People who are educated, informed, and can contribute effectively to an intelligent discussion of the issues.Who does, then?
People who are educated, informed, and can contribute effectively to an intelligent discussion of the issues.
This country isn't about electing people who are to just do whatever you tel them to; this country is about electing people who you think are smart enough to figure shit out and make the right decisions.
I'm not sure what "reconciliation" is.Do you support the House approving the Senate health bill as it is, or do you support 'reconciliation'? Or neither?
Who does, then?
I've told you and INDY probably about 20 times each why state to state insurance doesn't work and isn't the answer, INDY finally about the 19th time agreed it's the insturance's fault but ignored the aspects as to why the insurance doesn't want to, you've just never acknowled it...
I would say honestly it's about 96% of the right doesn't understand and about 50% of the left still have a very weak grasp on it...
Explain this:
I can buy health insurance x in Indiana where I live and yet I'm covered if I break my leg in Colorado.
But a resident of Colorado can't buy the identical health insurance policy x across state lines in Indiana and be covered for a broken leg in his home state.
How does that make sense?
How is it you and the other GOPers keep defending these collective insurance companies but you don't even know how or why they work? Especially someone who claims to be in healthcare?
because people who vote GOP aren't interested in facts.
they are interested in pure sensation and unbridled Id and getting back at overeducated "elites."
This country isn't about electing people who are to just do whatever you tel them to; this country is about electing people who you think are smart enough to figure shit out and make the right decisions.
Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.
What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?
Who does, then?
the elites.
Actually, this country is about representative government -- voting according to your conscience/worldview/perspective for individuals you feel best represent your views and who can form policies that reflect them. That holds true both for the privileged who have been able to afford a certain degree of education, and for the unprivileged who haven't.
Or is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" a notion that's lost on you?
Once we start saying that only those who are "educated, informed, ... can contribute effectively to an intelligent discussion of the issues" (according to whose standards of "educated" and "informed" and "intelligent"? according to one person in this thread so far, the GOP's constituents -- which constitute roughly 50% of the country, by the by -- are "pig shit"), we have lost the point of representative democracy.
What is an "elite"?
Who knows? We keep hearing it from Tea Partiers...
How many times do I have to explain this to you? First of all trauma is always treated differently(you should know that), secondly if you see a podiatrist about a broken ankle in Colorado but Indiana doesn't define podiatry as someone who can treat an ankle they would have a hard time collecting, so this is something the insurance companies lobbied for(you know, those ones you defend). Does it make sense? Yes and no, we have no federal mandates in these disciplines so of course they can't compete if they have to write ammendments for every seperate state.
How is it you and the other GOPers keep defending these collective insurance companies but you don't even know how or why they work? Especially someone who claims to be in healthcare?
Funny, I keep hearig it from everyone who knows somebody who knows somebody who know somebody who kinda almost got in to Princeton.
Which doesn't make sense.
"First of all trauma is always treated differently" Really, like how ?
"First of all trauma is always treated differently" Really, like how ?
but the Feds simply don't have the power to allow a competitive market for health insurance. Because a foot doctor in Michigan bills differently than a foot doctor in Texas.
What a joke.
This is the theory, and in theory it's a great idea.
But how does one truly know where his/her constituents want? We don't vote on every issue so that they can go back and cast that vote for us. Polling? Really? Doesn't work in 2010.
The second part of that is what if the majority is wrong?
This tension is an inherent aspect of a representative government -- no getting around it. But you really can't have it any other way, unless you'd prefer to only allow people to vote who agree with a certain ideology, or have a college degree, or can pass a written exam, or can pass a geography test, or .... oh wait. I think we tried that already.
Ok, but I think you missed my point. When was the last time that you had a say on a vote after you put the person in office?It's not exactly a theory -- it's a philosophy that undergirds our entire system of government -- a representative democracy formed by the people to reflect the will of the people. It's what keeps us from becoming an oligarchy (government by a privileged few) -- or worse, an autocracy (government by a privileged one).
Actually, the number of politicians who have jumped parties in the past few years in an attempt to stay ahead of their constituents' shifting allegiances is an indication that the will of the voter is a pretty powerful motivator. Vote too often against the will of your constituents (or be a member of a party that alienates them), and suffer the consequences.
I am trying really hardEh, maybe you're just not paying attention...
Ok, but I think you missed my point. When was the last time that you had a say on a vote after you put the person in office?
Yeah, I'm not quite sure about this...
I think some have jumped parties due to conscious and some just for power. Deep down I think most politicians vote their beliefs with a "can I still get reelected" in the back of their mind. I would worry about those that vote against their own concious just because their local poll said their constituents believe this.
Eh, maybe you're just not paying attention...
It's amazing how the federal government has the power to enforce sweeping financial regulations across state lines, sweeping energy regulations across state lines, sweeping health regulations, including an individual mandate, across state lines...
but the Feds simply don't have the power to allow a competitive market for health insurance. Because a foot doctor in Michigan bills differently than a foot doctor in Texas.
What a joke.
allowing competition acrosss state lines, or choice of insurance from something as simple as the Congressional "exchange " would drop prices dramatically.
I will use this to also ask that you consider there is really 2 seperate tea parties.