US Health Care Plan

WBU ALUM wrote:The Patriot Act was passed 357-55 in the House of Representatives and 98-1 in the US Senate. I don’t believe Republican majorities were that controlling. There must have been a very large number of Democrats who agreed with it.

I do not dispute this was the case. I do, however, need to inject a bit of clarity of context. The Village Idiot (sorry, I mean Bush), and all his cohorts and legions of spin-media (that it was and continues to be exactly that is no longer disputed by thinking people) managed to again Bushwhack not just the Congress, but almost the entire World! Hell, he even convinced Gen. Colin Powell to be his front-man and make the case for war at the United Nations! Now we all know that was a serious con of epic proportions. So, yes, the dumb-dumb Dems were razzle dazzled and fell right in line and lock-step with the Republican song and war dance. I point to the SINGLE Senator Byrd of W. Virginia as the only sane person in the Senate and the impressive but futile arguments he made at the time (go see them on YouTube). The Republicans Bushwhacked the Congress, the Nation, and most of the World! Everyone know this to be fact, now.

WBU ALUM wrote:The Supreme Court members are nominated by the president, but they must be approved by the Senate. Please make yourself familiar with the votes taken in the Senate for each current member. All went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in public hearings before the vote was taken. John Roberts 78-22, John Paul Stevens 98-0, Antonin Scalia 98-0, Anthony Kennedy 97-0, Clarence Thomas 52-48, Ruth Ginsberg 96-3, Stephen Breyer 87-9, Samuel Alito 58-42, Sonia Sotamayor 68-31. The numbers speak for themselves.

Again, context. The facts are that Republicans had Congress zipped up in a nice neat paper baggie and the Judiciary Committees had not one Dem with a backbone who didn't also need to cut deals with the Republican controlled Congress to get anything done. I give kudos for Republicans for running a very tight and disciplined ship when it came to making and not making things happen. The Dems were like puppies wagging their tails even when their masters were whacking them on the nose. Heck, they still are. Now EVERYTHING requires a super-majority and THAT, my friend, is ridiculous, outrageous, and amazing given that the Dems are supposed to be in firm control of Congress and the Presidency.

WBU ALUM wrote:1. I declined to respond to your information about the Declaration of Independence because it was a letter to George III. It is not part of the US Constitution and has no legal status in US courts.

It's legal status is not the point. The point that you either refuse to recognize or miss completely is that it is THE first official document that defined who we are and what we stand for as a singular nation unique amongst the world's nations. I do not see how anyone who defines themselves as an American with fundamental American ideals could not recognize, embrace, and uphold the values and sense of what is right and wrong in not only the treatment we endured under British rule, but also how we should conduct ourselves when dealing with other nations or peoples. Perhaps you don't define yourself as an American; and therefore do not support what this document represents. That is certainly your prerogative. We are who we are and this document, this Declaration of Independence, embodies the American Spirit and the reason why wherever we go, people [used to] chant "USA! USA! USA!"

WBU ALUM wrote:2. Promoting the general welfare is not providing for the general welfare.

pro·mote (prə-mōt')
tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote

Ok, I will accept your position. It infers that you acknowledge that the Constitution DOES advocate FOR the advancement of welfare programs such as a Universal Health Care Plan. Having admitted or conceded that much, your own argument that providing welfare is up to the States, turns into "Constitutionally, while it is not specifically within the powers of the Federal government to provide for welfare programs, the Constitution and the INTENT of the Constitution does indeed support, advocate, and is in favor of the establishment and organization of a Public Health Care Option to promote the general welfare of citizens via the States as a fundamental right bestowed and conferred upon us all by the Bill of Rights."

Game. Set. Match. Nice playing with you. Have a nice day.

KHONDAHM wrote:I do not dispute this was the case. I do, however, need to inject a bit of clarity of context. The Village Idiot (sorry, I mean Bush), and all his cohorts and legions of spin-media (that it was and continues to be exactly that is no longer disputed by thinking people) managed to again Bushwhack not just the Congress, but almost the entire World!Hell, he even convinced Gen. Colin Powell to be his front-man and make the case for war at the United Nations! Now we all know that was a serious con of epic proportions. So, yes, the dumb-dumb Dems were razzle dazzled and fell right in line and lock-step with the Republican song and war dance. I point to the SINGLE Senator Byrd of W. Virginia as the only sane person in the Senate and the impressive but futile arguments he made at the time (go see them on YouTube). The Republicans Bushwhacked the Congress, the Nation, and most of the World! Everyone know this to be fact, now.

Your arguments are nothing more than conjecture. But it has always amazed me that those who attack President Bush personally and call him an idiot, give him so much credit for fooling so many people. And yet, even after you have figured this out, Congress continues to renew the Patriot Act. You should run for one of those seats and educate them.

