The health care debate is just the classic redistribution of wealth thing, and depending on your political persuasion you're either for it or not. Giving health care to all is going to cost more money, and the money has to come from somewhere. Me personally I'm all for redistribution of wealth, in the form of opportunity. The American dream is opportunity, not a guarantee. It succeeds because it takes cues from nature. Throw unlimited food to a pride of lions and two things will happen. 1) They'll stop hunting (producing), and 2) they'll propagate beyond the amount of resources you've provided (aka Africa). Socialism doesn't work in nature, and we are animals after all. And then there's the problem of managing the redistribution... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnf2aRCYRSI&NR=1
I think there is a difference between redistribution of wealth and providing healthcare. Yes it costs money, but health does not equal wealth. I think everyone has the right to be healthy, but not rich. You gotta work for that shit. lazy bastards want everything handed to them...
My whole issue with the way the health care system is now, is that we have the best care available.......if you can afford it. The healthcare industry writes it's own rules because it has grown pocket too big. My main issue is that it got too big by bribery of a corrupt and slanted system of government that has deregulated the industry upon request of that industry. It did so with the mortgage industry, the savings and loan industry, the banking industry and wall street to some extent. Look how that shit turned out. I'm not for a government run health insurance. The government has proven that it caters to industry rather than the public, so it'd end up just another bubble popping and spewing shit all over the common man. There is a huge need to rien in the cost of healthcare. I realize it isn't simple and involves: hospitals, health insurance, malpractice, the cost of educating doctors, the cost of pharmacology and technology. The lightspeed spiraling of costs is what needs to be addressed. I have to wonder what the cost difference would be if profits were regulated on all those listed aspects of healthcare. This brings us to our elected officials. When the fuck are the American people going to grow enough balls to stand up and require that we be represented? Nobody even wants to accknowledge the white elephant seated in the middle of the living room. They know it's there, but out of fear of lossing what they fought so hard to aquire, they will deny the fact that there's an elephant seated right there. Face the facts, this country isn't ours any longer. It goes to the highest bidder and the richer those highest bidders get, the further away from ownership of our country gets from us. Just look at tghe last presidential election. That wasn't an election at all, it was a lack of adequate choices at best. These senatorial and representative elections are no better. The people the "highest bidders" want in office are the only choices we'll get. "Wake the fuck up America! Grow some frigging balls!"
No they didn't. Rules like this were implemented to facilitate due process and debate on a bill before it was voted on. Rather it was things like the bill of rights and the powers reserved to the states were explicitly intended to prevent tyranny of the majority across the nation, which is precisely why passing amendments are so difficult. The point is that filibusters are currently being abused far beyond their intended use and have simply turned into a political tool. Republicans are fillibustering anything and everything they can get their hands on so as to paint the Obama administration as incompetent. Stopping legislation out of spite strikes me as misguided.
Um, yes they did. In fact it wasn't until 1917 that a filibuster even required a 2/3 majority. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7724818/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/
The issue for me hinges not on redistribution of wealth, but rather on the sustainability of the country. Our economy used to be structured so that the intellectual elite at the top would be entrepreneurs, scientists and business men who'd create opportunities and employment for a large middle class in the country in areas like manufacturing etc. The issue is that this paradigm has broken down now. The few at the top no longer are creating jobs or opportunity for their countrymen. For instance my Dad is now a professor, but he used to be a research scientist for IBM. The chipsets etc. that he designed would then be manufactured in upstate new york at a plant IBM had. Except IBM has now closed that plant, has spun off a lot of its hardware divisions and is now starting to focus on services/software. But to work in the services industry requires a much higher skill set than working at a simple car plant or chip manufacturing facility. Finances, Management Consultancy etc. all require acute mental skills, which people in poor health may not be able to perform. Here's where I'm going with this. A lot of our current upcoming generation are not going to have the skills to produce in today's global economy, and so will be a dead drag on the rest of us. True some of them can work in an internal service economy, but there isn't enough of that for all of them. What we need to rather ensure, at least IMO, is that we spend some of our current wealth (we all know the US will never pay back its debts, we might as well cash out before the bubble bursts), to provide a good education and adequate healthcare to the large body of Americans who lack it. I think the long term ROI will be worth it.
You missed the point of the the article. The point of a fillibuster was, as I stated, to ensure that there would be due debate on legislation before it was passed. It was NOT to ensure that everyone would agree that they liked the legislation. To take that stance is absurd; by that argument it seems you'd have to believe that senators would willingly vote to bring up legislation which then they knew they'd vote against and which would still pass. That argument is a classic non sequitur. Yes of course the senate protects small states and minority views; but it does that primarily by having 2 representatives from each state and by requiring a 2/3rds of senators vote for any constitutional ammendment, not by the inclusion of fillibuster. Again, if that was the primary use of the filibuster, then the whole point of requiring 50 senators to actually pass legislation would be moot, since you'd need 60 senators to even bring the issue to a vote. We need to go back to requiring senators to actually filibuster.
We'll have to agree to disagree, my point is validated by that article in very black and white terms. We can debate if the filibuster is overused, but it's purpose and intent are really not in question at this point.
Look, you've cited one article, which as I've pointed out, doesn't actually show the filibuster to have the intent you claim it does. Can give me something other than a fallacious 1 paragraph sound-bite to support your point?
I could, but frankly I don't care that much. Nor do I feel that I really need to. We just disagree, and we're not alone. The intent and usefulness of the filibuster has been debated since the republic was founded.
I wish more people would realize this. Fucking A! Those are two of the most important things a government can do for its people.
And this is what bothers me. The current situation suits your agenda, and so you don't care how it's accomplished. You're willing to be blind or not debate something which strikes me as damaging to our legislative process because the end result is aligned with your views. Except what goes around comes around, and if currently the Republicans are using this tactic, the Democrats will say screw it and start doing it as well (when there's a republican house/senate) and then we'll never get anywhere.
but in reality, we are provided with: (lenthy read, which means none of our members will investigate it) http://www.integral-review.org/documents/Hoare, Toxic Effect on Children, Vol. 4 No. 2.pdf Nothing is going to change until we citizens make it change. Nobody's going to do it for us.
Pft! I've been around log enough to see the Democrats use this to fight Republican court nominations and a whole bunch of other uses that flew opposite my political leanings, and I accepted it (grudgingly) as a necessary part of the process. The people don't want want the Dems are pushing, and this is helping to moderate the debate. What comes around indeed.
I saw that word and just wanted to post this, since so many people think that is one of the biggest problems in health care (not saying you do). Because that's wrong.
