"Health Care Bill"... a year of "dickering."

1. 61

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   It took a year of "dickering" for a nation "dedicated" to HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM to pass a health care bill that is supposed to offer it's constuents better care for more people at a lesser cost.
   In the long run, it may, or it may not.
   If it is this difficult to get people to work together in a country which is the most powerful nation on earth and who, in the main, are fragmented by; class, religion, wealth, racism, education etc., how could it be expected that, mankind, holistically, could ever come together and work in concert for it's survival as a species?
   I'd be very interested in reading some thoughtful,logical responses to this problem.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      No one wants to try this one...eh?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      The10DollarMarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      First off: please don't say most "powerful" nation on earth. Power isn't measured just by the size of a country's military. Economic and social power also exists. One could easily argue that China is the most "powerful" nation on earth because it holds strings over the US - which is the most armed nation on earth- so in a transcient way China is technically the most armed and economically powerful nation on earth.
      (For example I mean...That doesn't mean I believe that, but it can be a good argument and you should therefore stop from making such Nationalistic and fairly unprovable statements)
      
      Also, although it may have taken a long time for the US to make a decision about a bill that may help people, that doesn't mean all of mankind is like that. There are plenty of other countries where government and people agree on ideas that help all people - not just the individual - to have better lives.
      
      One "bad seed" doesn't make the whole batch bad. If ever extinction should come into our path, there are plenty of other countries and societies that will attempt to save as many people as possible (giving preference to their own people, but that's understandable).
      
      So this "dickering" doesn't reflect humanity in general. It does reflect, however, the increasing selfishness and fearmongering of the american society. This bill took long because a lot of people do not want to pay into a fund that helps all (even though it could end up helping them as well) and would rather separately pay for their own costly insurance, and because a lot of people have been brainwashed to believe that socialism = a step towards communism = evil.
      
      
      But hey? What can you do? That's just the way our [american] society is now. Me and mine come first, everybody else should just 'deal' and figure it all out on their own.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         10 Dollar:
         "First off: please don't say most "powerful" nation on earth."
         
         The USA and Russia, each, have the ability to destroy most life on this planet with the press of a key on the computer. That is "power."
         True, our debt is owned by China. That, in itself has most definitely destroyed our economic power. He who conrols Money (world economics) rules. (paraphrase the Rothschilds.)
         
         "One "bad seed" doesn't make the whole batch bad."
         
         "One bad seed?" The "one bad seed" is mankind!
         There has not been a time in human history that "man" has existed as a creature dedicated to "civility." "Man" is, by nature, a predatory beast. His natural "inclination" is to kill.
         Other nations, which have existed for thousands of years, have had the same opportunity to rise, in all ways, to the level of progressive success that we, in the USA, have attained in just over 200 yrs.
         They still wallow in disgusting, regressive, primitive deprivation and squalor.
         There are STILL people who live as life existed 6000 yrs ago!
         
         ("giving preference to their own people, but that's understandable".)
         
         You've made my point with this comment.
         If "man" cannot "unify" and come together to work in concert to guarantee its survival, it will not succeed as a species.
         It has been so "powerfully" fragmented by a concept "it" has created from the depths of "its" universal ignorance i.e. god, that "it,"
         ABSOLUTELY, cannot recover to join hands in "brotherhood," for the good of all.
         If WE, in the most "advanced" nation on earth, find it difficult to come together and function as a synergistic unit to promote the prospects of survival for all life on this planet, I cannot imagine that those beyond our sphere of influence and who exist staring death in-the-eye everyday of their lives, will consider the lives of others to be of any great import. They will be fighting as individuals, to live!
         
         "So this "dickering" doesn't reflect humanity in general."
         
         Wow!
         This comment portrays you as one who doesn't understand the nature of the "human species" and the conditions the majority of humankind must endure just to survive.
         "Humanity in general," exists! it doesn't live "comfortably" like the minority do.
         "It" is just eking enough out of life to say alive.
         
         " Me and mine come first."
         
         you've got this right!
         In a moment of universal catastrophe, "Me and mine come first" will be necessary to continue living!
         
         At least you read my question thru and responded thoughtfully.
         Thanks.

         replyreport
   3. 81

      Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think you've chosen the wrong word. "Dickering" is really just negotiation, and is a positive, not a negative. Perhaps "bickering" is the word you were after. But I'd say that dickering is something we didn't have either in this debate because much of the process took place behind closed doors and left out the republicans. That's a fact. And so many of the proposals by the republicans either never made it into the bill or weren't even heard by the democratic majority.
      
