COME ON OBAMA AND DEMS!

[areid1023]

ahhhhh! stop making a bill to make everyone happy, it is impossible to please everyone! make a bill that helps the majority (or all in this case!) and makes the majority happy!!

come on! kerry wasn't a dems. dem. look what happened with him. mr. president, get it done! stop bending and BREAKING. represent the people that elected you. get the BEST healthcare bill through that you can. do everything that you can. and the dems. in the house and the senate: do the right thing! jeeez.

sorry. thanks for the vent. thoughts are always welcome. :).

[areid1023]

:(. bump? anyone else in the same boat? or in any boat going a different direction?

[SusanD]

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

[areid1023]

Quoting SusanD:

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

that certainly concerns me. but many of those people have vowed not to vote for any kind of public option regardless of the bill. the dems. that were going to vote against the bill were going to vote against the bill all along and probably shouldn't represent the dem. party at all.

[SusanD]

Quoting areid1023:

 

Quoting SusanD:

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

that certainly concerns me. but many of those people have vowed not to vote for any kind of public option regardless of the bill. the dems. that were going to vote against the bill were going to vote against the bill all along and probably shouldn't represent the dem. party at all.

Not all democrats WANT a public option. These "bluedog democrats" are actually representing a certain minority of the citizens, who also deserve to have their opinion heard and represented. After all, these elected officials are suppose to be representing the people who voted for them. If their particular district or state has a large number of democrats who tend to be more moderate to conservative and have voiced that they want no part of a public option...then they have an obligation to represent that.

Which IMO is how we SHOULD be represented, not based solely upon the views of your party and the party officials but on the views of the citizens you were elected to represent.

[areid1023]

Quoting SusanD:

Quoting areid1023:

 

Quoting SusanD:

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

that certainly concerns me. but many of those people have vowed not to vote for any kind of public option regardless of the bill. the dems. that were going to vote against the bill were going to vote against the bill all along and probably shouldn't represent the dem. party at all.

Not all democrats WANT a public option. These "bluedog democrats" are actually representing a certain minority of the citizens, who also deserve to have their opinion heard and represented. After all, these elected officials are suppose to be representing the people who voted for them. If their particular district or state has a large number of democrats who tend to be more moderate to conservative and have voiced that they want no part of a public option...then they have an obligation to represent that.

Which IMO is how we SHOULD be represented, not based solely upon the views of your party and the party officials but on the views of the citizens you were elected to represent.

first and foremost, it is late, i am tired and please forgive me for any typos or mistakes etc. :P

the fed. gov't is there to override the state's choices when the fed. gov't feels like the states are overstepping their bounds. we fortunately live in a republic. so states have rights as well as the country has rights. if the fed. gov't passes a bill it will apply to the country. people that are in the house and senate are in there because they represent their party, not because they represent their state. the choices they are making applies to the entire US population, not just the population residing in their state.

[SusanD]

Quoting areid1023:

 

Quoting SusanD:

Quoting areid1023:

 

Quoting SusanD:

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

that certainly concerns me. but many of those people have vowed not to vote for any kind of public option regardless of the bill. the dems. that were going to vote against the bill were going to vote against the bill all along and probably shouldn't represent the dem. party at all.

Not all democrats WANT a public option. These "bluedog democrats" are actually representing a certain minority of the citizens, who also deserve to have their opinion heard and represented. After all, these elected officials are suppose to be representing the people who voted for them. If their particular district or state has a large number of democrats who tend to be more moderate to conservative and have voiced that they want no part of a public option...then they have an obligation to represent that.

Which IMO is how we SHOULD be represented, not based solely upon the views of your party and the party officials but on the views of the citizens you were elected to represent.

first and foremost, it is late, i am tired and please forgive me for any typos or mistakes etc. :P

the fed. gov't is there to override the state's choices when the fed. gov't feels like the states are overstepping their bounds. we fortunately live in a republic. so states have rights as well as the country has rights. if the fed. gov't passes a bill it will apply to the country. people that are in the house and senate are in there because they represent their party, not because they represent their state. the choices they are making applies to the entire US population, not just the population residing in their state.

I'm afraid that you have it wrong....these elected officials are elected by the citizens of their states. After all, we don't vote on a national list of representatives. We vote for our house and senate on a state level. The reason behind this is because these individuals are there to support the voices of the individuals who reside in their state/district. They do NOT represent a party and are not suppose to only side on party views. They are elected BY the people and FOR the people, which is exactly what our government should be doing. After all, this is why we have our government set up in the fashion that it is. If the people are not happy with the way that the house and senate are voting, then they will not re-elect that person. So these representatives NEED to vote in their district/state's preferred manner or they will risk not getting re-elected. The party doesn't choose who fills that seat, the people who vote for them do.

Also, the federal government's job isn't to over-ride state rights. It is there to govern on national issues and there are some issues that are handled solely on a state level.

[areid1023]

Quoting SusanD:

Quoting areid1023:

 

Quoting SusanD:

Quoting areid1023:

 

Quoting SusanD:

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

that certainly concerns me. but many of those people have vowed not to vote for any kind of public option regardless of the bill. the dems. that were going to vote against the bill were going to vote against the bill all along and probably shouldn't represent the dem. party at all.

