Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 47

On March 23 2010 00:03 LaughingTulkas wrote:


Isn't this kind of disingenuous? I mean, you can't be the majority AND the victim at the same time can you? If the republicans were the best, they'd be the majority.

Both parties play politics to the best of their abilities and do whatever it takes to win. There are some few individuals on each side who are true, noble, and principled idealists, but the parties as a whole are a dung heap.

On March 23 2010 00:36 xDaunt wrote:


I don't know how closely you follow American politics, but not many democrats even think that it is an "alright" bill. The most liberal democrats hate it because there's no public option. The more moderate democrats hate it because it's a fiscal disaster in the making. Why do you think that there's all this talk of "fix it" follow-up bills? Everyone knows that what's been passed absolutely sucks. Why would a republican cast a vote for a crappy bill that he/she had no input in drafting?

Again, if Obama wanted republican votes, he could have gotten them. It would have taken actual "statesmanship" and some biparisanship. So far, he has employed neither during the first year and a quarter of his presidency. That's entirely his fault. Let's be honest: you can't entirely ignore the desires of the opposing party and expect it to support your initiatives.

On March 22 2010 23:33 xDaunt wrote:


I have no doubt that the hardcore republican party hacks made a pure political calculation in opposing health care at all costs. However, that does not change the fact that Obama could very easily have targeted several of the moderate republicans (Snowe, Graham, McCain, etc), incorporated their ideas, and gotten some form of health care passed with republican support very easily last year. Seriously, Bush had Ted Kennedy write large chunks his "No Child Left Behind" bill. Do you think Obama could not have done something similar had he had any inclination of doing so? Conversely, do you think that some of those more moderate republican senators would not have jumped at a chance to really participate in the health care overhaul? Just look at what Schumer and Graham are doing now with immigration reform.

This may surprise you, but most republicans are not necessarily against the use of public dollars in health care. Most agree that the government should provide a basic level of insurance/service for everyone, and then individuals can go out and buy better, supplemental insurance if they so choose.

On March 23 2010 00:13 Klive5ive wrote:
Wow, it really says a lot for the credibility of democracy when EVERY single republican voted against.
Out of 178 not a single one considered it might be an alright bill? It's pathetic when parties vote in such a fashion.
Congratulations to Obama, let's hope it works out well.

On March 23 2010 00:39 Sadist wrote:


obama couldnt get republican votes. Thats BS and you know it. Politics now is more partisan than ever and the republicans act like animals when they are in the minority. I agree that the bill isnt great but at least its a step. Any secession the democrats made fell on deaf ears. All the gay ass republicans sprouted was tort reform and socialism. You think with the nutbags in the party the reasonable people would bother voting yes? Hell no. The nuts run the republican party because without them the republicans would never get elected. You have assholes up there calling this communism and socialism and then you have the global warming crowd, the intelligent design crowd, the anti-gay marriage crowd........theres just so many fucking nuts in the party if anyone steps out as a moderate theyd get their seat taken by a nutbag republican in a heartbeat.

On March 23 2010 01:00 xDaunt wrote:


Okay, apparently you know nothing about American politics.

Obama had a 70-80% approval rating when he took office. He could have passed almost any initiative that he wanted to very easily and with at least some republican support had he actually endeavored to work with the more moderate republicans. Every president before Obama has worked with the opposing party in passing major legislation. For example, Bush worked with Ted Kennedy in passing education reform, Clinton worked with Ginrich in passing welfare reform, and Reagan worked with O'Neill in passing tax reform. Again, why can't Obama do the same?

The democrats and Obama are blaming the filibuster for their difficulties, but the real problem is that they aren't engaging the republicans at all in drafting their initiatives and passing them. That is the very definition of bad statesmanship.

On March 23 2010 00:36 Sadist wrote:


i completely agree but i feel like at least occasionally the dems have good intentions. The republicans however seem to be all about ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people.