      What's troubling is not negotiation. It's not even the bickering or the partisanship. What's troubling to me in this whole deal is that the democrats passed this bill, and the president pushed for this bill, despite the majority of Americans who opposed it. Our president told us that the passing of the bill shows that the government still works for the people. The polls all indicated that better than half of all Americans (the PEOPLE) did not want the bill to be passed. This makes me wonder which people he was referring to?
      
      To me this shows a level of arrogance and disregard for the American people from the democratic leadership and the administration the likes of which has not been seen before. I think this is a bit of a precedent honestly.
      
      I think it will also have served to outst the dems and I think it's now clearer than ever before that Obama will not be reelected.
      
      May I take a moment to send out a congratulations to Jimmy Carter for having officially been dethroned as the worst American president in history. The baton has been passed.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Springboard;
         You missed, entirely, the premise of my question.
         Dickering is just "haggling or bargaining."

         replyreport
   4. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Private donations to Haiti exceed a 1/2 a billion dollars! I haven't checked but I'm willing to bet that private donations dwarf the US government contribution and when you consider the government gets all of "its" money from the people I think you can say this is a huge outpouring of assistance for the survival of our species. I would venture to add that if the burden of government was less on the people the monetary assistance would be even greater. I certainly don't see why anyone would think Americans would do less for their fellow citizens suffering from illness.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      They will not as long as they consider themselves first and foremost.  Any successful relationship relies on each party putting their partner first, ahead of their own desires.  This is true on every level of human interaction.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         lyricsingrayposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Poppa Blues, the only thing amiss in your point is that America is the land of opportunity. In a country like Haiti oppression is not a fancy word, it's a reality. People in this country tend to use the word oppression quite freely—yet we have amazing opportunity to seek out our own destinies.
            
            Social programs do not help people. They never have. They hold people back from achieving on their own. A helping hand is one thing. A handout is another.
            
            I'm not saying there aren't some who are truly in need. But in THIS country, those who are in need have far more opportunity, and far more potential to help themselves than I think anywhere else in the world.
            
            Why would we, as a people, WANT to be anything other than self-reliant? We have the freedom to be anything we want to be. Why choose to be needy and dependent on the government? I thought that was a large part of the reason we left the King of England in the dust.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               That's the problem. Once, people in this country would "be damned" if they would take a handout. But that personal pride and self respect seems to be an attitude of the few these days.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately, Madame X, that's true. I see a lot of that in this younger generation, and I have a tendency to believe it came as a result of giving in to kids wants and needs too much without at the same time instilling personal responsibility. My cousin is a teeming example of this. He was always given whatever he wanted. His parents bought him a car, pays the loan, pays for his gas, pays for his insurance, even pays the tickets he gets AND the higher premiums they generate. He does not have a job, either, as you may have guessed while he attends college.
                  
                  I suspect there are MANY kids brought up like this. So, they've hit the ground running with their hand out. And so where do we go from here?

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Oh I agree with you. The question was how can we as a people expect to work together to solve a problem. I just used Haiti as an example of how people, without the involvement of government, will work together to help their fellow beings.
               
               Problems often aren't best solved by government, in fact the opposite is true. Of course, self reliance, hard work and determination, and freedom are values that will provide an advantage to an individual.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I think the first key, which the dems obviously missed in this health care thing, is to stop and listen. I made the comment a while back, and I really did mean it for the entire body of our government across the board, that we ought to stop sending our tax dollars to the government, but rather hearing aids instead. The dems passed this bill without having listened to the American people. They passed this bill without listening to their minority party. We solve problems by having an open debate, which is fair and balanced, and we solve problems by coming somewhere in the middle.
                  
                  That's what we need to do. But of course that's still not quite getting to the answer as to how...I think we/they KNOW how to solve problems, but in this case I'm not so sure it was all to do about solving a problem. It was about getting one's way. It was about making a point.
                  
                  I'd agree, as well, that you are spot on when you state that problems aren't often best solved by the government. In the case of THIS problem which was the health care bill, all the non-government folks could do was voice their opinions and hope that the people they elected to represent their opinions would act according to those opinions...clearly this did not happen. The government made it's own mind up that it had the better solution, and unfortunately in the case of the Congress and the Senate those solutions they decide become laws we have to simply follow until we can change them.

                  replyreport
   6. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It can't naturally. Starting with the very first organisms on this planet this world has always been about conflict and competition to survive. It's still like this today and will always continue to be like this because of our ancestry and genetics.
      
      The only way humanity would come together would be through an external force with the power to kill us all, like aliens or something. And even then humanity would still not be completely together and after the external force is dealt with humanity would again return to its internal bickering.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Legendary;
         I think you have probably come the closest to reality that I've read so far.

         replyreport
      2. 55

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         " And even then humanity would still not be completely together and after the external force is dealt with humanity would again return to its internal bickering."
         
