It doesn't surprise me on the Stupak amendment, but it's dead now, so that's kind of a moot point.

And good luck (and some divine wisdom) to you in your endeavors.

The NYT published an editorial by Stupak yesterday and Rep. Lois Capps, of the Capps Amendment, has responded:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/12/09/s…

I've never been a party girl, but I did just run and win elected office for my first time, in a nonpartisan city council race. Other than the support of individual voters, I did not seek the support of any specific entity – party or otherwise. There are just so few organizations that don't include virulent voices that I cannot agree with and which I do not want to become what defines me in the minds of others – the work of making sure people can disentangle has become harder and harder (just check out an old old post of mine about Obama and Rev. Wright where even ASKING the question if we should care about the connection AUTOMATICALLY got me all kinds of nasty “you are doing guilt by association!!! cone of shame for you!!!” kinds of comments – and that was BEFORE Obama himself decided that he needed to address his connections/history in that vein).

Anyway – I've always been skittish about connecting to Labels, or Groups that have big images in people's minds. So I'm not so sure replacing failed parties with others is the thing to do.

Going back to something I wrote earlier in this comment thread, if people trusted the people who ran for and got into office more, then we would feel that as individuals, we could vote and have it mean something. People usually organize to make their power more concentrated and effective, but their principles and reasons for supporting something can also be diluted by the totality of the whole.

There are no good solutions that I can think of, except if each of us could really see the other as a more than monolithic stereotypes. Sadly, the media and political punditry – I include myself there at times – has really made it profitable to do this – again, think Frank Luntz.

Anyway – thanks for answering the question. Good luck to you in those efforts.

When I started helping as a young man in Indianapolis, we used to run a thing that we called the politically homeless booth, the idea being that liberals had the Democratic party, the conservatives had the Republican party, and most politicians were really moderates, so libertarian minded people needed a political home. Now I'm convinced that liberals, conservatives, and moderates need new homes, also.

Seriously – for another thread – I would like to know what you've been doing when you say you've been trying – maybe you need some new tactics!

If you want to get rid of that, then let's debate that.

Been there; done that:
http://themoderatevoice.com/47430/campaign-free…

If they can't, then shame on them – not the “system” – unless we force the system to change.

I've been trying for a decade or two: a system change is way overdue. All major reforms are seriously hampered without it.

Every member of Congress, in either chamber, has a legion of staff and interns. Lobbyists as individuals who arrive in those offices with information are a fact of our legislative branch's existence. If you want to get rid of that, then let's debate that.

Maybe you have experience like I have too, but from my experience of having interned in a congressional office (1983, Bruce A Morrison, seat now held by Rosa DeLauro), I can tell you that those lobbyists tell you about stuff you've never heard of that will make its way to other legislators as well, so you better get educated. And you're going to start with them.

If we want our system to work the way we can trust it and feel that it has integrity, then the only way to deal with lobbyists is straight up. You want to get rid of the money side – tell that to SCOTUS which might be on the verge of making things tougher than ever.

In the meantime, no blaming the “system” – when someone presents themselves and the elected official thinks they're tied to money, then they need to make the right decision. If they can't, then shame on them – not the “system” – unless we force the system to change.

but there are 535 legislators, yes? If they can't pass something, all those plans don't matter.

The only commenter that made sense to me, in that regard, was MagicalSkyFather's Sh– sandwich explanation. That is, the bill sucks, but it's what you've got to deal with in order to get what you really want, which in this case is expanded coverage. But with their haphazard backroom deal approach, the costs are going to go up to the point where the working poor are going to be in even worse shape, since the subsidies won't be able to keep up with the still-rising costs, and the only ones who won't suffer will be the the richest people that can afford the costs, and the poorest, who are on medicaid. In other words, it's not a sh– sandwich, but more like bread floating in a septic tank.

You're advocating Lobbyists as advisers? The game of campaign cash has pretty much messed that up, even on state and (larger) county levels.

http://www.blogher.com/stupak-amendment-subsidy…

So you can see that I've been batting aside the irrelevance of the imperfection of Hyde for a while now. It is 100% beside the point in regard to getting health care reform legislation passed and enacted.

