Why am i a liberal l.d.s?

[FunkyTown]

The way the current plan is set up, it will enrich certain constituents, while impoverishing the middle class with huge taxes in the future to pay for it. It is benefiting Congress and the White House in paying off lawyers and unions. And instead of passing a law to allow people to buy insurance across state lines, so competition actually occurs, they are insisting on a government "option" which will subsidize itself into a fully run government program, filled with job positions for the cronies of those in Congress. So, yes, it is for their own benefit.

Are cronies really lining up for middle management positions in health care?

And unions and lawyers are really so desperate for a public health care option? Is it because they can't afford it on their union/lawyer salary?

Are we really so determined to believe that the Democrats are run by Carmen Sandiego?

[rameumptom]

If you read the bill as it currently exists, and see who it benefits and who it doesn't help, but hurts, you will see that it does exactly as I said.

There is no tort reform, which helps the trial lawyers and their lobby. There is no bill allowing people to buy insurance across state lines to open up competition (Alabama has Blue Cross/Shield, and that is about it in the entire state - no competition), so they can push a government option instead (opening up government jobs). The unions get a big assist in their health care programs. There are several other issues involved in this, but hopefully with these three points you can get the gist of it.

[FunkyTown]

Rame? Let's take your points one by one:

There is no tort reform, which helps the trial lawyers and their lobby.

So there's nothing that hurts trial lawyers in it. This doesn't help them any more than than they already have. Want to pass tort reform? Get the Republicans to pass it. They had years in the white house to do so and didn't. This is not a reflection of helping anyone, but it's just simply ignored.

There is no bill allowing people to buy insurance across state lines to open up competition (Alabama has Blue Cross/Shield, and that is about it in the entire state - no competition), so they can push a government option instead (opening up government jobs).

There's no bill for this now Rame. That doesn't push the free market. Again, the Republicans had years as the majority and did nothing about it. What is it about this bill that helps? You're not saying anything that is doing what you're suggesting it does. It's just a poorly thought out bill that doesn't address your concerns.

This doesn't mean it helps those people you're accusing them of doing. It just doesn't change anything about the current situation one way or the other.

As for creating government jobs, it will do that: But not a lot of high paying jobs to pass out to cronies, who will already have successful lives and good amounts of money. Instead, those jobs will be middle manager positions. Again, this points to a poorly thought out bill, not a bill that actively supports cronyism.

The unions get a big assist in their health care programs.

Are you saying that the unions will be replacing their private health care with this? That union workers will be losing benefits? They will not. There is nothing in this bill that changes private insurance one iota.

Rame? What you're saying is simply untrue. Don't accuse this of being a giant conspiracy that is a huge help to the people at the top and their wicked allies. Paint it as it really is: A poorly thought out piece of legislation designed to pander to their voting demographic.

If you read the bill as it currently exists, and see who it benefits and who it doesn't help, but hurts, you will see that it does exactly as I said.

There is no tort reform, which helps the trial lawyers and their lobby. There is no bill allowing people to buy insurance across state lines to open up competition (Alabama has Blue Cross/Shield, and that is about it in the entire state - no competition), so they can push a government option instead (opening up government jobs). The unions get a big assist in their health care programs. There are several other issues involved in this, but hopefully with these three points you can get the gist of it.

[Moksha]

Well that makes it easy. When you post your opinion on something Obama has said..and call him a liar...it will be discredited as you have now said you wouldn't read it.

Why would one have to read it, when Fox has done the thinking already?

[MrsAri]

And of course, one can hear it right from the horse's mouth.

[Moksha]

And of course, one can hear it right from the horse's mouth.

Your right, Limbaugh is on daily. Wait, that is his mouth isn't it?

[Guest]

Rame? Let's take your points one by one:

So there's nothing that hurts trial lawyers in it. This doesn't help them any more than than they already have. Want to pass tort reform? Get the Republicans to pass it. They had years in the white house to do so and didn't. This is not a reflection of helping anyone, but it's just simply ignored.

