Politics aside... is this the way it is supposed to work?

[MajorMike]

An overwhelming majority of polls you see, regardless of origin, say Americans do not want universal health care, yet because the big O says he wants it Congress passes it anyway.

We elect these people to represent us and speak for us but when they are doing things we clearly tell them we don't want, where is the correctness in that?

I don't really care that people still love the president or what he said to do or whatnot; his ratings are over 50 while Congress is consistently in the 20s and they just keep doing what he tells them to do. He clearly has the people charmed and they blame Congress for the health care and not him.

I personally don't give a rat's poop about if we have it or not; I'll be on universal health care the rest of my life, anyway. I don't even care when they talk about all the money and jobs it will cost and the taxes and all that. Taxes don't even bug me - someone has to pay for crap. What does bug me is that a government, regardless of political affiliation would pass something the people obviously don't want.

Is the arguement that the representatives know what the populace wants better than the populace themselves?

[bleedorange]

John Q. still elects Congress, but when it comes to creating and passing legislation, I don't think the wishes of John Q. are considered for an instant. I think all the decisions and satisfying takes place between the President, Congressmen, lobbyists, special interests, big business.

Sadly, beyond your vote in November, IMO no one in Washington gives a $hit about you or I, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit. That's certainly how it looks and feels these days

[Ivan]

John Q. still elects Congress, but when it comes to creating and passing legislation, I don't think the wishes of John Q. are considered for an instant. I think all the decisions and satisfying takes place between the President, Congressmen, lobbyists, special interests, big business.

Sadly, beyond your vote in November, IMO no one in Washington gives a $hit about you or I, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit. That's certainly how it looks and feels these days

Could not of said it any better. Would it be really hard to have a national vote on big bills like health care and cap and trade?

[wood911]

My brother has Tricare and seems to think it is pretty good insurance. The problem is years ago there was a program called Champus that was a little better and before that there was medical programs that was part of the military and was as good as there was any where. I'm just saying Tricare may or may not be there the rest of your life and at its current level.
Here's a web site I found while trying to figure out what is going on with the market. This guy is either as crazy as a pet coon or he is really sharp. I can't decide. Look at some of his articles and see what he is saying about the debt we are accumulating. If he has any part of a clue, we could look back on 2009 as the good times. My Dad always told me the "Great" depression wasn't all that bad if you had a job. I think that is where we are today.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Prior to 1913, the senators were elected/appointed by the state legislatures. THe 17th amendment changed that so they are now elected by popular vote. Prior to 1913, sneators served at the convenience of the state legislature and could be called home if they did not properly support the state. Once they changed to a popular vote it opened the doors for other influences and peoplle to influence the senators' votes. There is a group trying to repeal the 17th amndment because they believe it has added to the corruption in DC.

[osutuba]

Another problem is that there are not enough Representatives to adequately represent the populace.

When Public Law 62-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5) was passed in 1911, the US Population was 92,228,496 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_United_States_Census)). That puts the ratio at 1 representative per approximately 212,020 legal residents. As of 2000, the population was 281,421,906 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Census)). That puts the ratio to 1 representative per 646,947 legal residents.

I have heard of a movement to force Congress to adhere to Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html), which dictates (emphasis mine):
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

If this were to happen, though, we'd have (based on 2000 Census numbers) over 9300 Representatives, with some cities having a multitude for themselves (imagine how NYC, Atlanta, or even Tulsa or Stillwater would be represented)!

[FalseGod]

There are lots of laws that the will of the people would probably overturn. DMCA comes to mind, pointless wars, health care reform in the current state, marijuana laws, civil rights, etc.

[osutuba]

There are lots of laws that the will of the people would probably overturn. DMCA comes to mind, pointless wars, health care reform in the current state, marijuana laws, civil rights, etc.

Well, we are supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Unfortunately we are now a government "of the people, by the biggest donors, and for the special interests, corporations and lobbys"