A health care question...

Re Finn's post part the second, I re-read your post to see if i missed the point as you pointed out and realized there was a large part I had underestimated.

The Obama health care plan may not be the best alternative, only time will tell, but nobody else was offering a plan to stop the insurance industry's price gouging. The Republicans had 8 years to address this and they did nothing, this is one of the reasons they were voted out. Now comes the Dems and their usual Fed oriented solution, we have it because no one else stepped up to the plate and actually did something.

Easy Money wrote: How you ask, here's how: 1) elect a socialist president with a funny name. 2) lie to the American people and force legislation down their throat. Thats how!!! You see the problem with a libertarian approach is it is hard to tell the difference between that and an approach that is just plain lazy, inept or naive; either way, you don't have to do much. The Republicans had 8 years to do something about the fact that we were being gouged by the insurance industry, free market politics were a failure because with the insurance industry calling the shots there was no free market. The Republicans were voted out and in come the dems with a more hands on approach, that's what people voted for in the last election, like it or not.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Easy Money wrote: Padraic wrote: Easy Money wrote: their fair share I love how this phrase gets tossed around as if it's a concrete quantity.What is everyone's "fair share"?  What is fair? What is fair is decided by the American people in free elections where we elect representatives to our republic who make the decisions that we trust are in the best interest for America. Just because you have a representative form of government does not mean that you are represented. It does not even mean that the majority is represented.

What social contract are you talking about? My point is that representatives don't represent the majority. They don't need to in order to stay elected. They just need to convince an apathetic and short-sighted public that they sufficiently have filled their troughs within a month of election time.

How many voters could pass a simple test about how their government works?  Seriously! 

Politics are like, soooooooooooooo boring.  I mean OMG, did you see what Paris was wearing???

What if such people couldn't vote?

The T wrote: ^We certainly agree on that. But the way people object the change would give the idea that people LOVED it... Come on, some change is better then nothing with the way things were... Let's hope for the best.

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: What social contract are you talking about? My point is that representatives don't represent the majority. They don't need to in order to stay elected. They just need to convince an apathetic and short-sighted public that they sufficiently have filled their troughs within a month of election time. And seriously saying "Look all these people are doing it like this." is no justification. If the rest of the globe was throwing people in prison for subversive speech (as it does) I wouldn't be that concerned that our nation isn't rushing to meet them in this goal.    C'mon Pat.  Following the rest of the civilized world in health care reform is hardly the same as following an uncivilized country in suppressing free speech and you know it.  And you know that Teo wasn't suggesting we follow the lowest common denominator in government policy, but rather take a lesson from those countries which are a bit more progressive than we are.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: ^We certainly agree on that. But the way people object the change would give the idea that people LOVED it... Come on, some change is better then nothing with the way things were... Let's hope for the best.  Not if its change in the wrong direction.

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: ^We certainly agree on that. But the way people object the change would give the idea that people LOVED it... Come on, some change is better then nothing with the way things were... Let's hope for the best.  Not if its change in the wrong direction. It hasn't been proved to be in the wrong direction. That's your theory (and many other people's, I'm not denying that).

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: ^We certainly agree on that. But the way people object the change would give the idea that people LOVED it... Come on, some change is better then nothing with the way things were... Let's hope for the best.  Not if its change in the wrong direction. It hasn't been proved to be in the wrong direction. That's your theory (and many other people's, I'm not denying that).  Your point? You can't just say change is good as an absolute statement.

When my pennies and nickels buy me a beer, change is good.