There's no bill for this now Rame. That doesn't push the free market. Again, the Republicans had years as the majority and did nothing about it. What is it about this bill that helps? You're not saying anything that is doing what you're suggesting it does. It's just a poorly thought out bill that doesn't address your concerns.

This doesn't mean it helps those people you're accusing them of doing. It just doesn't change anything about the current situation one way or the other.

As for creating government jobs, it will do that: But not a lot of high paying jobs to pass out to cronies, who will already have successful lives and good amounts of money. Instead, those jobs will be middle manager positions. Again, this points to a poorly thought out bill, not a bill that actively supports cronyism.

Are you saying that the unions will be replacing their private health care with this? That union workers will be losing benefits? They will not. There is nothing in this bill that changes private insurance one iota.

Rame? What you're saying is simply untrue. Don't accuse this of being a giant conspiracy that is a huge help to the people at the top and their wicked allies. Paint it as it really is: A poorly thought out piece of legislation designed to pander to their voting demographic.

Funky, believe it or not, we agree on a lot of different things, but I think the healthcare one is just something we can't see eye to eye on...

For example, this post.

Okay, the bill is supposed to be Healthcare Reform right? Yet, no reform is happening anywhere in the bill except to provide un-insured with government-provided insurance. So, you have to ask, why is it written that way? I'm telling you, those people up there in Washington are not as dumb as people think they are. This is a well-thought out document, I assure you.

So, I have to analyze that humungous piece of literature from the eyes of a politician - which I have lots of experience on coming from a family of politicians. Now, I'm not going to do too much of the Republican versus Democrat thing because I think, in this case, it is irrelevant outside of the fact that if a Republican endorses the current bill, he is at the risk of losing his seat come election time.

No Tort Reform

How does it benefit the trial lawyers? It doesn't benefit, but it gives them protection. Because, here everybody and their mother will tell you that ambulance chasers is one of the main reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the US. So, when you talk healthcare reform, it's one of the things that bubble up to the top of the priority list. So, what kind of healthcare reform is it that doesn't address tort reform? A reform that benefits trial lawyers, of course. One can argue trial lawyers are mainly democratic leaning, but I'm not even going to go there - most of Congress are laywers - republican, democrat, or what-not.

No Competition

Yes, it is the same as status quo... ON THE SURFACE. But, add public option to the mix and the playing field changes. There is competition then - public versus regulated private. You got the government on both sides of the coin. Now, when you got a government that has the power to mandate, that competition gets skewed to the public option. An example to this is education. Private education is decidedly much much much better than public. It is proven fact. But, majority of Americans who think so cannot go to private schools. Why? Because their monies are already taken out to fund public schools. Now, if they would provide a voucher option - as in, if you don't like the public option then you can get a voucher to take to your private establishment of choice, then yes, the competition can be made unskewed.

So, now, why would a politician want to promote the public option? Votes. That's an easy one. The more the people are dependent on the government for their substinence, the more you can add to your campaign platform - "If you vote for me, I will make sure you keep getting free healthcare! If you vote for the competition, he will take it away from you!" and all that jazz... During Marcos' time (in the Philippines), he did it a different way - he put 7 pesos on your ballot. Same exact thing though.

About creating government jobs

It's not about the minions who gets to push paper. It's the number of committees/analysts you need to manage those paper-pushers. What's the term now? Czars?

But, we cannot deny the fact that unions have an easier time recruiting government workers than private ones, like the NEA for example. And we cannot deny the fact that unions are typically democratic leaning. Okay, so I mentioned democrat versus republican in this one. But, this is an obvious one. So, the current house majority is in favor of expanding government jobs.

About private insurance

Your statement that there is nothing in this bill that changes private insurance one iota is flawed. Check my paragraph above on competition. I can believe that the authors of the bill did not intend for public option to crowd out private insurance (I highly doubt it though). But, it is a valid unintended consequence to the way the bill is written. My sister-in-law works for Blue Cross as a trainer (they train people from provider registration all the way to pre-approval and customer service). She's already working like mad making new training materials in preparation for the bill passing to mitigate potential losses. So yes, it definitely changes private insurance. I'm not a big fan of insurance and the way they're trumping doctor's decisions. I truly believe opening up competition will improve this. But, I don't believe the government as the competition will do so.

About unions

This is an easy one to spot. Unions, like AFL-CIO for instance, are in trouble now because of their retirees healthcare costs. They don't have enough new members to cover the costs of their retired members. Passing the legislation provides unions an OUT to this - because the legislation provides a "bail-out" for under-funded healthcare packages by just turning them over to the public option.

Here's another one - my sister, she's a nurse. Actually, almost half my family that lives in the US are in healthcare in some form or other. Now, with the public option a giant player in the field and with my prediction that private insurance is going to be eventually minimized (see competition above), medical establishments become quasi-public. Why? Because, currently, unionized hospitals cannot compete with non-unions simply by virtue of human resource costs. But, with hospitals becoming quasi-public, this will not be a problem anymore. Because, any increase in human resource costs are not shouldered by the hospital anymore - it is shouldered by the tax-paying public. This is a very big advantage to unions.

Did I mention unions are democratic-leaning?

So, what's the deal with the Republicans?

Hah, you can't tell them apart from democrats for the past 8 years... no argument there. I'm still disgusted over that Medicare Part D and the No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act fiasco!

Edited September 23, 2009 by anatess

[MrsAri]

Your right, Limbaugh is on daily. Wait, that is his mouth isn't it?

I believe you have Obama confused with Mr. Limbaugh.

And we know which end of the horse Obama may be referenced to. lol

[Maxel]

Are cronies really lining up for middle management positions in health care?

And unions and lawyers are really so desperate for a public health care option? Is it because they can't afford it on their union/lawyer salary?

Are we really so determined to believe that the Democrats are run by Carmen Sandiego?

THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!!!

[HEthePrimate]

Why are you a liberal LDS? Hmm... because you're smart? And good? :)

HEP

[Maxel]

Why are you a liberal LDS? Hmm... because you're smart? And good? :)

HEP

I've held my tongue this entire time, sorely tempted in doing something like this but spinning it a different way...

[FunkyTown]

Hi Ana,

You're right - Ambulance chasers are a huge problem. However, this current bill simply doesn't address that problem one way or the other.

Tort Reform

And if you're looking for someone to blame, don't blame the lawyers: Blame the greedy, money-hungry societal values that allow suing MacDonald's for selling people hot coffee that is hot. The lawyers will continue until people realize that suing someone should not be the equivalent of winning the lottery. This bill isn't meant to be a tort reform bill, so it shouldn't touch this. Does tort reform have to happen? Yes.

Unions

Unions will not be able to drop their private insurance unless a vote with union members is held and they decide to allow the public health care option to trump their private insurance. This will not pass as their private insurance will most likely be better.

No Competition

This, I can get behind. A lack of competition will cause insurance premiums to either skyrocket, or to become specialized. I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies begin covering things that regular health care wouldn't: Private doctors and the like. This makes sense. In other countries, the government regulates health care costs. This would reduce costs for everyone, including the government, but also reduce research. Are people willing to accept that? If yes, go down that route. If no, don't.

This again doesn't point towards corruption so much as foolishness. Since what I was arguing was that this bill is not an evil-incarnate piece of legislation designed to support the good-ol' boys network, saying it's a bad bill is fine.

I don't begrudge people saying that they dislike the bill, but I do take exception to people claiming corruption where there is no evidence that is the case.

Funky, believe it or not, we agree on a lot of different things, but I think the healthcare one is just something we can't see eye to eye on...

For example, this post.

Okay, the bill is supposed to be Healthcare Reform right? Yet, no reform is happening anywhere in the bill except to provide un-insured with government-provided insurance. So, you have to ask, why is it written that way? I'm telling you, those people up there in Washington are not as dumb as people think they are. This is a well-thought out document, I assure you.

