Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 109

Thread: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

  1. #61
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    And what of the minority?
    Do they not matter?

    Can you justify making them do things, just because your in a majority?
    what RIGHTS of the minority would be adversely affected by the actions of (the representatives of) the majority?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #62
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    And what of the minority?
    Do they not matter?

    Can you justify making them do things, just because your in a majority?
    The minority has no inherent right to obstruct every single piece of legislation by demanding a 60-vote supermajority. That certainly isn't enshrined in the Constitution, or even a long tradition.

    The interests of the minority are already protected under our Constitution. We have checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, a bicameral legislature, and a Senate where each state has equal representation. Our system of government bends over backwards to protect minority rights, so why is a supermajority necessary? That just paralyzes our government.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #63
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    what RIGHTS of the minority would be adversely affected by the actions of (the representatives of) the majority?
    Increased taxes, delayed medical treatment, the list can go on.

    Who knows what the finality of this piece of garbage will bring?
    These people in office don't know and don't care.

    It's only in their best interest to make it sound good to plebeians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The minority has no inherent right to obstruct every single piece of legislation by demanding a 60-vote supermajority. That certainly isn't enshrined in the Constitution, or even a long tradition.
    And the majority has no inherent right to force the minority to participate in something they do not want.

    It's fine if they want to pass it.
    Just make sure only those who support it, are effected by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The interests of the minority are already protected under our Constitution. We have checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, a bicameral legislature, and a Senate where each state has equal representation. Our system of government bends over backwards to protect minority rights, so why is a supermajority necessary? That just paralyzes our government.
    Surely you jest, many minorities are not protected.
    They are routinely ignored for the majority, after all the majority votes in high numbers.

    Supermajorities are there to make sure something is an absolutely good decision and not an expedient decision.
    This bill is an expedient decision, an appeal to those who do not understand how the economics of medical care works.
    And if it fails to produce the results, it doesn't matter because it's supporters won't be in office or most will forget.

    They have no need to make sure it does the right thing.

    I'm going to keep drilling this every time someone thinks it's ok to ignore people in the minority.

    Cardinal rule of a republic.
    "Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority."
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #64
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Increased taxes, delayed medical treatment, the list can go on.

    Who knows what the finality of this piece of garbage will bring?
    These people in office don't know and don't care.

    It's only in their best interest to make it sound good to plebeians.



    And the majority has no inherent right to force the minority to participate in something they do not want.

    It's fine if they want to pass it.
    Just make sure only those who support it, are effected by it.



    Surely you jest, many minorities are not protected.
    They are routinely ignored for the majority, after all the majority votes in high numbers.

    Supermajorities are there to make sure something is an absolutely good decision and not an expedient decision.
    This bill is an expedient decision, an appeal to those who do not understand how the economics of medical care works.
    And if it fails to produce the results, it doesn't matter because it's supporters won't be in office or most will forget.

    They have no need to make sure it does the right thing.

    I'm going to keep drilling this every time someone thinks it's ok to ignore people in the minority.

    Cardinal rule of a republic.
    "Majority rule but not at the expense of the minority."
    just as i anticipated
    there are no rights of the minority which would be adversely affected by the actions of (the representatives of) the majority
    this is democracy in action and you moan about it
    maybe you need to to reside in a location where majority rule is not the law of the land. but be warned, you would still find things about which you would disagree
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  5. #65
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    And the majority has no inherent right to force the minority to participate in something they do not want.
    In other words, your complaint isn't with the nature of majority rule vs a supermajority. You only want a supermajority because you don't like this particular bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    It's fine if they want to pass it.
    Just make sure only those who support it, are effected by it.
    The whole idea of government is that everyone is affected by it. No government program could POSSIBLY limit itself to those who support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Surely you jest, many minorities are not protected.
    They are routinely ignored for the majority, after all the majority votes in high numbers.
    That's called democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Supermajorities are there to make sure something is an absolutely good decision and not an expedient decision.
    We have a Senate in which each state has equal representation. We have a President elected by an electoral college. And we have a Bill of Rights. All of these institutions were designed explicitly to protect minority rights. We don't need yet another layer of minority rights' protection in the form of a supermajority. If the people are that unhappy, they can and will vote the politicians out of office.

    How does a supermajority make sure something is "an absolutely good decision"? There was a lot more wheeling and dealing to round up the last few votes for the health care bill than would've been necessary if we had a 51-vote threshold, which unquestionably made the bill worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    This bill is an expedient decision, an appeal to those who do not understand how the economics of medical care works.
    Really dude? A Rush Limbaugh sound byte? Why are so many normally intelligent posters resorting to talking points this week?

