As I said, no matter how well the republicans do in the midterm elections this year, they will not be able to overturn the bill until a republican president is in office, and even then, they will only have a window of about a year to do it.

I think your cynicism with the American political system is a little misdirected. I don't know what your talking about when you say congressman are "bribed" on votes. Yes, there is a certain influence lobbying has, but the fact remains that in the United States, no individual can give more than $2400 to a candidate's political campaign, and its not like that money is theirs...it a campaign donation. Sure money has an amount of influence, but to call it an outright bribe I think in inaccurate.

Secondly, I don't know who you think could have overturned the will of the United States Congress, but they did in fact vote in majority for the Bailout in 2008, and I happen to think it was a pragmatic and necessary decision.

Maybe I'm just a little too optimistic, but I think what we are going to see in United States politics for the next while is this: The economy will continue to improve, and the furor over this health care bill should die down once its out of the media which has been biased against it. The Republicans will make gains during the midterm elections, and will probably take the house and will come close to taking the senate. But again, the economy will continue to improve and that along with health care improvements I think will be attributed to Obama, who will win again in 2012. Hopefully the democrats will be popular again once the economy and health care have moderately recovered, and maybe the US can finally have a functioning legislative branch once the public realizes how incompetent the republican party is at governing.

Certainly an interesting period awaiting the US....

Originally Posted by J-Met

I think your cynicism with the American political system is a little misdirected. I don't know what your talking about when you say congressman are "bribed" on votes. Yes, there is a certain influence lobbying has, but the fact remains that in the United States, no individual can give more than $2400 to a candidate's political campaign, and its not like that money is theirs...it a campaign donation. Sure money has an amount of influence, but to call it an outright bribe I think in inaccurate.

You suffer from crippling naivety if you think votes can't be bought. You don't need to donate to the campaign, which is a traceable transaction. You can give money directly to the congressman. Money can buy you anything.

Seriously though, you don't think there are outside bribes? I'm not talking about funding political campaigns, I'm talking about people saying "VOTE THIS AND I'LL MAKE IT WORTH YOUR WHILE". Watch Capitalism: A Love Story if you don't believe me. That's exactly how the bailout was funded. Senate voted NO on bailing out banks, and the decision was overturned because of side deals. There are a lot of former bank executives in senate, and like I said before, the US is a capitalistic society. The original decision not to bail out banks was overturned because individuals were bribed.

Also, I don't see how you can agree with the government supporting frivilous lending of money to citizens by banks for monetary gain. Republicans were the ones who voted to remove laws in place on loans and mortgages and put themselves in that predicament. I don't see how the government should support their losses at all, considering republican congressmen are the ones primarily gaining from it. A stupid decision by former bank executives and CEOs trying to profit more, resulted in making banks broke and they some how managed to get other people to support their stupidity for free? Are you kidding me? People are bribed all the time and just because its not publicized doesn't mean its not happening.

There most definitely will be a time to appeal the bill, and in which case I would not be surprised if the bill was overturned. Like I said before, bribes or the upcoming election will be what changes this. And I'm pretty sure even though Obama is the president and supports the bill, if the majority of congress oppose it, he will have to support their decision. I mean if Obama had so much power in making laws, he would implement health care laws without going threw the senate. Think logically now, if senate didn't pass the bill, do you honestly think that Obama has some exclusive power to say "NO, YOU'RE ALL WRONG, THIS NEEDS TO BECOME A LAW" and some how overturn the decision of congressmen? I don't think so. Universal health care for the US is not in the near future, a lot of Americans are strong believers of their constitutional rights and won't take a liking to want to implement such drastic change. Before you know it they will make the possession of handguns illegal!

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Watch Capitalism: A Love Story if you don't believe me. That's exactly how the bailout was funded.

I did watch that movie, and as much as I like Michael Moore's style, he's known for sensationalism and ignoring facts. I would suggest you look at other, less biased, sources as well.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Senate voted NO on bailing out banks, and the decision was overturned because of side deals.

The senate voted 74-25 in favor of of the bailout

(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00213)

The house voted 263 to 171 in favor of the bailout

(http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml)

I think what your referring to is the original vote on the bailout bill, which was struck down, but in the end the congress did support the bailout.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

Also, I don't see how you can agree with the government supporting frivilous lending of money to citizens by banks for monetary gain. Republicans were the ones who voted to remove laws in place on loans and mortgages and put themselves in that predicament. I don't see how the government should support their losses at all, considering republican congressmen are the ones primarily gaining from it. A stupid decision by former bank executives and CEOs trying to profit more, resulted in making banks broke and they some how managed to get other people to support their stupidity for free? Are you kidding me?

You have a point here. The bailout gave a lot of money to people who seriously screwed up. In a perfect world all those bankers would be subject to the same market limitations as the rest of us and wouldn't have jobs or money. But the fact is, without the bailout, many of the big banks would have collapsed, we would have seen a bank run like what happened at the beginning of the great depression, and we'd very likely be in a great depression right now. Despite what everyone says about the Fed or the Treasury under Paulson, I think they saved us from something that could have been a lot worse.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

People are bribed all the time and just because its not publicized doesn't mean its not happening.

Do you have a source that shows these transactions of money giving directly to the legislators themselves? I'm still skeptical that it happens as often as you think, considering bribery is a federal offense.

