derek bomar wrote:

BoatShoes wrote:

derek bomar wrote: No, it keeps them from actually doing work because (at least for representatives) they're constantly campaigning (due to short cycles). Nothing of substance can get done, i.e. no common ground or compromises if you worry about getting re-elected and can't vote for something that makes sense just because the R or D brought it up first ...

A lot of people may like their representatives though...I mean, suppose my senator is Jesus, how does it make me more free if I'm barred from having him represent me for more than 6 years.

The problem lies within getting people to care more and to vote people out they don't like...there needs to be some way to get objective information about a candidate at the polling places...i.e. John Boehner spends most of his time in a tanning bed as opposed to writing legislation (joking).

well, if you were a Republican (the whole hanging out with hookers and vagrants thing probably wouldn't fly with the far right wing), you probably wouldn't want Jesus in office, so you wouldn't have to worry about him casting a spell on everyone and he would be gone in 6 years...

seriously though, congress has a 20% approval rating...so one out of 5 people like their representative. I'd bet more people would like their representatives if they weren't full of bs and actually cared about the country instead of re-election.

Derek....I read that MOST people actually like their own representatives. It's all the "other" guys they can't stand. Kind of silly, I know.

Footwedge wrote: Why is it terrible foreign policy? Who are we to tell Honduran people how to run their democracy? Or Venzuela for that matter? Why do we have to tell everybody else how to run their government? If the electorate wants a leftist and votes them in, then the US should shut the hell up and move on.

I actually agree with you (gasp ) up to a certain point. The question is where the line is. For example, you were in a discussion with ptown over whether Iran is complying with the rules regarding their nuclear research. Regardless of who is correct, one would have to be foolish not to know what Iran's end game is in that regard, so my question would be: Is there some point that their "peaceful research" becomes an act of war against the United States short of their shoving a warhead up someone's ass?

Footwedge wrote: Why is it terrible foreign policy? Who are we to tell Honduran people how to run their democracy?

That's exactly my point. The Honduran people and the other branches of their government decided to remove their prez, who was trying to make himself a de facto dictator. Obama stepped in and urged the Honduran people to reinstall their president. I call that "telling the Honduran people how to run their democracy".

If the electorate wants a leftist and votes them in, then the US should shut the hell up and move on.

The Honduran electorate didn't want a leftist becoming a dictator, just like the US electorate doesn't want leftist/socialist healthcare jammed down their throats.

Cry about Obama all you want, but America has regained a lot of support internationally, and he is immensely more popular than the last guy in power overseas.

"Support" and "popularity" from people who can't wait to see America knocked down to mediocrity like the rest of the world. Since when did international popularity become a qualification for the

President of the United States?!?!?
[/quote]

Footwedge wrote: Derek....I read that MOST people actually like their own representatives. It's all the "other" guys they can't stand. Kind of silly, I know.

That is because most people are inherently selfish. They love when federal dollars flow into their district, yet hate when others feed off the federal trough. Politicians are experts at using this flaw in human character to retain political power.

jhay78 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Why is it terrible foreign policy? Who are we to tell Honduran people how to run their democracy?

That's exactly my point. The Honduran people and the other branches of their government decided to remove their prez, who was trying to make himself a de facto dictator. Obama stepped in and urged the Honduran people to reinstall their president. I call that "telling the Honduran people how to run their democracy".

If the electorate wants a leftist and votes them in, then the US should shut the hell up and move on.

The Honduran electorate didn't want a leftist becoming a dictator, just like the US electorate doesn't want leftist/socialist healthcare jammed down their throats.

Cry about Obama all you want, but America has regained a lot of support internationally, and he is immensely more popular than the last guy in power overseas.

"Support" and "popularity" from people who can't wait to see America knocked down to mediocrity like the rest of the world. Since when did international popularity become a qualification for the

President of the United States?!?!?

[/quote]

I am very familiar with what happened in Honduras....and Obama did not side with anybody...nor did he criticize the Honduran people. The Wall Street Journal editorialists twisted that story around. What he called for was a peaceful resolution to a bad situation. He was not an apologist for any left winged despot.

Secondly, whereby human nature can dictate rooting for the fall of the rich and powerful, the main reason for the US unpopularity when Bush was president had to do with his bellicose ways.

Once Obama cut the "axis of evil" rhetoric, our former allies warmed up to us again.

As to your last statement/question...Why do you think the world is a better place if more people hate us? That makes no sense...and that type of thinking has caused lot of problems around the world.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Why is it terrible foreign policy? Who are we to tell Honduran people how to run their democracy? Or Venzuela for that matter? Why do we have to tell everybody else how to run their government? If the electorate wants a leftist and votes them in, then the US should shut the hell up and move on.

