The fact of the matter is, I agree that people should vote with whoever they think is the best candidate, regardless of what party that candidate is from. But there is a definite perception out there, based on the way elections are run in the US, that a vote for a third party is wasted, and that needs to be addressed in any attempts to change the two-party system.

Unless you are voting against the person you REALLY don't want to win. Cthulu isn't always in the running, and so sometimes you actually do vote for the lesser of two evils.

I suppose. I suspect my living in Canada helps my opinion, becuase we never vote for the Prime Minister. I vote for a member of parliament. If that member belongs to the party with the most seats, his party gets to form the government and the leader of that party becomes PM.

So, maybe if I were put into the situation you decribe, I'd vote differently. But if you put that much emotional stake in who wins the election, then I guess I understand American politics better.

But to me, politics is cyclical. The pendulum swings. If you don't like current administration, just wait. There's always another election coming.

Greg

The fact of the matter is, I agree that people should vote with whoever they think is the best candidate, regardless of what party that candidate is from. But there is a definite perception out there, based on the way elections are run in the US, that a vote for a third party is wasted, and that needs to be addressed in any attempts to change the two-party system.

Absolutely. The bad thing is perception is subjective and therefore hard to change. The good thing is, perception isn't real, so it CAN be changed.

Greg

The fact of the matter is, I agree that people should vote with whoever they think is the best candidate, regardless of what party that candidate is from. But there is a definite perception out there, based on the way elections are run in the US, that a vote for a third party is wasted, and that needs to be addressed in any attempts to change the two-party system.

I think if you view the other candidates as equally undesireable, then vote for who is the best candidate. But if you think one candidate above all others is the most intolerable, then you should probably vote for who you think has the best chance of beating that person.

But if you think one candidate above all others is the most intolerable, then you should probably vote for who you think has the best chance of beating that person.

While I understand your point, you're playing a guessing game. You have to believe polls implicitly (see the comments a few pages ago for how good that game is) and then you have to hope that other people do the same.

Best to walk in and vote for the best candidate as you see it. IMHO.

Greg

pres man wrote:

But if you think one candidate above all others is the most intolerable, then you should probably vote for who you think has the best chance of beating that person.

While I understand your point, you're playing a guessing game. You have to believe polls implicitly (see the comments a few pages ago for how good that game is) and then you have to hope that other people do the same.

Best to walk in and vote for the best candidate as you see it. IMHO.

Greg

Your point here is interesting, given your previous statement of voting for people who you knew didn't have a very good chance. Now you are claiming that in fact there is no way to really place odds on who has a better chance than whom.

Though, I think the issue is more fundamental here. I think it makes a difference who gets elected. From the vibes I've been getting from your posts, I don't think you have that same strong of a feeling. I get the impression from your posts that ultimately each position is so individually weak that it doesn't really matter who wins. Maybe I'm getting the signals crossed though.

Your point here is interesting, given your previous statement of voting for people who you knew didn't have a very good chance. Now you are claiming that in fact there is no way to really place odds on who has a better chance than whom.

Ok, I see where I've been contradicting myself.

How about this:

I believe in voting for the person whom I believe will represent me the best. There will be cases when it's readily apparent that that person will not win. My default position is still to vote for that person.

I'll recant my statement about playing the guessing game. Its true that there will be times when the lay of the land is much more apparent. I probably should have thought that through better before posting.

Though, I think the issue is more fundamental here. I think it makes a difference who gets elected. From the vibes I've been getting from your posts, I don't think you have that same strong of a feeling. I get the impression from your posts that ultimately each position is so individually weak that it doesn't really matter who wins. Maybe I'm getting the signals crossed though.

I think it's very important who gets elected. But I believe its equally as important to vote for the person who will represent me the best. I can honestly say, to the best I've my recollection, I've never been in a "lesser of two evils situation". But again, the Canadian system is different. I don't vote for the PM.

But, I'm also a realist. There will always be elections where the person I don't want to win, wins. I can't change that. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Sorry that I'm not as passionate about it as you are. After 25 years of voting, I've seen a lot of governments come and go. I'm still here, my way of life is still here, and the apocalypse hasn't been brought down on us.

Yet.

