It's Getting Passed

60-40

60-40

60-40

Those numbers keep racing through my head and it has finally occurred to me that this Health Care Legislation is nothing short of ridiculous. Here, Nebraska, we need your vote, so you pay nothing to expand Medicare. Texas, I’m afraid you’re going to have to get screwed on this one.

That’s not nearly the worst of it, though, because that sort of thing occurs in virtually every bill.

The worst of it is the fact that they do not have one Republican vote, NOT ONE!!!

Barack Obama as well as almost every single Congressman that ran for office touted bi-partisanship and working together to solve a common crisis during their campaign. I certainly understand that some of the Republicans probably drew a line in the sand without actually reading this thing, but that still does not excuse the fact that you have a party (which represents nearly half of the registered voters) that patently disagrees on something and you’re still going to put this Legislation through.

The worst part about it is the fact is that not even all of the Democrats or Independents themselves agreed upon this, and it was not settled with rhetoric or compromise. It was settled with what amounts to bribery.

Sure, there is no direct or proximate exchange of money from one person to another, here, but Nelson basically sold out his opinion on this entire Legislation in order to gain some votes from his constituency as a result of this, “Compromise,” rather than stand his ground and vote against his fellow Democrats.

There are many people (including myself) who are not in favor of the effective two-party political structure that we have now because it forces an individual wishing to successfully take office into certain paradigms of thinking. The fact that this Legislation will pass is enough to show me what would happen if we only had a single party structure, and make me want to avoid that.

I’m still not sure exactly what is in this Legislation because it has not been fully disclosed to the public, yet, so I’m not sure whether or not I agree with it myself. That’s not even the point. The point is that if you fail to convince one person from the opposite party as to the, “Rightness,” of your position and you have to effectively buy members of your own party (or independents who lean that way) then the political system is openly corrupt. Don’t get me wrong, the system was probably somewhat corrupt before, but now they’ll brazenly slap you in the face with that fact.

Again, I understand that the Republicans probably drew some lines on this one, but none of them (at least, not openly) promised one another anything or exchanged favors for this vote, and I’m sure a couple of them have at least some idea of what the Legislation entails.

What does bipartisanship mean, Pav.? Does it mean that you bring the other side to the table to negotiate, does it mean you invite the other side to input ideas, or does it mean that you don’t do something if the other side doesn’t agree with it?

If it means either of the first two then there has been bipartisanship on the issue of healthcare, and if it means the third then two of the issues that Democrats campaigned with are coming into direct opposition with each other. Republicans are refusing to vote for any possible health care reform bill that the Democrats have, and are not coming up with there own. The minority whip let us know this little gem, which was already obvious, in mid November. Further, what does one do when the Elites of the the opposition party call your plan “death panels” or “socialism”, and has historically staked everything on an all out frenzy to destroy health care reform? Meanwhile they are tagging on endless earmarks and amendments so that the bill is so convoluted that not even Democrats want to vote for it.

On the other hand it was quite apparent in the beginning that no Republican was going to switch over, so why water down the bill into something unrecognizable? And why take ‘radical’ steps off the table to begin with, i.e. universal healthcare.

This is a massive failure if the goal was to make health care a basic right that works for the average person, it is successful if the goal was to alleviate a little-bit of the burden in order to ensure the power structures that caused the pain maintains. Either way the Democrat elite has acted like d-bags, and the Republican elite has acted like lunatics.

To me, bi-partisanship is not just that you negotiate, but it is about how you negotiate.

I think that my OP has something of an anti-Democratic tone on this one, which was actually not my intention. My main problem here is that nobody is showing any balls and this is just pure cronyism and corruption with the intention (of the Democrats) of displaying their power and the intention of the Republicans to be inflexible.

Forty people, Sittlichkeit. Out of forty people I have to believe at least one thinks this is a pretty good bill and he/she doesn’t have the cajones to say so because he/she is afraid to go against the party.

On the other side you have sixty people where at least three of them have expressed opposition and they either do not have the balls to go against that grain, or they were bought.

Basically, I’m just saying that I think this whole affair is disgraceful. There is a Republican constituency somewhere that agrees with this bill (at least in general terms because nobody really knows what it says) and there are Democratic constituencies somewhere that disagree with this bill, but everyone is too scared to stroll across party lines and take a stand for their beliefs and, more importantly, those of their constituency.

I would like one of two things, here:

1.) For people to just vote in accordance with their opinions and leave it at that.

or

2.) 2010 ballot measure, let the people (all of them) decide.

No matter what happens, this will be a tainted bill and a tainted victory for the Democrats. For the Republicans, this will be a loss made that much worse because not only have they lost, but they have also displayed their cronyism and inflexibility openly.

And people talked about this bill in Congress, they talked, but did anyone ever actually listen?

As far as earmarks go, why do the Republican earmarks need to be left on there at this point? The Democrats have already showed that they don’t need the Republicans support…any of them.

I think that they took Universal Healthcare out of it because it was apparent to those that wanted it that even the in-house (Democratic) opposition would be insurmountable.

Have you seen any of the information on who exactly is taking money from pharmaceutical and insurance company lobbyists, it was all over the news a few months ago. It turns out pretty much everyone is. Obama and Dem.'s included.

Curious then that the best bit of reform we can get ensures that the health care system doesn’t implode on itself over the next few decades, and it does so while maintaining all power structures that put us in this situation. The more I think about it, the more I see that all this legislation does is save the health care industry from being wiped away, which when then mean the government would, by necessity, have to set up universal healthcare.

The following exerpt from a blogger sums up how government in the US works these days…

No rhetoric, no reasoning, no compromise. Looting is the only measure of what constitutes politics today - either you’re doing the looting, or you’re being looted.

these days? The thing was set up to work that way, to be a collection of special interests. To be representatives lobbying for their local constituents, and those representatives were to be at odds with all other representatives doing the same thing so that one’s man’s ambition limits another.

This exact technique of governing is America’s gift to political theory.