Dems intend to bypass GOP on health compromise

[palehorse]

I could care less if it isn't liked by the people. I could care less if it could be better. It will be all that was possible and if it proves better for America in the long run, I will settle for that.

Devil's advocate... What if things get worse as a result of this shoddy legislation? Will you have the moral courage and decency to condemn those who passed it, and then join in trying to reverse it? Or, will you simply resort to YAROTBG (Yet Another Round of the Blame Game)?

 

[woolfe9999]

Darwin333:

Maybe. The only question that interests me, given that whatever health care bill passes if one does pass will be the only one that could pass, will it be a plus or a minus for America in general. I could care less if it isn't liked by the people. I could care less if it could be better. It will be all that was possible and if it proves better for America in the long run, I will settle for that. Politics used to be the art of the possible. The party of death wants to make it the art of making anything impossible.

Good post. All this focus on what a bill means for either party politically, what current opinion polls say, and ideological posturing is completely the wrong way to look at this. I don't vote for candidates who are going to follow opinion polls in how they cast their votes in Congress anyway. That is a representative who is concerned with one thing only: getting re-elected.

The notion that the dems are voting for this bill "just to pass something" to avoid the appearance of failure is a bit silly precisely because the opinion polls weigh against the bill and therefore suggest that the better thing for them to do, politically, is to vote it down. That leaves the possibility that the dems who are voting for the bill actually believe it is in the public interest. Hard to believe, but it is a possibility.

That doesn't answer the most important question, however, which is whether this bill really is in the public interest, in spite of what dem law makers may believe. That is a question that has to be answered by people who can cut through the bullshit and actually look at what is and isn't in this bill and determine whether or not it really is a good bill. So far, virtually no one seems to really understand this bill. That is partially because the bill is immensely long and complicated, but also because there is a phenomenal amount of misinformation being batted around. I don't really care if anyone thinks the bill is the Second Coming or else the biggest legislative train wreck of all time, so long as the opinion is based on an accurate understanding of what is and isn't in it.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Good post. All this focus on what a bill means for either party politically, what current opinion polls say, and ideological posturing is completely the wrong way to look at this. I don't vote for candidates who are going to follow opinion polls in how they cast their votes in Congress anyway. That is a representative who is concerned with one thing only: getting re-elected.

The notion that the dems are voting for this bill "just to pass something" to avoid the appearance of failure is a bit silly precisely because the opinion polls weigh against the bill and therefore suggest that the better thing for them to do, politically, is to vote it down. That leaves the possibility that the dems who are voting for the bill actually believe it is in the public interest. Hard to believe, but it is a possibility.

That doesn't answer the most important question, however, which is whether this bill really is in the public interest, in spite of what dem law makers may believe. That is a question that has to be answered by people who can cut through the bullshit and actually look at what is and isn't in this bill and determine whether or not it really is a good bill. So far, virtually no one seems to really understand this bill. That is partially because the bill is immensely long and complicated, but also because there is a phenomenal amount of misinformation being batted around. I don't really care if anyone thinks the bill is the Second Coming or else the biggest legislative train wreck of all time, so long as the opinion is based on an accurate understanding of what is and isn't in it.

- wolf

That may be fine for senators and certainly for the President, but a Representative is supposed to REPRESENT ME. He (or she) is supposedly representative of his constituents, not someone elected because he is so much smarter than am I, so that only he knows what should be done. If he (or she) wants to do something I (and a majority of my brethren) don't want done, then he should explain his position to me and win me over to his side.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Stick it in your ear. You can't rub two neurons together to make a cogent thought. There's no hope at all for a conversation. You are simply too stupid to bother with, sorry.

Now tell me, can you think of any way the Republicans may have influenced the course of health care legislation or why having a majority means nothing with regard to the decisions that are made. If you can't think of anything don't bother to reply.

You are the one making the claims, not me. The impetus is on you. Besides that, I know exactly what you're trying to say and mentioned it in a previous post. Frankly, I don't want to hear another "Republican FUD! Republican FUD!" bullshit excuse. If that is all you have, move on and play with the other kiddies. The Republicans, as slimey as they may be (and believe me, they suck), can say whatever the hell they want. It is up to the Democrats to counter that information in the media war. None of you lunatics who use the FUD excuse (and I am assuming you are one of them, if not, I apologize) can say what exactly prevents the Democrats from countering any misinformation spread by the GOP. It must be amazing to be a Democrat -- blame everyone else when you fail even when you are in complete control.

