Kennedy vows filibuster of Medicare bill

[Stelliform]

CNN article here... (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/elec04.medicare/index.html)

What happened to majority rule? I don't care who is doing it anymore...

Who else is tired of filibuster after filibuster?

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by Stelliform
What happened to majority rule?

yea i was wondering that as well back during the 2000 election

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Stelliform
CNN article here... (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/elec04.medicare/index.html)

What happened to majority rule? I don't care who is doing it anymore...

Who else is tired of filibuster after filibuster?

His filabuster never came to be.

I dont like the filabuster. It is a way for the minority party to impose it minority will on the majority. Talk about undemocratic. The only reason either party allows it is because they may want to use it if they are in the minority. It can really prevent any kind of sweeping radical change from ever taking place. I think they did not use the filabuster here is because the dems just used it to block 3 or 4 judge nominations that would have passed with a simple majority. They dont want to be to greedy or the public may turn on them.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform

Who else is tired of filibuster after filibuster?

our entire government was set up to be a bureaucracy. that was by design -- a bureaucracy, by its nature, is slow to respond.

sometimes, it's very frustrating. but it's done to make sure decisions aren't made too quickly. if there's something for which i'll remember this congress, it's how they pass stuff (patriot act, resolution in support of iraq action) quickly and w/o proper debate.

if the filibuster has become the MO for this congress, maybe it's not such a bad thing.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
It can really prevent any kind of sweeping radical change from ever taking place.

hey, we agree on something! but i'm guessing we disagree on whether that's a good or bad thing.


Talk about undemocratic.


no, this is the pure essence of democracy. its goal is to formulate compromise.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
hey, we agree on something! but i'm guessing we disagree on whether that's a good or bad thing.



no, this is the pure essence of democracy. its goal is to formulate compromise.

You might be suprised, I bet if I knew you we would get along well, I have many spirted democratic friends who may adamantly disagree with me but we still have fun.

About it being a good or bad thing, I think it is neither. It really is one of those things that i think everyone hates when it goes against them and thanks god for when they need it and can use it. I dont like it on principal but it has its uses( i will concede that). The reason I have some "little" problem is that is can make the few more powerfull than the many. But not very often. SO i am ok with it because come a few years(hopfully never) when the republicans are in the minority again I am sure I will be all for the use of it.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
It really is one of those things that i think everyone hates when it goes against them and thanks god for when they need it and can use it.

here's what i'd like to see: bills passed by a wide margin after long deliberation and enough compromise that large numbers from both parties are pleased.

so many bills are passed by such a few votes that, to me, it means the body was sharply divided. some people will chalk it up to partisanism, but i think it demonstrates how divisive some of these bills are, and, further, reflects how divided the country is.

[Stelliform]

....

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
here's what i'd like to see: bills passed by a wide margin after long deliberation and enough compromise that large numbers from both parties are pleased.

so many bills are passed by such a few votes that, to me, it means the body was sharply divided. some people will chalk it up to partisanism, but i think it demonstrates how divisive some of these bills are, and, further, reflects how divided the country is.

True the country is divided. but not as much as the polls show. I think that most people(who actually vote, I cant even coment on apathetic non voters) vote a certain way because they were raised a democrat or a republican. there is nothing wrong with this except that they can be sheep in some instances. This leads to crappy partisianship. I think the main reason so many bills pass with such a small majority is because the senate is split almost 50-50. the divide is artifical in the real world.

For example, I think most people wanted some form of medicare perscription drug benefit. I did, even being a conservative who does not like to spend lots of money on hand outs, realise that many seniors are not getting medicine. there was 3 ways of going about this. 1. democratic bill that would fail, 2. republican bill that would pass(if no filabuster) and 3. a joint bill lead by mccain/feingold type of team.

All 3 of these bills would help seniors, at least more than what they are getting now. the democrats had no chance at getting a liberal give away bill passed. The republicans, for some reason choose to get their bill and not a compromised one. So the majority party rammed a bill down the throats of the minority party. I would have liked a compromise just to be cordial, but in the end the bill that passed is better than nothing.

Maybe Kennedy realized that it is something or nothing so i will show my opposition by voting against(in vain) and spouting off at the camera, but not actually blocking the bill.

Maybe(just a theory) Kennedy thought I can show my dislike of being cut out of the bargaining table here by voting against. But by not blocking bill he said it is better than nothing. He did not want an all or nothing approach.

I just can not understand why people are upset that seniors will get something when before they got nothing.

Oh and just to clear up a misconception of government health care and seniors. the very sick and poor who go into nursing homes go onto title 19. The government pays their way in the nursing home and all medical bills. They even get to demand name brand scripts. Not just generic, but seriously expensive name brand meds. there is gov. care for the sickest of the sick and the poorest of the poor in nurisng homes. my source for this is my mother who is a regestered nurse in a local nursing home.