I actually agree with you (gasp ) up to a certain point. The question is where the line is. For example, you were in a discussion with ptown over whether Iran is complying with the rules regarding their nuclear research. Regardless of who is correct, one would have to be foolish not to know what Iran's end game is in that regard, so my question would be: Is there some point that their "peaceful research" becomes an act of war against the United States short of their shoving a warhead up someone's ass?

You're not allowed to agree with me on anything. . Ptowne has his own opinion on Iran which I highly respect. He is extremely well read on the subject which makes debating with him a lot of fun. He is alll over the AIEA and what they.ve done and what they are doing today. We disagree on what the IAEA is stating about QOM. I think it is more an interpretation thing.

I don't know for absolute certainty what Iran's intentions are. Only the Mullahs know for sure. But I think that Iran has absolutely no intention of using any type of WMD on anybody. To give even a fleeting thought that Iran would nuke Israel defies any rational thought.

Iran does not want to be incinerated.

gibby08 wrote: We'll get it done...don't worry

Why would you want to get it done when majority of the country doesn't want it passed?

Can someone please explain to me why the Republicans want to kill health care? My insurance company just raised my monthly premiums by 64% and increased my co-pays by 150%. I can't even imagine what other tricks they are going to pull. I need someone in Washington to protect my interests. It is obvious that the Repubs aren't going to do it.

You know, now that I think about it, I want someone in Washington to pay my mortgage this month, and pay off my college loans. After all, it's my right and I deserve it!!

Seriously, there are other ways to lower health care costs (tort reform, allowing insurance buying across state line, etc.) without this massive government take-over of health care and the Dems want NO part of it.

jhay78 wrote: You know, now that I think about it, I want someone in Washington to pay my mortgage this month, and pay off my college loans. After all, it's my right and I deserve it!!

Seriously, there are other ways to lower health care costs (tort reform, allowing insurance buying across state line, etc.) without this massive government take-over of health care and the Dems want NO part of it.

when has the Right ever brought up health care reform when they were in power? I'm serious. If it's happened before, I'd be curious to see why it didn't pass...

derek bomar wrote:

jhay78 wrote: You know, now that I think about it, I want someone in Washington to pay my mortgage this month, and pay off my college loans. After all, it's my right and I deserve it!!

Seriously, there are other ways to lower health care costs (tort reform, allowing insurance buying across state line, etc.) without this massive government take-over of health care and the Dems want NO part of it.

when has the Right ever brought up health care reform when they were in power? I'm serious. If it's happened before, I'd be curious to see why it didn't pass...

W in 2005 wanted SS and Medicare reform. It crashed and burned. But, he did get Medicare Part D, a flawed, yet largely alright system. The problem was there was no real way to pay for it.

FairwoodKing wrote: Can someone please explain to me why the Republicans want to kill health care? My insurance company just raised my monthly premiums by 64% and increased my co-pays by 150%. I can't even imagine what other tricks they are going to pull. I need someone in Washington to protect my interests. It is obvious that the Repubs aren't going to do it.

They don't want to "kill health care"; they want to kill a bill that does nothing to improve health care or lower costs. Fair enough?

What you/we need are more free market options and that is what republicans are promoting. The last thing you/we need is for a government plan that will increase costs, reduce care, and permanently leave you with no alternatives. Being subjected to higher taxes and no choice is not the answer. Government involvement up to now is what is causing distortion in the market; we need government to GET OUT OF THE WAY!

QuakerOats wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Can someone please explain to me why the Republicans want to kill health care? My insurance company just raised my monthly premiums by 64% and increased my co-pays by 150%. I can't even imagine what other tricks they are going to pull. I need someone in Washington to protect my interests. It is obvious that the Repubs aren't going to do it.

They don't want to "kill health care"; they want to kill a bill that does nothing to improve health care or lower costs. Fair enough?

The last thing you/we need is for a government plan that will increase costs, reduce care, and permanently leave you with no alternatives.

Do you have any proof to back up those claims

gibby08 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Can someone please explain to me why the Republicans want to kill health care? My insurance company just raised my monthly premiums by 64% and increased my co-pays by 150%. I can't even imagine what other tricks they are going to pull. I need someone in Washington to protect my interests. It is obvious that the Repubs aren't going to do it.

They don't want to "kill health care"; they want to kill a bill that does nothing to improve health care or lower costs. Fair enough?

The last thing you/we need is for a government plan that will increase costs, reduce care, and permanently leave you with no alternatives.

Do you have any proof to back up those claims

What's the last government program that operated in the black? Anyone who thinks a government run health care program will somehow reduce costs and be "deficit neutral", I've got some land to sell.

gibby08 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Can someone please explain to me why the Republicans want to kill health care? My insurance company just raised my monthly premiums by 64% and increased my co-pays by 150%. I can't even imagine what other tricks they are going to pull. I need someone in Washington to protect my interests. It is obvious that the Repubs aren't going to do it.

