Hopyard

Well, let's just see whether that is true or not.

Of our recent presidents, and I'm an old guy and will take the license to call all in my lifetime recent:

Roosevelt-- not really of the people, but performed in many ways as a "traitor to his class."

Truman--decidedly of very modest background, of the people

Eisenhower-- very modest background, certainly of the people

Kennedy--see what I wrote of Roosevelt

Johnson--decidedly of the people

Nixon--from very modest background, of the people

Ford-- an accidental president, but also a self made man
Carter--maybe a step up from ordinary folks in that his folks had that peanut farm, but on balance of the people

Reagan-- like him or not, of the people, a self made man

Bush I -- patrician, hardly can be said to be of the people, but in his favor he served in WWII and did his part.

Clinton--If you ever have a chance to visit Hope, AR, you will quickly realize that this man came from the very bottom of the socio-economic class and distinguished himself, and certainly was of the people

Bush II-- see remarks above about Bush I, and take away the stuff about serving well in the military.

"O"-- it would be hard to imagine anyone being more of the people in the broadest sense of the word and certainly a self-made man.

Now, having established that most of our presidents came from the people, the next question is did they serve "the people." That is, were they for the people.

That depends on whose ox got gored by various policies.

We all too often forget that our own pet issues are not necessarily issues to others. That what we find as individuals is an affront, many others will applaud. You can not please all the people, any of the time.


It is July 4th weekend. Let's show a little patriotism and optimism about ourselves and our country.

F350

OK perhaps you can assist me here o great learned one.....Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over local education, health care, land use, private companies or for the couple dozen "czars" recently apointed to regulate almost every aspect of our lives. I fail to find any mention of this in Artical I section 8 (the Enumerated Powers Clause) and it would appear to be precluded by the 10th amendment

To Whit....

tbrenke

This is a very fine list of opnion you your part. but it means little.
Where does the humble background of the people above have anything to do weather or not they support the people?

I fail to see your connection to that.
as it stands NOW most people do not want socialised medicen, yet it is still being pushed. that is not for the people.

our goverment debt has never been this high compaired to our GDP (or in dolor amounts), how is that for the people.

our country was not based on cradel to the grave nanny state. How is that for the people?

give us at least some relavance for your list.

__________________
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

Hopyard

Do you think the patricians "support the people?" And what does that mean? We the people are diverse lot. All any leader can do is attempt to do the most good they know how, while being snarked at by those who don't like the program. That is called healthy public debate.

I think the latest polls show that about 75% of the people want something done to change and improve our present "system." The majority want a public plan put in place. It is disingenuous to suggest that a man who ran on a clear platform of moving toward such a system and won the election, or that a party with a crystal clear majority somehow is pushing a plan that "most" don't want. When you say that, you are really saying that the majority opinion as reflected in the election results is somehow unrepresentative of what the public actually felt at the time of the election. I don't think that is the case, especially given that our present president won the popular vote, unlike either of his two predecessors who did not win by a simple majority of the popular vote.

tbrenke

This statment I agree with. A healthy public debate I agree with.
Where was that on the stimulas package?
Where was that on the Cap and trade?
How can there be anything like that on bills that are amended just hours prior to a vote? How can there be anything like this when not a single one of our elected representatives read the bill that they are voting on. (Also during Bush's time, not just the current administration)
Is this what you mean by “of the people” and “for the people”

I would agree that 75% want the current system changed.
That does not mean that 75% want government run socialized medicine.
Tort reform is what is needed.
/////////////////////////////////
AFP: Most in US support govt-backed health care: poll
Eighty-five percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, according to the poll.
///////////////////////////////////
Another Incoherent Health-Care Poll in the New York Times - John R. Graham - The Corner on National Review Online
Another Incoherent Health-Care Poll in the New York Times June 22 2009
The New York Times poll reported that 72% of a sample of “randomly” chosen respondents (of whom 48% had voted for Obama and only 25% for McCain last November, question #100), said they’d approve of the federal government giving everyone the option of enrolling in a Medicare-like program. Case closed? Not at all.

Other results suggest that preference for a politically managed health system has dropped since 1993. Back during HillaryCare, 40% of respondents trusted the president, and 42% trusted Congress, to reform health care. Today, the figures are only 39% and 35% (#45).
///////////////////////////////////
The government run Medicate, Medicare and the VA has been doing such a great job that I can understand letting them run the rest of health care also.