When you can stop the childish insults and want to discuss the topic legitimately, I'm all ears. Until then, go blamestorm somewhere else. The sad part is that you on the looney left don't realize you are just as bad as the far right wingnuts and until we drop the political games and hold both parties accountable, nothing will change.

 

[woolfe9999]

That may be fine for senators and certainly for the President, but a Representative is supposed to REPRESENT ME. He (or she) is supposedly representative of his constituents, not someone elected because he is so much smarter than am I, so that only he knows what should be done. If he (or she) wants to do something I (and a majority of my brethren) don't want done, then he should explain his position to me and win me over to his side.

I don't quite get your logic here in separating Senators and the President on the one hand, from Reps on the other. The one is bound by opinion polls because he or she has a smaller constituency where the others are not? It would seem that consistent logic dictates that the President is bound by national polls, senators by state wide polls, and reps by district wide polls. But therein lies yet another problem. Polling over national bills generally isn't even conducted on a district wide basis. Meaning that your argument for reps being the ones who are poll bound is totally impractical, because the relevant data isn't even there...

Anyway, the larger point is whether people who we elect to represent us should consider themselves bound by polls, and there I just have to disagree. We could have a Greek style democracy where all citizens vote on every measure, but instead we have a representative democracy. That means you vote for people you think have good judgment, and then those people vote for what is in the public interest, with perhaps extra focus on local or statewide constituences.

I'm afraid that opinion polls are ephemeral and they can reflect passing moods, as well as misunderstandings of a variety of different things. Suppose we have an awful terrorist attack and for about 6 weeks after the attack, Gallup starts showing that 53% of Americans believe we should intern all Muslims. You want your representative acting on those polls? If it goes down to 48% after they've been interned for two months, do we then let them out and say we're sorry?

The solution is to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate who is most in alignment with your values and the policies you support, but never to expect that candidate to always vote the way you would vote, or even the way the majority of people would vote.

You are right on one thing here - politicians in general do not communicate well enough with their constituents. But that isn't all their fault. On a complex piece of legislation like this, the only way to communicate properly is to speak like a wonk rather than like a politician - in other words, to explain the bill in reasonably thorough detail, not just to sound bite it in a way packaged to make it look good or bad. Unfortunately, most people respond to the latter and not the former, and that leaves people who really want to understand legislation having to do strange things like go and read CBO reports on the internet.

- wolf

 

[Patranus]

I don't quite get your logic here in separating Senators and the President on the one hand, from Reps on the other. The one is bound by opinion polls because he or she has a smaller constituency where the others are not? It would seem that consistent logic dictates that the President is bound by national polls, senators by state wide polls, and reps by district wide polls. But therein lies yet another problem. Polling over national bills generally isn't even conducted on a district wide basis. Meaning that your argument for reps being the ones who are poll bound is totally impractical, because the relevant data isn't even there...

Anyway, the larger point is whether people who we elect to represent us should consider themselves bound by polls, and there I just have to disagree. We could have a Greek style democracy where all citizens vote on every measure, but instead we have a representative democracy. That means you vote for people you think have good judgment, and then those people vote for what is in the public interest, with perhaps extra focus on local or statewide constituences.

I'm afraid that opinion polls are ephemeral and they can reflect passing moods, as well as misunderstandings of a variety of different things. Suppose we have an awful terrorist attack and for about 6 weeks after the attack, Gallup starts showing that 53% of Americans believe we should intern all Muslims. You want your representative acting on those polls? If it goes down to 48% after they've been interned for two months, do we then let them out and say we're sorry?

The solution is to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate who is most in alignment with your values and the policies you support, but never to expect that candidate to always vote the way you would vote, or even the way the majority of people would vote.

You are right on one thing here - politicians in general do not communicate well enough with their constituents. But that isn't all their fault. On a complex piece of legislation like this, the only way to communicate properly is to speak like a wonk rather than like a politician - in other words, to explain the bill in reasonably thorough detail, not just to sound bite it in a way packaged to make it look good or bad. Unfortunately, most people respond to the latter and not the former, and that leaves people who really want to understand legislation having to do strange things like go and read CBO reports on the internet.

