Is now the time for a 10 million man march to, or gathering in, Washington?

[philbytx]

Now wouldn't THAT be special

 

I believe I am almost revolting !!!!!

[Francois_Dumas]

I've heard of the 6 million dollar man, not yet of a 10 million dollar version

[Lets_Play_Two]

It could be very worthwhile if it would wake Washington up to recognize that the things they are proposing and passing in very short time and with very little understand and fewer details are a concern to most Americans. If they (Washington) were really honest about health care reform they could put together a detailed proposal and give all Americans information about what is going to impact all of our lives, get real input (rather than the staged stuff we are getting) and do it mostly right the first time. Why the freaking rush if it isn't to simply cram this through because it has flaws? Spell out the details, no guessing, tell us what it will cost each of us and what we will get for it. Right now nobody knows..not even the people trying to cobble together a bill on which they can get enough votes. Just MHO.

[John Ranalletta]

It could be very worthwhile if it would wake Washington up to recognize that the things they are proposing and passing in very short time and with very little understand and fewer details are a concern to most Americans. If they (Washington) were really honest about health care reform they could put together a detailed proposal and give all Americans information about what is going to impact all of our lives, get real input (rather than the staged stuff we are getting) and do it mostly right the first time. Why the freaking rush if it isn't to simply cram this through because it has flaws? Spell out the details, no guessing, tell us what it will cost each of us and what we will get for it. Right now nobody knows..not even the people trying to cobble together a bill on which they can get enough votes. Just MHO.

Soon, you'll be labeled a budding terrorist for harboring such thoughts.

[Lets_Play_Two]

It could be very worthwhile if it would wake Washington up to recognize that the things they are proposing and passing in very short time and with very little understand and fewer details are a concern to most Americans. If they (Washington) were really honest about health care reform they could put together a detailed proposal and give all Americans information about what is going to impact all of our lives, get real input (rather than the staged stuff we are getting) and do it mostly right the first time. Why the freaking rush if it isn't to simply cram this through because it has flaws? Spell out the details, no guessing, tell us what it will cost each of us and what we will get for it. Right now nobody knows..not even the people trying to cobble together a bill on which they can get enough votes. Just MHO.

Soon, you'll be labeled a budding terrorist for harboring such thoughts.

 

Hardly terrorism....democracy in action...a REAL town hall meeting. It's just like the salesman who wants you to sign on the line and not ask any questions. If fact hasn't it been concluded that we trust car salesmen more than we trust our senators and congressman...time to hold their collective feet and other sensitive areas to the fire!

[John Ranalletta]

There are three flaws in your premise.

• You presume the people in Washington on either side of the aisle give a damn about
  what you or I think. We are now in a worse situation than England. We pay much more
  to support our "royalty" than they ever will.
  
• The country is riding a tsunami of emotions. Logic has no place on the agenda.
  As long as the populace "feels good" about government, all's well.
  
• Timewise, not enough has passed. Anyone who objects to current events are
  associated with the predecessor administration.

Shelve patriotism, allegiance to political ideals and idealism for the interim. It's

not the end of the world, but it will feel like it for the next decade, politically and

economically.

[Lets_Play_Two]

There are three flaws in your premise.

• You presume the people in Washington on either side of the aisle give a damn about
  what you or I think. We are now in a worse situation than England. We pay much more
  to support our "royalty" than they ever will.
  
• The country is riding a tsunami of emotions. Logic has no place on the agenda.
  As long as the populace "feels good" about government, all's well.
  
• Timewise, not enough has passed. Anyone who objects to current events are
  associated with the predecessor administration.

Shelve patriotism, allegiance to political ideals and idealism for the interim. It's

not the end of the world, but it will feel like it for the next decade, politically and

economically.

 

Out of the 535 senators and congressmen, I doubt there are more than 5 who have any significant idea of what is going on let alone any interest in what we think.

[SeanC]

10 million pissed off citizens staring down Congress would be a nice start, but in my opinion, any nationalized health care program requires nothing less than a Constitutional Convention. It's far too big a deal to push through politically, by Congressional and Executive fiat.

[John Ranalletta]

...but, a majority of voters, all of whom were allegedly pissed off, expressed a preference for what's happening. It's only a minority that's concerned. As a politician, why on earth would I concern myself with the opinions of those who voted for someone else in 2008 and will likely do so again in 2012?

[Lets_Play_Two]

"...but, a majority of voters, all of whom were allegedly pissed off, expressed a preference for what's happening."

 

Do you really think so?

 

And your point about the politics is exactly what is wrong. Its all about politics and special interests and long ago ceased to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. So we can go on shrugging our shoulders and bitch under our breath and elect as our leaders people from the big and new political class...those who know nothing about anything except what it takes to be elected and reelected. And we as voters are so screwed up by the system that we elected, in what may be the most difficult time in the last 100 years, someone who has about an hour and 1/2 of experience of any kind.

