People have spoken: What's next?

I can honestly say that I am happy with the election results. When our senators and congressman vote for bills and pass laws against the will of the people, you see what will happen. There were Democrats that had been in their positions for over a decade and were easily defeated because of that very thing. They voted for the Health Care Bill, against the will of the majority, and now they are out of a job. Elected officials are there for "us", to look out for our interest and well-being, not their own.

Also, let the private sector dictate the job market. The best resource that a company has is its employees. The same goes for the USA; there are great minds out there that can do a lot better job at solving problems than some elected official. The government should focus on infrastructure, not creating jobs. Again, the private sector should dictate how the market and jobs flow. If you don't believe in capitalistic economics, then when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

I hope that they can work together as a bi-partisan group and get our economy thriving again. This is the greatest country on earth. Let's keep it that way.

I was pleased because it proved that the people can make a difference in WHO represents us. It sometimes seems as if there is no use.

I was also pleased that those who used negative campaign tactics seemed to come up on the losing end. Not all who lost used negativity, but those campaign managers who thought throwing crap was the way to win, seemed to have been shown otherwise.

Only time will tell if the changes will have a positive impact, but just as we always have hope for the new season, the new recruit, we should now have hope for the new political office holder.

Actually, EM, you're mistaken about the "Everyone I know wants Healthcare reform". I know for a fact that you and I have discussed this in the past and I'm pretty sure I made my stance perfectly clear. In case I didn't, it was that I did NOT want the Health Care Reform bill to pass. It all depends on the circles with which you associate. Virtually everyone I know was against the passage of that monstrosity.

Tax on tanning beds, 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any "medical device", Drug manufacturers a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019 in new fees (taxes), Health insurers will pay $47 billion over the same period...who do you think is REALLY going to pay those fees/taxes? If you think it's the corporations, you are sadly mistaken. Those fees/taxes will be paid by the people that need the services or devices.

Whether it is true or not, my insurance went up 25% (that part is true) because of the health care bill. Can not say I like that.

wonderwhy - Are you serious? The Democrats have been just as partisan as the Republicans. They've held their closed door meetings to draw up that behemoth of a law, wouldn't accept ANY of the Republicans' input, conducted shady deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback" to get enough people IN THEIR OWN PARTY to vote for it. Yeah, they're a real charitable bunch, just had the good of the American people in mind. These people simply want more people suckling on the government teat so that they can ensure their own re-election. Making Obama a one-term President shouldn't be the goal of Congressmen, it should be the goal of every American citizen with at least half a brain, because people who think the Democrats are all saintly have lost at least half of theirs.

Healthcare coverage is a right?? I thought it was a responsibility.

The kind of reform we needed was TORT reform. Take the jackpot out of lawsuits and add some type of penalty to ones bringing frivulous suits.

Malpractice insurance is a huge part of the costs associated with healthcare. I have experienced this first hand.

Forcing everyone to buy insurance is NOT the answer. Spending trillions that we don't have for another sure-to-be mismanaged Govt. run social program is not the answer.

Reducing healthcare costs is what we need. Does anyone seriously expect a bunch of lawyers, doctors, and insurance people that we call political leaders (both D and R) are going to do that? Again, I doubt it.

They are playing good cop, bad cop. I think the gains by the GOP are nothing more than a ruse to make the people feel better about being one step closer to having their lives dictated to them by the ruling elite. There may be some concessions made, but socialized medicine and the loss of our freedom is here to stay. At least until it all fails, and it will. It's just a matter of time.

The old saying about the problem with socialism being "sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend" is true. Watch and see if the trillions of debt don't continue to climb. Don't believe the rhetoric about Clinton having a surplus either. There was never a yr. that the debt went down not matter which party was in charge. You can submit all the "fuzzy math" you want but the national debt continues to climb. Again, I doubt if this congress will be any different.