Greg

Sorry that I'm not as passionate about it as you are. After 25 years of voting, I've seen a lot of governments come and go. I'm still here, my way of life is still here, and the apocalypse hasn't been brought down on us.

Yes we have been lucky.

It isn't really any surprise why so many people see no point in voting. As you point, the world is not likely to come to an end, no matter who is ultimately elected to any given position.

It isn't really any surprise why so many people see no point in voting. As you point, the world is not likely to come to an end, no matter who is ultimately elected to any given position.

Well, I really don't equate my attitude with apathy. It's more a resignation to the fact that changes happen slowly over the course of many years, not overnight, like everyone who voted for Obama seemed to think would happen. And one election, no matter how important it may seem to be on the day in question, is just another election.

Greg

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Do you really want to put your fathers health care in the federal government's control?

Did you miss the whole part that it already is under the governments control?

What I was stating that what is already there needs to be fixed.

OK allow me to rephrase; do you want the government that screwed up your dad's health care to run every one else's?

Would you agree that the current federal systems have some very serious issues?

Matthew Morris wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

As I've said elsewhere, the Patriot Act, hystaria aside, didn't raise that high on my radar, because I'd put faith in the sunset provisions, and that it would be used correctly. I've not seen any abuse of it reported, just speculated on. (as opposed to RICO, which was abused in the 90's)

2005

2009?

Thank you. The 2005 article doesn't have much useful information.

The first case was a mistake that was caught. (fortunately, the Matthew Morris' out there are not terrorists) To call the Madrid bombing a 'criminal action' defies logic. Indeed, that he had due process and was released is a sign that the legal system worked.

The second comes out and admits that it has nothing to do with the patriot act. "...the judge's ruling affected an earlier communications privacy law that was simply expanded by the Patriot Act."

The third, well I find it kind of silly to not read links you post, but again, he was found not guilty.

The last two are examples of criminal stupidity. Both committed crimes and acts of terror. I don't see much of a difference between a lone wolf terrorist and Bill Ayers to be honest.

The 2009 article is much more disturbing. The Airlines should be able to boot off anyone they deem a threat or disturbance (and how could you not know that assaulting a flight attendent in the first one isn't a crime, even if not a terrorist act?) but a lot of the cases in the article are questionable at best, 'he said/she said' at worst.

Sorry that's not my best citation work. I hit a Trojan page when I clicked on an ACLU link in my search, so I kind of logged off in the middle of the post to run my cleaners. I'm still having some problems.

I'll try to dig up some more stuff tonight. In the mean...

Epic

dueling conservatives

ACLU

Feingold: 'Sneak-and-peek' searches being used for regular crimes

I'm still looking for operation G-string.

Dragnmoon wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Do you really want to put your fathers health care in the federal government's control?

Did you miss the whole part that it already is under the governments control?

What I was stating that what is already there needs to be fixed.

OK allow me to rephrase; do you want the government that screwed up your dad's health care to run every one else's?

Would you agree that the current federal systems have some very serious issues?

With Healthcare? yes it has problems.

I believe a federal healthcare system is possible, or even a federal means of controlling healthcare costs with the system we have now. I very much believe that the current route they are trying into solving both these problems is the wrong route.

The biggest problem I see is that The democrats really want to fix healthcare but have no idea how to do it, even if they think they do which is unacceptable, but the republicans if they had their way and where in control nothing at all would be done, which is also unacceptable. Currently we lose either way.

To my fellow posters in other countries with universal health care and low costs. Is there any issue with having enough doctors? If prices are kept down, then that would seem to mean that the pay of doctors must also be kept down. That would seem to be a disincentive for someone to become a doctor or to stay in the system instead of leaving it for somewhere they could make more money. Is this a concern in those systems or is there no problem with maintaining enough doctors for the system?

I ask, because sometimes what looks like a good idea, can have drastic negative unforseen consequences.

I looked up the statistics on this between Canada and the US. Canada has 2.2 doctors per 1000 people while the US has 2.4.

I've been quietly reading this thread for a while now, but I'll chime in on this.

Yes, there is the concern here in Canada about losing medical talent to the US. I hear about it often. They call it the "brain drain".

This trend reversed in 2005 with more doctors moving to Canada from the US then the reverse every year from that point.

pres man wrote:

To my fellow posters in other countries with universal health care and low costs. Is there any issue with having enough doctors? If prices are kept down, then that would seem to mean that the pay of doctors must also be kept down. That would seem to be a disincentive for someone to become a doctor or to stay in the system instead of leaving it for somewhere they could make more money. Is this a concern in those systems or is there no problem with maintaining enough doctors for the system?

I ask, because sometimes what looks like a good idea, can have drastic negative unforseen consequences.

I looked up the statistics on this between Canada and the US. Canada has 2.2 doctors per 1000 people while the US has 2.4.

from what I understand is that is wide ranging per Province, and that is some Provinces the wait lists are much worse then others.

GregH wrote:

Nobody, and I repeat, nobody likes to pay taxes. I've never met a single person who looked forward to seeing that chunk of money come off their paycheck or paying out at tax time. We'd all like to think that we could keep more of our paychecks.

Then why keep voting for more taxes, or supporting government measures (and politicians) that keep raising the taxes??

For me the reason I'd vote for a government (at the moment) who would raise taxes is because I believe that the country needs the money to balance the books and get us (I'm Canadian) out of its current deficit. I'm rather appalled by all these politicians who keep harping on about how they can pay off the deficit and not impact any major programs while at the same time keeping some of the rather badly thought out tax cuts they recently implemented.

The whole thing sounds like they are trying to sell me the moon in order to get my vote. This is especially true since most Canadian economists are calling for more taxes (and in fact were opposed to the recent tax cuts).

One of the governments most important jobs is to try and maintain something that resembles a balanced budget and that means actually charging us for the government run social programs we desire as a society. Sure its fine if a politician wants to run on a platform of cutting programs to pay the budget - I'd not vote for them but its reasonable. Its the ones that promise we can have our cake and eat it too that really annoy me.

Under this kind of system, where is the incentive for someone to go out and find a job? Is it up to the individual? What if that individual is immoral? Sure you say they check up on you (mind I mean the "royal you"), they do here in the US as well, but any system can be scammed (and there is plenty of welfare fraud here in the US, and I ask the same question about our current system)...

My point is the government should not be our nanny or babysitter...

A hand up, not a hand out is all I'm sayin' (and there is a big difference)...

Actually the Danes have some interesting elements in their system that bear at least thinking about.

You know your chances of being laid off from work in Denmark are probably higher then any other country in the western world? They fire people there at the drop of a hat, even the government does - something of a shock for North Americans who think of 'government job' as being synonymous with job security.

One of the biggest reasons for this is because the strong safety net. Losing your job is not at all the same kind of soul wrenching experience we think of in North America. The Average Dane will switch jobs every 7 years and will hold more jobs in his or her life time then most of the rest of the peoples of the West.

The result is that Danish companies are both extremely quick to lay off a worker and extremely quick to hire new ones (because if it does not work out they can easily let them go). This makes them some of the fastest moving companies in the world - very quick to adopt to new technologies or changing circumstances. Even their government is like that - rapidly creating or dismantling programs at need depending on circumstances.

There are definitely some really admirable elements to this system - especially when compared and contrasted to the mess we seem to be in with the big three auto companies. Under the Danish system I don't think this sort of thing could really happen - if cars are not profitable then you lay off the workers and eliminate the plants. Simple as that.

Those workers will be retrained and move on to something more modern and relevant like smart phones.

Question for the non-US posters. How is lawsuit abuse in other countries?

I know Canada's a free speech optional zone now, but this lists some of the burdens to Health Care costs on our side of the pond/border.

I'm pretty sure that this kind of lawsuit abuse is less common in pretty much every country in the western world. The rest of world is just not nearly as litigious as Americans.

I'm halfway inclined to think that litigiousness is as American as Apple Pie. I recall reading that the British where simply shocked at how quick their North American Colonists where in suing each other - so American litigiousness was already well established even before the Revolution in 1775.

This trend reversed in 2005 with more doctors moving to Canada from the US then the reverse every year from that point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we (Canada) also getting an influx of doctors from other countries as well?

Greg

Epic

dueling conservatives

ACLU

Feingold: 'Sneak-and-peek' searches being used for regular crimes

I'm still looking for operation G-string.

I'll have to read these more at home, firewalls going nuts.

Though I'd suggest Columbus Gold or the Platnium Fox here in Columbus to look for Operation G string. ;-)

pres man wrote:

To my fellow posters in other countries with universal health care and low costs. Is there any issue with having enough doctors? If prices are kept down, then that would seem to mean that the pay of doctors must also be kept down. That would seem to be a disincentive for someone to become a doctor or to stay in the system instead of leaving it for somewhere they could make more money. Is this a concern in those systems or is there no problem with maintaining enough doctors for the system?

I ask, because sometimes what looks like a good idea, can have drastic negative unforseen consequences.

I looked up the statistics on this between Canada and the US. Canada has 2.2 doctors per 1000 people while the US has 2.4.

So about 8 1/3% less as compared to the US. Now the question becomes, which is closer to the number needed. Is Canada approaching a shortage or is the US approaching a surplus?

So, I'm British. I live under UHC provided for me at birth.

Persuade me why the American Health Care system is better, and why I should switch to it.

So, I'm British. I live under UHC provided for me at birth.

Persuade me why the American Health Care system is better, and why I should switch to it.

Why would I want to do that? If you're happy with your system, then by all means, keep it. I'm quite content to respect your wishes and not try to force my system upon you.

Just try to keep it a two way street, and do the same for me.

So, I'm British. I live under UHC provided for me at birth.

Persuade me why the American Health Care system is better, and why I should switch to it.

Well, you see, instead of the state rationing and denying care, the wonder that is capitalism allows your monopolistic insurance company to do it. Sure, you'll pay less in taxes, but you'll also have the privilege of paying upwards of $1000/month (for an individual) for insurance if your job doesn't subsidize it for you. Oh and let's not forget your doctor will run every manner of uneccessary (and probably uncomfortable) test on you just to cover his ass so he doesn't get sued. Not to mention that the costs just keep climbing and climbing because, even if people DONT have insurance they get to hop on down to the ER and get treated without it...so by virtue of them not having insurance, they tend to use the more costly (to the system) ER route rather than going to a PCP.

Yes, all this (and more) can be yours if you decide to switch to the american healthcare system.

*looks around*

Monopolistic Health Insurance company? Where?

*looks around*

Monopolistic Health Insurance company? Where?

Monopolistic by region/state. C'mon now...a large part of this bill would be allowing people to purchase their health insurance across state lines, increasing that good ole capitalistic competition.

So about 8 1/3% less as compared to the US. Now the question becomes, which is closer to the number needed. Is Canada approaching a shortage or is the US approaching a surplus?

Considering the difference is ~55 people per doctor, is this really such a large discrepancy? Would it not be more reasonable to call it a wash and suggest that both countries, each with radically different health care systems, average out to about the same doctor per patient ratio?

Greg

Matthew Morris wrote:

*looks around*

Monopolistic Health Insurance company? Where?

Monopolistic by region/state. C'mon now...a large part of this bill would be allowing people to purchase their health insurance across state lines, increasing that good ole capitalistic competition.

I'm actually on record to allow people to buy across state lines. However, multiple insurance companies function in the states. Heck, in Ohio we've Aetna, BCBS, MMOH, Cygna, and those are just the big ones. I work for an insurance company and can choose a plan from another carrier.

The issue about across state lines is how the mandates are currently written. For example, policies written in Florida require massage therapists to be covered. But if a snowbird (who has a policy written in Ohio) goes to FL, the policy isn't required to cover massage therapy.

For someone living in Florida, they don't have the option to buy a policy in Ohio if they don't want a massage therapist covered. They have to pay for that coverage, even if they don't want to use it. If I buy an individual policy, I don't want a rider to cover a pap smear and routine mammogram, since I'll never need those benefits.

To remove the across state lines restriction would lead to plans flourishing as the states incentivize insurance. Do you know why Deleware doesn't/didn't have an income tax? Do you know why many corporations incorperate in Delaware? It's because the corporate laws and case history are very favourable to corporations. The incorperation fees cover a multitude of charges. Flordia doesn't have an income tax, because they can cover their expences through taxes on the tourist industry. The same thing could happen with health insurance.

Standard Disclaimer: I'm not speaking for my employer, they'd likely have kittens if I did.

Matthew Morris wrote:

*looks around*

Monopolistic Health Insurance company? Where?

