America Is Not Yet Lost

[EagleSmack]

Not for another generation, as i explained in my previous post. Republicans like the present system just fine. Democrats would like to reform health care, but the recent election in Massachusetts really put the nail in the coffin of health care reform.

The vote in Massachusetts will be interpreted as a vote against health care reform, and rightly so.

Surprised you mentioned that. The election in Massachusetts was interpreted in a heck of a lot more ways than the death of Health Reform. It was a blow against extreme liberalism and the progressives as well as Massachusetts arrogant liberal politicians.

 

[ironsides]

In spite of all these issues, there was a spirit of bipartisanship in the Congress. Civil Rights legislation passed with bipartisan support, with many Republicans supporting it. In those days, there was the spirit of working together, of coming to some compromise.

These days compromise is a dirty word, it is either my way or the highway. There is no desire to compromise, no willingness to find a mutually acceptable solution.

The Republican strategy is to oppose everything Democrats propose, vote against it as a block and stall it in the Senate. And this strategy may yield them success in the next election.

But Democrats will probably adopt the same strategy when they are a minority party, and prevent Republicans from passing anything.

The problem is that US political parties are behaving like Canadian political parties, one party instinctively opposes anything the other party proposes, opposes it uncompromisingly. Now, that works in Canada or Britain, our system is designed to handle that. Yours isn’t.

You get a newbie President that says this how we are going to do things and I do not care what anyone else thinks, you will get a war. Now the people will settle the issue, both parties cannot seem to be able. Do we want all those new proposals put fourth by Obama, I don't think so. The Democrats couldn't win with a super majority, now they will have to talk and if it means starting from scratch, so be it.

Even though you lived in the U.S. at one time, you never learned how we think. (no comments from the peanut gallery) :smile:

 

[countryboy]

Well now, that is only your opinion, isn't it (that your assessment of the situation is objective and mine isn't)?

Yes. I usually don't pretend to speak for others when I express MY opinion.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes. I usually don't pretend to speak for others when I express MY opinion.

WHOA! Touche!

 

[EagleSmack]

You get a newbie President that says this how we are going to do things and I do not care what anyone else thinks, you will get a war. Now the people will settle the issue, both parties cannot seem to be able. Do we want all those new proposals put fourth by Obama, I don't think so. The Democrats couldn't win with a super majority, now they will have to talk and if it means starting from scratch, so be it.

Even though you lived in the U.S. at one time, you never learned how we think. (no comments from the peanut gallery) :smile:

The thing is Iron is that they HAD the Super Majority and could not get it done. They had to bribe members of their own party to get as far as they did which is why it was renamed Nebraska Care. They could have easily passed a Health Care plan but they failed. They STILL can pass a health care plan but all the Democrat incumbents realize that there is a pretty good chance of being a one term congressman/woman.

 

[ironsides]

Yes, they did. They had it all, tried everything and couldn't get it done. Wonder how many will be that dedicated that they will put their jobs on the line for what they believe? If anyone wants to do something, he/she must find a way to create jobs. not only new ones but fill older type jobs also. Most of us are not looking for charity, but real employment then we can purchase what ever we want at little or no cost to the goverment.

 

[countryboy]

It is unfortunate that you think a bill to lower US health care costs and extend services to those who do not have health care is forcing something down your throat. The US system is incredibly expensive, inequitable, and inefficient. The Obama health care bill was a first step in bringing the US into line with what people in other modern nations take for granted. Even simply copying the flawed Canadian health care system would have been an improvement. Sadly, corporate interests and the reactionary right wing media have created a sense of hysteria over what should have been a simple restructuring of a seriously flawed system.
Good luck enjoying paying your continually increasing health care premiums.

Hey Bar, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. First of all, there are problems in the U.S. health care system and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Virtually any system anywhere has problems. I think it is an expensive system, somewhat inequitable, but inefficient? Hmm...not by my personal experience, and I've had some. Danny Williams might also see it that way right about now.

I think the Obama bill was NOT just a first step...and that's what killed it. It was a complete about-face from what exists, and that's a whole bunch of steps. Which may have led to the feelilng of having it "rammed down their throats." If you're gong to eat an elephant, it's best to do it one bite at a time.