Tyger, good point.Also the plan that has been approved was just fine when Mit Romney wanted it for his state.....Below is an expert from an article that many may find interesting, and well some of you may just decide to pretend never happened.... so why was it all so wonderful when it was of their guys and oh so against it when Democrate? And Thom you say no republican input, heck it's almost the same exact thing your republican buddy Romney went to bat for and actually signed into his state............ Romneycare/Obamacare not much difference other than the name......

_______________________________

""""Cato Policy Report, January/February 2008

Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare

By Michael Tanner

There's good reason for his change of position. The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." In reality, the plan has done neither.

Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it?

Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.

When then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed into law the nation's most far-reaching state health care reform proposal, it was widely expected to be a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. In fact Governor Romney bragged that he would "steal" the traditionally Democratic issue of health care. "Issues which have long been the province of the Democratic Party to claim as their own will increasingly move to the Republican side of the aisle," he told Bloomberg News Service shortly after signing the bill. He told other reporters that the biggest difference between his health care plan and Hillary Clinton's was "mine got passed and hers didn't."

Outside observers on both the Right and Left praised the program. Edmund Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation hailed it as "one of the most promising strategies out there." And Hillary Clinton adviser Stuart Altman said, ''The Massachusetts plan could become a catalyst and a galvanizing event at the national level, and a catalyst for other states."

Today, however, Romney seldom mentions his plan on the campaign trail. If pressed he maintains that he is "proud" of what he accomplished, while criticizing how the Democratic administration that succeeded him has implemented the program. Nevertheless, he now focuses on changing federal tax law in order to empower individuals to buy health insurance outside their employer, and on incentives for states to deregulate their insurance industry. He would also use block grants for both Medicaid and federal uncompensated care funds to encourage greater state innovation. He encourages states to experiment, but does not offer his own state as a model.

A Double Failure

There's good reason for his change of position. The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." In reality, the plan has done neither.

Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it?

Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.

Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was "unprecedented," and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product.

It was also a failure.

When the bill was signed, Governor Romney, the media, state lawmakers, and health care reform advocates hailed the mandate as achieving universal coverage. "All Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It's a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort," Romney wrote.

Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

It's important to note that the subsidies in Massachusetts are extensive and reach well into the middle class-available on a sliding scale to those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. That means subsidies would be available for those with incomes ranging from $30,480 for a single individual to as much as $130,389 for a married couple with seven children. A typical married couple with two children would qualify for a subsidy if their income were below $63,000.""""

_______________________________________

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v...

_______________________________________

more information detailing ROMNEYCARE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuset...

Mike I was referring to the details of the plan not the legality of it ( that is still debatable) , and the hypocrisy of the people who slam it when it's called Obamacare but loved it when Romney imposed it. The ones who say the republicans had no input but refuse to see it is fashioned after a republican plan already in play. There is a lot of questionable parts to it, and it needs fine tuning for sure, but we had to start somewhere, and it was the best they could do considering they have to fight tooth and nail against those who are blind sided with hate for Obama and their overwhelming desire to insure his failure no matter who it hurts if they succeed.

They also took an office to represent all the people of this country, yet they have turned their backs on them.

This country needs to come together. I don't know the right answers. They are out there. Pray to the Lord.

KLH

One thing he has wrong is that it is not unconstitutional because it hasn't been adjudged unconstitutional, regardless what people think.

-- Posted by Tyger

Using that logic a thief didn't really steal anything until the judge says he's guilty?

------------------------------------------

I find it strange that the same people that get aroused over this law have never express such outrage over other Federal mandated law.

-- Posted by Tyger

I am opposed to most federal laws.

It is said the republicans had "no say" in the bill, it was fashioned after a Republicans bill, that is where Romney's bill fits in. It's really rather simple if you think about it, It's not like the democrats went and "just by chance" came up with the same thing that had been in effect for a few years already. The republicans did have input into the final bill, one of theirs darn near wrote it.

So Thom, just who are the elected official elected to represent if not the citizens? Isn't the constitution there to protect the people?

wonderwhy - As I've said before, "they each represent their respective districts, not ALL the people of this country."

If that's too difficult for you to understand, then you need to go back to Civics class in middle school.