Monopolistic by region/state. C'mon now...a large part of this bill would be allowing people to purchase their health insurance across state lines, increasing that good ole capitalistic competition.

Still no tort reform though, so lawsuits will fly as they always have, even as billable prices are capped, thus squeezing the profitibilty of starting a medical practice. If I was a bright young college student I would be looking at pre-law rather than pre-med for sure ...

How about taking a leaf from the much-praised British system? Anyone bringing up a liabilty suit has to pay all the court costs including the expenses of the defendants? If we're going to look to National Health and the Commonwealth nations-style of system, we should look at that as well ....

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

*looks around*

Monopolistic Health Insurance company? Where?

Monopolistic by region/state. C'mon now...a large part of this bill would be allowing people to purchase their health insurance across state lines, increasing that good ole capitalistic competition.

Still no tort reform though, so lawsuits will fly as they always have, even as billable prices are capped, thus squeezing the profitibilty of starting a medical practice. If I was a bright young college student I would be looking at pre-law rather than pre-med for sure ...

How about taking a leaf from the much-praised British system? Anyone bringing up a liabilty suit has to pay all the court costs including the expenses of the defendants? If we're going to look to National Health and the Commonwealth nations-style of system, we should look at that as well ....

I'm a big fan of loser pays as well.

And as for cross-state insurance availability, this part of the Senate bill was actually an attempt to compromise with the Republicans. Ezra Klien from the Washington Post had this to say about that issue:

This is a long-running debate between liberals and conservatives. Currently, states regulate insurers. Liberals feel that's too weak and allows for too much variation, and they want federal regulation of insurers. Conservatives feel that states over-regulate insurers, and they want insurers to be able to cluster in the state with the least regulation and offer policies nationwide, much as credit card companies do today.

To the surprise and dismay of many liberals, the Senate health-care bill included a compromise with the conservative vision for insurance regulation. The relevant policy is in Section 1333, which allows the formation of interstate compacts. Under this provision, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho (for instance) could agree to allow insurers based in any of those states to sell plans in all of them. This prevents a race to the bottom, as Idaho has to be comfortable with Arizona's regulations, and the policies have to have a minimum level of benefits (something that even Rep. Paul Ryan believes), but it's a lot closer to the conservative ideal.

Ok, this is amusing, only because my dad and I had the exact same discussion on Sunday.

I disagree with your premise, and the current resolution. They did have medicine in 1789. It may have been primitive, barbaric and in general suck compared to modern technology. I think to assume the founders would not have thought a 'right' to healthcare because they didn't have HMOs is a bit off.

I disagree with the view that the Founders of the United States had a reasonable view of medicine in light of their own experience. There has been a huge revolution in medicine starting from about 1910 (you can play with this date a lot but its defensible in some context). Prior to this point if you had an ailment you might go through many steps to deal with it including talking to friends and relatives, seeing a doctor, seeing a priest or talking with a shaman right up to and including buying a wondrous cure all from some slick talker passing through town. From about 1910 on medicine began to become standardized and extremely successful. People could go and see doctors and actually have a reasonable expectation of being made well. The whole foundation of companies providing health insurance for their workers dates from around this period and it comes into being because the practice of medicine has developed to the point where it can be shown to work consistently for pretty much everyone.

The Founders of the United States don't seem adverse to the idea of using the government to create services meant to benefit the population at large. One of the first ones to come to mind for me is the Post Office. Looking this up I find...

"On July 26, 1775, members of the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, agreed ". . . that a Postmaster General be appointed for the United States, who shall hold his office at Philadelphia, and shall be allowed a salary of 1,000 dollars per annum . . . ."

That simple statement signaled the birth of the Post Office Department, the predecessor of the United States Postal Service and the second oldest department or agency of the present United States of America."

Hence I disagree with your contention that the Founders of the United States understood medicine in the same context that we do and contend that if they where dealing with modern medicine in the context that we are. They certainly believed that communication was pretty much a universal right and put the government in charge of overseeing it.

Interesting, your government, like ours already regulates what you do with your body in terms of recreational drugs and what drugs and treatments are approved by the state. How different is that from regulating diet and exercise? If you make life style choices that push your weight up to 500 lbs and smoke you are imposing a burden on your fellow subjects are you not? Some would argue the the state has a vested interest, even a responsibility, to regulate such things for the greater good. Aren't you trying to have it both ways? You want the state to provide your health care, but you don't want them to have a say in how you manage your own health? Is that just? Where should the line be drawn?