    I understand economics better than the vast majority of people on this forum, and I strongly support this bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    I'm going to keep drilling this every time someone thinks it's ok to ignore people in the minority.
    50 senators represent 18% of the population. That isn't enough minority influence for you? We need to allow 40 senators (who could represent as little as 8% of the population) to hold up legislation in all cases?

    At a certain point it stops being about protecting the rights of the minority, and starts being about paralyzing the legislative process. We crossed that threshold about 20 years ago. If we weren't interested in protecting minority rights, we wouldn't have a Senate at all, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights, we'd have a prime minister instead of a president, and the House of Representatives would be the sole vote on legislation.

    States with two Republican senators represent 24.35% of the population, whereas states with two Democratic senators represent 50.55% of the population. So frankly I'm not too sympathetic to the argument that we need to give the minority a supermajority to protect them. They're overrepresented in the Senate as is.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-22-10 at 01:27 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #66
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    In other words, your complaint isn't with the nature of majority rule vs a supermajority. You only want a supermajority because you don't like this particular bill.
    Not at all, I want a 75% super majority for every bill regardless of who is in power.
    Add to that, I want every bill to deal with a single issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The whole idea of government is that everyone is affected by it. No government program could POSSIBLY limit itself to those who support it.
    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."

    If it doesn't do good for the "general welfare" than it isn't constitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's called democracy.
    We were never meant to be a democracy, the founders of this country understood that democracies are unwieldy and prone to making stupid decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    We have a Senate in which each state has equal representation. We have a President elected by an electoral college. And we have a Bill of Rights. All of these institutions were designed explicitly to protect minority rights. We don't need yet another layer of minority rights' protection in the form of a supermajority. If the people are that unhappy, they can and will vote the politicians out of office.
    You don't understand what I'm talking about, there are other people that do not feel included since there are only 2 parties allowed to participate.

    Voter turn out during the last election was 57%, so those other 43% are still be ignored with all their different beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How does a supermajority make sure something is "an absolutely good decision"? There was a lot more wheeling and dealing to round up the last few votes for the health care bill than would've been necessary if we had a 51-vote threshold, which unquestionably made the bill worse.
    The bill was pretty bad before it got wheeled and dealed.
    You can't make **** stink much worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Really dude? A Rush Limbaugh sound byte? Why are so many normally intelligent posters resorting to talking points this week?

    I understand economics better than the vast majority of people on this forum, and I strongly support this bill.
    What the hell does Rush Limbaugh have to do with this?

    I seriously question your judgment on this particular subject, normally you catch bad ideas pretty quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    50 senators represent 18% of the population. That isn't enough minority influence for you? We need to allow 40 senators (who could represent as little as 8% of the population) to hold up legislation in all cases?
    We should let less than that hold up anything.
    I don't care which party they are from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    At a certain point it stops being about protecting the rights of the minority, and starts being about paralyzing the legislative process. We crossed that threshold about 20 years ago. If we weren't interested in protecting minority rights, we wouldn't have a Senate at all, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights, we'd have a prime minister instead of a president, and the House of Representatives would be the sole vote on legislation.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    States with two Republican senators represent 24.35% of the population, whereas states with two Democratic senators represent 50.55% of the population. So frankly I'm not too sympathetic to the argument that we need to give the minority a supermajority to protect them. They're overrepresented in the Senate as is.
    There are other people who have opinions and criticism that are not Democrats or Republicans.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    if you don't like the rules of the senate, change em

    oh, that's right, you can't?

    sorry

    deal with it

    deal with reality the way it is

    that's what every other president has done

    or not, your call

    you are, after all, the president

    you poor little thing

    in the meantime, on behalf of 41 republicans: NO

    please have a wonderful day

  8. #68
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The minority has no inherent right to obstruct every single piece of legislation by demanding a 60-vote supermajority. That certainly isn't enshrined in the Constitution, or even a long tradition.

    The interests of the minority are already protected under our Constitution. We have checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, a bicameral legislature, and a Senate where each state has equal representation. Our system of government bends over backwards to protect minority rights, so why is a supermajority necessary? That just paralyzes our government.
    Be careful what you wish for. In a year, you could be complaining about Republican legislation passed by a 51 vote Republican majority.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  9. #69
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Add to that, I want every bill to deal with a single issue.
    Define "single issue."

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    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.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 02-22-10 at 03:43 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

    if you can pass it, pass it

    the american people hate it

    but if you want to pass it, help yourself

    of course, you'd have been wiser to do it when you had sixty...

    ah, heck, go for it---reconciliation, baby!

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •