ReElectNoOne's Comments (320)

“There is a difference about Bush seeming worried and Obama seeming worried. When Bush seemed worried I assumed the worst and put my head between my knees.

On the other hand, Obama is a calm, cool and collected leader so I don't think we will see overt signs of worry on his face. This does not mean there is no worry, or that there is nothing being done, it just means we finally have someone who does not panic and does not wish to panic us but who, I am confident, is doing his best until Congress gets in the way.

Do we really want a leader who appears flustered and worried or one who displays confidence in the middle of a storm? Remember Bush and his "...good job Brownie" after Katrina? Did Bush look worried? He should have because he had no clue what he was doing.”

“They gays have the right idea...it is an idea all our Middle Class needs to embrace. When we see legislative bodies and individuals actively campaigning to legalize discrimination against a class of tax paying citizens, we are treading on some ugly un-American activity. Once can start to draw up a list of those who may next appear on lists of "defective" Americans who shall have one right or another legally banned. Once you do it to one, you can do it again. Hitler started by banning Jews from certain occupations. Then Gypsies then .... you get the picture.

We can't open that box without fearing for the next of us who may find ourselves "disfavored" for what ever reason.

The fact that we have little input into the workings of our government given a two party system in which both parties have long ago sold us out in favor of the highest corporate bidder, it is really time we had more options.

Gay/Lesbians have both the willingness and the ability to mobilize their base. The Middle class has no such organizati­on...but we need one. We should consider joining with the Gays, not as an endorsement of a life style, but as an endorsement of the right to have a lifestyle without legal discrimination being imposed as a result.

We need to insist on removal of corporate sponsored members of Congress..­.or at least force them to wear corporate logos of their sponsors as NASCAR drivers do.”

“There is really only one reason Congress won't act. The banks own Congress and they won't let them.

We need the reform and regulation of the banks but as long as the banks pull the strings that won't happen. As long as Congress is sucking at the teat of campaign donations they won't listen to the needs of the nation but to the desires of profit.

We need to start by kicking the bums out of office and starting over. We need campaign reforms to eliminate those hefty donations so candidates must listen to the people who elect them, not those who pay them the biggest donations.”

“Cheney who? I thought Dick was the VP and that he was no longer our VP?

Who cares what he thinks.”

“The bottom line...who will Congress listen to...big donors or the people they were elected by to serve.

If the past is any indication, Congress will, yet again, ignore their own constituent's needs and stick their greedy corrupted little hands into Big Insurance wallets. They Big Insurance get's to stick their hands into our wallets.

Personally, if some of the plans happen as Big Insurance wants, I believe that anyone who's care is not paid for them by someone else should refuse the mandate. Many will be below the point of paying income taxes anyway so there is no place to collect any penalty.

We won't be any worse off than now with millions without care. Some of the options are shaping up to be welfare for big corporations at taxpayer expense.

Perhaps this is a good time for younger Americans to consider moving to a nation that actually respects their citizens, such as any place in Europe, Canada, Australia etc. America's law makers have no respect for their own countrymen any longer.”

“"If it bleeds it leads" If it almost bleeds...g­ood enough!

News is hard to distinguish from entertainment these days as are the journalists hard to separate from celebrities in it for the glory.

Sad state of American "journalism".”

“Yes single payer is the ideal. No denials, No refusal of care, no corporate profits to inflate your premium. Common negotiation powers greater than any individual. No death panels as currently exist inside each insurance company. And you get to vote for the people who deal with your protection. Something you can't do now.

Insurance companies would not go away, they would do like they do in other nations with national health care...sel­l luxury policies to the rich who can afford them.

Remember this would finally be a win for citizens over corporate corruption of Congress. Something government does FOR us not TO us.”

“All you would have is the same fight we see now, duplicated up to 50 times in the state legislatures. Just another tool of bought and paid for corrupted Democrats to pass non-reform and send the delay to each state.

The only plus I see is forcing the corrupt insurance companies to spend millions more in each state to buy more legislators and to publish lie filled ads. Money no doubt they will take by denying more care to their customers.”

“"The USA should pay a per-citizen stipend"

WRONG.

Any such payment to a commercial provider will include a taxpayer paid 30% profit. Taxes should not be used to support any private corporation's profits and shareholders. Those are the very profits opponents are fighting to protect. It is not the government's or any individual's job to protect private profits. That is what the so-called free market is supposed to do and so far all they have protected is profit, not lives or health care. They have had the chance for decades and refused to do anything but line their pockets.