So, I have to analyze that humungous piece of literature from the eyes of a politician - which I have lots of experience on coming from a family of politicians. Now, I'm not going to do too much of the Republican versus Democrat thing because I think, in this case, it is irrelevant outside of the fact that if a Republican endorses the current bill, he is at the risk of losing his seat come election time.

No Tort Reform

How does it benefit the trial lawyers? It doesn't benefit, but it gives them protection. Because, here everybody and their mother will tell you that ambulance chasers is one of the main reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the US. So, when you talk healthcare reform, it's one of the things that bubble up to the top of the priority list. So, what kind of healthcare reform is it that doesn't address tort reform? A reform that benefits trial lawyers, of course. One can argue trial lawyers are mainly democratic leaning, but I'm not even going to go there - most of Congress are laywers - republican, democrat, or what-not.

No Competition

Yes, it is the same as status quo... ON THE SURFACE. But, add public option to the mix and the playing field changes. There is competition then - public versus regulated private. You got the government on both sides of the coin. Now, when you got a government that has the power to mandate, that competition gets skewed to the public option. An example to this is education. Private education is decidedly much much much better than public. It is proven fact. But, majority of Americans who think so cannot go to private schools. Why? Because their monies are already taken out to fund public schools. Now, if they would provide a voucher option - as in, if you don't like the public option then you can get a voucher to take to your private establishment of choice, then yes, the competition can be made unskewed.

So, now, why would a politician want to promote the public option? Votes. That's an easy one. The more the people are dependent on the government for their substinence, the more you can add to your campaign platform - "If you vote for me, I will make sure you keep getting free healthcare! If you vote for the competition, he will take it away from you!" and all that jazz... During Marcos' time (in the Philippines), he did it a different way - he put 7 pesos on your ballot. Same exact thing though.

About creating government jobs

It's not about the minions who gets to push paper. It's the number of committees/analysts you need to manage those paper-pushers. What's the term now? Czars?

But, we cannot deny the fact that unions have an easier time recruiting government workers than private ones, like the NEA for example. And we cannot deny the fact that unions are typically democratic leaning. Okay, so I mentioned democrat versus republican in this one. But, this is an obvious one. So, the current house majority is in favor of expanding government jobs.

About private insurance

Your statement that there is nothing in this bill that changes private insurance one iota is flawed. Check my paragraph above on competition. I can believe that the authors of the bill did not intend for public option to crowd out private insurance (I highly doubt it though). But, it is a valid unintended consequence to the way the bill is written. My sister-in-law works for Blue Cross as a trainer (they train people from provider registration all the way to pre-approval and customer service). She's already working like mad making new training materials in preparation for the bill passing to mitigate potential losses. So yes, it definitely changes private insurance. I'm not a big fan of insurance and the way they're trumping doctor's decisions. I truly believe opening up competition will improve this. But, I don't believe the government as the competition will do so.

About unions

This is an easy one to spot. Unions, like AFL-CIO for instance, are in trouble now because of their retirees healthcare costs. They don't have enough new members to cover the costs of their retired members. Passing the legislation provides unions an OUT to this - because the legislation provides a "bail-out" for under-funded healthcare packages by just turning them over to the public option.

Here's another one - my sister, she's a nurse. Actually, almost half my family that lives in the US are in healthcare in some form or other. Now, with the public option a giant player in the field and with my prediction that private insurance is going to be eventually minimized (see competition above), medical establishments become quasi-public. Why? Because, currently, unionized hospitals cannot compete with non-unions simply by virtue of human resource costs. But, with hospitals becoming quasi-public, this will not be a problem anymore. Because, any increase in human resource costs are not shouldered by the hospital anymore - it is shouldered by the tax-paying public. This is a very big advantage to unions.

Did I mention unions are democratic-leaning?

So, what's the deal with the Republicans?

Hah, you can't tell them apart from democrats for the past 8 years... no argument there. I'm still disgusted over that Medicare Part D and the No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act fiasco!

