Woohoo! Go, Scott Brown.

[Subotan]

It's not, and this election result shows it quite well..

Why?

Yes, it is difficult to administer sweeping changes, and that is a good thing. Revolutionary changes usually bear sweeping consequences, and if the healthcare bill if flawed (which it is), then the public will end up paying the price for a legislative mistake.

If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?

Because a tyranny of the majority is a good thing. I don't mind, that's one reason why so many English fled to us.

Oh, no, if the government tries to do something silly, we get our unelected Lords to smack them down

At the same time, the current use of the filibuster is not remotely historical. Google-fu tells me that there were no filibusters at all between 1789 and 1840, and fewer than 2 dozen total between 1841 and 1899. Between 1919 and 1963, there were a total of only 23 filibusters. From 2000 through 2008, there have never been fewer than 43 filibusters per year, with 139 filibusters in 2008 alone.

There's something wrong with our system. It was not intended to work like this.

Partisanship has become extreme. It's interesting to see that the Republicans in Congress, who claim that government is inefficient, are making government unworkable in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[rvg]

If the bill is flawed (Which it is), is that because the concept of healthcare reform is flawed, or is it because the process which generated that bill is flawed?

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The process was bad. The bill is loaded with problems because it was rushed. As a result, it contains a lot of problems and pork that was put in there to appease particular senators (like the special status for Nebraska). I would welcome the healthcare reform, but it needs to be done right. For example, this humongous healthcare bill needs to be broken up into dozens of mini-bills each of which would target a specific aspect of the healthcare reform. That way the reform will be overall more thought out, will have more support among the people, and possibly even some bipartisan backing.

As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop. Without a doubt this is a common human tendency, but it is all too well-observed in Republican/conservative apologists. Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...

Simply because the parts are wrong/missing, it does not mean it should be trashed - something most evident in science, particularly the theory of evolution. On the contrary, everything seems like rubbish in the beginning, but usually it improves. US has a great deal of experience in this, and its entire Constitution was founded upon this belief, hence the amendments (I simply at loss of words why so many Republicans deny or oppose the 'living Constitution' principle on historical grounds too).

So what is it that the Republicans want? Are they truly that idealistic? No. And neither are the Dems - it is all (or mostly) partisanship. But can the conservative Orgahs not see through this? Now, if you do not beleive the nation even needs the healthcare bill, then that is another matter, and I leave those who believe in this hypothesis alone, as their argument is rather well-formulated, even if I disagree with it.

So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.

[rvg]

So in which category do the conservative Orgahs fall in, I ask you.

Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Since I'm not a conservative I can't answer that question.

Sorry, let me rephrase that:

All who oppose the healthcare bill - which category do you fall in?

You are libertarian, right rvg?

[rvg]

You are libertarian, right rvg?

I'm a centrist, actually. Which means that I usually end up voting Democratic when the republicans are in power and vice versa when the Democrats are in power. I am also convinced that no party should be allowed to control both the Congress and the presidency at once.

Having said that, my opposition to the healthcare bill is mostly due to the fact that it is poorly written and loaded with pork. Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care, but if there has to be a federal bill, it should be efficient, concise and clear. The bill in its current reading is nothing short of a nightmare.

[Subotan]

You're talking about the nation that created The Onion, The Colbert Report and South Park, so no, I don't think there's a nationwide irony problem. There are just some thick people out there.

Well, there's humor, and then there's humour.

I don't see this so much as a referendum on Obamas health care as much as I see it as Coakleys bumbiling campiagn coming to bite her in the backside.

She did all the wrong things and handed this thing to Brown.

It's certainly difficult to see this as some kind of nationwide rejection of "Obama-care". Didn't she take Christmas off?

As a liberal, I nonetheless fully agree with you (at least on the 'crap-load of problems' part), but Subotan was right that this takes time to develop.

I always get a fuzzy feeling inside when people on an internet forum say I'm right

Namely, I am speaking about that 'perfect proof/solution' requirement. That perfect proof for evolution, that perfect proof for 'climate change', that perfect health-care bill... - the list goes on...

This is slightly OT, but an interesting aspect of that phenomenon is that regardless of how much evidence is provided for those issues (Or any issues even), for many Republicans it never reaches their consistently increasingly high standard of "proof" (For Republicans, I just want to clarify that I mean the loudest ones, e.g. Glenn Beck, Limbaugh et al)

Personally, I think the states should decide on their own how to tackle health care

I doubt that's feasible. There would be many discrepancies between states, and increase the strain on State's finances, without increasing the accountability of state legislatures.