This is about health care for all, not profits for a few. I don't care if the private insurance companies go out of business. I assure you their CEO's have already amassed enough of a fortune to do well for several more generations without bilking the public.

//”

“How about opt-out? Every state by default is opted in.

Only by a public referendum could a stat opt-out, then individuals could choose to opt in for themselves.

That is the only way to protect the "Equal Protection" clause because it sill assures everyone has access to a public option.”

“Let's also not rule out a raft of equal protection law suits. If the government passes a law and my state tries to tell me it does not apply to me, I would consider that a violation of my rights under the equal protection clause ... many would join such a suit and I am certain ACLU would jump on it !

One law for all Americans, not just those yet another "Congress" gets to fight about for years.”

“"... everyone is 'created equal'. "... but it goes on to say we are endowed with certain inalienable rights... while the notion that equality may decline due to corruption, scandal and big money influence, the words are there to uphold a life time of rights because they are "supposed" to be inalienable !

We have to stop putting the same people back in Congress year after year...we know they don't respect us...so why do we restore their power to do us harm over and over? Are we really that dumb?”

“I have some very good gay friends including couples. Government can do only so much and then only with the will of Congress ( ecept for the don't ask policy which Obama could end with no input from Congress )

The problem is really about American's accepting differences, and as a nation we are not very good at that. We think we are and we say we are, but that is a false impression of ourselves. Official policies stem from the perception of those social taboos. The loudest voices are often the voice of the most biased and those are the ones politicians hear and respond to. Politicians are like Pavlov's dogs and offer knee jerk policies that have no basis in reality beyond what they hear those loud mouths shouting in their ears. They care more about the loud guy than the little guy.

So...first order can only be to change the views of society. Not an easy task of course.”

“I have made a decision..­.actually two of them.

(1) If the Democrats, in the position of power, blow this reform I will leave the party. Become an independent and never again vote for any Democrat or Republican.

(2) Pack a lunch and head on over the the ER and sit there for as long as it takes me to get my hip fixed. I don't hold out hope for reform. It won't take effect until after I reach Medicare age anyway. Since I already lost my property to foreclosure and had to file bankruptcy, let the taxpayers eat the bill if they are not smart enough to put public care on the books.

I am tired of the crap from DC and tired of playing by the "rules" even as corporations and our elected officials make up their own rules as they go along.

I don' t know why I or any of us waste or time until we get rid of Congress and replace them with new people who pledge to fore go corporate donations.­..like that will ever happen.”

“Insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust legislation.

Wonder who lobbied for that perk?”

“Baucus is trying his best to sell us out and make insurance companies richer than before.

"required" to buy insurance? I can't afford it now. His plan says that "affordable" plans can cost me ( age 63 ) five times more than average just because I am older. I also have a pre-existing condition. By law they can not refuse my insurance.­..provided I can afford the premium. By making it so expensive I can't buy it at all puts me in the position of (a) doing without care as is the case now, and (b) paying a government fine because I don't have enough money.

If I qualify for a subsidy from the government to pay for a premium that is inflated 5 times, that means the insurance company is getting paid for by the taxpayers including the insurance company profit.

Talk about sweet deal for insurance companies. Government is made to guarantee them new customers and must pay for them if we cannot.

How very American of him to sell us all out for cash.

He makes me ashamed to be a Democrat..­.”

“Now...how to convince those who get that cash to vote to cut their own throats.

Before that can happen the voters need to wake up and stop re electing the same people over and over. Send in new troops with the message to reform campaigns and finance and special interest influence. Then if that batch fails, throw them out too.

It may take a couple of rounds and more cooperation of voters than I have any right to hope for, but absent a few house cleanings I don't foresee much changing in my life time.

Eventually if the cash does not obtain the special favors the big money will dry up because you know they get what they want now or they would not keep making the investment.

It is legal corruption of Congress that they don't even try to hide any more...so the corrupt must go.”

“I ask Arianna specifical­ly...do we have a chance or is America irretrivably in the hands of private corporations and their vaults full of money?

Is the American voter even relevant any more beyond the technical legal formality of asking us to choose which of their hand picked minions will take office in our name but not for our benefit?