[rameumptom]

Rame? Let's take your points one by one:

So there's nothing that hurts trial lawyers in it. This doesn't help them any more than than they already have. Want to pass tort reform? Get the Republicans to pass it. They had years in the white house to do so and didn't. This is not a reflection of helping anyone, but it's just simply ignored.

There's no bill for this now Rame. That doesn't push the free market. Again, the Republicans had years as the majority and did nothing about it. What is it about this bill that helps? You're not saying anything that is doing what you're suggesting it does. It's just a poorly thought out bill that doesn't address your concerns.

Your attacks on the Republicans do not bother me. I'm not Republican. I agree that they should have done something about these things years ago. Sadly, both parties are hooked on lobbyists.

It doesn't hurt the lobbies, true. But that's the point. Their lobbyists are convincing/bribing/whatever Congress into not fixing real problems, so that those lobbies can continue enjoying the excessive profits laid on the backs of the American public. It becomes an extra tax on us, because every huge settlement against a doctor or insurance company ends up coming out of our pocket.

And insurance companies like monopolies within states, because they can set their rates higher. That becomes an invisible tax that their lobbyists have successfully achieved, causing us to pay higher premiums when we really shouldn't have to.

So, instead of deflecting the issues I'm discussing by saying the Republicans had their chance, why not deal with the actual issues? Why or why not is it a good idea to have tort reform and allow cross-state insurance?

[FunkyTown]

Rame? I was merely pointing out that you saying it's a big giant conspiracy is untrue.

The bill simply doesn't deal with what you want it to deal with. Don't accuse this bill, which does not deal with what you think it should, of being a conspiracy when it is not a conspiracy. It is merely not designed to deal with issues in the medical community you think it is.

Your attacks on the Republicans do not bother me. I'm not Republican. I agree that they should have done something about these things years ago. Sadly, both parties are hooked on lobbyists.

It doesn't hurt the lobbies, true. But that's the point. Their lobbyists are convincing/bribing/whatever Congress into not fixing real problems, so that those lobbies can continue enjoying the excessive profits laid on the backs of the American public. It becomes an extra tax on us, because every huge settlement against a doctor or insurance company ends up coming out of our pocket.

And insurance companies like monopolies within states, because they can set their rates higher. That becomes an invisible tax that their lobbyists have successfully achieved, causing us to pay higher premiums when we really shouldn't have to.

So, instead of deflecting the issues I'm discussing by saying the Republicans had their chance, why not deal with the actual issues? Why or why not is it a good idea to have tort reform and allow cross-state insurance?

[Gatorman]

Rame? I was merely pointing out that you saying it's a big giant conspiracy is untrue.

The bill simply doesn't deal with what you want it to deal with. Don't accuse this bill, which does not deal with what you think it should, of being a conspiracy when it is not a conspiracy. It is merely not designed to deal with issues in the medical community you think it is.

True FT. One of my issues is...This bill does not address the simple things first. I liken it to the 'medication' mentality we have any more. Child goes in to see a doctor and is happy, healthy, and active. However, someone sees it as hyper. So, off they go to get medicated, instead of doing behavioral changes first. Medicate first, ignore the issue. Same thing here. Perhaps, if we addressed some of the issues without creating a new public plan or similar, we would see the costs come down, it become more affordable and more available.

Massive overhaul when we can't focus on specific things...IE the shotgun approach...Is not controlled damage. It is uncontrolled chaos. Focus on a few things. Do those. Then, if it still isn't working, go the next step. It means they actually have to do things though, rather than playing politics and what is it going to do for me.

[FunkyTown]

True FT. One of my issues is...This bill does not address the simple things first. I liken it to the 'medication' mentality we have any more. Child goes in to see a doctor and is happy, healthy, and active. However, someone sees it as hyper. So, off they go to get medicated, instead of doing behavioral changes first. Medicate first, ignore the issue. Same thing here. Perhaps, if we addressed some of the issues without creating a new public plan or similar, we would see the costs come down, it become more affordable and more available.