- wolf

The role of the Senate is to represent the state not the people.
That being said, this legislation puts tremendous burden on the states (except for a special few)

 

[marincounty]

You are the one making the claims, not me. The impetus is on you. Besides that, I know exactly what you're trying to say and mentioned it in a previous post. Frankly, I don't want to hear another "Republican FUD! Republican FUD!" bullshit excuse. If that is all you have, move on and play with the other kiddies. The Republicans, as slimey as they may be (and believe me, they suck), can say whatever the hell they want. It is up to the Democrats to counter that information in the media war. None of you lunatics who use the FUD excuse (and I am assuming you are one of them, if not, I apologize) can say what exactly prevents the Democrats from countering any misinformation spread by the GOP. It must be amazing to be a Democrat -- blame everyone else when you fail even when you are in complete control.

When you can stop the childish insults and want to discuss the topic legitimately, I'm all ears. Until then, go blamestorm somewhere else. The sad part is that you on the looney left don't realize you are just as bad as the far right wingnuts and until we drop the political games and hold both parties accountable, nothing will change.

The point is the that the looney left is not running things. Harry Reid is not looney left, he is very conservative. Most of the looney left is marginalized.

Both parties are accountable, it's called an election. Voters decided they had enough of Republicans incompetence, and decided to try Democrats. I don't think Obama's health plans were kept secret. If Democrats fail to persuade the voters they are better, people will vote Republicans back in.

To claim that the looney left is as bad as the far right wingnuts is false. The left has not wasted trillions on starting wars against people that didn't attack us. The left didn't push tax cuts during wartime. The looney left has never had power, but is useful to the right to attack as a strawman.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The point is the that the looney left is not running things. Harry Reid is not looney left, he is very conservative. Most of the looney left is marginalized.

Both parties are accountable, it's called an election. Voters decided they had enough of Republicans incompetence, and decided to try Democrats. I don't think Obama's health plans were kept secret. If Democrats fail to persuade the voters they are better, people will vote Republicans back in.

To claim that the looney left is as bad as the far right wingnuts is false. The left has not wasted trillions on starting wars against people that didn't attack us. The left didn't push tax cuts during wartime. The looney left has never had power, but is useful to the right to attack as a strawman.

You know what, I don't necessarily agree with you on every point. But I will say that it is thoughtful, well written, and I see some things in there to think about. Thanks for the comments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The point is the that the looney left is not running things. Harry Reid is not looney left, he is very conservative. Most of the looney left is marginalized.

Both parties are accountable, it's called an election. Voters decided they had enough of Republicans incompetence, and decided to try Democrats. I don't think Obama's health plans were kept secret. If Democrats fail to persuade the voters they are better, people will vote Republicans back in.

To claim that the looney left is as bad as the far right wingnuts is false. The left has not wasted trillions on starting wars against people that didn't attack us. The left didn't push tax cuts during wartime. The looney left has never had power, but is useful to the right to attack as a strawman.

1. "loony" is relative, but if you consider "loony" as the far fringe left then yes - dirty harry is not "loony left" but he is left and he is loony. He is FAR from "conservative". He may be mainstream of the left but that hardly means he's a "conservative".
2. Yes, the far fringe left has marginalized itself.

3. Yep, the main accountability measure we have against them is elections.
4. Yes, the R's abandoned their principles and the voters decided to give the Ds a try.
5. BHO's plans may not be secret but he his campaigning and his leading are two different animals.
6. Yep, the voters will have a chance in November to make another choice in many districts.
7. To attempt to claim either fringe is better or worse is a laughable exercise as no doubt your definition of each is based on your own placement within the spectrum. The measure shouldn't be vs each other - it should be vs the Constitution as to their "bad"ness.
8. The "loony" left has wasted money - just not in the same fashion. FDR,LBJ, and other have wasted trillions on their liberal initiatives and we will be paying for them for ages. The taxes portion is policy whining.
9. If as you claim the "loony left" has never had power, then by any reasonable definition the "far wingnut" right has never had power.

