Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Democratic Process at Work
Since the election the Democrats, through their irresponsible and disrespectful colleague in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, have insulted Republicans on countless fronts. They demonize us, misrepresent our goals, exaggerate consequences of potential legislation, and have no interest in treating their counterparts in the Republican Party with simple courtesy. They repeatedly state their disdain for Donald Trump and his administration, criticize every statement that is issued and find nothing to affirm about the other side.
In one way, that’s not surprising. Polarization has risen to a new high. Recalcitrance is practiced like a way of life, and any sign of cooperating is condemned. But I’d hoped that at least a modicum of respect would be shown, however insincere and resented it might be, on the House and Senate floors. I’ve thrown that hope out the window.
Today the Democrats in the House, after the vote to repeal and replace Obamacare, chided the Republicans with a childish display. This demonstration of rude and unprofessional behavior is pathetic. From my point of view, all bets are off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VvbP0QNmF0
Published in Politics
If I’d been following politics, Fred, I would have called it disgusting then. They’re all acting like they’re in a sandbox, throwing sand in each others’ faces. They forget they don’t own the place; they are only renting it to do their work.
The Republicans who chanted in 1993 were right about Dems’ prospects the following year. I think Dem’s may be right about the Republican House majority going away in 2018. I guess it’s go big or go home this year.
Yes, Kate, there’s plenty of bad behavior all around. Let’s remember Obama criticized SCOTUS at one of his talks. I agree with all you say. One difference is that the people taunting Bush is one thing. For some reason, I hold Congress to a higher standard. Silly me. Very good observations, as always, Kate.
This point, too! Thumbs up.
Thank goodness! He lost a lot of ’em! ;-)
Their mocking display is because they have nothing else. I saw Schumer on Fox and he did the same thing. It was like he was firing off a memorized script. They can’t speak intelligently because they have nothing, no candidate or politician has yet to offer anything good or productive for the American people since the election. They just want to lick their wounds, and this is an example of making themselves look like fools.
I don’t disagree with you. My point is that the Democrats aren’t anything special wrt their petty childishness.
And I’ll make a general argument for libertarianism here: Why would you want these petty people in charge of anything. With “leaders” like this, aren’t we better off governing ourselves?
Ummm . . . good points. I don’t want them in charge of anything. But governing ourselves? What does that mean?
Here is I who miss on the Democrat side of the aisle: Patrick Moynihan, Sam Nunn, Henry Jackson, and Joe Lieberman. I’m afraid those days are gone forever. I hope I’m proven wrong someday.
It means I’m an adult and I can handle my own affairs and I don’t need government minders telling me what I can and can’t do or how to do it.
It wasn’t just “Leftist mass media,” I saw it reported lots of places.
Sounds great. So how do you do that when everyone else declares anarchy?
The childish behavior is annoying, but there’s an aspect to it that’s beginning to worry and even frighten me: it’s this word “resistance” that they’re all throwing around more and more, even Hillary. Tom Perez too. The behavior is starting to sound seditious to me. They’re getting very close to the line of inciting violence. And have you seen the video Loretta Lynch has put out there? In it, she says:
“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”
That, Susan, is what’s known as a straw man.
How is that different from the last 40 years?
Buy a gun and stand your ground…or live in Indiana where everyone is polite and most are right of center.
Good choice re Indiana! I live in Texas so we’re also mostly on the right. The right side of history, that is!
Personally the Colbert rant has pushed me over the edge. I want impeachment proceedings against every Democrat in every office. I plan to address every Democrat office holder I meet as lying weasel c—sucker. I have already address one in such a way. The Democrats have decided to set the debate at this level. Let’s give it to them.
It is insidious, isn’t it RA? I try not to think about it, but it’s becoming apparent that idealistic and utopian ideals can be seriously corrupted. 1984?
Well, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on libertarianism. But I’ll take a brief description of whether you see any kind of formal government. From my understanding, Libertarians aren’t against a government, as long as it is narrowly empowered, such as providing national security. I infer from your description that we, for example, don’t need a democratic republic. But correct me if I’m wrong.
It may not be a change. I only started to seriously follow politics 10 years ago.
I knew I liked you!
Texas is the biggest and best. Incidentally, we also both live in future Obamacare waiver states. Lower rates are on the way for us! Blue staters are welcome to join us.
Reading the comments, and about the issue more generally, suggests that Republicans are electoral toast if they (a) repeal Obamacare (b) don’t repeal Obamacare.
I would appreciate some clarification on healthcare legislation and electoral prospects.
Those who like the Democrat and watered down mixed system vote Democrat anyway. Those who actually want a market based system vote Republican, but will turn on Republicans if they can’t get it right, which they won’t because Congress can’t, and Democrats will win in three person races. So it’s a matter of successful primaries, but that doesn’t matter because a new Congress won’t be able to fix it either. If our President can craft a dual system, not mixed, dual, clean free market for most of us and single payer for the poor, he’ll get reelected and so will it’s supporters but he has yet to learn that Congress can’t do these things and he can but must present simplified blue prints of what he wants them to build. And no matter what is done by whom, the Democrats will demonize and get their mobs rolling on whatever works in the ongoing media cycle, and the Republicans will argue as if what Democrats say mattered, but it doesn’t.
Where do the elderly, who are already covered through Medicare and who are high users of medical services, and those who have chronic or other forms of pre-existing conditions fit an arrangement like this?
Medicare stays as it is pretty much, for at least the next few years. We have a heavy lift to make any progress on that front. First up is Obamacare and taxes and the Deep State. Other stuff has to wait.
I remain reasonably confident – as I can be, because I have no way to test it – that most Americans would take our (the British) system if spending on healthcare came down from, say, 17% to 12% of GDP.
Our doctors seem to manage without becoming incredibly wealthy. Perhaps the US needs cheaper doctors?
Ok, I admit that the complexity of American healthcare baffles me. But I still don’t understand why a free market would work, for two reasons:
1 – a free market is fine for consumer goods, where providers can compete for spare income. But nobody thinks ‘I have $1000 play money, now I can have a liver transplant!’ In catastrophic cases, the healthcare provider can charge whatever it likes, because you don’t have a real choice (assuming you’d rather live than die). So I don’t see that free-market dynamics operate.
2 – I know that ‘cost’ is never a fixed number, but let’s say that a liver transplant cannot fall below $50,000. No provider can exist to supply those who cannot meet that figure.
I realise that point 2 concerns cost and not insurance. Ok, so why is catastrophic coverage unaffordable? In a country as wealthy as the US, is it impossible to create mutual insurance funds that defray some costs, on a sliding scale? Who really deserves bankruptcy on top of cancer?
Following from point 1, the free rider argument surely applies with less force, because nobody has whimsical liver transplants [nb: the UK does have abuse, such as skipped appointments or regular trips to A&E, and I’m open to making this more difficult].
I also know that the same arguments will soon become germane with regard to geriatric care, nursing homes and so on, when inheritances vanish in short order. (Just wait to see how support for euthanasia increases…)
As I say, I’m quite ignorant about the intricacies of US healthcare, so feel free to correct me. It just looks awry, and electorally I would imagine that expanded government coverage would be the (ahem) trump card.