Email This Page
Print This Page
add comment

In our House of Representatives - "the people's body" - the Democrats at this moment enjoy a gaudy 75-seat majority. Wait. Did I just put "Democrats" and "enjoy" in the same sentence? Scratch that. The Democrats suffer the affliction of a 75-seat majority.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid and House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn talk to reporters at the White House, 02/25/10. (photo: Getty)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid and House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn talk to reporters at the White House, 02/25/10. (photo: Getty)

Open Article On Originating Site

 

Comments  

 
+2 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-03-13 22:43
I just love your last rhetorical question and won't anwer it as you ask simply because the answer is, or should be, so obvious to all.

If the democrats can't get this watered down, over compromised, substantially questionable but I guess ethically inevitable bill passed, I guess I'm going to have to consider a taxpayer revolt because I sure am tired of paying for the bloviated crap that floats around the beltway. I couldn't be alone in this.

It is truly an understatement to make that the very least that we should expect is that this bill will pass. If not, perhaps I'll vote straight Republican next time for pure spite. What difference could my vote possibly make if I didn't should this bill fail to pass? Quite simply, this matter is for at least myself, the acid test of wether or not any sanity remains in American politics.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Mestizo Warrior 2010-03-16 06:46
Whether the Democrats have a majority isn't even relevant any more. The healthcare cartel stand to win one way or another! It's like Dennis Kucinich said; "Tails they win, heads we lose."

The proposed healthcare legislation is useless and will benefit only the HMOs and other healthcare related insurance monopolies. Dr. Quentin Young from the Physicians for a National Health Program summed it up quite accurately; "No Bill is better than a bad bill!"

Got third party anyone?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # AB 2010-03-14 08:17
The March of Socialism? Where did the march begin- with special health care provisions for congressmen? Maybe that's why they are afraid to be defeated -they won't have health care- or do they get that for life? Is socialism OK for people over 65 but not for people under? Do opponents of a national health care plan refuse their Medicare when they turn 65? I say, extend Medicare to cover every one!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # earlyautumn 2010-03-14 09:11
Disgusting -- the Dem party. We need a third party (not Ralph Nadar).

The quip "the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Whose side is Pelosi on?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Exomike 2010-03-14 12:05
[quote name="earlyautumn"]Disgusting -- the Dem party. We need a third party (not Ralph Nadar).

I see you're still spreading the Cowardly Democrat's "Mean Ralph Nader" meme when all they had to do was deal with him on important issues that they were afraid of. Instead the Democratic Losership Council treated him like an enemy.
Pretty consistent with what they're doing now.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # A. Edward Cullin 2010-03-14 12:09
I know every fellow Canadian I talk to about the American health care system, and I imagine every Brit (since this article is from a British newspaper) is asking themselves "What in hell is the matter with you Americans?" National health-care is a no brainer. It is really no more socialism than having a municipal services such as policing or fire protection, or for that matter the Department of Defense. Even private insurance is socialism! Individuals collectively pool their premiums to help out the unfortunate soul who requires help. In how many states is automobile insurance compulsory? Does having automobile insurance mean you are going to have an accident? What it does mean is that in the event you make a mistake and have an accident your are protected. Public health care is no different.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-03-14 14:44
You are so correct Mr. Cullin, but our for-profit health care system is, to be redundant, for profit, not for providing decent, affordable health care. That's why some of your Canadian doctors come here. They can make much more, pay less taxes and do so with a clean conscience...clean by our tawdry definitions that is. Unfortunately we are held hostage to a system whose purpose is profit and the need for service an excuse for obtaining it. I just hope Canada and countries like yours are better than we are.
I'll tell you what's wrong with us Americans: we value freedom and do not value responsibility and there for cannot understand that this makes us slaves to greed and the greedy. Ours is a predatory freedom where only the most powerful are the most free and doing what's right means nothing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 


Login or Register Login Register Password? | Username?