Not all democrats WANT a public option. These "bluedog democrats" are actually representing a certain minority of the citizens, who also deserve to have their opinion heard and represented. After all, these elected officials are suppose to be representing the people who voted for them. If their particular district or state has a large number of democrats who tend to be more moderate to conservative and have voiced that they want no part of a public option...then they have an obligation to represent that.

Which IMO is how we SHOULD be represented, not based solely upon the views of your party and the party officials but on the views of the citizens you were elected to represent.

first and foremost, it is late, i am tired and please forgive me for any typos or mistakes etc. :P

the fed. gov't is there to override the state's choices when the fed. gov't feels like the states are overstepping their bounds. we fortunately live in a republic. so states have rights as well as the country has rights. if the fed. gov't passes a bill it will apply to the country. people that are in the house and senate are in there because they represent their party, not because they represent their state. the choices they are making applies to the entire US population, not just the population residing in their state.

I'm afraid that you have it wrong....these elected officials are elected by the citizens of their states. After all, we don't vote on a national list of representatives. We vote for our house and senate on a state level. The reason behind this is because these individuals are there to support the voices of the individuals who reside in their state/district. They do NOT represent a party and are not suppose to only side on party views. They are elected BY the people and FOR the people, which is exactly what our government should be doing. After all, this is why we have our government set up in the fashion that it is. If the people are not happy with the way that the house and senate are voting, then they will not re-elect that person. So these representatives NEED to vote in their district/state's preferred manner or they will risk not getting re-elected. The party doesn't choose who fills that seat, the people who vote for them do.

Also, the federal government's job isn't to over-ride state rights. It is there to govern on national issues and there are some issues that are handled solely on a state level.

when you are working for the fed. gov't you are working for the collective united states.

the fed gov't has authority over the states.

yeah, the 10th amendment had its biggest flaws called out during the civil war. if it was only up to the states, slavery would probably still exist.

[emerald1]

I think members of congress should be voted out if they vote against this bill.   The bill is so water down its not going to do much good. I think its just a big give away to the drug companies. Democrats are afraid of their own shadow and their bought and paid for by the drug companies just like the Republicans.   I think they need to lower the medicare age down to 1 problem solved.  Medicare part E (Everyone) 

[areid1023]

Quoting emerald1:

I think members of congress should be voted out if they vote against this bill.   The bill is so water down its not going to do much good. I think its just a big give away to the drug companies. Democrats are afraid of their own shadow and their bought and paid for by the drug companies just like the Republicans.   I think they need to lower the medicare age down to 1 problem solved.  Medicare part E (Everyone) 

i agree.

[emerald1]

Quoting areid1023:

Quoting SusanD:

Quoting areid1023:

Quoting SusanD:

Quoting areid1023:

Quoting SusanD:

Well, the problem is that you have some democrats who have vowed to vote against it in the senate as it is written. They HAVE to come to an agreement or NOTHING goes through. There is a large portion of this country who are either moderates or conservatives and do not agree with this bill or many parts of the bill as it is currently written.

that certainly concerns me. but many of those people have vowed not to vote for any kind of public option regardless of the bill. the dems. that were going to vote against the bill were going to vote against the bill all along and probably shouldn't represent the dem. party at all.

Not all democrats WANT a public option. These "bluedog democrats" are actually representing a certain minority of the citizens, who also deserve to have their opinion heard and represented. After all, these elected officials are suppose to be representing the people who voted for them. If their particular district or state has a large number of democrats who tend to be more moderate to conservative and have voiced that they want no part of a public option...then they have an obligation to represent that.

Which IMO is how we SHOULD be represented, not based solely upon the views of your party and the party officials but on the views of the citizens you were elected to represent.

first and foremost, it is late, i am tired and please forgive me for any typos or mistakes etc. :P

the fed. gov't is there to override the state's choices when the fed. gov't feels like the states are overstepping their bounds. we fortunately live in a republic. so states have rights as well as the country has rights. if the fed. gov't passes a bill it will apply to the country. people that are in the house and senate are in there because they represent their party, not because they represent their state. the choices they are making applies to the entire US population, not just the population residing in their state.

I'm afraid that you have it wrong....these elected officials are elected by the citizens of their states. After all, we don't vote on a national list of representatives. We vote for our house and senate on a state level. The reason behind this is because these individuals are there to support the voices of the individuals who reside in their state/district. They do NOT represent a party and are not suppose to only side on party views. They are elected BY the people and FOR the people, which is exactly what our government should be doing. After all, this is why we have our government set up in the fashion that it is. If the people are not happy with the way that the house and senate are voting, then they will not re-elect that person. So these representatives NEED to vote in their district/state's preferred manner or they will risk not getting re-elected. The party doesn't choose who fills that seat, the people who vote for them do.

Also, the federal government's job isn't to over-ride state rights. It is there to govern on national issues and there are some issues that are handled solely on a state level.

when you are working for the fed. gov't you are working for the collective united states.

the fed gov't has authority over the states.

yeah, the 10th amendment had its biggest flaws called out during the civil war. if it was only up to the states, slavery would probably still exist.

She is right the fed government has authority of states rights. It's in constitution.