If you need a life saving treatment that isn't approved or provided by NHS what are your options?

Actually the state has a vested interest in seeing you eating more Big Mac's and smoke two packs a day. Such behavior will kill you - but generally not before your in your mid to late fifties or early sixties. In other words you should die off right about the time you cease to be a net contributor to the tax pool and become a net liability.

Healthy people are a friggen economic disaster. Older individuals, even ones living healthy lives, cost a bloody fortune and the healthy ones actually live through the loss of major organs as long as they receive lots of medical attention. They survive heart implants and the rest of it - the cost to population at large is hefty.

Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That's because the economy's problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay.

Actually there is demand, rather there is inaccesibility. Consider this. I want to Colonize the Moon. To do So I must convince the USA that it should lend me 2 million billion dollars, that i might employ skilled US personel in the management of that money for the purpose of Colonization of the Moon as a sovereign State.

The reason I cant is that I have no access to the Monetary Resource because those with access are not prepared to cater to my purpose.

I would require the Colonization program to pursue the following:

Lease a US City for one hundred years and populate it mostly with Technicians whose task will be to bring it up to the Best Technological Standard and relocate those who dont qualify back into US territory.

I would need to employ

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

This trend reversed in 2005 with more doctors moving to Canada from the US then the reverse every year from that point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we (Canada) also getting an influx of doctors from other countries as well?

Greg

Yes - The US too of course.

There may be trouble for the Tea Party.

As it is, if this continues, "fiscally conservative" democrats (i.e., Blue Dogs) may have more common cause with the Tea Party then it at first seams.

But, then again, maybe not. It really depends on how tightly connected sound fiscal policy is with the social conservative agenda mgiht be.

There may be trouble for the Tea Party.

As it is, if this continues, "fiscally conservative" democrats (i.e., Blue Dogs) may have more common cause with the Tea Party then it at first seams.

But, then again, maybe not. It really depends on how tightly connected sound fiscal policy is with the social conservative agenda mgiht be.

It's not so much that the Tea Party and the Fundies disagree with each other, it's more that thier priorities are different. Actually this tension has always existed in the Republican party, but they usually unite as long as there is a Democrat to defeat. I think the article overstates much.

It's not so much that the Tea Party and the Fundies disagree with each other, it's more that thier priorities are different. Actually this tension has always existed in the Republican party, but they usually unite as long as there is a Democrat to defeat. I think the article overstates much.

Which is a good reason to have a multiple party system. The "small gov't conservatives" and the "religious right conservatives" should be independent parties. They could form coalitions to get agenda passed that they both agree on, but could address their own ideas independent of each other.

Greg

Lord Fyre wrote:

There may be trouble for the Tea Party.

As it is, if this continues, "fiscally conservative" democrats (i.e., Blue Dogs) may have more common cause with the Tea Party then it at first seams.

But, then again, maybe not. It really depends on how tightly connected sound fiscal policy is with the social conservative agenda mgiht be.

It's not so much that the Tea Party and the Fundies disagree with each other, it's more that thier priorities are different. Actually this tension has always existed in the Republican party, but they usually unite as long as there is a Democrat to defeat. I think the article overstates much.

And this so called "Coffee Party" movement feels astroturffy to me.

If we're going to have multiple, small parites, then I'm going to start the Undead Party and advocate for the rights of the heart beat challenged. For too long our pleas** have gone ignored!!

If we're going to have multiple, small parites, then I'm going to start the Undead Party and advocate for the rights of the heart beat challenged. For too long our pleas** have gone ignored!!

Spoiler:

**Mmmmmm.....brainnnnssss

Some might claim that the current Republican Party is Heart Beat Challenged ... and that the current Democrat Party would leave you hungry. ;D

If we're going to have multiple, small parites, then I'm going to start the Undead Party and advocate for the rights of the heart beat challenged. For too long our pleas** have gone ignored!!

** spoiler omitted **

I don't see your Undead Party being very successful. You'd end up eating your own voters.

Aberzombie wrote:

If we're going to have multiple, small parites, then I'm going to start the Undead Party and advocate for the rights of the heart beat challenged. For too long our pleas** have gone ignored!!

