|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:54 pm Post subject: Republican Honesty on Health Care Reform |
 |
|
This statement is both disgusting and refreshing:
| Article wrote: |
At a town hall meeting Wednesday Sen. Jim Inhofe told Chickasha residents he does not need to read the 1,000 page health care reform bill, he will simply vote against it.
"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways," he said. |
Disgusting because it's such an utter betrayal of his duty as a legislator, but refreshing because it highlights the truth: including the Republican Party (or, for that matter, pretty much anyone who accepts money from the Insurance Industry) in the overall health care reform debate is a total waste of time: they don't really care what the reform is, they'll be against anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And as a nice complement to that, here's Michael Steel, sounding confused as usual. I really don't think Steve Inskeep was being unfair to him at all; overall I find him to be fairly generous and unbiased in his interview methods.
Perhaps if Republicans didn't decide to adopt entirely self-contradictory stances (like being against government-run health care and being for medicare), they wouldn't have such a hard time with interviewers like Mr. Inskeep. In fact, I would dare say that the fact that Republicans feel the need to take such self-contradictory stances in order to remain politically viable says a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: Republican Honesty on Health Care Reform |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
This statement is both disgusting and refreshing:
| Article wrote: |
At a town hall meeting Wednesday Sen. Jim Inhofe told Chickasha residents he does not need to read the 1,000 page health care reform bill, he will simply vote against it.
"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways," he said. |
Disgusting because it's such an utter betrayal of his duty as a legislator, but refreshing because it highlights the truth: including the Republican Party (or, for that matter, pretty much anyone who accepts money from the Insurance Industry) in the overall health care reform debate is a total waste of time: they don't really care what the reform is, they'll be against anything. |
http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_db4d1146-91f9-11de-bf23-001cc4c002e0.html
Don't forget this obstructionist douche bag here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Article wrote: |
| "A government option is a monopoly, and it's no option," Enzi said to a thundering round of applause. |
Indeed. If the United States Post Office, Public Schools, and Public Universities have taught us anything, it's that competing against public institutions is impossible, right?
| Article wrote: |
| This time, Enzi responded. "If I hadn't been involved in this process as long as I have and to the depth as I have, you would already have national health care," he said. |
How can someone be so proud to be someone who sold out his constitutents to the Insurance Industry? And according to this he sold them out pretty cheaply too compared to what some of the turn-coat Democrats got. For his treachery, he's not only not punished, he's cheered and will quite possibly be re-elected.
And that's why the actions of representatives ultimately reflect on their constituents. Yes, it's wrong for a Senator to act unethically, but when he's rewarded for doing so both by the Insurance Industry (via donations) and his constituents (via re-election), it's not hard to understand why it happens again and again. Members of Congress are just as vulnerable to incentive-based behavior as anyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, it's wrong for a Senator to act unethically, but when he's rewarded for doing so both by the Insurance Industry (via donations) and his constituents (via re-election).... |
I've given up on the American electorate. If they want to keep their current system (illogically)... fine. I'm amazed they don't want to fall in line with 90% of the other developed nations. This is why America will crumble and fall... because of their own ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, you would find if you interviewed the entire US House, Senate and the President, that not one member has read or will read the entire 1000 page bill - let alone taken the time to contemplate what is actually written.
Some years ago there was a man who earned his 15 minutes of fame, appearing on numerous news shows and talk shows because he was the ONLY person to have read the entire US budget for a single year in at least 3 decades. And no one has done it since.
One reason for the perverse outcomes of the US Government is that it is humanly impossible for anyone to even read a thorough synopsis of the legislation that is passed each year and shoved down the peoples' throats.
Government of this size must always lead to chaos, disorder, perverse outcomes and eventual destruction. Chaos theory and probablility over time guarantees the failure of such massive institutions whether operated under a democratic system, a committee system, or an authoritarian system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe size is a problem, but it's a lot easier - and logical - to ascribe the faults to corporate capture of the democratic system. Are Senators voting in the interest of their constituents, or in the interest of their donations? It's very simple really... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Are Senators voting in the interest of their constituents, or in the interest of their donations? It's very simple really... |
Since they do not read the bills and have no way of actually computing the outcomes, they cannot know what is in the interests of their consituents if the bill is implemented.
Since they don't read the bills, and it is humanly impossible to do so, it is therefore humanly impossible to even contemplate the full impact of any bill, and the only logical position is to vote for all bills that reduce the size and scope of government and against all bills that increase it, until the government is reduced to a size that is possible to manage. That would best serve the interests of all Americans. Only when the government is adequately reduced to a human scale will it be possible to contemplate what the government should actually do.
It is therefore likely that most representatives vote in accordance with what will best contribute to their reelection - this being a combination of popularity for securing raw vote totals, popularity with and positive coverage by the media, and popularity for securing campaign funds.
As a result, most of the members representing both parties do not even care if the bills they support serve the interests of the American people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not humanly impossible to read an 1100 page bill, especially if it's part of one's duty. It's not humanly impossible to read budgets either. Senators simply choose not to do it, because there's little incentive for them to spend time on it as opposed to other, more profitable things. Yeah, it would be hard to buckle down and read through all that legislation, and boring too.
