This is one of the things about ligislation in the U.S. that has never, ever, evah made sense to me. The piggybacking of bills. I just do not see why it is allowed to happen and why there is provision for this kind of protocol. I am sure the matter is more complex than what I see it to be, because were it as simple a problem as it seems, it would have been changed long, long ago.
Is the Democratic party going to get the blame for all the things about the Bill we don't agree with? Because from what I understand the reason why it took so long to pass it is because both parties wanted to rewrite and rewrite the bill, and I'm sure the health care lobby commitees had a few things to add in at the last miunte too.
I have to admit, I'm pretty disappointed with the way Obama had to slash most of what he was originally proposing. It's just paying large amounts for additional legislation, and getting nothing in return. If he had done it as intended, then he'd have retained the support of the left (well, okay, the centre). Both parties wanted it to go along different lines. The centre Democrats wanted a free and readily-available service, as in the UK (and most other countries in Europe). The slightly-right Democrats, including the president, wanted it to be between that and the current US system. The Republicans seem to have originally opposed it because of 'big government' and the cost - both reasonable arguments - but then they began to get a little jagged around the edges, and I don't really know quite what they wanted.
I'm not quite sure I understand the question. There's no blame to be passed around. These laws are, for better or worse, simply part of the bill. Yes, it's the democratic party that's largely responsible for their incorporation, and they are currently reforming them and writing them into the bill. But the question of blame is irrelevant. It's simply part of the process. You either like it or you don't. Both parties wanted to rewrite the bill, but what we have now cannot be considered the result of a collaborative effort. It's certainly not what conservatives wanted, but neither is it what most liberals were envisioning. It's not the middle ground, it's something else entirely. Once Obama & Co. realized they had the numbers to achieve passage of this legislation, mediation between the parties came to a halt and this modified bill is what we got. Wrey, I too have often wondered about piggybacking legislation within the confines of a separate, unrelated bill. It seems underhanded and sly, but it's always been done - and by both parties. It's how pork-barrel spending projects are snuck through Congress. It allows lawmakers to conceal legislation without the public (and sometimes even fellow legislators) knowing. Of course, with a bill of this magnitude, nothing's hidden and we know about all the side projects.
Oh ick, now it sounds bad. The question there would probably be, which is the lesser of two evils: paying for it and not getting all the legal jumbo (or not as much of it at any rate.....), or having it the way it is now and yet not being able to understand quite a bit of it. True.....what I meant was (and I should have been more clear, I'm sorry) is that tiny steps would have taken the rest of Obama's term and either his 2nd term (if he's lucky enough to get re-elected) or a new president's 1 or 2 terms. It might have taken until 2030 or some far-off year, so 4 years from now is preferable to 20 years from now. I thought that too.....nobody has really sat down and addressed America and said straight-up what this whole thing means. Like Jon said, Obama and the politicians all involved have all used doublespeak (1984 reference there?) and political jargon, stuff you can really only understand if you have a legal degree. There's a lot of detail to go into..... however, that must be a backbreaker to carry around and read through! I'm only 15, so of course I don't understand as much about this as my older friends on here (and I'm pleased to say there are many), but is it really that bad to just say "I want everyone to have coverage and fair treatment"? Isn't that the central idea behind the whole thing? That's what I want, and only time and more info will say if this bill meets those wants.
Wow...this is the first healthcare debate I've seen on an internet forum that didn't include slurs or death threats. I don't even know how to respond in this environment. I've never mixed civility, politics, and the internet. Does it, like, hurt? I'll watch for a few more pages and see if I can get the hang of it.
It's easy. Just be nice, civil, don't insult anyone, respect their ideas and beliefs, and...yeah, I'm amazed too. I'm trying to get the hang of it as well. XD My fear is accidentally starting a war here and I don't want that.
It always amazes me how Obama (and politicians in general) can talk so much and say nothing at all. There's no point in asking a question- they'll give the answer to another question instead and barely anyone appears to notice. "Hey, I know you want to know about X, but...look, this shiny thing over here is important and I'm going to talk about that instead. Oh! Well would you look at that- we're out of time!"
It was the central idea, but it was decimated by opposition. Obama originally intended to base it on the British system, but now it's something like an insurer-friendly system that doesn't exclude those from poorer families, in a pretty bad attempt to keep opposition from the far-right limited. If the extremists hadn't gone completely off the rails, mostly Republican (how was Palin allowed to get away with saying such things, simple logic could have floored her) but also the fringes of the Democrats, then it would have been far more logical.
Politics already confuse me as it is. Living in an extremely conservative state, one of the states filing the health care law suits, is tricky when you've been raised Democrat. All the Legalese is enough to give any person a headache. As most everyone else who's posted, the pros and cons of the bill clearly reveal themselves when they're translated in the everyday vernacular. Even though I'm still fourteen and my own political opinions are still infantile, I wish more teenagers would involve themselves politically. Of course this doesn't mean having these discussions as soon as you can speak simple sentences, but 90% of the kids in my school only defend the party they belong to based on their parents. I understand why you would go off your parents' opinions, as it is a natural instinct to imitate your parents, but when since last year I've had differing views on issues compared to my parents, I realized that still have the same views, but those views no longer depend on my parents'. Political parties shouldn't have to be hereditary... ...but then again, France was voted to best place to live for like the fifth year in the row.
I thought it was Norway? Anyway, those polls change according to the publisher, I don't usually pay much attention to them. Iceland was the 'most developed country in the world' for about a decade, although its three main banks have collapsed. They don't? I've always wondered if it was just a Gaelic thing, but you really should get someone to translate what's written on Tir nam Blog. Sift through the general blogging rubbish, and you'll find some solid political opinions on there, written almost exclusively by people about my age. And it actually is that obvious. You should watch PMQs, if you can. It's hilarious
Part of the job description I suppose. I once made the mistake of watching a session of Parliament. Rather than directly engage questions, all the MPs decided to break out a series of stump speeches. It was like election season but worse.
The most shocking thing for me is that there's people around me who are actually nodding their head along with it- as if he answered the question!
Please limit this thread to discussion of what the Health Care Reform Bill is and is not. Leave political opinions out of it, or it will be closed.
I'm also pleased that we can agree (or agree to disagree) civilly and politely. Healthcare reform is not Armagedden. Just like Social Security wasn't Armagedden.