Copying the flawed Canadian system would not have been an improvement, in my opinion. First of all, we have tons of problems in our own system (many of which were covered in a previous/different thread), but more importantly, trying to overlay a system like that in a culture like the U.S. would be a very poor fit. Why replace one problem with another - possibly bigger - one? To me, that would be taking at least one step backward.

I think Obama's idealism got the better of him on this one, and it could prove to be his ultimate downfall. In spite of his promise to bring great and wonderful changes to the U.S., I think his skills to do so are lacking. It ain't an easy job to dig into something as all-encompassing as health care (affects everyone) because if it was, anyone could do it.

President Obama has made the possibly fatal error of simply trying to impose his views and values on to the American public, and some of them (could be many) don't like it a bit. We're seeing the beginnings of that opposition now and not just from the politicians in Washington...from the real people out there. Massachusetts was a strong indication that he's on the wrong track, and I think he's painfully aware of it. The question is, can he get it back on track, at least for realistic debate? Not sure...

 

[ironsides]

It is unfortunate that you think a bill to lower US health care costs and extend services to those who do not have health care is forcing something down your throat. The US system is incredibly expensive, inequitable, and inefficient. The Obama health care bill was a first step in bringing the US into line with what people in other modern nations take for granted. Even simply copying the flawed Canadian health care system would have been an improvement. Sadly, corporate interests and the reactionary right wing media have created a sense of hysteria over what should have been a simple restructuring of a seriously flawed system.
Good luck enjoying paying your continually increasing health care premiums.

It is only money, and when it comes to my health I will do what ever it costs. If you omit the cost, there is nothing better than American health care. As I have mentioned before get low cost insurance policies to those who need it, just do not penalize me if I want a better one. (no problem paying the difference)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Surprised you mentioned that. The election in Massachusetts was interpreted in a heck of a lot more ways than the death of Health Reform. It was a blow against extreme liberalism and the progressives as well as Massachusetts arrogant liberal politicians.

I personally think it was a vote against the health care reform. The Republican candidate specifically had promised that if elected, he will stop the health care reform in its tracks. The voters knew very well that voting Republican will mean an end to health care reform, for at least another generation.

And still they voted in the Republican candidate. That means they did not want the health care reform to go ahead (at least that is how I interpret the results, health care was the immediate issue facing the voters, and they passed the judgment on it).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You get a newbie President that says this how we are going to do things and I do not care what anyone else thinks, you will get a war. Now the people will settle the issue, both parties cannot seem to be able. Do we want all those new proposals put fourth by Obama, I don't think so. The Democrats couldn't win with a super majority, now they will have to talk and if it means starting from scratch, so be it.

Even though you lived in the U.S. at one time, you never learned how we think. (no comments from the peanut gallery) :smile:

When I lived in USA, the political atmosphere was much different than it is now; it was nowhere near as partisan. There was no ‘hate’ radio, there was no 24 hour cable news, there were no internet blogs. I think all these factors contribute to the increased partisanship, increased bitterness that characterizes US political atmosphere today.

And people will settle the issue? How? What can people do? I assume you mean that next time they will vote Republican. They very well may, but what happens when Republicans also cannot get anything accomplished (as happened during Bush years)? People will vote the Democrats back in, Republicans will block everything they want to do and the whole madness will continue.

The system is broken.

 

[TenPenny]

Well, if they're lost, then we are lost together.

 

[EagleSmack]

I personally think it was a vote against the health care reform. The Republican candidate specifically had promised that if elected, he will stop the health care reform in its tracks. The voters knew very well that voting Republican will mean an end to health care reform, for at least another generation.

And still they voted in the Republican candidate. That means they did not want the health care reform to go ahead (at least that is how I interpret the results, health care was the immediate issue facing the voters, and they passed the judgment on it).

You can personally think whatever you want but you are wrong again. Health Care reform was one reason that an ALL BLUE state broke ranks and put a Republican in Kennedy's seat.

The other reasons were that Martha Coakley was another bitter nasty uppity liberal who felt entitled. She was hand picked by the Liberal establishment here.

As Scott Brown was hitting every town in Massachusetts after the primaries, Martha took a vacation. When they asked Martha why she isn't out campaigning as Scott Brown is she answered.

"What do you want me to do? Shake hands with people outside Fenway Park? In the cold?"- referring to Scott being at the Bruins-Flyers game and college hockey games at the temporary rink at Fenway Park.

Ummm...yeah Martha!