Again, context. The facts are that Republicans had Congress zipped up in a nice neat paper baggie and the Judiciary Committees had not one Dem with a backbone who didn't also need to cut deals with the Republican controlled Congress to get anything done. I give kudos for Republicans for running a very tight and disciplined ship when it came to making and not making things happen. The Dems were like puppies wagging their tails even when their masters were whacking them on the nose. Heck, they still are. Now EVERYTHING requires a super-majority and THAT, my friend, is ridiculous, outrageous, and amazing given that the Dems are supposed to be in firm control of Congress and the Presidency.

Again, conjecture.

You are slightly disingenuous when you complain of the super majority because it has been in force when both parties have had simple majorities in the Senate. It is not new, and is a Senate rule. Senate rules must be agreed upon by two-thirds of the Senate. With not many opportunities for either party to have 66 or 67 seats, any changes would require bi-partisan agreement. That means that when the 60-vote rule was made for cloture, some in either party had to have agreed with the new Senate rule. By the way, before it was changed to 60, it had been 67.

When I have produced factual information to show that Democrats and Republicans have voted in a bi-partisan fashion on the issues upon which I have disagreed, you provide an excuse that the idiots outsmarted Democrats. That's hardly an argument.

KHONDAHM wrote:It's legal status is not the point. The point that you either refuse to recognize or miss completely is that it is THE first official document that defined who we are and what we stand for as a singular nation unique amongst the world's nations. I do not see how anyone who defines themselves as an American with fundamental American ideals could not recognize, embrace, and uphold the values and sense of what is right and wrong in not only the treatment we endured under British rule, but also how we should conduct ourselves when dealing with other nations or peoples. Perhaps you don't define yourself as an American; and therefore do not support what this document represents. That is certainly your prerogative. We are who we are and this document, this Declaration of Independence, embodies the American Spirit and the reason why wherever we go, people [used to] chant "USA! USA! USA!"

I recognize, embrace and uphold the values of the Declaration of Independence, but it is not the law. It is still a letter to George III, no matter how much you try to minimize my patriotism or insinuate that the Declaration of Independence is somehow equal to the US Constitution.

pro·mote (prə-mōt')
tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote

Ok, I will accept your position. It infers that you acknowledge that the Constitution DOES advocate FOR the advancement of welfare programs such as a Universal Health Care Plan. Having admitted or conceded that much, your own argument that providing welfare is up to the States, turns into "Constitutionally, while it is not specifically within the powers of the Federal government to provide for welfare programs, the Constitution and the INTENT of the Constitution does indeed support, advocate, and is in favor of the establishment and organization of a Public Health Care Option to promote the general welfare of citizens via the States as a fundamental right bestowed and conferred upon us all by the Bill of Rights."

Game. Set. Match. Nice playing with you. Have a nice day.

The US Constitution does not specifically advocate for the advancement of any welfare programs or any universal health care. The Constitution simply allows for states to do what the federal government is not allowed to do.

You have a nice day, too.

This 'Battle of the Obama avatars' is turning into a fascinating debate. At this point there is no clear-cut winner; however, the pro-Obama camp seems to rely on name-calling, emotion and some facts to win the day whereas the less than pro-Obama camp is counting on analysis of the facts to achieve victory.

KHONDAHM wrote:We are who we are and this document, this Declaration of Independence, embodies the American Spirit and the reason why wherever we go, people [used to] chant "USA! USA! USA!"

Oh dear. Just when you thought your opinion of someone couldn't get any lower. Give it a rest Black Man, he's wiping the floor with you and your gradeschool assertions.

Hell, I betcha if we could convince the Senate and House to amend their bills and list A.C.O.R.N. as the administrator of the program it would fly with ALL Amerikaans......

WBU ALUM wrote:I recognize, embrace and uphold the values of the Declaration of Independence, but it is not the law. It is still a letter to George III, no matter how much you try to minimize my patriotism or insinuate that the Declaration of Independence is somehow equal to the US Constitution.

This is a PERFECT example of the "doublethink" and "doublespeak" that Republicans have mastered. I put together only a short example list of offenses to the Declaration of Independence perpetrated by and because of the Republican platform in a previous post on this thread. Anyone who asserts they have American values AND supports the Republican platform and then in the next breath say they "recognize, embrace and uphold the values of the Declaration of Independence" is practicing "doublespeak" and "doublethink" straight out of Orwell's "1984".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Read that, think Fox News and other pro-Republican media, and draw your own conclusions.

Ok, so we've settled the Constitution's position on the matter. Next up is the issue of WHY Health Care has not passed and is in danger of not passing - thanks to Republicans and their abuse of the filibuster. The correct and (IMHO - for obvious reasons) dubious history of the filibuster is found here:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... loture.htm

The rampant abuse of the filibuster by Republicans since they lost the majority in the 2006 elections is documented and discussed here along with links to all the factual information as well as FACTS which disproves the common Republican line that "it's perfectly normal" to require a super-majority for every single major piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats AND even legislation that was originally proposed and supported by Republicans and adopted by Democrats in compromise (Yes, Republicans are filibustering their own proposals! That is undeniable proof of abuse).

