Health Care Bill Still Looming
119 Congressmen have signed a petition to promote and pass a public option, the Democratic leadership is still pushing for reconciliation to move the bill to the Presidents desk for signature, the proposed bipartisan meeting scheduled by the President to discuss health care reform appears to be more of an ambush than a true productive meeting.
I suggest to you that the lesson of Massachusetts has been discount by the Democrats and they think the American people will “get over it” once the bill is passed and we see how wonderful it is to pay more for our coverage and get less for it. (For those of you who don’t recognize it, that was sarcasm.) I subscribe that this is just another Washington slap in the face to the American people. We are concerned with the unbelievable debt this Administration and Congress is amassing. We are concerned with the coming crash of our economy because of that debt. We are concerned that a government that cannot manage their current health care programs wants to expand and control more heath care programs. Do they care, hell no!
I am also concerned that there is a Cap and Trade bill still waiting for the same process to completion. This bill will put this country at a serious disadvantage in the world economy and is base on questionable science.
I don’t think there is a way out. I don’t think that a shift in power in Washington will fix these problems. It seems to me that power still corrupts and absolute power still absolutely corrupts. These folks cannot relate to the common man nor do they want to. One cannot live the lifestyle they live and understand what middle Americans want or need.
The purpose of our government is to protect us not care for us. The purpose of our government is to govern not rule.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Tee Shirts, American Flag, Common Sense
- Thank You President Obama
- Dr Stephen Fraser’s Letter is Real: His Partner Speaks Up
- Obama Polls are in from CBSNews
- Health Care/Insurance Reform, Consequences?
The Common Man: I am just that, someone who spent 30 plus years working for the government as a mid-level manager and program manager. This forum allows me to have a voice and share my concerns. I have been a voting member of the silent majority my entire adult life, now however it seems voting is not enough and being silent is a bad idea. This forum is an attempt to move the conversation from the kitchen table, friends and families to people who would also like to voice opinions and Participate in a civil debate.
Loading ...
Signing a petition isn’t a binding vote by an effective majority. These guys flunked civics, didn’t they? =^[.]^=
This comment was originally posted on Digg
“The purpose of our government is to protect us not care for us.”
Well, that’s a myopic reading of the Constitution if I’ve ever seen one. Establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty all get trumped by “provid[ing] for the common defence” I guess.
As for this sudden abhorrence of the use of reconciliation in Congress, puh-leeeese! Republicans in 1996 passed welfare reform by reconciliation. 2001, Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts for the rich by reconciliation, and again in 2003. In fact, since 1980 there have been 22 uses of reconciliation between the two parties.
Arguments like this just seem to reinforce the idea that it is not the action that people dislike, just the actor. Democrats howl when Republicans used reconciliation, now Republicans howl when Democrats consider using it. The more things change, the more they stay exactly the same . . .
Bridgid, you seem to be confused, I don’t support reconciliation, I don’t agree with the Republicans use of it or their big spending. I do like the Bush tax cuts and if you belive that when they expire you won’t take a cut in your net pay you are dreaming. But I guess you Liberals don’t mind giving their hard earned money to the government to redistribute.
As for the purpose of protection you left out part of what I said. I was not only referring to defense but to regulatory protection from unscrupoulous business practices.
Rod
I’m not confused (this time–I have been confused a number of other times!)
I see very little difference between your rhetoric and the rhetoric of the “taxed enough already” crowd. It’s all about buzzwords like “socialism” and “fascism” and “redistribution of wealth” (usually spoken as if it was purely a one-way street) As sincere as you may be in your claims that you hate deficit spending regardless of who the spender is, you then say in the next sentence that you like the Bush tax cuts, despite their massive contribution to the deficit! Can’t have it both ways Rod.
Bridgid, all I said was you will miss some money on your check when the cuts expire. You also have to look at the fact that the spending is what created the deficit not the tax cuts by themselves. Cuts without spending would not have created a deficit. You say my rhetoric is just buzz words but your defense of the liberal left policies is exactly the same thing in my opinion. Government is not the great provider you must take care of yourself.
Rod
OK, now I think you’re confused!
I just read through my comments and couldn’t find a single instance of me “defending liberal left policies.” In my first comment I pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans howling about reconciliation now that Democrats might use it, and in my second post I challenged you on trying to have it both ways by being against deficit spending but for the Bush tax cuts, which increased the deficit. What is “liberal left” about either of those comments?
By the way, I do enjoy these debates with you.
The position you take in general speak to your beliefs to me. You seem to promote a consistent desire for more government and more spending. I think you believe that all this spending is bringing us out of this economic problem. My belief is that it is simply going to extend the problem and make it far worse.
I too, enjoy our debates, it is fun to have a discussion with someone who can agree to disagree without malice.
Hope you have a nice weekend.
Rod
Well if that’s what you believe that I believe about government and spending, then we need to talk more! I am actually more interested in finding smaller, local, community-based solutions to many of the problems that occur in our communities. I don’t like Big Government (including the Big Pentagon portion of Big Government), but I see a need for competent government.
I see Big Corporations in a bad light as well. I don’t think accumulating wealth is bad, but I do think accumulating wealth through community and environmental destruction is bad. To be a patriot means, in the most basic sense, to love your land. Many people think patriotism is about flag-waving and cheering for “their side” like we’re in some kind of glorified Super Bowl.
I think that Bush II’s administration governed very poorly. But how can you govern well when one of your central beliefs is that government per se is “the problem” ? I am angry at the destruction of American values–and I mean American constitutional values, not Christian values or “family values”–that ran rampant after 9/11. We were no longer a country ruled by law. Suddenly, in my country torture was practiced and approved of by many of my fellow citizens, individual civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were violated, and Americans who protested were mocked by their fellow citizens and called “extremists” or “terrorist lovers.”
And I am angry that Obama, a constitutional lawyer no less, has continued down this same road. I wrote letters of protest while Bush was in office, and I’ve written those same letters of protest to Obama. Because a crime doesn’t cease to be a crime simply because “your guy” is now in office.
But you’re right on one thing Rod. I do think the stimulus money was necessary to pull the economy out of a nosedive. I’ve read quite a bit about it, listened to various arguments, and come to my own conclusions.