So what to do?

Let the Republicans filibuster? Sure. That’s an idea. Let them filibuster healthcare and Senate Democrats won’t put anything else on the agenda until they end their filibuster or the 2010 elections. If the latter, then the voters can decide whether they were happy with obstructionism or not. Obviously, this sort of “ballsy” move won’t happen.

But as Democrats with an *18* vote majority in the Senate and a commanding majority in the house, you need to start governing. Now!!

Most everyone believes the healthcare system needs reform. Well, here is what should be done:

Create small, separate bills w/ the following legislation:

1. No pre-existing conditional denial; no revoking insurance when a condition arises.
2. Guaranteed, subsidized catastrophic coverage to those out of work (i.e. taxpayer funded).
3. Cap on premiums/deductibles to avoid gouging high risk persons.
4. Ability to buy insurance from anywhere and port it to anywhere.
5. Guaranteed, subsidized twice yearly checkups and vaccinations for all Americans (i.e. taxpayer funded).

They would be simple and easy for anyone to understand. I would dare anyone, Republican or Democrat to vote against these. Because if they did, they would have to explain to their constituents why they voted against the person with diabetes who couldn’t get healthcare for insulin or the working Mom who was laid off and developed cancer and now cannot get insurance because she cannot afford it.

(The easiest thing to do would be to pass HR-676 from John Conyers which gurantees healthcare access to all. It is less than a 30 page bill. It is simple and to the point. But, obviously, for reasons that I cannot comprehend, that won’t be passed anytime soon)

Hello,

I am curious. At any of your town hall meetings in August, did you once, while you were denouncing a public plan for health care, say that you will sponsor a bill to totally rescind Medicare, Social Security and Public Education? As you know, all these are government run. I imagine that you did not. You would lose a lot of your electorate if you did that. And therein lies the hypocrisy.

I don’t mind honest debate. I don’t mind disagreement. What I do mind is misinformation, misdirection, hypocrisy and outright lies when talking about an issue.

And when you encourage, or at the very least don’t denounce, ill-informed views that public healthcare will create "death panels", a pure Hitler-like take over by our government, the loss of patient/doctor privilege, etc., then there is an integrity issue. And without integrity in a debate, all is lost.

The healthcare debate has become more about fear-mongering and keeping political power. And that is sad.

I deserve better. The American people deserve better.

Sincerely,

Joel Marcey, citizen of your district.

I will post a response, if I get one.

Historic day today, no matter what point on the political spectrum on which you lie. I shed a tear today, and for me that doesn’t happen very often. I wish him and our country Godspeed in fixing the many messes that need fixin’ and in grasping by the horns the many challenges that need graspin’.

(And, yes, I did notice Justice Roberts screw up the administering of the oath of office — Obama got stuck a bit, but laughed it off )

Here is a link to the article (there are many — just do a search): http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/02/14/news/20080214_front%20page_13.txt

Now I don’t know whether this story is true or not, but what always strikes me are the inevitable refutes that occur to pretty much any study. From the article:

But Larry Dozier, deputy general manager at the Central Arizona Project, which supplies Colorado River water to the Phoenix and Tucson areas, called the Scripps study “absurd.”
“I think they must have made some pretty outrageous assumptions to come up with some outrageous conclusions,” he said. He said his agency’s own study of the water levels in the two lakes showed they were in no danger of drying up.

Someone has to be right, right? I don’t understand how the two studies can be done that come to completely opposite conclusions.

But it happens all of the time.

Global warming is the biggest showcase of this “contradictory phenomenon” that I know of. A gazillion scientists have done studies and say it exists, humans contribute to it, etc. But there are scientists who have done studies who say that it does not exist, and it is a result of the normal course of Earth’s being. I don’t know for sure whether global warming exists or not, as I have not done any studies for myself. I tend to believe that something funny is going on, but I could not give you certainty. But, again, I don’t understand how supposedly reputable experts in a given field can come up with polar opposite conclusions on a given study.

This type of thing happens with economic data, military data, etc. It is just baffling to me.

I am, at heart, an engineer/scientist type. So I guess I can attribute this to the scientific method — which allows for studies to draw different conclusions. But I just don’t know if I am willing to take that leap yet. Something more goes on with these types of studies, and I believe it has to do with politics for the most part — which is sort of sad because it would be nice to know the truth on these and other important issues.

I watched President Bush’s State of the Union address on Monday.

I won’t say what I thought of the speech itself, other than to say it seemed like a “Greatest Hits” compilation from previous speeches. I am, in many ways, a cynic when it comes to politicians.

But, what always irks me, is what seems to be the canned applause after every other word out of the President’s mouth!

I don’t understand it….

“Iraq” <Applause>

“Tax Rebate” <Applause>

“I had fish for dinner” <Applause>

It is not *real* applause. It is *political* applause. I am 100% convinced of that. They are only applauding because it is the “PC” thing to do. And it happens every 5 seconds!

I think they need a shortened version of the State of the Union Address with all of the applause taken out. It would shorten the time by at least 1/3, I bet. (If you are familiar with the NFL Network, they replay games with all the time between plays taken out and you can watch them in 1 hour). And that would definitely give us a better use of our time to, oh I don’t know, spend time with our family, stimulate the economy, sleep, etc.

I know, I know — I don’t have to watch/listen to the speech. I guess that is an option.