[Lets_Play_Two]

"It's far too big a deal to push through politically, by Congressional and Executive fiat."

 

AMEN!! It certainly is scary when you stop and look at the personalities who are driving the out of control, get-something-done-quickly-before-anyone-figures-it-out bus.

[philbytx]

As some of you know, I am an ex-Pat Limey.

I am celebrating the 4th, Thanking the Lord that all y'all kicked the German King, his government, troops and mercenaries out.

 

And celebrate I do, in true Texan style. Off to our friends ranch..all Bronc's, Brahma's, Beer and BBQ !!!

 

Look, it was all about taxes and representation then, and it's all about taxes and (lack of) REAL representation now!

 

 

So let us get in the spirit and all be revolting.....

 

[SeanC]

And not just "get-something-done-quickly-before-anyone-figures-it-out," but get something done that can't get un-done later. That's what scares me about this issue. It's not like it will be some bill that can be repealed by a different Congress or President. It will be a permanent fixture of American society. And before such a thing happens, I think every citizen should understand the details and ramifications to the best of his ability, and every state should sign off on it.

[John Ranalletta]

"...but, a majority of voters, all of whom were allegedly pissed off, expressed a preference for what's happening."

 

Do you really think so?

Doh? I'm supposing you're living in the same USA as I. I talk to lots of folks every day, most of them business owners and/or managers.

 

I hear some frustration voiced, but if one tunes out Rush, Glen and the Fox dweebs, most of what I hear and read supports deficit spending, universal health care, etc.

 

I'm not pessimistic; rather, I think I'm pragmatic. These cycles take years and sometimes decades to complete. Carter led to Reagan; Reagan to Clinton; Clinton to Bush; Bush to Obama. Unfortunately, the cycle is less circular and more elliptical as conservatives never reclaim as much territory as they lose when out of office because they mouth conservative principles but lack the gonads to stick by them.

 

Conservatives had their shot for 8 years and blew it. They can act like Lebron James and storm off the court like the poor losers they are; or, accept and remember the bitter taste of a defeat of their own making.

 

For conservatives to be upset at these developments is like a fat person being pissed off at Krispy Kreme for making the donuts.

[Boone60]

What would you fellows propose to improve healthcare beyond protesting and saying no?

 

I see 8 to 10 percent yearly increases in the cost of health insurance, and don't think such increases can continue to be afforded. Deficit spending is also an incredibly bad idea, and taxes are taking a big bite out of the citizen's income.

 

The politicians don't have a plan right now, so what should it be?

[Matts_12GS]

We need more of this guy around...

 

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

 

Barry Goldwater

[Lets_Play_Two]

What would you fellows propose to improve healthcare beyond protesting and saying no?

 

I see 8 to 10 percent yearly increases in the cost of health insurance, and don't think such increases can continue to be afforded. Deficit spending is also an incredibly bad idea, and taxes are taking a big bite out of the citizen's income.

 

The politicians don't have a plan right now, so what should it be?

 

I'm not saying no...I'm saying they need to tell us what it is going to be and how much it is going to cost rather than sneak it through before anyone knows anything. Do you have any idea what they are proposing? They do have a plan, it passed the House already. Some congressmen say we don't need to know the details we just need to pass health care reform.

 

They are also planning the largest tax increase in history (three times bigger than anything in the past) called Cap and Trade and touting it as an energy bill...anyone care that the "estimates" of this tax increase range from $300/year to $2900/year. Which is it? How can we agree to a wish and a promise. Maybe this is the change people wanted???

[John Ranalletta]

What would you fellows propose to improve healthcare beyond protesting and saying no?

 

I see 8 to 10 percent yearly increases in the cost of health insurance, and don't think such increases can continue to be afforded. Deficit spending is also an incredibly bad idea, and taxes are taking a big bite out of the citizen's income.

 

The politicians don't have a plan right now, so what should it be?

Means testing.

 

Tax employee on the health care premiums paid by employers. The system can't be rescued unless and until the connection between coverage and employment is broken.

 

Nevermind that Walmart just came out for employer provided coverage. They already provide it and want to force their competition to do likewise.

 

Those who can afford to buy coverage should be able to buy the same policy offered to government employees.

 

States and federal governments will have to cover those who cannot afford coverage.

 

Everyone is mandated to have coverage, either purchased or provided by a federal agency.

 

Give up on the idea that everybody deserves the same level of care. That will kill any viable scheme and/or it will lead to a two-tier system. Hillarycare would have jailed docs providing care outside the system...that's a non-starter.

 

[Tasker]

For conservatives to be upset at these developments is like a fat person being pissed off at Krispy Kreme for making the donuts.

 

Or both...

[Bob Palin]

I see 8 to 10 percent yearly increases in the cost of health insurance,

Mine just went up by 20%, no age range change and they assure me it's not related to any medical change.

 

Universal health coverage is an excellent goal for a society.

[John Ranalletta]

For conservatives to be upset at these developments is like a fat person being pissed off at Krispy Kreme for making the donuts.

