Her Majesty Queen Pelosi and gov'tcare...

[KenH]

Sooner or later this will mean the infamous long waits for treatment

Yes, and if the system continues as is with rapidly escalating costs year after year there won't be any waits at all as the American people are priced out of the insurance and health care markets or wages are slashed in order for employers to pay for the insurance programs they already have in place. That's why implementing limited government reforms such as the Cato Institute is proposing(www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa650.pdf) is so vital to the future of the American people.

 

[Andy T.]

This quote from C.S. Lewis seems appropriate in this current political climate:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment...us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

 

[KenH]

Can a republic be accurately called a tyranny?

 

[just-want-peace]

Can a republic be accurately called a tyranny?

Can what we have today be "accurately" called a REPUBLIC????

Similar to the old quote from Abe:
"If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four!!! Just because you call his tail a leg don't make it a leg."

Ergo we do not have a representative gov't in the strictest sense. Yes we elect, but they most assuredly do not represent, so while technically we are a republic, in reality it is a lot in name only!!!!!

So to answer your question, YES! Not to the extent (yet!!!!) of Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc., but we are fast approaching that definition if the left (whether Ds, Rs, or Is) continues to chop away at our rights & freedoms via gov't control.

 

[KenH]

Yes we elect, but they most assuredly do not represent

If they do not represent the majority of voters, then how do they keep being elected by these same voters the 2nd time and so forth? They may not be representing the views of you, me, and the majority of posters on this board, but don't they represent adequately the views of those who keep re-electing them?

 

[HankD]

If they do not represent the majority of voters, then how do they keep being elected by these same voters the 2nd time and so forth? They may not be representing the views of you, me, and the majority of posters on this board, but don't they represent adequately the views of those who keep re-electing them?

No, they probably don't because what they promise and what they deliver are often not the same, therefore, they "represent" the people just long enough to be voted in then carry through with something other than promised. This happens on both sides of the aisle.

"Read my lips, no new taxes".

True, this time around the nation was promised "change" by the current administration and "change" we are getting (although in some ways it's still "business as usual"). Too bad most did not ask "what kind of change"?


HankD

 

[rbell]

If they do not represent the majority of voters, then how do they keep being elected by these same voters the 2nd time and so forth? They may not be representing the views of you, me, and the majority of posters on this board, but don't they represent adequately the views of those who keep re-electing them?

You've hit on one of the most problematic issues in our country: Gerrymandered districts.

In order to be "fair," we have districts that are so chopped-up as to be ridiculous. There are several districts that are chock full of nothing but looters and moochers. How else are they going to vote?

Producers (the folks that the looters steal from and give to the moochers) are horribly under-represented in this country. And with The Great Community Organizer in charge, the 2010 Census won't change that (it will probably make it worse).

Until that is dealt with, true change on a massive scale cannot happen.

 

[rbell]

Sources now say that this bill will impose heavy fines AND prison time to those who don't buy health insurance!

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

OK, I'm saying it: Nancy Pelosi should be tried for treason.

Go ahead, witch. Put my butt in jail. I won't buy your baby-killing policy.

 

[hillclimber1]

Easy for Pelosi to be a flaming liberal socialist, as her district believes in her policies and will probably continue to re-elect her.. Just look at Sen. Kennedy and his long history leading the liberal movement. What I don't understand is her willingness to sacrifice all her "moderate" comrades in Congress, in the next couple elections. To many of these liberals, this is the best, and probably last chance to grab their life long brass ring..

 

[KenH]

No, they probably don't because what they promise and what they deliver are often not the same, therefore, they "represent" the people just long enough to be voted in then carry through with something other than promised.

Yes, for being elected but if they don't represent then how do they get re-elected?

 

[KenH]

I won't buy your baby-killing policy.

Then purchase private insurance.

 

[targus]

Then purchase private insurance.

The problem is that the healthscare bill leaves the details up to some as yet unnamed bureaucrat.

That bureaucrat will dictate what benefits must be included in health insurance plans in order to be acceptable to the gubermint.

No doubt an abortion benefit will be manadated for any plan to be acceptable under their plan.

 

[KenH]

No doubt an abortion benefit will be manadated for any plan to be acceptable under their plan.

I seriously doubt that private insurance will forced to do that. Too many voters would refuse to re-elect office holders who did so for them to take the chance.

Frankly, I doubt that any major changes to health care insurance will even pass this Congress.

 

[rbell]

Then purchase private insurance.

Ken, I already have a private policy...purchased with my own $$.

THe problem is this: government, which will be given a free pass on the "competition" idea, will bankrupt private policies.

Which will force me to either go uninsured, or buy the government plan.

Hence my problem with the whole deal.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Regretfully, the "conscience" clause is being slowly eroded away to nothingness. So, it's not a far stretch to posit abortion services being mandated as part of an acceptable insurance plan. and as this thread is on its fourth page I'm closing it.

I seriously doubt that private insurance will forced to do that. Too many voters would refuse to re-elect office holders who did so for them to take the chance.

Frankly, I doubt that any major changes to health care insurance will even pass this Congress.

 

[carpro]

The House Democrat leadership comes from safe seats. They apparently don't understand that there are other Democrats who have to compete hard to win their seats each election. Therefore, the House leadership makes proposals that some of their members can't vote for without putting their seats at great peril come re-election time.

They understand.

But they're ideologues and they just don't care. Just like their hero, the zero.