Originally Posted by shes-a-diva*

I mean if Obama had so much power in making laws, he would implement health care laws without going threw the senate. Think logically now, if senate didn't pass the bill, do you honestly think that Obama has some exclusive power to say "NO, YOU'RE ALL WRONG, THIS NEEDS TO BECOME A LAW" and some how overturn the decision of congressmen?

Obama does have power to make laws without going through congress. Its called an executive order. Bush used them all the time. Obama didn't want to use this because he, unlike Bush, actually believes in democracy and the constitution. Executive orders are messy and sometimes disputable, but the veto is not. If a bill comes forward wanting to repeal health care, Obama has the power to strike it down with the stroke of a pen.

Originally Posted by J-Met

Wow this is an inaccurate article. Though I am by all means happy the bill passed, what Americans are getting is nowhere near universal health care. Everyone is essentially being forced to buy health care form private insurance companies, without a public option at a lower cost. However, the government will subsidize the lower class to buy health care, and will regulate the insurance companies more heavily. This is a similar system to what they have in Switzerland, where it works pretty well, so we'll see how it goes.

While you probably know more about the Swiss system than me, I thought I should point out that there's one huge difference. The Swiss system actually has something close to a public option where the insurance companies are required to sell a plan that they don't make a profit on, that covers the bare minimum. The Swiss insurance companies make all their money on upselling from that. Because of the way the bill is structured in the US, insurance companies can keep offering junky plans that make them huge profits, and they get a huge increase in customers. The bill also gives them large subsidies and tax breaks to make up for the increased regulation. Insurance companies are the biggest winners from this bill.

Its unfortunate that in politics doing something is more important than doing something right. If a cap and trade bill gets passed, I have no doubt that it will just be a way to give more money to large, well connected corporations.

Originally Posted by J-Met

Do you have a source that shows these transactions of money giving directly to the legislators themselves? I'm still skeptical that it happens as often as you think, considering bribery is a federal offense.

Yup, they report these transactions to the IRS like good tax paying citizens. Also, no congressman in the history of U.S. politics has ever committed a federal offense even CLOSE to the severity of bribery. That sounds about right...

Originally Posted by J-Met

Obama does have power to make laws without going through congress. Its called an executive order. Bush used them all the time. Obama didn't want to use this because he, unlike Bush, actually believes in democracy and the constitution. Executive orders are messy and sometimes disputable, but the veto is not. If a bill comes forward wanting to repeal health care, Obama has the power to strike it down with the stroke of a pen.

He does have that power, but the midterm elections are going to be very much a referendum on the health care changes. If the democrats loose big time he will have a hard time justifying a veto repealing the health care bill. Especially if he has any aspirations of being re-elected.

Politicians ultimately have to answer to their electorate even if they were attempting to do something to their advantage.

Originally Posted by J-Met

Do you have a source that shows these transactions of money giving directly to the legislators themselves? I'm still skeptical that it happens as often as you think, considering bribery is a federal offense.

I dont think any bribery has happened but he probably had to make a lot of promises to congressmen to get them to change their votes. I am sure over the next several months there will be a lot of pork barreling.

Wow.. the republican party's website.. just wow.

I can't get past the horrible graphics let alone what they actually are showing.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

Wow.. the republican party's website.. just wow.

I can't get past the horrible graphics let alone what they actually are showing.

Minus the distasteful flames, what is actually so wrong about that website?

In the US, unlike in Canada, the Speaker is a very partisan position essentially responsible for the leadership of the majority party in the House.

Expand the image to full size and you'll see what I mean about how horrible the graphics are.

It's just a website you can't take seriously AT ALL no matter where your beliefs lie.

Originally Posted by temara.brown

Wow.. the republican party's website.. just wow.

I can't get past the horrible graphics let alone what they actually are showing.

Wow... This is horribly distasteful and childish, I can't believe this is on the official GOP site...

havnt really been following this but have they really got rid of the preexisting condition thing, if so, thats pretty cool

baby steps..

My parents live in Michigan, and I've been asking my dad about what he thinks of the "Universal" health care. He said he completely hates it. He thinks this bill does next to nothing to help the middle class, which is the majority of Americans. I have to agree with him. It is true that a lot of people in the lower class will get health care of some sort, and children for the first time will receive health care, but a lot of states already had that in place. I know for a fact that in New York people under 19 had free health care much like we do in Canada.

I just think there were much better ways to do this than the system that is proposed. Personally, I think they should cap the salaries of doctors and nurses, people get paid ridiculous amounts in those professions, not to mention open more medical and nursing schools (that goes for both countries), then work on introducing generics sooner to the market. Both of those things would help the middle class.

The fact is that there aren't too many legal Americans that cannot afford healthcare, which is why there is this much oposition to public healthcare....most people don't want to pay extra for others. Those that can't can be taken care through government programs, the US government is rich enough for that

Originally Posted by lmasud

The fact is that there aren't too many legal Americans that cannot afford healthcare, which is why there is this much oposition to public healthcare....most people don't want to pay extra for others. Those that can't can be taken care through government programs, the US government is rich enough for that

30 million uninsured. That's nearly the population of Canada.

Originally Posted by lmasud

Personally, I think they should cap the salaries of doctors and nurses, people get paid ridiculous amounts in those professions, not to mention open more medical and nursing schools (that goes for both countries), then work on introducing generics sooner to the market. Both of those things would help the middle class.

**** yes, stop the brain drain!

Its not that spectacular, but don't you think that something is better than nothing, considering the ideologically-driven opposition? Many americans don't have the luxory of just waiting around until legislators get it just right...