not really though.

universal access to healthcare is not a consolidation of power

using a governmental system for the good of all is not the same thing...

there is no 'boxing out' of the minority. seeking solutions that benefit everyone is not what the current leaders in the senate are doing

yeah, the super - wealthy in america are getting hurt big time.....

That's where you're wrong--it is very much the same thing. Were you to ask any of the brown shirts, they would aver that their government was acting for the good of all.

When you allow government to manage, provide, and control; you cede to government the power to decide who is derserving and what values to impose.

in reguards to universal healthcare, i would say it is immoral and wrong that who lives and dies is decided by how much money you have.

and maybe im being idealistic here....but isnt america supposed to have a government by and for the people?

You're a soundbit. Who are the "super - wealthy"? Is it the family with a combined income of a hundred grand, trying to put a kid through school and pay off a mortgage. The same family whose annual tax burden would pay the principal of said mortgage in 10 years, would pay for a college education in five? The family who can't put money away to save for retirement because every year they send Uncle Sam more than $20K?

Tell me again how such a fiscal policy isn't hurting them?

Universal health care would require taking power from several private actors (i.e. insurance companies) and placing it with the federal government. Please clarify how this does not lead to consolidation of power.

The fact that a government action purports to do something for the good of all does not justify the conclusion that the action in fact is good for all. Let me give you the most apt example I possibly can: Republicans in the Senate seek to end filibustering of presidential judicial nominees because doing so allows, according to them, "tyranny by the minority." If they were correct in saying so, they would be doing a service to the country by taking unjustified power away from a few and placing it back in the hands of the majority. You probably disagree that this action is in the interests of the people, even though it can be construed that way and has been described that way by politicians. You still seem to believe that it is a simple matter to seperate those government actions that would be "for the good of all" from those that are not. What is your formula for doing so?

The playing field will NEVER be level. You can't choose your parents and right there, at the moment of birth, you've already got some kids that will have an advantage over others.

I'd like to see things as "even" as possible for every human being when they are starting out, but it's just not always possible.

Afterwards, I want a level playing field insofar as I don't want anyone being discriminated against for any reason. Everyone should have an equal opportunity.

After that, though, you're on your own. I WANT people who work hard to be rewarded. This is not the same as saying I want anyone to be punished for not "succeeding". If you "fall" society should provide safety nets.

I worked for 4 years in an apt building full of millionaires and you know what-these people broke their asses for their money. 60-80 work weeks were not uncommon for any of them so let's get off the "wealthy keeping the poor people down" stuff and the assumption that everyone who is wealthy is waking up every morning rubbing their palms together and considering how they will screw the poor on a particular day.

Steve

Steve

apparently you no one told you. Rich people are evil, and incapable of making good music.

but you are wrong....the senate was designed to only have 2 senators reguardless of the size of the states. its was designed this way to protect the minority.

it is not unjustified power, it is system of checks and balances that republicans are now looking to do away with.

and to address the first part, maybe im mixing the word "power" with "control". you are correct it would be a consolidation.

as for my statement of it being 'for the good of all'....i guess thats why we have a representative government.

i would contend that universal health care is in the best interests of all.

but you are wrong....the senate was designed to only have 2 senators reguardless of the size of the states. its was designed this way to protect the minority.

quote]

minority states. the house is where the power of the peoples lie.

It's a check/balance, but it would be tough (i think impossible) to argue that filibustering is a check written into the constitution. In fact, it seems a pretty odd ad-hoc rule that implies to me that more formal and sensible checks ought to be contemplated. The senate, whoever is in majority, has a right to change its operating rules so long as they are within their constitutional power to do so. It would be legal for the Democrats, and it is for the GOP. Allowing them to do so could be seen as another check/balance, and a minor one at that.

it is?

of course they work hard for their money, but so do poor people. And I'm sure their are just as many people "living it up" on welfare as their are rich people who don't work very hard to stay rich.

but most millionairs who work really hard were able to have jobs that are high paying because they had tons of opportunities. Sure there are people who come from nothing to have everything, but go to an Ivy Leauge school and see the difference from the privalidged students and the ones who got there because they had connections or they were lucky enough to go to a great high school. The poor kids on scholorship work their ass of studying to make sure they keep their GPA at a place where they still get a free ride, and at the same time probably work a job or two so they can eat or help pay for their families that are counting on them to "save" their family. Meanwhile, the privilaged kids are drinking thier faces off and do only as much school work as is absolutly necissary.


of course their are rich kids who don't drink and who work really hard, and their are poor scholorship kids who blow it because they dont' work hard . .. but this stereo type exists for a reason.

To what extent should health care be granted and/or at what point does the cost for additional procedures shift back to the individual because the cost is greater than the government can bear?

I agree it would be nice if we didn't have to worry about it (coming from a guy who shelled $10k in med bills three years ago b/c I didn't have insurance when I got clocked into Neuro-ICU w/head trauma), but, I don't believe I have a "right" to health care. I have an opportunity for it. The rest is up to me.

yes. Smaller less populated states were worried that politics would be dominated by larger more populated states. Urban issues would take precedent over rural concerns and such. Therefore the senate was designed the way it was. However other thought that the senate would not reflect the true beliefs of the people, and therefore we have the house designed the way it is.

I would also like to point out that calling this "the nuclear option" was in poor judgment.

i have to admit, i don't even know that that means.

Yes, it is.

This is basic U.S. civics. The Senate is the chamber where states all have equal say, hence the uniform two senators per state. The House is the chamber that represents the voice of the people, where the number of representatives is determined by a state's population.

It refers to the option of the Senate to reform their floor rules. The GOP calls it "the Constitutional option" I assume because the president's power to appoint is in the constitution and they think it shouldn't be stymied, and the Dems call it the "nuclear option" because they think it's tantamount to waging war on the Dems.

Apply that rationale to the issue of separation of church and state for me, in its current incarnation.

I think they call it the nuclear option because it is a larger weapon than conventional ones, like say, not nominating people who have vowed to turn back the clock to the 19th century way of governance.

Strangely enough, I say let em do it. The Republicans are riding a wave of discontent that is bigger than us all, and they will not be happy or satisied until they are done. Give em enough rope, and they will hang themselves, that's what happened to Democrats, who are only just now coming to realize that the days of "liberal" dominance are over.

The Nazis were not socialists. And by the way, FDR was not a liberal, he was a conservative. Labor movements were responsible for forcing him to create the New Deal programs. But that's not the point really - he was simply an egomaniac and a corrupt bastard. They can come from the left or the right.

its just easier to dismiss all liberals as socialists.

and just to continue that thought, socialism is not a political system under which the means of production are controled by the state (as was inferred earlier)

Show me once where I equated liberalism with socialism.