So basically your post is nothing but partisan(albeit ideological) yapping based on you being on the left.
I have no idea how blanghorst could have thought your post was thoughtful or well written but meh...

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I have no idea how blanghorst could have thought your post was thoughtful or well written but meh...

Mainly I was sick of arguing and he didn't resort to cheap insults. I don't agree with what marin said, but in my mind, at least he outlined his arguments and explained his thought process. At least now, I can see how he came to his conclusions even if I disagree with the conclusions he presented. I don't have to agree with someone, but I can respect their attempt to explain their thoughts calmly and rationally.

 

[Carmen813]

I'm a provider in NY state. I spend hours a week so that your plan is "fantastic". I agree your plan is great. It's one of the biggest items in the budget. You get money dedicated to our kids education. If you have children you could have gotten money and cleared out the Walmarts and other stores with your bonus.

You don't even have to pay a copay. You can get your beer and smokes and say "I don't want to pay. You suck it up".

Yeah, it's a wonderful life. Unfortunately there's no more money.

Look into it? I have to swim in it.

Someone piss in your coffee today? You will need to decide if Medicaid is terrible or fantastic if you are going to discuss it. It has a co-pay depending on your income level.

You see I had this stupid illness called Hodgkin's Lymphoma, but then I graduated and lost my parents insurance. My wife had a silly one called Leukemia. It's not generally a good idea to be uninsured when you have a history of these illnesses, but it turns out the grad student insurance I could have bought was total shit. Since I can't really afford $9,000 a year on a grad students income...well, I'm sure your smart enough to figure out the options I had available to me.

So you sit there nice and safe behind your computer screen and be pissed at Medicaid all you want. It helps people like me a ton, but you are probably to pissed by now to care.

Money dedicated to kids education? Nice attempt at fake outrage, but why don't you say what you actually mean? You don't want that money going towards kid's education, you want it returned to you. No real problem with that, but spare me the attempt at a guilt trip. Turns out I pay for things I don't like with my taxes too.

The "bonus" was stimulus money that was distributed by the governor that was supposed to be used to fund education supplies. I find it ironic that you bitched about money being moved from education to Medicaid and then used this as an example. Obviously the program was implemented poorly by our state government. Who exactly should we blame for that? I imagine it's somehow Obama's fault that our state legislature is idiotic.

If NYS is so bad you could just pack up and leave. That's what my friend did. He's happily living in NH now. No one is forcing you to stay.

So why don't you explain what your problem with Medicaid really is? It's expensive, I'll grant that, but you know what? So are a lot of other things to government spends money on. I for one don't think it's a terrible idea for us to spend some of our money on our own citizens for a change.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are the one making the claims, not me. The impetus is on you. Besides that, I know exactly what you're trying to say and mentioned it in a previous post. Frankly, I don't want to hear another "Republican FUD! Republican FUD!" bullshit excuse. If that is all you have, move on and play with the other kiddies. The Republicans, as slimey as they may be (and believe me, they suck), can say whatever the hell they want. It is up to the Democrats to counter that information in the media war. None of you lunatics who use the FUD excuse (and I am assuming you are one of them, if not, I apologize) can say what exactly prevents the Democrats from countering any misinformation spread by the GOP. It must be amazing to be a Democrat -- blame everyone else when you fail even when you are in complete control.

When you can stop the childish insults and want to discuss the topic legitimately, I'm all ears. Until then, go blamestorm somewhere else. The sad part is that you on the looney left don't realize you are just as bad as the far right wingnuts and until we drop the political games and hold both parties accountable, nothing will change.

I like this post, but I am not going to answer anyway because the answers are obvious and simple. I know it's up to me to back that claim but I am not going to.

 

[Robor]

Get your head out of your ass. YOU are not THE PEOPLE chump.

He's a parrot. I know a few people who speak exactly like him with the same capitalization for emphasis on their key words.

 

[Craig234]

It doesn't even matter that the Democrats hate health insurance companies with a passion. It's just that forcing people to do things is too much fun to pass up!

A good example a post that isn't right wing, but is "idiot". It's the counterpart of "Bush finds it fun to watch people blown up", replaced by "liberals find it fun to make people do things."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Someone piss in your coffee today? You will need to decide if Medicaid is terrible or fantastic if you are going to discuss it. It has a co-pay depending on your income level.

