Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

That's easy, Bucco.

We keep sending the same people back to Congress every election. The re-election rate is well above 90% because most people say, "...my members of Congress are OK and vote the way I want them to. I'll vote to re-elect them." They say that it's all those other yo-yo's in Congress that are the problem.

The Republican candidates will be returned to office by voters in the more conservative districts and states, and the reverse will be true in the liberal constituencies. Both the guy who called the President a liar in open Congress as well as the hated Nancy Pelosi will both be re-elected for exactly that reason. Their constituents think they're doing great. The problem is that they're part of an institution that doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the benefit of the country for several decades.

I know I won't say that or vote that way. But I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that when the curtain on the voting booths close in November, that the majority of voters will re-elect the same people who are there now. And we can look forward to another 2-4 years of what we've had for the last several Congresses.

Of course your point is very valid, but this President, this congress think they are absolutely correct in their vision and that the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself.

Of course we are upset at the the process but they actually think that is it...that they know the policy is correct.

I read this morning that the WH will not rule out using this "slaughter" solution on anything including immigration reform. What have we got in Washington.....can we actually wait until this November to change ?

and drug companies stand to gain 30,000,000 new customers. There is no need for back room or under the table deals with such a prospect. The other deals such as they are will always be there no matter what the legislation....always have been....and that is not going to change.

Now lets see adding 30,000,000 to a system that will be no larger than what we have today + $500 billion reduction is Medicare expenses = lessor services for all of us who are quite satisfied with the existing system.

I wonder what the percentage of the 30,000,000 is that could care less if they ever get insurance. A very high number of them do not have it today and they do have options to obtain coverage....but they aren't.
And if it is mandatory and you are part of the 30,000,000 that cannot afford to pay, or won't pay....guess who gets to pay that bill.

Fix the old system that works. Then prepare a separate bill for the 30,000,000 with it's own price tag and justifications.

And passage of this bill does what to fix the track Medicare is on to be defunct in less than 10 years.

It is a political crown that Obama is hammering to get through.....NOTHING MORE. Anybody who believes it is for the welfare of those in need is either, deaf, blind, both or a kool aid drinking blindly partisan supporter.

btk

16,500 more on the dole. Private sector is shrinking rapidly. Government's appetite for expansion goes unchecked. The hole of debt is so huge we'll never fill it up.

Government payroll, pensions, entitlements, welfare.....I clearly see the "haves" and "have-nots" in our future.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself....

Strangely, I think that's true. Even stranger, it's also true of Congress.

From all the polls I've read, when the proposed bill is broken down into individual elements both the public and members of Congress are in favor of almost the entire bill. I've heard partisans from both sides of the aisle say, "we're in agreement on 80-85% of the bill". When you ask either members of Congress or the public if healthcare reform is needed, the answer is almost 100% yes.

So why with that kind of agreement can't our Congress reach some compromise and pass the 80-85% of the bill that they all agree on...creating reforms that almost everyone agrees are critically necessary?

Why? Because politics is a more important blood sport in Washington than doing anything to benefit the country. It's all about getting and retaining power, certainly not governing the country for the better. How many times have you heard in recent days that one group of Congressmen or Senators or another won't vote for the bill because it may affect their chances of re-election in the fall?

That answers the question, dosen't it? What's more important to those that we sent to Washington is that they get to stay there...not passing legislation that a high majority of folks know is necessary, regardless of the negative effect that voting no and doing nothing will have on the electorate.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Strangely, I think that's true. Even stranger, it's also true of Congress.

From all the polls I've read, when the proposed bill is broken down into individual elements both the public and members of Congress are in favor of almost the entire bill. I've heard partisans from both sides of the aisle say, "we're in agreement on 80-85% of the bill". When you ask either members of Congress or the public if healthcare reform is needed, the answer is almost 100% yes.

So why with that kind of agreement can't our Congress reach some compromise and pass the 80-85% of the bill that they all agree on...creating reforms that almost everyone agrees are critically necessary?

Why? Because politics is a more important blood sport in Washington than doing anything to benefit the country. It's all about getting and retaining power, certainly not governing the country for the better. How many times have you heard in recent days that one group of Congressmen or Senators or another won't vote for the bill because it may affect their chances of re-election in the fall?

That answers the question, dosen't it? What's more important to those that we sent to Washington is that they get to stay there...not passing legislation that a high majority of folks know is necessary, regardless of the negative effect that voting no and doing nothing will have on the electorate.

VK...you misquoted me or at minimum quoted me out of context....you quoted me as saying...

"...the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself...."

When actually what I really said was ..

"this congress think they are absolutely correct in their vision and that the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself."

Now I know I dont make myself clear at times but this is an important difference....I am saying and was saying that the WH and congress are INCORRECT in the assumption that the public is more upset about the process.....The american public does not want this bill as it is written !

Just needed to clarify that !