 

Or both...

I've had my share.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Mine just went up by 20%, no age range change and they assure me it's not related to any medical change.

That can happen in any market where there's no viable competition. If every currently-employed and covered person were to go into the market to buy insurance like we buy food, clothes and everything else, that would force providers to compete on price, quality and service.

 

Universal insurance absolutely eliminates competition and the need to increase quality and service.

[Whip]

[quote=Killer

Universal health coverage is an excellent goal for a society.

 

What about food and shelter???

 

Don'tchathink they should come first??????

 

 

Just sayin....?????

 

 

[Bob Palin]

What about food and shelter???

 

Don'tchathink they should come first??????

 

They're not exclusive goals.

[Bob Palin]

Universal insurance absolutely eliminates competition and the need to increase quality and service.

That's because you are approaching it from a capitalist point of view rather than a socialist point of view. If it is a true goal of society then it should be treated as such and every effort made to make sure it is the best it can be.

[beemerman2k]

We need more of this guy around...

 

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

 

Barry Goldwater

 

Barry Goldwater said that, eh? I didn't know that.

 

To me, we can pursue a nation that is "fair" or a nation that is "free" -- only one of those virtues can be our ultimate priority. I believe our founders wisely chose to focus on freedom as our ideal ethic.

 

Life is inherently unfair; some farmers will get rain and others will not. Some people will attain wealth and others will not. That's life.

 

So why don't we do our best to make life as "fair" as we possibly can? Isn't that a noble calling?

 

Sure it is, and we should seek to work together in building this great nation of ours. Ideally, all of us will attain the very lives each of us value for ourselves. For some, that means wealth, for others, a life of adventure, for still more, whatever. But we can only achieve this ideal if we remain a free society. Only then can each of us work to attain our own sense of fairness as each of us understand that word to mean.

 

I am for any and every program, law, and/or policy conceived that will promote the well being of our nations citizens, but NOT if that policy reduces or threatens to reduce our individual freedoms. For example, I am opposed to policies that might have been designed to benefit me as a black man. No! What my ancestors labored, fought, and bled for was a nation that put NO regard on a persons color. Equal rights is supposed to be the point of our national values and ethics. So even policies that could be construed as benefiting me as an individual I oppose, because they violate me as an American, and that's the label I wear with the most pride of all. Trust me when I say this: I'd rather be regarded as a free American than a privileged black man. Living as a free American brings peace to me and my children. Living as a privileged black man? What has been given can (and probably will be) be taken away.

 

Barry Goldwater said that, eh? I didn't know that! Great quote

[Dave McReynolds]

I am for any and every program, law, and/or policy conceived that will promote the well being of our nations citizens, but NOT if that policy reduces or threatens to reduce our individual freedoms

 

Very possibly, a policy that would allow you to receive the medical care needed to deal with an illness or accident could enhance your freedom as much or more than the policy that allows you the freedom to travel coast to coast on our national freeway system. First, it would provide the freedom to survive physically in the event you were able to receive treatment that wasn't available to you under the current system, and second, the freedom to survive financially in the event you would be be bankrupted or a slave to payments you couldn't afford for the rest of your life.

[ghaverkamp]

To me, we can pursue a nation that is "fair" or a nation that is "free" -- only one of those virtues can be our ultimate priority. I believe our founders wisely chose to focus on freedom as our ideal ethic.

 

That sure sounds good as a sound bite, but I'm not so sure it's true. If our founders were so focused on freedom as an ethic, surely the founding itself would have been avoided. No freedom was gained by the creation of a federal government.

 

In fact, the founders seemed much more concerned about fairness -- among the states, if not the People -- than they were concerned about freedom. Just look at Congressional representation, taxation, and the Three-Fifths Compromise.

 

But freedom? They didn't create any new freedoms; they only limited governmental intrusions into existing freedoms.

 

I am for any and every program, law, and/or policy conceived that will promote the well being of our nations citizens, but NOT if that policy reduces or threatens to reduce our individual freedoms. For example, I am opposed to policies that might have been designed to benefit me as a black man. No! What my ancestors labored, fought, and bled for was a nation that put NO regard on a persons color. Equal rights is supposed to be the point of our national values and ethics.

 

Arguably, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were all conceived and promoted to benefit equal rights. And yet, to create what we now call equal rights, we impinged upon rights that others considered their own: owning slaves; denying access to places, public and private, based on any criteria they deemed acceptable, including race; and the right to see to it that their rights were not infringed by restricting the rights of others to vote.

 

It's not a zero sum game, but there are still usually collisions when we seek to restrict one group for the benefit of another.

[sgendler]

Private insurance is already a monopoly in about 95% of the country. It is very rare that americans really have choice in who they can buy insurance from unless they are mobile. Your ability to choose is entirely wrapped up in your ability to move to a different market. Much of the reason for opposition to a public option is that it promises to introduce competition in markets where there currently is none.