The Congressmen that voted against that bill didn't "turn their backs" on the citizens of this country, as you said...judging by the polls, they were voting as they should have to represent their constituents' wishes. The ones that turned their backs on the citizens of this country are the Democrats that were trying to ensure they maintain the majority of power in Washington...how did that turn out for them this past Tuesday? Yeah, the "people" were REALLY thankful, weren't they?

You really should try to keep up.

My health insurance also increased by 30% at least.

My fears prior the election of President Obama played out and seemed to be getting worse until the People spoke. At least now the Democrats will have to compromise more and perhaps listen more to their constituents.

Funny how big heads deflate.

President Clinton and Reagan both lost control of the House in their mid-term elections, and both still won a second Presidential term. This is nothing new and could actually work out well for the Democrats.

Now that Republicans have a majority in congress, it means that they can't just sit around with their thumbs up their ass and blame President Obama. Their "just say no" strategy, now has to end and they actually have to do something for a change.

And since they have no ideas, it seems the only thing that they can come up with is to repeal the healthcare bill or otherwise just try to "undo" any progress made by Democrats.

If this is their new strategy I believe it will be a disaster for Republicans.

Most people don't even understand everything in the heathcare bill. But the longer that it is in effect, what people will realize is that alot of the fearful claims from Republican politicans were false, or in some cases...flat out lies.

There are no "death panels".

It is not a "government takeover", or "socialism".

It will not "bankrupt America".

Illegal immigrants will not get free health insurance.

What the bill will do is finally end insurance company abuses. They will no longer be able to abruptly drop a person when they get sick, or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. It would make insurance companies pay for the treatments ordered by doctors.

An additional 32 million Americans will be able to get affordable and safe healthcare.

This will reduce the deficit by an estimated 143 billion dollars.

If this is what Republicans want to stop they will only again prove that although they do know how to campaign well and get elected, once elected...they have no idea how to govern.

I'll keep it simple. People want, and deserve and are demanding, politicians who solve problems rather that creating problems. Have politicians gotten the message?

Harley a very moving piece you wrote there, tell me when someone starts to break into your home, or your in an accident, will you call the socialistic - government police department? Do or did your kids attend the schools? Are you proteced by government OSSA regulations that insure you have a safe work place? When you eat out do you feel some what safer knowing the establishment is being held to codes that protect you from nasty condition and dangerous practices in the kitchens? Tell me do you go out and maintain the roads in your area so as not to have GOVERNMENTAL decisions made in how it is done? How about government codes that prevent your neighbor from owning a dump across the street from you? Or ones that prevent having a factory next door spewing poisonous gasses in your windows? Would you prefer to have no governmental speed limits? No laws imposed by government so people can do what when and where they choose? Heck just think that drug dealing, prostitute could set up her game in your drive way - heck no government protection from trespassers..........SO tell me again about how you do not want any government intervention in your life.......... A lot of big talk, but I doubt it will mean a whole hill of beans when you have need of the services.... HEy turn down unemployment, social security, don't use anything supplied by the government, would you want an unlicensed doctor to do surgery on your loved ones? Hum they are regulated by the government to insure the real nut jobs do not fake credentials..... I could go on and on but You get the point.........

wonderwhy - So it's either accept that the federal government is requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or anarchy? By the way, the vast majority of things that you brought up don't even involve the FEDERAL government, which is what we're talking about here.

Wow, talk about your nut jobs.

"What the bill will do is finally end insurance company abuses. They will no longer be able to abruptly drop a person when they get sick, or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. It would make insurance companies pay for the treatments ordered by doctors."

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:16 AM

So it took a 2000+ page bill just to do that?!? Couldnt they have just sent out a memo or something if thats all there was to it.

"Illegal immigrants will not get free health insurance."

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:16 AM

I am sure they will check to make sure they are here legally before they hand out any benefits, just like they do now. HAHAHA what a joke.