This fellow's hardly the first senator to admit to not having read this bill (though he might be the first to admit he's never going to read it and that his vote is 100% unrelated to its contents). People need to demand better than this, even if it means the rate at which legislation occurs is slowed. I'd rather wait for quality than have quanitity shoved down our throats. If that means only the Federal Budget and a handful of other bills pass each year, so be it. Better than having Senators essentially just voting on the mystery box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It is therefore likely that most representatives vote in accordance with what will best contribute to their reelection - this being a combination of popularity for securing raw vote totals, popularity with and positive coverage by the media, and popularity for securing campaign funds.
As a result, most of the members representing both parties do not even care if the bills they support serve the interests of the American people. |
| Quote: |
| It's not humanly impossible to read an 1100 page bill, especially if it's part of one's duty. It's not humanly impossible to read budgets either. Senators simply choose not to do it, because there's little incentive for them to spend time on it as opposed to other, more profitable things. Yeah, it would be hard to buckle down and read through all that legislation, and boring too. |
Neither of these are quite the case.
Congressmen don't have a lot of time. I know they work three day weeks in Washington, but they're always campaigning and grubbing up money in their own districts. They spend half their lives in transit and rarely get a healthy 8 hours of sleep.
We can't expect good outcomes when Congressmen are put under this kind of regimen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Neither of these are quite the case.
Congressmen don't have a lot of time. I know they work three day weeks in Washington, but they're always campaigning and grubbing up money in their own districts. They spend half their lives in transit and rarely get a healthy 8 hours of sleep.
We can't expect good outcomes when Congressmen are put under this kind of regimen. |
I agree, which is why -- as I've said -- I lay the blame for these problems ultimately on the electorates shoulders. When your constituents reward you for spending your time campaigning and raising money, and don't punish you for not reading the legislation you're voting on, it's only a matter of time before you cave to the incentives.
I'd still say it's humanly possible, though, especially since a truly dutiful senator could simply forget about re-election and devote all that time to his actual job. In fact, that might not be a bad point to make in an overall argument for term limits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Are Senators voting in the interest of their constituents, or in the interest of their donations? It's very simple really... |
Since they do not read the bills and have no way of actually computing the outcomes, they cannot know what is in the interests of their consituents if the bill is implemented.
Since they don't read the bills, and it is humanly impossible to do so, it is therefore humanly impossible to even contemplate the full impact of any bill, and the only logical position is to vote for all bills that reduce the size and scope of government and against all bills that increase it, until the government is reduced to a size that is possible to manage. That would best serve the interests of all Americans. Only when the government is adequately reduced to a human scale will it be possible to contemplate what the government should actually do.
It is therefore likely that most representatives vote in accordance with what will best contribute to their reelection - this being a combination of popularity for securing raw vote totals, popularity with and positive coverage by the media, and popularity for securing campaign funds.
As a result, most of the members representing both parties do not even care if the bills they support serve the interests of the American people. |
So who writes these monstrosities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And here's John McCain perpetuating some obvious lies.
| Article wrote: |
| McCain urged them he would fight for health care reform but reiterated his opposition to President Barack Obama's plan to create a government option to compete with private insurers, arguing that it would be the eventual end of private insurers in the U.S. |
And yet, somehow, private insurers manage to exist in other countries which have public health systems. Certainly, they're not as large and profitable as they are in the United States, but I don't think that's an immense problem. Saying a government plan would wipe out private insurers is ridiculous; unless the private plan was so incredible that it covered 100% of absolutely any procedure you could care for, there will always be room for some private insurance (and if we could get 100% coverage for all procedures at a reasonable price through a public option, we'd be fools not to take it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Are Senators voting in the interest of their constituents, or in the interest of their donations? It's very simple really... |
Since they do not read the bills and have no way of actually computing the outcomes, they cannot know what is in the interests of their consituents if the bill is implemented.
Since they don't read the bills, and it is humanly impossible to do so, it is therefore humanly impossible to even contemplate the full impact of any bill, and the only logical position is to vote for all bills that reduce the size and scope of government and against all bills that increase it, until the government is reduced to a size that is possible to manage. That would best serve the interests of all Americans. Only when the government is adequately reduced to a human scale will it be possible to contemplate what the government should actually do.
It is therefore likely that most representatives vote in accordance with what will best contribute to their reelection - this being a combination of popularity for securing raw vote totals, popularity with and positive coverage by the media, and popularity for securing campaign funds.
As a result, most of the members representing both parties do not even care if the bills they support serve the interests of the American people. |
So who writes these monstrosities? |
http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/col.cfm?id=237366 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's add Mike Huckabee to the mix:
| Quote: |
| The 2008 Republican presidential candidate suggested during his radio show, "The Huckabee Report," on Thursday that, under President Obama's health care plan, Kennedy would have been told to "go home to take pain pills and die" during his last year of life. |
So after all this talk of how Republicans don't want Democrats to politicize Kennedy's death, Mr. Huckabee decides it's perfectly fine, as long as it's Republicans doing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