Massive overhaul when we can't focus on specific things...IE the shotgun approach...Is not controlled damage. It is uncontrolled chaos. Focus on a few things. Do those. Then, if it still isn't working, go the next step. It means they actually have to do things though, rather than playing politics and what is it going to do for me.

Hey, I'm fully on for addressing the basic issues of a bill. I love that people are passionate about politics.

I am not loving so much that people have decided that growling out slanderous untruths - Especially members of the church - Is considered the best way of dealing with their passion.

I have heard everything from "Obama's a Kenyan!" to "Obama's the Antichrist!".

In most cases a 30 second step out of my day allowed me to check whether these accusations were true or not. And none of them were. When I see these accusations about the Health Care bill... Well, millions of Americans want it. If there's to be any debate, it must begin with a basis in truth. If the Conservatives are saying, "Passing this bill will turn the USA in the Soviet Union and 30 million people will die in concentration camps because of this bill!" and the Liberals are saying, "This bill will be fueled by 0 taxes, using the money earned by our dancing unicorns that create rainbows and will result in no one ever getting sick again!", then there isn't much room for making a reasoned response.

[Gatorman]

Well, that is one of the reasons I say kill the current bills and start over. Look at the basics first, instead of the freebies to buy votes. There aer SOOOO many things that need to be done before we try to throw more money at the problem. And, things that even a lot of the republicans could get behind. Then, if those things are done, the system is running better, and we STILL need to look at pay options...Well...Then we cross that bridge.

[FunkyTown]

Well, that is one of the reasons I say kill the current bills and start over. Look at the basics first, instead of the freebies to buy votes. There aer SOOOO many things that need to be done before we try to throw more money at the problem. And, things that even a lot of the republicans could get behind. Then, if those things are done, the system is running better, and we STILL need to look at pay options...Well...Then we cross that bridge.

Yep. I agree. Far better to kill it all and start over: The simple truth is that bureaucracy begets more bureaucracy and it becomes more lumbering and behemoth the longer it goes on.

Medicare/Medicaid requires far too much middle management to work and it's based upon society as it was in the 1960s - 40 years of bloated bureaucracy making it slow, inefficient and expensive.

Kill it all, start from the ground up and include a bi-yearly review of the rules so that rules that no longer work can be eliminated. You would cut half the middle management positions involved, make it streamlined and less expensive and more efficient.

That would also require the bill itself be simple and without riders and clauses designed to buy votes on the senate floor. Kill two birds with one stone!

Tort reform, I think, belongs in a separate bill: Making the actual health care legislation complex enough to deal with legal doublespeak would just compound bureaucratic problems.

[MsQwerty]

Kind of on topic, sorta, kinda ...

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from FOD Team, Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, Thomas Lennon, Donald Faison, Linda Cardellini, Masi Oka, Ben Garant, Jordana Spiro, lauren, Drew Antzis, and chad_carter - Video

[Guest]

Yep. I agree. Far better to kill it all and start over: The simple truth is that bureaucracy begets more bureaucracy and it becomes more lumbering and behemoth the longer it goes on.

Medicare/Medicaid requires far too much middle management to work and it's based upon society as it was in the 1960s - 40 years of bloated bureaucracy making it slow, inefficient and expensive.

Kill it all, start from the ground up and include a bi-yearly review of the rules so that rules that no longer work can be eliminated. You would cut half the middle management positions involved, make it streamlined and less expensive and more efficient.

That would also require the bill itself be simple and without riders and clauses designed to buy votes on the senate floor. Kill two birds with one stone!

Tort reform, I think, belongs in a separate bill: Making the actual health care legislation complex enough to deal with legal doublespeak would just compound bureaucratic problems.

Funky, I see your point now on Tort Reform. I see that Tort Reform is not limited to healthcare issues even if it is the biggest contributor. I can agree with that, but I'm probably going to still want the caveat that Tort Reform bill needs to be passed before or in conjunction with a Healthcare Reform bill.