Her attack ads were full of lies that even Democrats had to wince.

 

[barney]

The US system of checks and balances is considered to be among the more commendable aspects of their governmental structure. If elected officials are exploiting that to their own ends rather than acting in the interests of their constituents, then the problem is with the electoral system.

I really don't see why the US could potentially be "lost" because of this; seems to be working in the regime's favour by maintaining the status-quo. Trust me, if the US regime's continued stability depends on some otherwise wasteful humanitarian legislation being passed, it will pass so fast you won't even realize it's happened.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I really don't see why the US could potentially be "lost" because of this; seems to be working in the regime's favour by maintaining the status-quo. Trust me, if the US regime's continued stability depends on some otherwise wasteful humanitarian legislation being passed, it will pass so fast you won't even realize it's happened.

In USA it is very difficult to pass any legislation, much more so than in Canada or any other democracy. Checks and balances are all very well and are necessary. However, in USA, they have put in so many checks and balances that the whole system grinds to a halt.

US system works well when the two parties work together, in the spirit of cooperation, compromise, civility. There has been precious little of that lately. These days it is the opposition for opposition’s sake.

Republicans voting as a block to oppose raising the debt ceiling was a classic example. When Republicans controlled Congress, they voted every year, 12 times to raise the debt ceiling. Yet now all of a sudden it is a bad thing, and they oppose it as a block.

They were not able to stop raising of the ceiling, because they had only 40 votes. Now they have 41, they will prevent debt ceiling from being raised next time. Then USA may well default on its debt, all the services will be subject to savage cuts etc.

This kind of opposition does not do anybody any good (well, it may win Republicans the next election, voters may blame Democrats for the ensuing turmoil even though Republicans caused it, but at the cost of ruining their country).

 

[EagleSmack]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

drone

 

[barney]

lol What ES? What?! Can't say nothign 'round here!

The two parties will cooperate when they want to is what I'm saying--the people funding them are pretty much the same and their interests are almost identical.

Sure elected officials play the partisan game to stay in office--look good in front of easily swayed voters and all that--but in the end it's just business.

What I'm saying is that this political BS that you see over there is not something the majority of Americans care for; they see it as BS but don't see an alternative so these ****s get into office. Big business loves this because these people are easy to lobby and the general establishment needs it to be that way in order to maintain the status quo.

Btw, the health-care thing isn't exactly roses; it basically transfers the medical coverage burden from industries to governments (i.e. taxpayers).

It might be facing opposition from private health insurance lobbies because it risks regulation. And regulation just means people aren't left to die a slow death because they can't pay--it's a kind of paternalism that thinks workers should be kept healthy for the sake of industry. Hardly humanitarian.

 

[EagleSmack]

lol What ES? What?! Can't say nothign 'round here!

.

Oh that wasn't meant for you Barney.

 

[barney]

Kinda knew that. SJP has a rep poor guy.

Although...I was just reading over my posts and holy crap I am one stale dude when I post political stuff. All I can say is thank GOD I stay away from politics when I date.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The two parties will cooperate when they want to is what I'm saying--the people funding them are pretty much the same and their interests are almost identical.

Oh, they will cooperate if they want to. It is just that they haven't wanted to for a long time now, that is why the system is broken.

What I'm saying is that this political BS that you see over there is not something the majority of Americans care for; they see it as BS but don't see an alternative so these ****s get into office. Big business loves this because these people are easy to lobby and the general establishment needs it to be that way in order to maintain the status quo.

Majority of Americans may not like the political BS, but they don't have a choice, they are stuck with it.

Btw, the health-care thing isn't exactly roses; it basically transfers the medical coverage burden from industries to governments (i.e. taxpayers).

It might be facing opposition from private health insurance lobbies because it risks regulation. And regulation just means people aren't left to die a slow death because they can't pay--it's a kind of paternalism that thinks workers should be kept healthy for the sake of industry. Hardly humanitarian.

I have no idea how good the now dead health care reform was. All I know is that Democrats were trying to do something about health care, Republicans were adamantly opposed to any change to the current system, Republicans like the current system just fine.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Kinda knew that. SJP has a rep poor guy.

Oh, I certainly have a rep among conservative, far right Republicans in this forum, among the Palin acolytes and I am proud of it.

Any time I cannot make a right winger apoplectic, I cannot start him foaming at the mouth, that is the time I will quit participating here.