Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily in favor of this health care bill, especially since my employer has already told us that if it passes they will break the contract and cancel our health coverage, but there is no referendum in the Constitution. For good or ill the referendum was held last November.
You bring up a very valid point. How many employers will determine that it's cheaper to break a contract than to continue to offer health benefits? At this juncture, there is no way to quantify, but it sure does lend credibility to the argument that private (insurance) companies will suffer in the face of government competition.
Hmm....how many of these town hall screamers are on Medicare or will be soon? That's the real question.
Yep....did you really think all the ruckus is because of the evil GOP? It's because a huge percentage of the population (from both parties) are about to be covered by a Medicare program that is facing cost cuts in some form or another. These folks offer up a big voice, and it will be heard.
The United States was constructed to be a democratic republic where we the people are represented by our democratically elected representatives. We were never a democracy and only a lunatic would want a true democracy.
Yep....did you really think all the ruckus is because of the evil GOP? It's because a huge percentage of the population (from both parties) are about to be covered by a Medicare program that is facing cost cuts in some form or another. These folks offer up a big voice, and it will be heard.
Because healthcare reform is a necessity, not a whim. These folks offering up a big voice should be trying to be constructive on this issue, because the stakes are quite high, actually.
should the people of the united states be allowed to vote on whether they want this health care bill or not?
Why bother? With 53% against it and 42% for it the outcome is apparent unless a number of New Black Panthers withe their clubs and a number or AEIU members are allowed to position themselves strategically at polling places. Maybe they could change enough minds to change the outcome.
Well it would be, if it were true. As far as I can see, he hasn't altered anything.
Just his talking points on the subject, the terms he uses in describing the effort and some of the content of one of the versions of the bill. These are just a few examples.
18 people believe that the government is smarter then they are about their own lives. What a sad state of affairs.
I feel pretty confident that the people in the current administration are a lot smarter "then" you are about health care.
This reform is about the whole system. A system that is used by a society, not an individual. The whole reason our founding fathers did NOT want majority rule, is that 51% of the people can be ignorant and stupid about any one issue. They fall prey to simple, jingoistic phrases like, "Is the government smarter than you?" That's why our Founding Fathers set up a representational system where elected officials can decide what's best for the society as a whole, keeping in mind even the minority (you Republicans, e.g.), while being accountable through election. Elections have consequences, and your team lost the last one because your team sucked.
Referendums should be illegal in all states. It's partly why California is in such a sad state of affairs right now. 51% of the people decide something is a good idea without knowing how to pay for the idea, or it's unintended consequences, or how it may impact a minority population in the state (white males, e.g.).
What does it matter what the original passage date was since that clearly didn't happen?
It matters because the intent was to get it done. In failure of this goal, a better bill may be crafted and discussed instead of a rush job that nobody read or understood.
Quote:
And the original passage date was a goal for the House, not for the Senate.
Makes no difference, the goal was set. Or are you saying that the President doesn't mean what he says?
Quote:
I just don't want our legislators to be intimidated into weaker legislation, I would like them to be inspired to be more innovative, more thoughtful about the bill they finally do craft.
Nor does any thinking person, so why set a false date at all? If they had met the date, the bill would be suspect and include, as it does, matters for congressional interpretation. Never a good thing.
What part of "our form of democracy" did you not understand? Or are you misreading intentionally?
If we are to trust the government so completely, why did the government try to push through this bill before anyone had a chance to read it? What was the huge hurry, that now seems to not matter as much?
Why the change of verbiage about the bill and the lack of specifics about its inner workings and how it is to be paid for?
Yes, health care need to be looked at, but in an intelligent manner. Do not rush to implement opinions and guesses. For once, let's try to get it right the first time and this is accomplished by civil discussion and research into the subject.
Is that to much to ask?
Absolutely not too much to ask I agree,this issue is so huge that things should be thought out with time to get it right.As far "as our form" I misunderstood your view on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