And yes, I know that you can find a poll saying most are in favor of government run health care. The NY Times has such those results. My second link is talking about that large stinking pile.

__________________
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

tbrenke

Yes, I would be very interested is seeing where that power is located.
Is it now possible to pick and chose what parts we want to fallow and what parts we can ignore. From my point of view that is exactly what our elected representatives have been doing for many cycles now.
this is not a finger pointing at the current administration.

I am pointing the finger at a great many of the preceding administrations, those in Congress and those in the House. We the people have been asleep at the wheel and need to wake up.

__________________
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

Hopyard

There is of course a big difference between public debate as we are having here, and debate within The House. There, each rep. ran on some sort of platform prior to their election. They know what their constituents want and don't want, like or don't like, and what votes on the floor will get them more votes next time there is a general election, and which votes will not be good for them next time.

While I agree that putting up amended bills at the last minute is a lousy way to do business, the Critters do know what they are voting for; and should be held accountable for their votes.

There is always behind the scenes communications we don't see within the various party and special interest caucuses, and by the time a bill gets to the floor the majority party leadership more or less know if it does or does not have the votes; and the critters more or less know what they are voting for. It works this way regardless of which party has the majority.

If the final product leaving The House has a public option, it will be only because the critters have voted what they believe their constituents generally wanted and also what they individually believe is best for the country long term.

I don't fret about a public option. I have been on Medicare now for nearly 2 years during which time I have found out that I have a very serious ailment. Medicare, notwithstanding its low overhead, has paid their claims appropriately; something I could never say when I was covered by The Blues. I really don't know why folks are so scared of a public option, unless they are in the private insurance industry. And even then, just as Medicare leaves room for profitable supplemental policies to be sold, there is no reason such business opportunities wouldn't exist with a public plan.

As for tort reform, it has been tried here and is generally considered a total failure; it certainly didn't result in price reductions. It just locked people out of an avenue for redressing real harm done to them.

tbrenke

This is a mixed bag here.
While all do know what “their constituents want and don't want, like or don't like”, there are votes (cap and trade in the house) that were bought and paid for with that 300 page add on. Some were allowed to vote no for political cover and other then the leaders, were not allowed to read it first.
Absolutly. If the public can remember that long. Not the fault of the elected though…….

Why? Why does it have to be this way. (I agree that it is.) Is the general public to stupid to understand? And so the back room and the leadership get to stear where the ship is headed?
This I would guess is the flaw that I have a problem with.

I disagree. Your prior statement says otherwise.
I am scared. Of a public option that does not have to compete with the private and will there for kill all private options sooner or later.
I fear the single payer system that has been tried so many times, so many different ways, in many different places and failed.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
What is this system going to be based on that has not been tried another place?
Medicare costs are skyrocketing. To cut costs the “system” is paying caregivers less and less. That will not be an insentive for more caregivers.

And Medicare does do rationing. How long did you have to wait?
Too Sick to Work, Too Soon for Medicare: The Human Cost of the Two-Year Medicare Waiting Period for Americans with Disabilities - The Commonwealth Fund
OneWorld Medicare -- wait times impact your health
/////
PDF
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/gov...d.aspx?id=1029
“Currently, Medicare forces many individuals, who live with a disability so severe that they cannot work, to wait two years before they can receive any healthcare coverage through Medicare. An estimated 1.5 million Americans living with disabilities—from multiple sclerosis to cancer—are stuck in this waiting period. “
///
Medicare’s own web page.
Medicare for All: Wait Times
////////
There are only 533000 hits for the phrase “Medicare wait times” on Google
And you want this for all?
//////
Again Medicare’s own site.
Overview Medicare Enrollment Reports
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareEnRpt...ds/HISMI08.pdf
2008 has 45.3 Million enrolled. That is 45.3 out of the 300 million in the us, and there are already problem with wait times and cost.
Let me ask, what do you think will happen if this public option takes place?

edit.......
I forgot to answer this.
I am an electronics Engineer and programmer working in embedded hardware and software. I have nothing to do with the insurance industry.
Doing a search for “tbrenke” or “trbrenke” on google will show this to be true.

__________________
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

SelfDefense

It is not a matter of being scared, it is that I DON'T WANT TO PAY, NOR SHOULD I BE FORCED TO PAY, FOR YOUR MEDICAL CARE.

ccw9mm

Liberty. Security. Ben Franklin was no Walter Mitty, that's for sure. He had the sense of things.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.