         
         I should hope so!

         replyreport
   7. 59

      Danny R Handposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      People in our country don't work together because they have been taught from a very early age that they are special, and unique, yet we fail to teach them that others are unique and special as well. Our capitalistic society teaches self, self, self, so our children grow up with an instilled sense of selfishness and self rightousness. With this idea dominating thier sense of who they are, how can we expect them to behave in a manner that is conducive to society as a whole. This message has had 100 years to manifest itself, and now we are seeing the results in multiple arenas. But the main problem is based on our social teaching by the messages and behavoirs we give our young. The question is, are WE as a nation capable of, One: realizing our mistake, and Two: willing to change behavoirs that DOMINATE our society.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "are WE as a nation capable of, One: realizing our mistake"
         
         
         What mistake?
         
         
         " yet we fail to teach them that others are unique and special as well."
         
         Actually, most people are taught that. Some may forget or choose to ignore it.
         
         "Our capitalistic society teaches self, self, self, "
         
         That doesn't make sense

         replyreport
   8. 58

      Pr0metheusposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with legend, on the premise that Aliens, or some external force would be required to bring us together.  Furthermore, I'd say that if some small group of people were able to fake such an event, the same outcome would be achieved.  These same people would be even more empowered to "bring the people together" if they were able to monitor and control the population via control of the media, manipulation of public figures, and monitoring systems.  The only problem is that bringing the people together involves restricting freedoms.
      
      Picture anthills, or bee hives.  They are as together as any society could be, yet each of the individual worker bees have absolutely no freedom.  They give their lives for the hive.
      
      How would one convince society to willingly give up their freedoms?  Fear!  Terrorism and global warming are just two examples.  Look at the patriot act.
      
      Hitler staged a fake terrorist attack against his own parliament, restricted human rights with an act similar to the patriot act, then started preemptive wars in the interest of "homeland security".  Then he slaughtered millions of people.  The German's bought into it, and the American's will too.
      
      Force the people to live in fear, and they will willingly give their freedoms to you in the name of national security.  May the banking giants be merciful on our bodies.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         That's basically the plot of Watchmen.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Prom:
         The potential for any kind of control that could force mankind to function in concert to accomplish any goal, doesn't exist.
         My prognosis is that there will be a nuclear catastrophe, within 3 generations, that will reduce the human species to small groups of survivors who will, over time, produce a new, mutant human species.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Nuclear radiation would more likely kill than mutate though.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               There will be those who will survive.
               just like those who survived after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bomb blasts.
               Of course these blasts will effect all life on the planet.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  But I'm saying that they survivors would die eventually from the radiation. Large amounts of radiation would most likely kill people before they can reproduce and even if they reproduce then their children will die of radiation.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Not so;
                     Depends upon the amount of radiation one is exposed to.
                     simple as that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        But a nuclear catastrophe bad enough to kill all but a small band of humans would have enough radiation to kill or at least sterilize the rest. Remember Chernobyl and how the radiation from that spread around? Radiation from this nuclear catastrophe would spread around the entire globe, you wouldn't be able to avoid it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Legendary:
                           you couldn't be "righter." lol
                           But, there will be survivors.
                           They will be the mutated "humans" of the future.

                           replyreport
   9. 0

      Ghost32posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I've long believed such a hope was admirable but, ultimately, just that--a hope rather than a realistic possibility.  From everything I've seen, this is a warring universe.  Not only does peace fail to produce survival; peace does not even allow for survival in the long run.  And with so many contrary perspectives in just one country, as you point out so clearly, coming up with a consensus from six billion inhabitants is quite simply not going to happen.
      
      From the cellular level on, competition is necessary to the survival of any species.  Grasses compete with other flora for soil, air, and water.  Insects live in a complex universe which is violent beyond comprehension. 
      
      And for every homo sapiens who chooses to live according to a higher spiritual mandate, there are dozens if not hundreds willing to perform vile acts in the name of humanity's lower passions. 
      
      If there is even a remote one-in-a-trillion chance of peace on Earth, or at least a spirit of cooperation in the name of mutual survival, it would appear to be yet far, far in the future.  Until that time comes, yes, we need the peaceful planners--but we also need the warriors to protect them, else the peaceful ones will simply continue to be either killed or enslaved (or both).

