>>>>>>>I watched the speeches leading up to the vote last night. I sat there and watched the Republic that I love so dearly come to an end. I've said before that without private property no other rights matter. The Kelo v. New London decision crippled the rights of the citizenry but at least we were still allowed to spend the fruits of our labor (net after taxes) as we saw fit. No longer. All property is now subject to the whims of government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have little hope that the States, courts or even the November election can undo what has been done. 233+ years wasn't such a bad run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Declaration of Dependence will be signed this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good lord, Jake, get a grip. This is not going to be the catastrophe you think it is. (You ARE talking about health care reform, right?) For most of us things aren't gong to change much at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What private property is gong to be lost? Do you mean being required to have health insurance? We are required to pay income tax, aren't we? Sales tax in most places. Property tax. We are required to have a driver's license. I don't get why you think this is so different.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are now required to pay to live. All others depended on income or utilizing a public service or property.
>>>>
>>>>Health care just became a public service. You don't like that. I do. It has been the case in every other developed country for quite a while. And yes, I know, you don't care what they do or think.
>>>>
>>>>Let me know if you ever make it up this way. We'll take in a hockey game or ballgame and never bring up politics.
>>>
>>>No it hasn't. If it had, the cost would come entirely from taxes.
>>
>>What is happening in Congress is what is supposed to happen in Congress. Each side should fight tooth and nail for what they want. Accomodations and re-writes of the bills are made. Paper is sent back and forth from Congress to the Senate with changes, improvements and updates applied and voted upon. It's a fabulous way of rendering a law down to its perfect minimum before being rejected or enacted. The time, Jake, to be worried is when they do not fight. I would love to have our Senate elected instead of appointed and have Parliament fight with the Senate as it should. Instead, our Senate is a left over from the British House of Lords. Many of us are working hard to get an elected Senate, but our Parliament likes things the way they are because they can get more done for the government. Unfortunately, they should be getting things done for the people and not for their party's view of how Canada should be.
>
>The idea of the second chamber being appointed still has merit. The elected house is full of politicians (good and bad .its not fair to say they are all bad) the second house can be full of people with some life experience (again some good some bad) . A lot of politicians have never done anything else and have no experience of industry or science etc.
>
>I sometime wonder if the second house should be appointed by some sort of random draft that would hopefully reflect the makeup of the nation.

Here, the PM gets to appoint his friends who . . are oddly:) of the same political persuasion as the PM. That is wrong. The Senate and Parliament should be elected and the electorate should do what they can to see that opposing groups are elected. It takes them much longer to pick your pocket with a system such as that. But occasionally, a situation such as the present one in the USA occurs and one party gets a clear majority in each body and law making becomes easy. But the Senate lead in the States has slipped away (TY Mass) from Obama, so there is still some rough road ahead for the health care bill. All in all and in spite of the public uproar, the universe is unfolding as it should.