4 ms·

This is slightly off topic but I really rile up some of my more passionately Democrat friends when I point out that one senator from CT is responsible for not h

This is slightly off topic but I really rile up some of my more passionately Democrat friends when I point out that one senator from CT is responsible for not having a public option in Obamacare. Why? Because the senator was beholden to the donations of the insurance companies. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/10/did_lieberman_just_kill_the_public_option.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescription...

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Insurance is big business in CT. It's his job to represent his constituents interests and a booming insurance business is certainly in their (they = the people in CT who control who gets elected) interest even if it screws the rest of us. It's a classic case of doing what the people who decide whether or not you get to keep your job want you to do even when it's not ideal for the big picture. Edit: Down-voted because this isn't how things work or just because it's uncomfortably true? If you think CA representatives won't side with the tech industry over the good of the nation then you're probably going to be proven wrong in the next few years.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  It’s also his job to do what’s best for the people of this country. We have a lot of people in Washington who aren’t doing their jobs who continue to get elected because their constituents are either satisfied or apathetic.
- zasz 8y ago
  No, you're being downvoted for amorality.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Where did I imply that I liked it or thought it was good and/or moral? I'm just saying that the incentives are not to vote for what's good for the nation when the alternative will make a lot of money for a lot of people in your state, some of whom will bankroll your election campaign.
humanrebar 8y ago
It's not clear the supreme court decisions would have all played out the same way if a different bill passed.
- wallflower 8y ago
  This is a very good point. Thank you.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Insurance is big business in CT. It's his job to represent his constituents interests and a booming insurance business is certainly in their (they = the people in CT who control who gets elected) interest even if it screws the rest of us. It's a classic case of doing what the people who decide whether or not you get to keep your job want you to do even when it's not ideal for the big picture. Edit: Down-voted because this isn't how things work or just because it's uncomfortably true? If you think CA representatives won't side with the tech industry over the good of the nation then you're probably going to be proven wrong in the next few years.

pmiller2 8y ago
It’s also his job to do what’s best for the people of this country. We have a lot of people in Washington who aren’t doing their jobs who continue to get elected because their constituents are either satisfied or apathetic.
zasz 8y ago
No, you're being downvoted for amorality.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Where did I imply that I liked it or thought it was good and/or moral? I'm just saying that the incentives are not to vote for what's good for the nation when the alternative will make a lot of money for a lot of people in your state, some of whom will bankroll your election campaign.

humanrebar 8y ago

It's not clear the supreme court decisions would have all played out the same way if a different bill passed.

wallflower 8y ago
This is a very good point. Thank you.