The democrats are definately the lesser of the 2 evils. Both of them care about being reelected way too much though.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

On March 23 2010 01:21 Neverborn wrote:


I don't know if I consider myself a republican anymore, but I wanted to comment on your statement about "ignorance, religion, and anti middleclass/poor people."

I'm not against giving my money to people without the opportunity to support themselves, I'm against a government taking my money to give it to people who are able but unwilling to support themselves.

It is our responsibility as citizens to help each other out in times of need; it is NOT our responsibility as citizens (and certainly not our government's responsibility) to provide a high standard of living for people unwilling to provide for themselves.

Grover Cleveland famously vetoed a "bailout" for farmers in Texas who had lost their crops due to an extended drought.



Read that carefully. When the government takes it upon itself to provide a high standard of living for everyone, not only to people begin to expect the government to always be there to bail them out, but it discourages us from helping each other. My father-in-law runs a free dental clinic in Africa for the Maasai. It makes no money, since they obviously have no money to give. It runs 100% on donations and volunteer staffing. If the government would stop being such a nanny, you'd probably see things like that popping up here, too.

On March 23 2010 01:54 Zeridian wrote:
People are just taking advantage of the economic situation, and they'll cost money. Since there isn't any money left in the country, I guess we can devalue the dollar enough to fight a war with china too. I don't know how this administration plans to pay for their approval of this bill, nor how they will ever pay for it.

On March 23 2010 01:30 Velr wrote:
Or the goverment does it and no one is hurt either.

On March 23 2010 01:54 Zeridian wrote:
People are just taking advantage of the economic situation, and they'll cost money. Since there isn't any money left in the country, I guess we can devalue the dollar enough to fight a war with china too. I don't know how this administration plans to pay for their approval of this bill, nor how they will ever pay for it.

On March 23 2010 01:37 Asjo wrote:
I feel you are oversimplifying this issue when you turn it into a matter of whether or not people are rational. With the examples you give, it's not a matter of ruling people and knowing what's best for them, rather a building a conscience into the system. There are so many things that people don't know about or don't even consider, so therefore we need a system to take care of these things, making the process more automatic. It gives people a sense of safety because they know they have the system to rely on, and it aids people by making many of these processes easier by creating a sort of automatization, where society has people to take care of specific things, leaving less up to the individual.

Now, I'm an anarchist myself, so basically I believe that people should do what they want, but I can definately see the benefits of a system that takes care of people. It also helps to promote the norm in society that everyone is in it together, and thereby shows that it's not everyone for himself. Even though people care about things and could engage in different issues, they rarely get the chance to, which is why we have the system to pick up on these things. The way a society is built often helps shape the social norms, and a society where the system cares about the interests of the individual (health, services, etc.) and meddles with people seems to emphasise a care for the people much more than one where people are left on their separate paths to shape their separate realities.

Therefore, I think it confuses me a bit to talk about the elites ruling over the masses, so much that my post might be beside the point. "The elites", if we say that these are the experts, politicians and other beaurocrats, only rule on intellection matters, where they are the only ones directly involved, whereas "the masses" rule on value-based matters in countries with representative democracies (maybe less so in the states, where you only have two main political parties).

After reading a few comments from the thread, I also see an alternative example, where the country is deregulated, and we have a different elite. There the elite are rather those with money and influence. Ability to gain power becomes a main characteristic, not the ability to effectively serve public interest. Because the sphere if interest is a bit different here, there is a greater chance for the elite to rule autonomously, although this will depend on various factors.

Another aspect to this is the win-win-win mentality. The greater regulation in society is a result of a greater cooperation among everyone in it to make a better place in general. If everyone has the interests of each other at heart, anything we do will not only benefit ourselves and other parties involved, but will most likely also have an indirect benefit for others because we are all working with the same common goal: the mutual benefit of everyone. You might call it a social contract, as Jibba pointed out.

On March 23 2010 02:26 Sadistx wrote:
Asjo, if what you're advocating is a technocracy, then I'm all for it. However the problem there is to shield the scientists from corporate interests effectively.