There is still one thing I can't agree with you though... that the current HR3200 bill is corruption free. These people are not idiots. Not addressing the simplest of reforms is not a careless mistake.

[rameumptom]

Rame? I was merely pointing out that you saying it's a big giant conspiracy is untrue.

The bill simply doesn't deal with what you want it to deal with. Don't accuse this bill, which does not deal with what you think it should, of being a conspiracy when it is not a conspiracy. It is merely not designed to deal with issues in the medical community you think it is.

If you will look at the past posts, you will note that I NEVER used the term conspiracy. So, please stop setting up false strawmen for you to knock down. And stop putting words in my mouth.

I DID say that many of our Congressmen have their hands in the pockets of lobbyists, and so are not creating a quality health care plan, because they are ensuring their favorite groups are not affected negatively. That is not a conspiracy. It is, however, fact.

So, don't derail the discussion by creating a false image of what others are stating. It doesn't make you look good, and reduces our confidence in your statements.

[rameumptom]

Hey, I'm fully on for addressing the basic issues of a bill. I love that people are passionate about politics.

I am not loving so much that people have decided that growling out slanderous untruths - Especially members of the church - Is considered the best way of dealing with their passion.

I have heard everything from "Obama's a Kenyan!" to "Obama's the Antichrist!".

You'll note I have not said any of these things, either. So quit directing attacks on me and others who are just involved in the discussion, okay?

Once again, I have no problem with a health care bill. But this bill reeks of Congressional pork. It does not fix basic problems, but grows the problems. Medicare is on life support, and they think they can take $400 billion dollars from it to pay for children's health care? They think they can lower costs without tort reform or increasing competition by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines?

Personally, I like Pres Obama, and pray he becomes a good and effective president. This will not happen as long as he allows people like Nancy Pelosi to create the bills he wants passed. He needs to get involved in the bill making, open up all doors of discussion, and seek a compromise that no one likes, but everyone can work with. He needs to direct the discussion towards things that will actually work, and not just allow the extreme liberals in Congress to grease their lobbyist's pockets at the expense of the American people.

[Palerider]

The other side of this bill, that not many have talked about is this. The President stated he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class, just like another former President or two have stated. However, one of the President's Cabinet members stated, if the healthcare bill passed there will probally be a middle class tax increase in the bill itself to help pay for the health bill. Typical politics, talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Nancy Pelosi will never pass legislation that will hurt her husbands buisness. :)

[MormonMema]

Another liberal Mormon? I thought I was the only one.

Nope, there are a lot of us out here! Last I heard, it's not against Church policy to be a Democrat.

[Kenny]

The other side of this bill, that not many have talked about is this. The President stated he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class, just like another former President or two have stated. However, one of the President's Cabinet members stated, if the healthcare bill passed there will probally be a middle class tax increase in the bill itself to help pay for the health bill. Typical politics, talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Nancy Pelosi will never pass legislation that will hurt her husbands buisness. :)

I'm not an American so don't fully engage with your passion but the issues you talk about are really no different to issues we talk about when you peel away the rhetoric.

There are always going to those that feather their own nest, this is basic human nature, but there is always going to be more that don't benefit directly than those that do.

Seems to me you guys want your cake and eat it, just the same as we do.

We want charismatic leaders who can stand up and give as good as they take. Who are courageous and use their power for the good of all but only so long as it’s to our advantage.

We all want clear mobile phone signals or cheap renewable energy but don't put the mast or wind turbine anywhere near where I have to look at them.

We all want our governments to pass legislation to improve this or that but not at the expense of us having to give up part of something we already have plenty of.

When are we going to learn to count our blessings and serve the needs of others? Those cheap clothes are only possible if someone one goes hungry having to live on for a week what we might spend in an hour.

President Obama has a tough road ahead of him, as does any leader who is set on changing the norm, because changing a few minds is easy changing the attitudes, like selfishness, of the many is a much greater task and has been since Adam was a lad. Not an impossible task just one that requires long suffering, kindness and self-less-ness.