And to think they came here since Obama took office, all the debt and problems of America are his fault bla bla bla ,at least that's the way the republicans want us to believe. Shall we bow and kiss the patooties of them, shall we thank them for all the wonderful things they do for big business, heck just look at all the wonderful jobs those tax cuts Bush gave them did, we really need to continue it so they can continue to do more of the same ..........yea right if your blind and can not see where The republicans wonderful years took us...The downward spiral started months before Obama was elected so he most definatly did not cause it, and Bush had the previous years that was on his day one in good shape.......Explain again how those Bush tax breaks they had, how the bail outs they got (not loans like the auto companies) us, some how I just do not see the job growth from their hand outs and tax breaks, I can not find the so called trickle down ( other than the yellow stuff)so please do show us the wonders they did, explain how more of the same will be different...........I know a lot of people who are suffering from the wonderful things those wonderful Bush goodies provided did, they lost retirements and homes BEFORE Obama was around to blame.(Yes it is his responsibilty to fix the toxic mess left him.But you cant fix 8 years in 18 month And you can not do it with a major part of those that should be working to help playing the party of NO) But I guess those hurting since they are not republicans they don't matter do they? They are just some of the expendable flies in the ointment. Some here say the government is not here to represent "all" the citizens, that is sad - because EVERY district is made up of citizens of a variety of needs and beliefs - they ALL should be represented and considered, not just the ones who kiss party butts that are sucking up to their lobbyist. I count as much as my neighbor, you and any other citizen here rich poor or in between. To bad so many can not comprehend that, until they are the ones up for political extermination. The republicans would love nothing more than to see the warts (anyone not worth by their standards) eliminated - poof all gone-

Bush also took office at the beginning of a recession. The DOT COM bubble burst before he took office. Remember the booming markets of people buying computers during the Clinton years? When that ended the economy tanked. Then, as now, the President took the blame for it.

This time it was the housing bubble that burst and a different strategy was used to recover, tax and spend. Bush cut taxes and sent out numerous stimulus checks to the citizens, not the banks and big union run corporations like Obama. The strategy Bush used saw the market hit 14000 for the first time in history even though we had the disasters of 911 and Hurricane Katrina to contend with.

The Dems have been in control of congress since 2006. The housing buble burst because of a Dem. law in the form of the Community re-investment act that extended huge loans to people who would have otherwise not been able to afford them and would have had to borrowed less to stay within their means. The GOP when they had control did nothing to correct the problem even though they knew it existed.

The bottom line is that the government is only suppose to pass laws with the consent of the governed. If they truly had the peoples consent for what they have been doing, they would have been re-elected.

The people understand that regardless of the best intentions, whether for healthcare, housing, or other social programs, we cannot spend money that we don't have and pass the debt on to our children. To me, it seems very selfish to do that to future generations.

Healthcare costs are too high and insurance is certainly a driving factor.

1.) People that don't need care run to the doctor for the slightest sniffle because they have no out of pocket expense, except maybe a copay.

2.) TV ads push drugs, procedures, and devices while convincing people they have the symptoms and that they can get the costs covered by insurance.

3.) Lawsuits over malpractice, or simply slipping on a wet floor, award millions to people who are out to make a living (and do) from such suits.

4.)Insurance companies are not allowed to cross state lines so that citizens can get the best deal.

5.) Insurance costs can be reduced if is only used for disasterous cases instead of everyday colds, elective surgeries, and lifestyle choice drugs such as Viagra.

These are just a few issues with insurance.

All of these issues can be improved to bring down healthcare costs. None of these issues were corrected by the healthcare bill. I believe wonderwhy point out that Obamacare was modelled after Romneycare, so the GOP does hae ideas, I believe those ideas are wrong in both cases.

The people recognized a march towards socialism to which we have not consented and voted accordingly. We can only hope at this point that the GOP gets the message and will only do what the people consent to.

I think the word " mandate" is somewhat loaded in this context. The Brown Shirts will not be busting down any doors in the middle of the night demanding to see someone's insurance papers. In reality, what is proposed is simply a tax on those who remain uninsured. It is a much fairer tax than most we currently have. The Federal Government actually already does "mandate" that we purchase many things, if only through a different methodology. For example, there are some who pay for roads that they will never use, some who have no children but are nevertheless compelled to fund schools, some people are forced to pay for welfare, warfare, environmental studies, subsidies to agriculture, art, and business, etcetera, etcetra that they may not otherwise choose to support, but are never given the choice through the distribution of tax revenues. There is no difference.

