Why shouldn't Lieberman "sell out" to the Insurance industry based in CT? Doesn't Lieberman represent his home state? Won't a Federal takeover of the Health Insurance industry have a negative impact on his home state's economy?
Why shouldn't Lieberman "sell out" to the Insurance industry based in CT? Doesn't Lieberman represent his home state? Won't a Federal takeover of the Health Insurance industry have a negative impact on his home state's economy?
I feel that House members should represent their constituency directly, but Senators should represent the states themselves independent of any particular constituency.
Why shouldn't Lieberman "sell out" to the Insurance industry based in CT? Doesn't Lieberman represent his home state? Won't a Federal takeover of the Health Insurance industry have a negative impact on his home state's economy?
You mean the same way that creating the FDA had a negative impact on food manufacturers in the US? Oh, wait...
Why shouldn't Lieberman "sell out" to the Insurance industry based in CT? Doesn't Lieberman represent his home state? Won't a Federal takeover of the Health Insurance industry have a negative impact on his home state's economy?
I feel that House members should represent their constituency directly, but Senators should represent the states themselves independent of any particular constituency.
In that case shouldn't every Rep from CT be opposed to this Health Care Bill?
Why shouldn't Lieberman "sell out" to the Insurance industry based in CT? Doesn't Lieberman represent his home state? Won't a Federal takeover of the Health Insurance industry have a negative impact on his home state's economy?
You mean the same way that creating the FDA had a negative impact on food manufacturers in the US? Oh, wait...
The FDA does not compete with the food manufacturers, a public insurance option would compete with insurance companies.
I have no problem with that, however, I expect the same courtesy in return. That courtesy is most definitely not afforded to me. My posts are treated with hyper-scrutiny compared to others here. It doesn't necessarily bother me, but people here really need to take a good look in the mirror and ask if they have truly been equitable.
Fair call, fair call. I'll treat you no different as I'd treat any other forum-goer from now on.
The FDA does not compete with the food manufacturers, a public insurance option would compete with insurance companies.
You said "a federal takeover of the health insurance industry" which is not at all the public option. The FDA was a "federal takeover" of the food production industry. The public option would compete, sure, but competition is a good thing. Also, would you say that WIC or Food Stamps compete with the food industry? I don't think so.
The FDA does not compete with the food manufacturers, a public insurance option would compete with insurance companies.
You said "a federal takeover of the health insurance industry" which is not at all the public option. The FDA was a "federal takeover" of the food production industry. The public option would compete, sure, but competition is a good thing. Also, would you say that WIC or Food Stamps compete with the food industry? I don't think so.
There are no private 'food insurance' plans designed to help you purchase food. So, no, WIC and Food Stamps do not compete with the food production industry but they would compete with a 'food purchasing insurance' industry if one existed.
The FDA is a regulating body, they did not 'take over' the food production industry. The FDA sets rules for food production but does not produce any food on its own.
While competition is a good thing it is not fair if one of the competitors also controls the regulating body.
While competition is a good thing it is not fair if one of the competitors also controls the regulating body.
They'll be overseen by separate entities. The insurance reforms are amendments to a different act whose name I forget (I'll look it up later), and any public option would be administered by a separate agency created expressly for that purpose. If the exact same agency both regulated the industry and offered their own option, you might have a point. I would also contend that it would only be unfair if the public option were held to a different standard; if all such policies are held to the exact same standard, then it's not unfair competition.
While competition is a good thing it is not fair if one of the competitors also controls the regulating body.
They'll be overseen by separate entities. The insurance reforms are amendments to a different act whose name I forget (I'll look it up later), and any public option would be administered by a separate agency created expressly for that purpose. If the exact same agency both regulated the industry and offered their own option, you might have a point. I would also contend that it would only be unfair if the public option were held to a different standard; if all such policies are held to the exact same standard, then it's not unfair competition.
Would the public option be run for-profit like a private insurance agency? If not, I'm honestly not sure it could be considered unfair competition in the first place, since it's not like the public option would get any benefit out of out-competing everyone else.
Would the public option be run for-profit like a private insurance agency? If not, I'm honestly not sure it could be considered unfair competition in the first place, since it's not like the public option would get any benefit out of out-competing everyone else.
Both public options in the current Senate bill would be non-profit entities who pay out claims with money collected only from the premiums they charge. So no, it would not compete. That would be like a church-run food pantry competing with a grocery store.
Whether you agree with him or not, Lieberman has got guts. It's amazing that one person has so much power right now. In our democracy, the idea that one person (who is not the president) can have near absolute control over something that deeply affects millions upon millions of people is pretty wild.
I can't blame Lieberman, since Connecticut has a HUGE insurance industry. It's just too bad that the deck got stacked so that he is holding all of the aces.
