It has become obvious to all of us that President Barack Obama made a mistake in deciding to go bi-partisan in the Congress and especially in the Senate.
This gives the minority rather equal power to that of majority party in ruling.
This is not a football game. There the better team wins. Here the team with more players, if we can continue with the analogy, loses. What's the logic?
I've never been in favor of our present party system and the manner in which things play out in congress after the election.
If the minority party is absolutely against a piece of legislation no matter what, as it is today, then first of all, it should have no say in the development of legislation it intends to defeat.
I don't see how the common person is going to gain from a health bill that does not assure him or her complete health care,
This effort should follow the idea, in the same manner that everyone in this country should be assured all the education required to attain the best status in a specific field of study.
If a person is only half-educated, what's the point? If we can't give health care to everyone, then let's leave it alone and let the system fall from its own ridiculous structure. What service do the insurance companies provide?
The 60-40 vote needed to pass a law in the Senate is absolute political lunacy and should be declared as such, except that neither party has the collective fortitude to move to eliminate this crazy rule.
It would only make sense to me, if the 60-40 were to be applied only in approving a declaration of war. But I strongly believe that it should be removed altogether regardless of which party is in power.
Then let's have no bi-partisan politics, what's the point and secondly, let's get ride of the rule that the majority vote does not count. As I've indicated parties are making less and less sense so why bi-partisanism? Let's get rid of them too.
At the same time, let's take a look at the Electoral College, it hasn't anything to do with the will of the majority and it ain't no college.
Now, to try to assure my objectivity, I'm against the “health reform legislation.” Should we let insurance corporations decide who gets education and how much education. What social objective would this arrangement serve?
Why should corporations decide on who and how much care Americans should get?
I indicated months ago that I thought this approach was more of what might be considered to be a bail-out or to keep the insurance corporations afloat in luxury rather than in the interest of the people.
Dr. Howard Dean, seems to have offered the best suggestion when it comes to health care, merely extend Medicare to everyone.
I think it's either health care for everyone or leave it to insurance companies to destroy themselves. Stockholders in insurance, it's your gamble. Should we bail you out too. Then how about gamblers in Las Vegas.