We seem to have lost sight of the twin facts that 20 or 40 Republican Senators were unable to convince 40 or 20 Democrats to agree with them, but 60 Senators did agree and (such as it is) pass a health care reform bill that the President has indicated he’d accept. What neither those Senators or the President have done yet is gotten the House to accept it.

Large majorities of both the House and Senate have turned over since the need to address health care and a variety of other issues have been recognized.

I’m not advocating the retention of any particular elected representative. But, with all due deference to those among us who simply advocate throwing out (by electing replacements or imposing term limits) all the incumbents in favor of new blood, I fail to see why they think this will accomplish anything positive. Or, that if we did what they suggest, why we would expect those replacements (independently elected, as they would be) to suddenly have or be able to reach levels of consensus the current incumbents could not.

I would be in favor of their pay being proportioned to their attendance, plus the votes and legislation they work on, so they get paid for each vote the cast, each bill they sponsor.

Some will take a huge pay cut!

The only way to get rid of the hypocrites is to vote them out of office, and for the record it is on both side of the aisle.

It is funny how the Left never complains when they have a 60-vote majority, but when they don’t have it then the gloves come off and we hear how this rule should be changed–very hypocritical, to say the least.

What the American people are upset about is buying a senator’s vote, i.e. Louisiana and Nebraska. Why are you not upset with that blatant disregard for our money? It is our money–we the taxpayers.

According to the polls of late, the people do not want this 2000-plus page health care bill.

I want health care reform, not free health care for all. Because once some get it for free, then eventually all will.

Deal with the pre-existing condition issue, deal with the reimbursement problem to providers, deal with the malpractice issues and the trial lawyers, deal with the fraud in the billing, allow carriers to offer policies in all states, make providers list the charges for treatment and procedures, and finally health insurance should pay for physicals because it costs less the sooner a problem is found then when the person gets sick.

Health insurance cannot be thought of like other types of insurance that pay only when something bad happens.

That did not take 2000-plus pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SAM RESPONDS:
You are absolutely right about the “bribes” paid to certain senators to get their vote…..Do you have a suggestion on how to stop politicians from being hypocritical and greedy???

My suggestion is to clean house. Dump every politician right out of office at their next election and replace them with new ones.

Wouldn’t that be something? An entirely new group in Washington! Instead of people who have sat and languished in their seats, some for 30 to 50 years, doing little to move the country forward.

Let them see they can, and will, be replaced, and watch them squirm to get things done.

Democrat or Republican isn’t the point. Obstructionists are on both sides of the aisle and it’s not going to get any better in the foreseeable future.

Instead of improving OUR country, they fight like a bunch of litle school children and waste trillions doing so.

Probably the current snow emergency in Washington, although stated to cost $100 million a day, is actually saving us money these self-centered politicos would waste anyway.

SAM RESPONDS:
BJ, while I sympathize with your sentiments, and can appreciate your “throw the bums out” mentality, the fact is WE THE PEOPLE of these United States must take ultimately responsibility for the government we have.

We indeed have the government we deserve. I say that because while people SAY they want politicians to be Philosopher Kings, acting solely based on the good of the country (although what’s best for us is a matter of opinion, depending on your point of view–thus the two parties’ vastly different visions), in fact, people want politicians who will ask nothing of them and never take anything away from them.

When a politician even hints at raising taxes or cutting a pet program, they run the risk of being run out of office at the next election.

People are furious about the soaring deficit (supposedly), yet they wail like stuck pigs whenever a pet project is tossed.

Perhaps the only solution is term limits. Two terms for U.S. Senators and six for U.S. Representatives, giving them no more than 12 years each….Or better yet, just one term/three terms, respectively, for a total of six years. Perhaps lame ducks are more likely to do what’s necessary to get this country back in shape.

Of course, critics will say (perhaps correctly) that the lobbyists will really rule the roost then, since they will be able to bribe lame duckers with promises of fat consulting or fulltime jobs if they vote their way. If politicians know they have a veritable lifetime job, they, like Supreme Court judges, might feel more free to vote their consciences, and in the best interests of their constituents.

Democracy is indeed a messy way to run things, but it’s the best system we’ve got. There are so many checks and balances, I wonder sometimes how anything gets passed, ever!

The Founding Fathers feared tyranny more than anything else, and for good reason, after suffering under the whims of a distant King and a Parliament where they had no representation. Did they go overboard in checking the powers of central government. If so, better to be safe than sorrry, I imagine they would say today.

Still wondering why no one has responded to the fact that a super-majority can do anything it wants to. For an entire year, Democrats didn’t require any Republican votes to pass any legislation. I’ll say it again, for 365 days, Dems needed 0 votes from Republicans to pass laws.

As far as pre-existing conditions, a “fix” would have to be addressed but in the future, if individuals controlled their own insurance they could take it with them from employer to employer.

In order for this to happen, Congress would have to reverse the law that gave employers the control over their employees’ health care.

Insurance companies would still be managing large groups of insureds–they just wouldn’t be managing them within the confines of single companies, so the profit they would gain from larger groups would allow for their acceptance of pre-existing conditions.

SAM RESPONDS:
I don’t know, Sue….If one gets their health insurance via their employer group (as do I and millions of others), they are separated from the herd and do not get the benefit of a group rate. Nor the protection of the group (in that the insurer cannot single out a particular employee with a preexisting condition for a higher rate or non-coverage).

I’d have to see what kind of “fix” you have in mind for this before I could sign on to your idea of leaving all individuals to the not so tender mercies of the “free market” in health insurance.

As for your other point, on how the Democrats could not ram health reform through despite having 60 votes, your point is well taken.

I think the big problem was that the Democratic Party–or at least a signficant section of it, is actually to the left of its leader, President Obama.

Despite all the nonsense about President Obama being a “socialist,” in fact he gave up the dream of most Democrats for universal health insurance via a single-payer (the government) pretty easily, in order to deal with the more moderate elements in his party that wanted to keep the private sector front and center.

Then the moderates wouldn’t go for the so-called public option. So there was a split in his own party.

The Democrats have always had a much bigger tent and much bigger divides internally that the Republicans. (At least the modern Republicans! How I long for the days when you could actually have “liberal” Republicans like Rockefeller and Javits in the party!)

The Republicans (House or Senate) can’t stop the Senate bill, only the Democrat House can do that. So, here’s my guess about what the President’s “plan”:

Republicans are challenged (collectively and independently) to be specific about what they think should be done differently than they would be under the Senate bill. The House passes the Senate Bill “as is” after Republicans have been invited to introduce separate pieces of legislation to accompany a Democrat bill representing what would have been the House/Senate reconcilliation compromises (which would include tax reductions and abortion restrictions vis-a-vis the Senate Bill, “as is”). At that point, Democrats get credit for action and reform and any the failure to correct the flaws in the original (Senate) reform bill becomes Republican obstructinism.

But, to your original topic, super majorities. Perhaps what needs to occur is the majority (51) needs to stop responding to filibuster threats and demand that their oppenents actually publicly engage in them.

This isn’t about healthcare or health insurance and never has been. It’s about the continued expansion of the government providing the “basics” of living to a larger & expanding group of citizens, and sticking those outside that group with the bill. That group pays no income tax, and will aways vote to support the expansion of these entitlements since THEY don’t have to pay for it.

Our present government is in a race with the electorate to get a majority of the county “enrolled” in some entitlement program, no matter what. When the “entitlement group” is in the voting majority, then those of us who pay taxes will no longer be able to stop or change the paradigm, and our taxes will escalate until it drives those who can to leave the country. If you think I’m overreaching, look at the current flight from California of people, companies, & jobs to states with a better business climate. California has already lost more people than they gained back during the dust bowl days of the Great Depression. Those who can leave are leaving by the droves.

I think the 60 vote “requirement” in the Senate is good. It forces “bipartisan” solutions if used correctly to carve a voting block out of the middle. The Dems approach of trying to bribe one or two Republican senators to make it “bipartisan” isn’t the way the Senate was designed to work. The best legislation over the last several decades has occurred with one party in majority in the House and the other party in majority in the Senate. That way, the more moderate members of each steer the ship of state rather than the wingnuts of either party trying to yank the country where it has no business going.

Already as I write this, they are saying they will only debate him publicly on health care if they can have it all their way….scrap the whole plan in progress. Where is there any hint of any compromise? Why would they not jump at the opportunity to at least make the bill better if not perfect if they were truly interested in anything but the status quo? Face it, they want no change because their corporate partners want no change.

Also, did you notice last week that the Republican sponsors of the “pay as you go” spending plan all voted “no” on it the minute Obama endorsed it? Until they show any willingness to compromise in the spirit of good government, Democrats really have no choice but to move on without them to the best of their ability.