Not at all, I want a 75% super majority for every bill regardless of who is in power.
Why? A 75% supermajority would almost certainly mean total paralysis of the government and eventual bankruptcy.
What's so special about the status quo that means it should be essentially impossible to change? The status quo on any given issue is just one of many possible policies. If it isn't the most popular of the alternatives, why should it be given such preferential treatment?
Harry Guerrilla said:
Add to that, I want every bill to deal with a single issue.
Define "single issue."
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then what good is it?
If someone is forced to participate when they don't want it, that can't possibly be good for the "general welfare."
Why not?
Harry Guerrilla said:
We were never meant to be a democracy, the founders of this country understood that democracies are unwieldy and prone to making stupid decisions.
I agree. But minority rule (as opposed to minority rights) is even more unwieldy and prone to making stupid decisions.
Harry Guerrilla said:
Voter turn out during the last election was 57%, so those other 43% are still be ignored with all their different beliefs.
Do you favor mandatory voting? If not, there's not much the government can do about this.
Harry Guerrilla said:
:lol: The bill was pretty bad before it got wheeled and dealed.
You can't make **** stink much worse.
Carving out special exemptions for Nebraska and Louisiana made the deal worse. Having several senators hold the deal hostage to their personal whims made the deal worse. Neither of which would have been necessary if we had a functional Senate that didn't require a supermajority.
Harry Guerrilla said:
I seriously question your judgment on this particular subject, normally you catch bad ideas pretty quickly.
As I am doing here.
The status quo on health care is unacceptable. And the Republican proposals for health care range from the ridiculous to the trivial. Perhaps there are some good conservative ideas on the issue which I just haven't seen, but they certainly aren't being advocated by the minority in Congress, which has negotiated in bad faith and shown no interest in actual good governance.
The Democratic proposals or something very close to them, on the other hand, actually make sense. There is really no reason moderate Republicans should oppose this other than to score political points. Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown are both on record supporting very similar proposals to what is actually on the table. Outside of Congress, Mitt Romney and Bob Dole (neither of whom I'd regard as RINOs) have also supported very similar ideas.
If you want to argue the economics of health care, I am more than happy to oblige. The United States spends more than twice as much on health care per capita as any of its peers, and gets slightly worse results. The United States has tens of millions of people with no insurance at all, and medical expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. Many Americans feel trapped in jobs where they are unhappy and/or economically unproductive, because they can't lose their health insurance. And people with preexisting conditions, through no fault of their own, are unable to get health insurance and have to pay through the nose for medical care due to high costs caused by the people who DO have insurance. The American medical system offers no faster service than any of its peers with the possible exception of Canada, and America is not one of the world's leading innovators in medical patents per capita. At the same time, premiums are increasing at a rate which FAR outstrips inflation. Medicare/Medicaid are on a truly horrifying financial track and certain members of Congress prefer to demagogue the issue instead of working to bring the costs under control. Meanwhile hospitals spend huge amounts of money pushing paper since each insurer has different standards and requires different paperwork, and each insurer must negotiate with each doctor or hospital individually. And in most parts of the country, a single health insurer totally dominates the local market, driving out any competition.
In short, our health care system is by far the worst system in the developed world.
Harry Guerrilla said:
We should let less than that hold up anything.
I don't care which party they are from.
Really? Less than 8% should be able to hold up anything? Like if one senator wants a pork contract for Northrop Grumman and an FBI lab in Alabama, he should be able to put a blanket hold on ALL executive nominees?
Unanimity or near-unanimity is simply never going to happen in a body that represents 300 million Americans. And frankly it's not a goal we should even strive for.
Harry Guerrilla said:
The Senate was designed to represent states and was a good idea.
That was throw away a while back and now they are slightly less populists than the house.
They still represent the states, just in a different way. They can be elected by the people, or they can be appointed by a governor who was elected by the people. But in either case they're still representing their state.
Harry Guerrilla said:
There are other people who have opinions and criticism that are not Democrats or Republicans.
Then they can start a new party and elect some congressmen, or run a primary challenger against someone in the existing parties, or co-opt one of the existing parties to support their views.
I'm even less sympathetic to the 0% minority than I am to the 41% minority. Sorry, but if your ideas aren't popular enough to garner ANY congressional support, they SHOULDN'T rule the day.