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Ghost:
         Finally!
         A thoughtful opinion from a "thinker!"
         I agree 100% with your response.
         The universe is seemingly eternal and in chronic flux, but life within it, at least here on this planet, is so young and unevovled that it has not reached that level of progress that it can exist without reproduction.
         I can't speak for "universal" life, but because of "competition" for all that is required for life to exist and remain in "balance," the necessary processes of "natural selection" respond to create new adaptive forms of life. The unadaptive disappear.
         Death and change is normal in as you say, "a warring" universe.
         Contemporary human life, will doubtlessly, experience a "necessary" change if it is to become a successful species.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Starship Troopers.

         replyreport
2. 79

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   They are too busy elsewhere whining and talking about lawsuits and impeachment They don't care about their fellow citizens, only the ones who live perfect lives and are paragons of healthy living...

   replyreport
3. 59

   JON EWALLposted 14 years ago

   HUBBERS
   
   Sad to say not over yet. Obama promised jobs and to fix the economy when he took office in jan 2009.
   
   A wasted 15 months on a bill that required to make payoffs to many of his party members is nothing to brag about.
   
   Obama's approval rating is under 46% and congress's rating is down to 12%. Don't sound like much of a victory when you consider that 60%+ of the American people were against the health care bill.
   
   I called my congressman and asked him '' tell me how the student loan program is related to healthcare ''. He had no answer except to tell me that President Obama stuck it in the bill.
   WOW, and not even a WIMPER from the leadership.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "Were" is the key word in your statement.  As predicted, the more people learn about the particulars of the bill, the more popular it becomes (as of 3-24-10, more people are for it than are against it)  The lies of the teabaggers produced a short-lived, pyrrhic victory.
      
      As if the Republican coffin needed another nail.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      John, this was clearly a move of arrogance simply to say "I'm in charge. Deal with it." The arrogance of this president is absolutely horrible. He sat through an entire summit and referred to Senators by their first names(highly unprofessional, and I would say, out of order).
      
      It's going to be a long road ahead to the end of his term. That's the unfortunate thing. But at least I think we can have some assurance now that the end of his first term will be the end of his presidency.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I sure hope you're right!

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Springboardposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I do too. Oh, and how I do.

            replyreport
4. 61

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   You guys didn't read this question in it's entirety.
   Why?
   Pls go back and re-read it and think about the "premise" of this question and then reply.
   My goodness!
   I don't care about this "bill" or the individuals involved in it!
   My question has a much greater message to consider.
   I want responses to that "consideration."
   Argghhhh

   replyreport
5. 55

   Sab Ohposted 14 years ago

   Our government was not designed and never intended to be a paragon of efficiency, and as a people we are a contentious lot.

   replyreport
6. 92

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Qwark, your question leads to some rather unsettling answers. It sometimes seems that class warfare is getting worse instead of better, especially in industrialized nations. Perhaps it's due to the state of the world economy - many people can see no further than survival for themselves and their families.
   
   Also, there's no clear common enemy among American minds now to provide an impetus for us to "stick together." In WWII, the Korean Conflict, the Cold War with Russia, and even 9/11, most of us were Americans first and members of a class, race, ethnic group, or political party second. Rather ironic, isn't it?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Habee:
      I see your point and it is well taken.
      I see the majority human beings living life as illiterates whose world is comprised, totally, of that which is within their reach.
      They have no experience with life outside of their own.
      The point I'm trying to make with this "forum hub" is simply, if we in an alledged "educated" and "civilized" nation cannot come together, without conflict, to create an environment within our own national sphere of influence which benefits all life within it, what are the chances that "macro" humanity can do it?...I say that the odds, for human success as a species, are at the level of zilch.

      replyreport
7. 73

   livewithrichardposted 14 years ago

   I'm not entirely opposed to the new health care law, what I am opposed to is the runaway federal government we have had since the end of WW2.  Our leaders use the constitution as an excuse instead of a restraint as was originally intended.  It's the reason we have 3 branches of government, so that there cannot be a strong, all powerful federal government.  The constitution here was devised to keep government divided and weak. In reality, its the people of this great nation that are divided and weak. Clearly, our 2 party system has nullified the checks and balances that were delicately put in place by our founding fathers. It is especially evident when both the legislative and the executive are ruled by the same party.
   
   I think the problems and resentment we are seeing now is because people are starting to wake up. They're starting to realize that there is actually a 4th, undeclared, branch of government here: "We The People." For the past 60 years our country has been spreading "democracy" all over the world forgetting that we are a Republic, and forgetting that democracy is contagious, forgetting that its the American People that have a long tradition of standing up to bullies.

   replyreport
8. 79

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   Another thread that shows the world we need to "E" up the world water supply!
   
   Give em serotonin I say!

   replyreport