Leiberman is a gigantic douchebag who will switch loyalties at the drop of a hat for whatever best suits his wallet. He proved this during the last presidential election and the democrats should hurl him into the ocean and off the committee he's on. It's clear that money is the only thing that motivates this asshole. He's just another Arlan Spectre who doesn't actually care what's best for anyone but himself.
He's my Senator and I am proud to say I voted for him. You go Joe!
If there was ever any more need to show Steve is a troll, this was it.
Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic party, he was kicked out and then came back to win in the general election. He is his own man now. If the voters of CT did not want him to be their Senator he would have lost the election.
You can bitch about your own politicians all you want because they are elected to represent YOU. Unless you are a resident of CT you can't bitch about Lieberman. It's not his job to represent you nor is it his job to represent a national party that kicked him out. It is his job to represent the people of CT.
You might want to read about the founding of our country.
Because no document from the founding of America - you know, the constitution, that sort of thing - has ever, EVER been amended or changed. Nope. Just doesn't happen. Utterly Inconceivable.
I still don't know why the Senate is still around. What use is it to us if it is this easy to sway?
I do not agree with what Lieberman did, in fact I think is an asshole and just a puppet from big corporations. However, I believe that the Senate still has a place in our political system. I mean without it all the small states would have very little to no saying on whatever law that is presented to them. They would be very, very angry and America needs less angry right now. Though, I am all for it. If they manage to dissolve the Senate without making masses of people angry (imaging Red America angry to the 10th power )
However, I believe that the Senate still has a place in our political system. I mean without it all the small states would have very little to no saying on whatever law that is presented to them.
Why should a small state's constituents have more say than those of large states? This means that a resident of Rhode Island has much, much more say over whether or not we get universal health care than a resident of New York or California does. How is that fair? Why does the state matter, especially in areas that affect the people directly irrespective of their state citizenship?
Remember, the Senate used to represent the state itself, NOT the people of the state. That was the job of the house. Senators were NOT elected: they were appointed by the state legislature.
States should have equal representation in the Senate. Citizens should have equal representation in the house (meaning that more populous areas have proportionally more representatives). Even in the house, the proportions are not mathematically sound. A New York resident has far less representation in the House than a Utah resident. If the proportions in the house were tied directly to population, the representative counts would be very, very different.
The 2010 Census is going to bring big changes possibly. There is a big trend, it appears, of movement to New York City and a few other urban areas, to the detriment of everywhere else in the country. The urban parts of the southwest are growing rapidly. Midwestern urban centers are losing population just as the rural areas are, but these people are by and large heading southwest or to New York. New York City will likely represent not simply a majority, as it does now, but a substantial majority, of the population of New York State, due largely to massive immigration and a slowing of suburban flight. Demographics are shifting political power in the house toward traditionally Democratically controlled districts, which may push the southwest decidedly into "blue state" territory on federal matters.
I can't wait to see the results. Michigan lost a few representatives/electoral college votes last time, and it was a big deal. The changes for 2010 appear to have only accelerated.
Comments
The FDA is a regulating body, they did not 'take over' the food production industry. The FDA sets rules for food production but does not produce any food on its own.
While competition is a good thing it is not fair if one of the competitors also controls the regulating body.
I can't blame Lieberman, since Connecticut has a HUGE insurance industry. It's just too bad that the deck got stacked so that he is holding all of the aces.
You can bitch about your own politicians all you want because they are elected to represent YOU. Unless you are a resident of CT you can't bitch about Lieberman. It's not his job to represent you nor is it his job to represent a national party that kicked him out. It is his job to represent the people of CT.
Deal with it.
Though, I am all for it. If they manage to dissolve the Senate without making masses of people angry (imaging Red America angry to the 10th power
Remember, the Senate used to represent the state itself, NOT the people of the state. That was the job of the house. Senators were NOT elected: they were appointed by the state legislature.
States should have equal representation in the Senate. Citizens should have equal representation in the house (meaning that more populous areas have proportionally more representatives). Even in the house, the proportions are not mathematically sound. A New York resident has far less representation in the House than a Utah resident. If the proportions in the house were tied directly to population, the representative counts would be very, very different.
The 2010 Census is going to bring big changes possibly. There is a big trend, it appears, of movement to New York City and a few other urban areas, to the detriment of everywhere else in the country. The urban parts of the southwest are growing rapidly. Midwestern urban centers are losing population just as the rural areas are, but these people are by and large heading southwest or to New York. New York City will likely represent not simply a majority, as it does now, but a substantial majority, of the population of New York State, due largely to massive immigration and a slowing of suburban flight. Demographics are shifting political power in the house toward traditionally Democratically controlled districts, which may push the southwest decidedly into "blue state" territory on federal matters.
I can't wait to see the results. Michigan lost a few representatives/electoral college votes last time, and it was a big deal. The changes for 2010 appear to have only accelerated.