I was not aware that our forefathers had "freedom of choice" in mind when they designed and/or fought for our government. I also must have missed that bit of American history that supports the theory of "America governing best when it governs least."

Moreover, I just do not understand the Constitutional arguments posted here. The Constitution was a founding document, not a finished product. President after president, and court after court, have firmly established the fact that our Constitution has a broad range of interpretation. If the end is suggested, then the means are understood. That historically sound concept, coupled with the Supremacy Clause, renders further speculation pointless.

My opinion is that neither just the democrats or the republicans are responsible for the economy but both. This situation has been happening over the past 20 years or more. Remember when we had Eaton, Stanley, Lockheed, Model Sportswear and many other clothing factories? When we allowed all our industry move out of the country and started getting everything from China, that is what ruined our economy. We need our jobs back. Cheap labor in other countries has undermined this country. Do we have enough intelligent people in Washington, who will work together to reverse this situation?

I agree Poksalad, Reagan began it by elliminating the tariff between us and Canada, Bush 1 wanted to extend it to Mexico, Clinton did extend it to Mexico and China.

Tariffs were the primary means of funding for the U.S. government before they started using the income tax and the ponzy scheme we call social security. Of course it was still the citizens that paid the higher price on foreign goods, but at least we had a choice.

Have you ever heard a single politician say during a speech "buy American products instead of foreign imports" ? I haven't! That tells me they don't care if we buy U.S. made goods or foreign and also tells me there are global powers at work that want to merge all of our economies into one.

Were the election results a complete rejection of the Obama administration or was it more the people's rejection of "government as usual"? Only a blind fool would believe that it's this or the former administration's fault. Our country has been headed in this direction for the last 40 years. I certainly don't know all the answers, hell I don't even know if I could ask the right questions, but I do know that if our government continues to reject the values that our country was founded upon, we are still headed for the same train wreck, no matter what car you're riding in.

Not in America: British Legislator Loses Seat over False Campaign Leaflets

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Not in America: British Legislator Loses Seat over False Campaign Leaflets

Elwyn Watkins and Phil Woolas

Misrepresenting a campaign opponent's position may be standard operating procedure in the United States, but in the United Kingdom it has cost a member of the British parliament his seat. Phil Woolas was removed from office by an election court after it concluded that the Labour Party MP knowingly made false statements about Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins. The remarks, which were published in campaign literature, accused Watkins of courting Islamic extremists and planning to not live in the district covering Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Woolas won the election in May by only 103 votes.

The ruling, said to be the first of its kind in 99 years, bars Woolas from running again for the House of Commons for the next three years. He has said he intends to appeal the decision.

In February 1911, High Court judges voided the election of Irish MP Richard Hazleton because his campaign agents had engaged in bribery, intimidation, paying to transport voters to the polls and spreading "false statements of fact with respect to the personal character and conduct" about Hazleton's opponent Timothy Healy.

-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky

Here is a very Pleasant thought for all you people who refuse to think for yourselves.

The World Bankers instructed Congress to keep spending money we don't have (*one of the conditions of being bankrupt) until it produced an economical chaos.

Not only the poor but the Middle Class have had their homes repossessed by foreclosure.

If you watch the news... the Equity in these Homes and Property has doubled in value, maybe more than doubled.

Millions of people have lost or about to lose their homes and yet the EQUITY has doubled for the rich people who have foreclosed and resold them.

(*)The buyer/owner paid the interest on them and some rich banker gets the Equity after the Republicanots and the Demoncrats cause the Economic Chaos for the people and "Free" Huge Equity for the RICH.

How convenient is that???

Who did you say Congress works for?

The people have Spoken and said nothing.

Republican/Democrat means nothing. That is just a distraction to keep the people from looking at the real problem... usurping power of Congress and state legislators.

How about those Republicans??