Do we now and forever belong to the "company store" with debts and interest forever keeping us tied to the money changers whim? Do we work only to purchase what they decide we must own?

Is there any solution that actually has a chance at working?”

“Bill...how do you always manage to read my mind?

You scare me! Keep it up.”

“Many like having a scape goat in order to deflect attention away from themselves. Putting labels on people makes this easier to do by "legitimizing" the labels.

No one doubts the outcry that would ensue if Congress tried to ban tobacco, which they could do under the same "commerce clause" that permits them to outlaw pot. But if done, you would then see tobacco users treated the same as today's drug users. Prisons would swell till there were no free people left to pay for them!

Congress does not make rational decisions from the perspective of right vs wrong or what is best for the public. They make decisions by weighing such factors as the impact on their campaign funds or perceived threat to re election. Decisions based on moral or public benefit grounds are the exception, not the rule. Were it otherwise we would not be banning most drugs that are less dangerous than tobacco. We could tax them, provide rehab with some of the money and leave people alone to deal with addiction as adults...j­ust as people already need to deal with tobacco and alcohol addiction.

It is not about the substance, it is about the label attached to it's users and how we then use those labels to point fingers at those who are "bad" because of the label.”

“In the final analysis nothing is free. Freedom of choice is not free and is never guaranteed by a private corporation.

The issue of health care must stop being all about dollars and cents because when it comes down to any one of us, if we our our children are sick or injured we don't ask the cost to save them.

The debate about cost is irrelevant because in the end we, or someone, will pay the bill when the doctor comes calling. This is about how that bill is paid, how big it should be and how much of that bill deserves to be paid toward upfront profits to people who do not provide any care at all.

There is talk about the WHOLE bill costing a trillion dollars over ten years and anti-care factions say we can't afford this. ( your child's life is too expensive for government to care )

Did we not TWICE find that much to bail out Wall street over just a few months time? Are the American people's health not worth just one twentieth over ten years as much as Wall Street bankers were in a matter of months?

That's right...1/­20th as much per year as we handed Wall Street to assure no one must do without care. This is OUR money so shouldn't we get something back for it?”

“I have been an advocate and one-time lobbyist for reform in DC. I have 25 years of knowledge about the "system" and it is not good news for us.

I recommend people check out this site which I donate. I offer this as a resource for additional knowledge to those willing to learn more.

http://www.curenational.org

This is a grass roots organization that began in the early 70's in Texas and went national in 1985 and is presently establishing an international presence. They are officially recognized by the UN as well as having participated in some land mark prison law cases in Texas. They are a font of information for those who wish to learn more.

I want to note, please go easy on them if you contact them because they work with a small staff in a little office donated by a church in DC. Many states have their own chapters as well as some special interest chapters and a chapter covering Federal Prisons.”

“How do any "Christians" accept these people as their party ???

The right wing is "Christian" when it suits their political goals only, not when it comes to actually having any Christian ethics when it comes to providing anything for the less fortunate among us.

Sadly many Christians are uneducated and willing lambs led to their own slaughter by the GOP.

Ask which is more "Christian".
(1) To work hard to assure high profits and no competition for health care insurance companies
(2) To work hard to assure no one is denied health care based on ability to pay.

Which of the above represents the GOP's stance?”

“The problem is still that people are making the decisions and people, by their vary nature, are flawed and prone to mistakes. If you use any "tribunal" you are using a smaller pool of the same people who can then magnify mistakes because they all wind up being of like-mind over time. You also expose these people to danger from far more people who might seek revenge because they would be responsible for a larger quantity of convictions where as a jury is only responsible once.

With the jury system you get a totally fresh start with each case. A jury can make a mistake...­but only once.

The tribunal process would wind up acting the way parole boards do now...and that is not justice at work. We need to keep the basic system but fix the holes and remove incentives for officials who may be tempted to get a conviction by creating a liability for those who fabricate, with hold or alter evidence.

As a former cop I believed in things like the Miranda warning because it kept us honest and helped to assure a valid conviction. Those who take an oath to uphold the law need to be held to a higher standard than the general public and that should include a greater penalty for failure to do so.

Do the job right or don't do it at all. Justice is more important than mere conviction.”

“Yep you are correct. See my post about my friend on Florida's death row who came within 15 hours of death before being released.”