** spoiler omitted **

Some might claim that the current Republican Party is Heart Beat Challenged ... and that the current Democrat Party would leave you hungry. ;D

What's that old saying? "Anyone under 30 who isn't liberal doesn't have a heart. Anyone over 30 who isn't consevative doesn't have a brain." :-)

Matthew Morris wrote:

Ok, this is amusing, only because my dad and I had the exact same discussion on Sunday.

I disagree with your premise, and the current resolution. They did have medicine in 1789. It may have been primitive, barbaric and in general suck compared to modern technology. I think to assume the founders would not have thought a 'right' to healthcare because they didn't have HMOs is a bit off.

I disagree with the view that the Founders of the United States had a reasonable view of medicine in light of their own experience. <snipped some good historical facts>

I'll conceed the point that the tech wasn't as good. But at the same time, the internet, aeroplanes and cars weren't known either. We have the right to unfettered travel, not the right to a horse or car. We have the right to speech, but not the right to an AM radio station (or a radio or a printing press) and we have a right to life (yes, getting dangerously close to another minefield, but I'm not going there) but not a 'right' to heath care, which is the work of another.

The Post office actually is a bad example, as it is specifically enumerated in the constitution as one of the limited powers of the federal government.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power... To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

I'd agree to a government health care as a constitutional ammendment then ;-)

The post office (and roads, and currency) all led to connectivity and infrastructure. Something that universal health care wouldn't though.

There may be trouble for the Tea Party.

As it is, if this continues, "fiscally conservative" democrats (i.e., Blue Dogs) may have more common cause with the Tea Party then it at first seams.

But, then again, maybe not. It really depends on how tightly connected sound fiscal policy is with the social conservative agenda mgiht be.

I don't see it as 'trouble' in that I don't see it as a monolithic 'party' Who knows, maybe it will lead to a reorgization.

GregH wrote:

pres man wrote:

If someone is more confident in a local government, which they have more personal influence on, over a national government, which they have less personal influence on, then that is ludicrous and hypocritical?

I can see your point, to an extent. Maybe Canada is "small" enough, that I don't feel as detached from my federal government as you seem to feel. Or maybe it's our parliamentary style of government.

I have heard from many people that a parliamentary sytem of government feels more responsive then a federalist system like the U.S. has. Primarily it has to do with the larger number of political parties and the lack of winner takes all mentality.

The 'feel more connected' idea might be possible but I can't say I feel all that connected - I do however seem to trust the mandarin's more and maybe even the politicians - though I currently only trust my current head politician in the sense that I know that much of what he'd like to do is against everything I believe in but that he's enough of a politician that he needs the centre of the voting spectrum and therefore can't implement most of his more controversial beliefs and values but must remain on board with the core values of the Canadian Centre - in this case tinged right where I'd prefer centre tinged left.

Beyond that your wrong about the winner takes all mentality - its you guys that have the checks and balances. We have 4 year dictatorships - unless we end up in a minority parliament (as we have currently). If Obama had been running under the Canadian system (well British Parliamentary System really as that is what we use) we'd not be having this debate, With that kind of support from the electorate those numbers would translate into an absolute majority in parliament and the winning party would simply settle down to implementing their agenda - there would be nothing the opposition could do about it really except try and point out flaws and make political sound bites pooh-poohing the governing party. In fact this effect is so strong that its common for politicians to carefully dole out their promised reforms. Don't want to accomplish to much in your first year or it'll look like your sitting around doing nothing for the next 4 years.

Under our system Obama's health care plan would have been debated and then passed within 4 months of it being tabled.

Aberzombie wrote:

If we're going to have multiple, small parites, then I'm going to start the Undead Party and advocate for the rights of the heart beat challenged. For too long our pleas** have gone ignored!!

** spoiler omitted **

I don't see your Undead Party being very successful. You'd end up eating your own voters.

Thus a major part of the party platform would be the need to conserve our resources. Manage the food supply, so to speak.

And this so called "Coffee Party" movement feels astroturffy to me.

Hey, Today is Nation Coffee Party Day!

And this so called "Coffee Party" movement feels astroturffy to me.

LOL and Urban Dictionary already has a definition for "Coffee bagger"