You see I had this stupid illness called Hodgkin's Lymphoma, but then I graduated and lost my parents insurance. My wife had a silly one called Leukemia. It's not generally a good idea to be uninsured when you have a history of these illnesses, but it turns out the grad student insurance I could have bought was total shit. Since I can't really afford $9,000 a year on a grad students income...well, I'm sure your smart enough to figure out the options I had available to me.

So you sit there nice and safe behind your computer screen and be pissed at Medicaid all you want. It helps people like me a ton, but you are probably to pissed by now to care.

Money dedicated to kids education? Nice attempt at fake outrage, but why don't you say what you actually mean? You don't want that money going towards kid's education, you want it returned to you. No real problem with that, but spare me the attempt at a guilt trip. Turns out I pay for things I don't like with my taxes too.

The "bonus" was stimulus money that was distributed by the governor that was supposed to be used to fund education supplies. I find it ironic that you bitched about money being moved from education to Medicaid and then used this as an example. Obviously the program was implemented poorly by our state government. Who exactly should we blame for that? I imagine it's somehow Obama's fault that our state legislature is idiotic.

If NYS is so bad you could just pack up and leave. That's what my friend did. He's happily living in NH now. No one is forcing you to stay.

So why don't you explain what your problem with Medicaid really is? It's expensive, I'll grant that, but you know what? So are a lot of other things to government spends money on. I for one don't think it's a terrible idea for us to spend some of our money on our own citizens for a change.

We've had a discussion about Medicaid before, and I've said that I'm fine with people who need it.

Now let me tell you what I don't like, and it's not you.

It's having to spend all day to get a medication for a woman that should have taken two minutes, and would with any other plan.

It's about the acceptance of fraud, where people are getting medication for others (who don't need medicaid BTW) but when told the state does nothing.

It's about only paying for brand name medication when a generic which costs a fraction (which is approved and everyone else has to get because of mandatory substitution laws) because it takes months to add it to their formulary.

It's about doctors writing tens of thousands of dollars of narcotics per month to individuals on medicaid, and medicaid not bothering to investigate. Why? You don't mess with Medicaid patients or their shitty docs.

It's about refusing to cooperate with health care professional trying to determine abuse and appropriate therapy. How? By refusing to answer basic questions about where and what a medicaid patient has had, in spite of the fact that for medical purposes it is a legal and proper action on our part. Why is it this way? Because some guy in Albany didn't want to hear any more complaints from narcotic abusers. Seriously. No law, no reg. Just told everyone under him to deny us the ability to do our job, and yes it is.

It's about a system which pays $200 per child under 18 for school supplies even if they aren't of school age. Sounds good, right? Well no strings were on it. Over the course of a couple days, people took hundreds or more (one woman we knew had eights kids under medicaid), and cleared the shelves of alcohol, tobacco, electronics, HDTVs and the sort. What was left? School supplies.

It's about people proud of gaming the system, who take advantage if it, and the government which encourages it.

It's about them taking what little many have left, demanding more, and addressing none of the above. Our illustrious Governor even denied the HDTV debacle, in spite of dozens of reports and thousands of calls. It was all "anecdotal".

And that's why I have a problem with Medicaid. It's the corruption and recklessness of a government who uses those who abuse the system as a political base. No, that doesn't mean everyone, nor even the majority.

Nevertheless, the government encourages this kind of behavior, and they aren't suddenly going to become responsible. They just want to shake the taxpayers down more.

The government we have isn't going to get any better. More of the same isn't what I'm looking forward too. Let them reform themselves, then come back to me about giving them even more power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, by the way, I never complained about my taxes going to educate my kids. I've said that I'm pleased with what they get, and I have never brought up the cost, until it was stolen from us. So I'll resist saying what I'm thinking, for now. I'll just say you are mistaken, about a great many things.

 

[ProfJohn]

Just a thought...

The two best things to come out of the 1990's were accomplished when the two parties worked together.

I am speaking of the balanced budget and welfare reform.

 

[Craig234]

Hayabusa, I'm all for fraud measures, in the law and in enforcement.

I'm curious, where you on lax tax enforcement for the rich, further reduced by the Bush IRS?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa, I'm all for fraud measures, in the law and in enforcement.

I'm curious, where you on lax tax enforcement for the rich, further reduced by the Bush IRS?

I'd say that if people are evading taxes that should change, but I would add that the power to tax is the power to destroy. It's a serious matter to take from another even at need. It's the responsibility of government to make sure it's done at need, and used wisely.

There's not been much wisdom seen lately.

 

[Craig234]

I'd say that if people are evading taxes that should change, but I would add that the power to tax is the power to destroy. It's a serious matter to take from another even at need. It's the responsibility of government to make sure it's done at need, and used wisely.

There's not been much wisdom seen lately.

That didn't quite answer it to me, but if I were guessing I'd guess you said you will support more enforcement and oppose the Bush enforcement cutbacks, and you then wagged your finger at taxes.

Here's an example for you.

There's a multi-national business tax evasion practice that is based on mispricing items it 'sells' from ona country's subsidiary to another country, to evade the proper taxation.

It might involve underpricing one direction, or overpricing another - examples include a roll of toilet paper for several hundred dollars, or a tractor for $328.

I forget whether I saw an estimate how much this costs government for one recent year was for the US or globally, but the figure was $175 billion lost.

Poorer nations lack the resources to enforce the law. The entire continent of Africa has never brought one successful case, but the practice is the norm there.

That's a real example I'd bet not one of the righties complaining about the same tired abuses by the poor that pale in comparion has paid any attention to.

 

[Carmen813]

We've had a discussion about Medicaid before, and I've said that I'm fine with people who need it.

Now let me tell you what I don't like, and it's not you.

It's having to spend all day to get a medication for a woman that should have taken two minutes, and would with any other plan.

It's about the acceptance of fraud, where people are getting medication for others (who don't need medicaid BTW) but when told the state does nothing.

It's about only paying for brand name medication when a generic which costs a fraction (which is approved and everyone else has to get because of mandatory substitution laws) because it takes months to add it to their formulary.

It's about doctors writing tens of thousands of dollars of narcotics per month to individuals on medicaid, and medicaid not bothering to investigate. Why? You don't mess with Medicaid patients or their shitty docs.

It's about refusing to cooperate with health care professional trying to determine abuse and appropriate therapy. How? By refusing to answer basic questions about where and what a medicaid patient has had, in spite of the fact that for medical purposes it is a legal and proper action on our part. Why is it this way? Because some guy in Albany didn't want to hear any more complaints from narcotic abusers. Seriously. No law, no reg. Just told everyone under him to deny us the ability to do our job, and yes it is.

It's about a system which pays $200 per child under 18 for school supplies even if they aren't of school age. Sounds good, right? Well no strings were on it. Over the course of a couple days, people took hundreds or more (one woman we knew had eights kids under medicaid), and cleared the shelves of alcohol, tobacco, electronics, HDTVs and the sort. What was left? School supplies.

It's about people proud of gaming the system, who take advantage if it, and the government which encourages it.

It's about them taking what little many have left, demanding more, and addressing none of the above. Our illustrious Governor even denied the HDTV debacle, in spite of dozens of reports and thousands of calls. It was all "anecdotal".

And that's why I have a problem with Medicaid. It's the corruption and recklessness of a government who uses those who abuse the system as a political base. No, that doesn't mean everyone, nor even the majority.

Nevertheless, the government encourages this kind of behavior, and they aren't suddenly going to become responsible. They just want to shake the taxpayers down more.

The government we have isn't going to get any better. More of the same isn't what I'm looking forward too. Let them reform themselves, then come back to me about giving them even more power.

I've got absolutely no problem with taking steps to address each problem you described. No plan is perfect, and private companies have their own fair share of problems. We should tighten up regulations and cut down on fraud. It's our state politicians who don't act to solve the problems, or perhaps aren't even aware of them.

Abuse, waste, fraud, ect. piss me off a great deal. Hell, my HMO sends me six different letters every time I get a PET scan to approve each different part of my body. I hate that and it's just a small example of pissing away money.

