If you want to get rid of corruption then we should vote the whole lot of both the house and senate out now, none of them believe what they pay PR people to convince people they believe.

Theyre shills working for their party and their own interests.

Vagrant - There has always been financial corruption among politicians, but this healthcare debate has really shone a spotlight on its severity. The Dems, who are generally characterized as big-spending supporters of the "common man," are suddenly more interested in corporate interests? - pretty telling. Many of these Dems come from areas where the majority of the population does want a public option, but I guess they'd rather get a few extra bucks from the lobbyists before they inevitably lose their seats for dissatisfying their voters.

Its all about the dollar bills. The fact is that there isnt enough votes to pass it (thank god) because it goes against the idea of fiscal government and most of these blue dog democrats are where they are because conservative districts were tired of the way the republicans were doing bussiness so they said "fuck you" and gave a chance to the more moderate democrats, and they expect them to stay that way, if not, they will face the boot, and they know this.

Personally I believe if a state is liberal enough to want a public option then they have a right to give it a try on a state level, but trying to force the country as a whole to swallow that heavy financial burden isnt going to fly, its not only going to be inefficient (its the federal government for crying out loud, they cant even decide what should be served in schools for lunch) its unconstitutional. We can deal with a state going bankrupt for living beyond its means (california) but the whole country as a whole would destroy our economy and way of life.

Vagrant - States do not have the financial backing or bargaining power of the federal government. I agree that it would be nice for states to adopt the public option if they would like their own, but how could that be financially feasible?

Also, I wonder how the public option might be unconstitutional? If you are going to tell me that it denies the rights of those who are against the public option, what about those who are not able to live healthy, productive lives because they have been priced out of a corrupt health insurance market? What about their constitutional rights?

Massachusettes already has a universal healthcare system, so there is the answer to your first question (they also pay way more taxes than anyone else but thats the price tag for universal healthcare)

Well first you have to understand that the constitution is essentially a document limiting the powers of the federal government, Article one section 8 lists the responsibilities of said federal government and the tenth ammendment forbids it from getting involved in activities not listed in the constitution and leaves all other legislative power to the states. So a state could have its own universal healthcare if it so wished to, but the federal government is clearly restricted by the constitution not to engage in such activities, its duties are the most basic to running a country, and leaves all other legislative decisions to the states.

WE are not constrained by historical accuracy! Nice job, "clearthinker"

Lighten up dudes. England (Great Britain) still is a monarchy. It's been a constitutional monarchy for some time. At the time of the American Revolution the king clearly had more power than QE does today, and the house of lords was more powerful than the house of commons is today, but we're still talking the same basic government. Prime Minister back then and a Prime Minister now, except since 1911 the PM comes from the House of Commons. I think clearthinker was referring to the relative level of perceived government interaction in the citizens' daily lives as compared to the US.

good point, i ask everyone who calls obama a socialist what that it and they always shutup

Ozone, you don't even get your point. People going to the ER for care is costing the country billions and the amount mushrooms every year. It is one of the reasons that America spends more than any other nation on Earth on healthcare, but is #37 in quality of healthcare.

Whether you get it or not, you are supporting the spiraling cost of healthcare.

I get it. My point about the hipster was one of responsibility (or lack thereof). He could afford an apartment on the E/S of Manhattan but couldn't afford health insurance? That is the problem. I understand what you are saying but a lot of people without health coverage make poor choices.

hmm let's see, iraq war, he stood up infront of a whole crowd and said "shame on you bush" and he was booed. he said shame on you because W lied to get us into a war for profit and arguably for some ideological reasons (republicanism is universal and all that) which as far as we know may have just been a veil to cover war profiteering. in roger and me he chased around roger of GM to get him to explain himself in his decisions that had a disastrous effect on michigan. people turned their nose up at him and claimed that that whole calamity was the fault of unions even though it is obvious through the lens of economics that the exportation of jobs was inevitable even if those unions hadn't been greedy. in his book downsizing he exposed how companies would downsize during times of record profits disproving the fallacy that if one works hard in a capitalist market they will be rewarded (since the offices that made the highest profits were the ones being shut down.)

To give you a simple example as to why Michael Moore is different and better then the common pundit... open a book by Bill O' Reilly or Anne Coulter and go straight to the back where they should have citations of all of their sources. Most of their books don't even have a section for citations and if they do they are very thin. This is because these pundits are full of hot air and bursts out of their mouth in the form of nonsensical rants (yes they use facts and are correct once in a while but that doesn't vindicate them of their overarching career in misleading people.) Now do me a favor.. open up a Michael Moore book, i know some people ideology or paranoia wont allow them too but just do it once. flip back to his citations... not only does he cite everything but his sources are more than not mainstream media sources. i rest my case

and by the way i do value some libertarian values but I have to say i have seen some of your posts today and you are as much a libertarian as Bill 'O Reilly.. i am more of a Ron Paul kinda guy myself. I wouldn't want him to totally run the country but I would love for him to shake up the status quo and i volunteered for his campaign last election for that very reason.