forbes.com — If Democrats ram through an unpopular trillion-dollar health care bill in this climate, with Congress' approval rating at 15%, they may well cement their image as the worst of Washington and sever their claim on the public's trust for years to come.
Mar 3, 2010 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountMar 4, 2010
twiztidsinz is the lamest username on Digg. Let me guess... you're a goth?
twilightzone59Mar 4, 2010
@BlankchequeThe death rate for cancer in the UK is higher then in the US (government run heath case either costs more or services are cut because it costs more)Five year breast cancer survival rates:US - 83.9%UK - 69.9%Five year prostate cancer survival rate:US - 91.9%UK - 51.1% (this one SUCKS!)
stingwolfMar 4, 2010
And my axe!
jbradlMar 4, 2010
There are a few other countries we haven't invaded, aren't there?
tyhoMar 4, 2010
@downneckMy comedy is truly lost on you troglodytes at Digg.Looking at your post history though downneck, it's clear you have NO redeeming qualities.
tyhoMar 4, 2010
@new*bSorry, I really didn't anticipate that you would include yourself as ignorant. I didn't mean to ascribe something to you that did not apply. I, also, am not a Washington insider with any more information than is available to us all. And I agree we elected people to work these things out for us. I don't believe the majority of politicians are any smarter than I am, but they are certainly privy to more information, so they should be less ignorant.We agree that a massive comprehensive bill is retarded. I would love it if congress would vote on every issue individually instead of sneaking unpopular legislation into some other bill that that is unrelated. I think that's just cowardly political expediency.I agree those in power should not govern based on polls.I read what politicians do, I listen to what they say, I observe who is bribing who.If politicians are so well informed, hence not ignorant, and you put your faith in them, shouldn't I be able to do the same.If politician A tells me a bill is bad because of X reason, and they are so well informed, should I be able to believe it?And if not, should I do as you suggest and put my faith in them while they willfully keep me in the dark.The fact is they work at our business because we elected them to. Their main focus, unfortunately, is getting reelected.
newerakbMar 4, 2010
"The fact is they work at our business because we elected them to. Their main focus, unfortunately, is getting reelected."Which is a wonderful argument for making all elected positions a single-term. If someone is worried about being voted back in, they aren't worried about doing what's right. If you are unable to stick by your convictions because of fear of reelection, you aren't an effective executive/legislator.Sure, we'd lose lots of great people. But we'd also lose a lot of bad ones.
Closed AccountMar 4, 2010
By open mind does that mean a suspension of intellectual discernment? Because when you read the bill itself it makes a poor case for itself.
peppermintpigMar 5, 2010
It will effect me because it's all interconnected and will effect prices, but being forced to have insurance does not solve the problem.
nattybumpoeMar 8, 2010
@TyhoI like your statistical argument: your assertions don't apply to me, so it can't be true that Americans do X. You are anecdotal evidence, just as I would be. I didn't call the American people fools, but I did say that we are willfully ignorant. To me, it appears that the nation is moving away from respect for scholars and more toward respect for personality. If you ask someone why they went to college, most of them will not say they went there to lean, but that they went there to increase their earning potential. Now, I know that it hurts your feelings when I say "we;" so, I do know and acknowledge that there are exceptions to the general rule. Some of these are minority viewpoints, while others are majority viewpoints. I was combining them together because they are illustrative of viewpoints across the political spectrum. And what I meant by the Earth being 6000 years old comment was that the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. I believe that we like other people to tell us how we should think instead of actually going out and trying to understand problems ourselves and we want other people to solve the problems for us.I'm also glad that you are good at taking things out of context because what I said is this: "So naturally, I defer most judgment to the politicians, but when I do know about something, will weigh in. But I think that weighing in on something without being informed makes no sense, you have nothing to contribute, and unless you're participating to become informed, you're only tooting the demagogue horn."I was saying that people think that their opinion is valuable regardless of the amount that the person knows. If you do not know about an issue then your opinion is worthless. But people still write without being informed. They still accept news on face value without doing their own investigation of the facts. So yes, if you are going to weigh in on the merits of the McCarran-Ferguson Act without knowing anything about antitrust law and enforcement, then I will disregard your opinion because you don't have anything to add to the discussion. If you do know about economics, or law, or both, then by all means express your opinion; but adding your opinion without having any background does not bring anything to the table.
protoApr 19, 2010
Actually, any representative who votes for a TWO THOUSAND page bill should be fired outright -- no matter what the bill is about.