Just read this post about what the current tentative agreement DOES include – makes you realize how much of a sideshow the bringing in of abortion has been.

http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/12/08/public…

Anyway – thanks. Yes – many plans around, but there are 535 legislators, yes? If they can't pass something, all those plans don't matter.

moving health care reform (i.e., lowering costs, increasing the number of insured and improving care) closer to reality.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the current proposals have any chance of reducing overall health care costs, since they're playing with rather small cost drivers. I agree with the cost-effectiveness studies (aka. “death panels”), at least as it applies to public programs, and as a resource for private ones that are already underway. However, I should be allowed to drop cancer coverage, if I want, as long as I'm paying. I can't see how reducing out-of-pocket expenses for those who can afford them and removing lifetime limits will somehow reduce costs.

But much more interesting to me is what's not included:
Repealing McCarran-Ferguson to end the current monopolies. Why is the answer to government supported monopolies a government supported competitor?
Allowing people to purchase their drugs from overseas, or to form arbitrary groups in order to negotiate lower prices.
Breaking the AMA's near monopoly on medical licensing. Why do we need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to train one doctor, and only a few thousand to train a paramedic? Does anyone really think that it takes a great academic to become a great doctor or surgeon?
Investigating natural remedies to prove, scientifically, how effective they are, since there's no commercial reason for proving the effectiveness of something you can't patent.

“Multitudes” that are “vastly superior” – Love to read why such things haven't been implemented.

I don't know about multitudes of plans, but there have been several proposals from other groups, which I can give as links if you're interested in reading them.

Dorian

Good job!

How some things never change.

To the Editor:

According to the scriptures, Man was placed on earth prior to Women. While no time period is mentioned, I would estimate it to be about a million years. This, of course, means that men are one million years further advanced on the evolutionary scale.

Recognizing this, men have traditionally given their protection, guidance and shelter to these less fortunates. Now a rash of laws have appeared to attempt to equalize the sexes. Should these laws be taken seriously, the only result nay be to throw these poor defenseless creatures out into a cruel world to fend for themselves, with disastrous results, I fear,

There are many things women can do well such as babysitting, cleaning, cooking and waitressing without attempting the more difficult endeavors which are routinely performed by men.

So I urge you women to be patient in your efforts. Yes, patient for about a million years. As soon as we are convinced that you can handle our tasks, we will gladly assign them to you do that we may go on to even greater and as yet unknown horizons

Yours truly,
Bill Spahr

I believe that you can imagine the irate responses The Morning Press received. So many that, on December 20 1979, The Morning Press wrote the following:

No further communications in response to Spahr's letter will be published

Bob Fawcett, Editor
The Morning Press
December 20, 1979

From: “Letters to the Editor, Two Hundred Years in the Life of an American Town.”

Anyway – in a Republic, in a federated system, in a place with more than 310 million citizens, it's not practical to have standing on every single situation. That doesn't mean you don't try by hook or by crook – but to EXPECT that you can challenge everything – the way you say so? It's just no practical – on so many levels. And so it – like the entire Stupak Nelson situation, becomes nothing more than a political bludgeon.

I pray every day, in all seriousness, that I will not do that after I take office in January.

Those “other people's children” will keep this country going when you're back in diapers, my dear. It behooves us all to educate them and try and make a better world for everyone.

Thats the parents job, not the taxpayers. The parent made the decision to bring a new life into this world, they should accept full responsibility for their act until the child is mature. When other people choose to assist them that is a choice, hen the government forces other people to do so, that is coercion. I volunteer and work with special ed children and with discipline cases where parents have failed. I do so voluntarily and happily, if the government tried to make everyone do so, I'd oppose it even though I support the goals of these programs.

I know precisely what the Founding Fathers would have thought of your drivel: unChristian, unsustainable, bitter and bereft of any human grace.

Thats nice but I draw my ideas about how the founding fathers would act from their writings and historical records, sorry if you don't agree with that. I have no problem with the community deciding to support public education, I have a problem with the federal government requiring that people support education of other people's children.

let's hear it for speaking up against Medicare paying for Viagra, let's have a debate on that and the other 1000s of things that get covered.

Have already done so on a previous thread on this very forum, and will do so again, its a waste of taxpayer money. Let old men fund their own sex life.

Gotta love TMV is all I can say.