The problem with that $200 bonus is exactly as you described. What the governor should have done, if he absolutely had to spend money, was purchase school supplies and give them directly to schools. Or just buy school supplies, make a package, and send them directly to families. What they did was absolutely idiotic. That wasn't really related to Medicaid, but when people aren't willing to do the work to design a system properly what else can you expect.

My objection was with the broad strokes you painted the program. I've seen people abuse social services, hell, in Syracuse you can walk down the street and buy a $200 food stamp card for $20. It pisses me off, but that doesn't mean the programs should be ended, just fixed.

 

[Carmen813]

Oh, by the way, I never complained about my taxes going to educate my kids. I've said that I'm pleased with what they get, and I have never brought up the cost, until it was stolen from us. So I'll resist saying what I'm thinking, for now. I'll just say you are mistaken, about a great many things.

Government is going to move and distribute funds and those in charge see fit. Medicaid has to be paid for, education has to be paid for, and about 10,000 other things have to be paid for. Ideally, we wouldn't transfer education funding to pay for Medicaid. I personally would have looked for cuts elsewhere...but...well, what you gonna do. There's waste in education too.

 

[ebaycj]

You think it was watered down for the republicans sake?....Newsflash, it was watered down so hick dems and lieberman would vote for it.

AKA "Blue Dogs" AKA "Republicans".

 

[OrByte]

This is what smart parents do to whiney, spoiled, bratty 3 year olds;

You ignore the outbursts and the tantrums, you ignore the bad behavior, and you make them take their medicine.

Republicans in congress remind me very much of whiney bratty 3 year olds lately.

 

[werepossum]

I don't quite get your logic here in separating Senators and the President on the one hand, from Reps on the other. The one is bound by opinion polls because he or she has a smaller constituency where the others are not? It would seem that consistent logic dictates that the President is bound by national polls, senators by state wide polls, and reps by district wide polls. But therein lies yet another problem. Polling over national bills generally isn't even conducted on a district wide basis. Meaning that your argument for reps being the ones who are poll bound is totally impractical, because the relevant data isn't even there...

Anyway, the larger point is whether people who we elect to represent us should consider themselves bound by polls, and there I just have to disagree. We could have a Greek style democracy where all citizens vote on every measure, but instead we have a representative democracy. That means you vote for people you think have good judgment, and then those people vote for what is in the public interest, with perhaps extra focus on local or statewide constituences.

I'm afraid that opinion polls are ephemeral and they can reflect passing moods, as well as misunderstandings of a variety of different things. Suppose we have an awful terrorist attack and for about 6 weeks after the attack, Gallup starts showing that 53% of Americans believe we should intern all Muslims. You want your representative acting on those polls? If it goes down to 48% after they've been interned for two months, do we then let them out and say we're sorry?

The solution is to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate who is most in alignment with your values and the policies you support, but never to expect that candidate to always vote the way you would vote, or even the way the majority of people would vote.

You are right on one thing here - politicians in general do not communicate well enough with their constituents. But that isn't all their fault. On a complex piece of legislation like this, the only way to communicate properly is to speak like a wonk rather than like a politician - in other words, to explain the bill in reasonably thorough detail, not just to sound bite it in a way packaged to make it look good or bad. Unfortunately, most people respond to the latter and not the former, and that leaves people who really want to understand legislation having to do strange things like go and read CBO reports on the internet.

- wolf

I separate representatives because their express purpose is to represent us; going against the majority's wishes is manifestly NOT representing them. I have no problem with representatives taking a principal-based position where the masses are clearly wrong, but I think this should be the clearly explained exception rather than the rule. This is one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives, by the way, with the former electing people they consider suitable to rule and the latter electing people they consider share the same values and ideas for the country. Senators, as you know, were originally appointed or elected by the respective state legislatures to represent the states' interests, to make sure that the representatives didn't infringe on the states' rights or enact legislation that damaged the states. This is why the Senate has rules to allow Senators to slow down legislation or even stop legislation that has a slim majority support. And I think the President should ideally be above politics.

For my first point, you may find this interesting, if you haven't already seen it. A CNN poll found that a majority of Republicans want a candidate that shares their values, even if that candidate loses, while a majority of Democrats want a candidate that can beat the Republicans even if that candidate does not share all the same values. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...s-the-gop-want-ideologically-pure-candidates/