600 wrote: I've always maintained that we need to spend more time selecting our congressmen than we do the president. If we had decent people in congress, then no president could do as they liked, they would have to obey the law as it is written.

ignorant wrote: so you vote out all the people.. and vote in new ones.. How do they not do the same thing.

you don't. Not when the pool you select from is inextricable from any national political party.

its stagnant.

And the only way you get around that stagnation is ground up. Thats how Joe Lieberman kept his job when the national Democrat party decided to un-fund him and even run a candidate against him.

The public decided as a whole against those political parties and for Lieberman.

Obviously, Lieberman is not any example of a third party, but he was voted (yes as an incumbent) into office without a national party's favour. This is the only way to scare that stagnation off. The either have to change how they campaign and reign, or be relegated to irrelevance as a political figure before the capricious whim of the voters no longer interested in a party definition.

TRADE IN YOUR TOYOTA, RECEIVE A $4000 VOUCHER OFF YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR TWO YEARS COMRADE.

It's a good start

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-government-to-save-billions-by-cutting-wasteful,17171/

U.S. Government To Save Billions By Cutting Wasteful Senator Program

WASHINGTON—In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year.

According to officials, the decision to cut the national legislative body was reached during a budget review meeting on Tuesday. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the cost of financing U.S. senators far outweighed the benefits they provided.

"Now more than ever, we must eliminate needless spending wherever possible," President Obama said at a press conference Wednesday. "When we sat down to go over our annual budget, we asked ourselves, where can we safely trim back? What programs can we do away with without negatively impacting the American people? Which bloated and ineffective institutions can we no longer justify having around?"

"The answer was obvious," Obama added. "The U.S. Senate just needed to go."

Established in 1789 as a means of overseeing the passage of bills into law, the once-promising senator program has reportedly failed to contribute to the governing of the nation in any significant way since 1964. Last year alone, approximately $450 billion was funneled into the legislative chamber, an amount deemed fiscally unsound considering how few citizens actually benefit in any way from its existence.

Four of the 100 obsolete employees in the senate program. In fact, the program has gone unchecked for so long that many in Washington are now unable to recall what purpose U.S. senators were originally meant to serve.

"I'm sure when it was first introduced the U.S. Senate seemed like a worthwhile public service that would aid vast segments of the population and play an important role in the years to come," said Sheila McKenzie, president of the watchdog group the American Center for Responsible Government. "But in reality, this program has been a complete and utter failure."

"It simply doesn't work," she added. "We've been pouring taxpayer dollars into this outdated relic for far too long."

An analysis conducted last week revealed a number of troubling flaws within the long-running, heavily subsidized program, including a lack of consistent oversight, no clear objectives or goals, the persistent hiring of unqualified and selfishly motivated individuals, and a 100 percent redundancy rate among its employees.

Moreover, the study found that the U.S. government already funds a fully operational legislative body that appears to do the exact same job as the Senate, but which also provides a fair and proportional representation of the nation's citizens and has rules in place to prevent one individual from holding the operations of the entire chamber hostage until he is guaranteed massive federal spending projects for his home state of Alabama.

Not only have U.S. Senators cost the country billions of dollars in misspent funds over the years, but Washington insiders claim they have also derailed a wide range of other government programs, from social welfare to job creation to environmental protection.

"Even just the space the Senate currently occupies could be put to better use," consumer advocate Michael Dodgerson said. "Were the government to open a day-care center, a homeless shelter, or even an affordable restaurant in that building, it would make more of a difference in the lives of everyday Americans than what's there now."

So far, reaction to the cutback has been overwhelming positive, with many across the country calling it a long-awaited step toward progress.

Still, a small pocket of the nation's populace vehemently disagreed with Tuesday's decision.

"This is outrageous," said Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut-area resident and concerned citizen who makes more than $150,000 a year, enjoys full health care benefits, and lives comfortably in a large, non-foreclosed home. "The U.S. Senate has always looked out for my best interests. It's always done right by me."

Added Lieberman, "Without it, I'll have no choice but to exploit my extensive connections in the real estate, legal, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to obtain strictly honorary positions at large companies that, in exchange for my subservience over the years and the prestige of my name, will compensate me generously and allow me to continue living a privileged life without contributing even a moment of my time to the society that has made it all possible."

Can we get The Onion gold-plated or something? Gotta love 'em.

I lol'd

I applaud The Onion for a tongue in cheek yet devastatingly on target argument in favor of term limits.

Just as a fun bump...

I saw on the news yesterday that large companies are in fact talking about not offering employer-driven healthcare anymore.

Yup. It's starting.

That was the goal.

DILYSI Dave wrote: That was the goal.

Yep, except it wasn't supposed to happen so soon.

If Obamacare passes the SCOTUS-test, the GOP has been given another plank to nail on the lid of a donkey coffin.

But, the stink and the stain are going to be around for a long time - like Georgia-clay-on-a-t-shirt long time.