They don't want to "kill health care"; they want to kill a bill that does nothing to improve health care or lower costs. Fair enough?

The last thing you/we need is for a government plan that will increase costs, reduce care, and permanently leave you with no alternatives.

Do you have any proof to back up those claims

Umm, how about the Canadian and European models? Talk about reduce care- they set the standard in that regard.

Of course, it will only increase costs for a short time, at which point private insurers will go out of business, employers will hand over their employees to the govt plan, and govt health care will be the only game in town, leaving you with no alternatives.

gibby08 wrote: Do you have any proof to back up those claims

That's easy....Have you never heard of he near-bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems? The Feds can't run these programs well. Why in the hell would you remotely think government take-over of 1/6th of the U.S. economy is the answer to increasing health care costs?

Why, why, WHY do you lefties always think Big Government has all the answers?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jhay78 wrote: You know, now that I think about it, I want someone in Washington to pay my mortgage this month, and pay off my college loans. After all, it's my right and I deserve it!!

Seriously, there are other ways to lower health care costs (tort reform, allowing insurance buying across state line, etc.) without this massive government take-over of health care and the Dems want NO part of it.

when has the Right ever brought up health care reform when they were in power? I'm serious. If it's happened before, I'd be curious to see why it didn't pass...

W in 2005 wanted SS and Medicare reform. It crashed and burned. But, he did get Medicare Part D, a flawed, yet largely alright system. The problem was there was no real way to pay for it.

my point is that these "great ideas" the Republicans have were never brought up when they were in power...if they're so simple and great I just don't get why they haven't happened already.

Some time ago, somebody posted numbers that pretty much proved without a doubt that government cannot handle social programs well at all. It cannot even keep up with projected numbers set by the CBO, and always cost Americans more money than what was originally promised.
I couldn't remember who it was, but with some diligent research, I found the post with the numbers and would like to take the time now to thank Major Sparks (who look all this up originally and posted it)

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion


The height of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

National Review Online - Doug Bandow
"Principles On Life Support"

http://article.nationalreview.com/270428/principles-on-life-support/doug-bandow

In essence, I think the people who are placing their trust in the governments hands to "take care of" social (mainly anything to do with healthcare) programs are doing theirselves a HUGE disservice.
For those of you who believe that the government can stay true to the CBO's projected numbers, please just look at how history repeats and proves itself.
It doesn't work!
This is NOT the right thing to do as government will fail to keep its promises.

Businesses will do what they have to do in order to keep in business and government is the biggest business of all. The two have not been able to meet in the middle to this day.

It is time for the American public to force both big business and government to wake up and smell the discontent of the people. To look toward one or the other for the feel-good answer is inherently wrong, as we have experienced so far.
This will never happen if we rely on either one of them to make the choice.

Obama now selling judgeships for votes ......... amazing!

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

More ...................................... change we can believe in..........................

Not 1 use of the R word during his speech yesterday....amazing.

Like the use of "doctors" in labcoats too. Great touch.

Come running Democrats and jump on my (Obama) sword for me.

RedRider1 wrote:
Like the use of "doctors" in labcoats too. Great touch.

That is the cheesiest thing ever. Great idea- let's get some props and put them in white coats to stand behind the prez while he speaks. If any of those people really are doctors, they have zero credibility for agreeing to be a PR prop in an Obama speech.

Personally I haven't heard of, or know of, a single doctor in favor of Obama's bill.

^^Yet he called out the 'pubs for using the actual bill as a "prop" at the summit last week.

Guy is a walking hypocrite....and would be downright funny if he wasn't bent on pesky things like growing government & debt to unsustainable levels.

jhay78 wrote:

RedRider1 wrote:
Like the use of "doctors" in labcoats too. Great touch.

That is the cheesiest thing ever. Great idea- let's get some props and put them in white coats to stand behind the prez while he speaks. If any of those people really are doctors, they have zero credibility for agreeing to be a PR prop in an Obama speech.

Personally I haven't heard of, or know of, a single doctor in favor of Obama's bill.

http://www.pnhp.org/

Maybe not in favor of the bill as is at the moment, but they certainly support the ideological viewpoint of the President in regards to reform.

And, to be fair, there are certainly many physician groups that are opposed to national health care.

But, physicians are split decidedly one way or another, from what i've read.

From Doctors that i personally know/have talked to about this, seems like they're evenly split for/against.

I work in the medical sales field and come in contact with over 200 Physicians in my territory. 2 of them are in favor of this monstrosity, the other 198 or so are against it. The 2 that are for this, it should be noted, run a "free clinic" that was funded by one of thier trust funds once her father passed 4 years ago.