http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

In response to your going on about the Democrats voting for those Justice's, the FACTS are that in 2005, the Republicans (then with a 55 seat majority in the Senate), got tired of Democrats holding up Bush's judicial nominees. At the time, the Republicans were crying foul and saying all sorts of terrible things about how the Democrats were so wicked and un-democratic for threatening to filibuster their appointees to the SCOTUS. So, in response, the Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster with a simple majority vote (which they could do with only 51 votes). Eliminating the filibuster would have effectively neutered the Democrats for the rest of the session. This is WHY the Democrats caved in and voted FOR Bush's judicial nominees. They were too scared that the Republicans could and would eliminate the filibuster (this is popularly known as "the nuclear option" in Congressional circles). Nuclear because yes it would have neutered the Democrats for that session, but it would take another Congressional vote to reinstate it later when the votes required to do so might not be in there and they may find that they shot themselves in the foot by removing it.

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. The Republicans are in the minority, but they are filibustering EVERYTHING. Remember that link to "doublethink" and "doublespeak", above? Go read that again. THAT is exactly what they continue to do. Now, according to the Republicans (and your argument), it's the "legal" and "normal" way the Senate is supposed to operate, blah, blah, blah.

Fast forward to now and the immediate future. Democrats DO have a way to neuter the Republicans (which I hope they use). Congress has the right to vote on the rules they are to follow at the beginning of the Congressional year. It is typically one of the first orders of business and they have been agreeing to pretty much a boiler plate set of rules year after year. All they need is a simple majority (51 votes) to eliminate the filibuster for that one session of Congress AND they can renew it every year for as long as they have the simple majority!

So it is not unthinkable that they could (and IMHO should) pack the Health Care bill with all the goodies they want and, assuming they hold onto a simple majority during the next session, vote not to use the filibuster during the next session and BAM! Health Care passes by a simple majority as the 2nd order of business followed by pretty much any other business they want to pass in the next session.

Cheers!

Khon Dahm, if the Democrats go that route don't they run the risk of getting clobbered at the polls in any upcoming elections. The American public does not seem (reading this from Canada) to be wildly in favour of the President's proposals, such as health care, and it may seem to be railroading legislation through in an undemocratic (not responsive to the public) way.

Does not Obama have to take note of what the public wants through polls and media, even if some of it originates with Fox News? To ignore the public seems dangerous if one is in the game of politics.

Coming from a neutral position in regard to the U.S constitution other than to note, in general, that the U.S.A. seems to have the 18th century British form of government whilst Canada has the 19th century one, you have not convinced me that 'progress' back then equates with Obama's health proposals now.

By the way, Canadians have never been ones to chant, 'U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.', it may be different in other countries. We certainly respect the United States, but we are not cheerleaders. This idea might be a figment of your fertile imagination.

Now, were Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin an item or not?

Tilokarat wrote:Khon Dahm, if the Democrats go that route don't they run the risk of getting clobbered at the polls in any upcoming elections. The American public does not seem (reading this from Canada) to be wildly in favour of the President's proposals, such as health care, and it may seem to be railroading legislation through in an undemocratic (not responsive to the public) way.

Hold on there...WHERE are you getting YOUR information? Whatever the source (smells like Faux News), please change to something else because it is flat wrong.

They run the risk of getting clobbered if they stay the course and allow the Republicans to continue to not allow ANYTHING on their agenda to happen. That IS the Republican strategy, ya know...

Not sure about Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin. I'd have to research that one.

The Canadian news media is my main source of information about politics in the great republic to the south of us. I have never watched Fox News, and have no intention of doing so. The only American newscaster I could stomach was Lou Dobbs. That guy did his homework, and had compelling arguments. I did not always agree with him, but he knew what he was talking about in a way that must have mystified some politicians south of the border (Canadian).

Yes, there does not seem to be much Obama and the Democrats can do now, they seem doomed to failure. Moving forward or, treading water, will probably lead to defeat.

Bobby Darin killed himself but I do not think it was over Sandra Dee. I seem to recollect that they were in a movie together and might even had married.

Tilokarat wrote:The Canadian news media is my main source of information about politics

Sorry, what exactly is the name of your news sources?

CBC Newsworld, CBC, CTV, Global, The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Vancouver Sun, The Hamilton Spectator, and sometimes The Sunday Times (England), The Sunday Telegraph (England), The Weekly Guardian (England), The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), and CBC radio.

Almost forgot, BBC.

Tilokarat wrote:CBC Newsworld, CBC, CTV, Global, The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Vancouver Sun, The Hamilton Spectator, and sometimes The Sunday Times (England), The Sunday Telegraph (England), The Weekly Guardian (England), The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), and CBC radio.

Almost forgot, BBC.

Amazing how they all could either be so wrong or how you managed to draw those conclusions...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... 1poll.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/2 ... 64375.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02451.html

UNLESS, you are looking at recent poll data asking about public opinion of a Health Care bill without a public option (current form). THAT is just about the only thing that polls unfavorably. In its current form, if put into effect, it will be yet another huge windfall for the insurance industry. Their lobbyist have been very successful in gutting it.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php