Comments on: Kent Conrad: High-Population States Have Disproportionate Level Of Representation

By: plooger

plooger — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:29:42 +0000

But once you go down the road of trying to make the Senate more proportionally representative of the population, the Senate approaches becoming fully redundant to the House.

And, yes, changing the Constitution to adjust Senate apportionment would be nearly impossible. You’d have better results, I’d say, gathering up a few hundred thousand progressives, and moving to one of these small states — effectively taking over the government, and flipping two Senators to fully progressive.

By: plooger

plooger — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:24:14 +0000

Kudos for attempting to have a substantive discussion. Unfortunately, I’m looking for similar information, so can’t help you. (but am eagerly awaiting someone addressing the substance of Conrad’s complaint, rather than superficially criticizing him)

By: plooger

plooger — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:19:57 +0000

wadda:
> “As for having equal representation in the Senate…I make no apology. It takes the edge off the tyranny of the majority.”

Replacing it, apparently, with a tyranny of the minority — especially when the imbalance is also factored in to the Presidential elections.

Bill Maher may have a point.

By: plooger

plooger — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:16:08 +0000

Hear, hear.

It’s easy to poke fun at ridiculous comments, but the OP seems to be exaggerating the instance, here — and ignoring the Senator’s complaint.

“the big population states write levels of reimbursement that unfairly treat hospitals in states like mine”

Conrad feels that the big states are using their power to stiff the smaller states.

I’ve heard this a few times during the last few months, but it’s yet another of the health care topics never really covered in the MSM, and I haven’t taken/found the time to research it, myself. And so I don’t know whether Conrad is rationalizing his opposition to a public option or being truthful.

By: justbetty

justbetty — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:08:26 +0000

Talking about being slow on the uptake. It’s only now that I realized you’re dday. I’ve been looking for a separate heading up top.

Welcome!

By: jcc2455

jcc2455 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:06:20 +0000

Now that we’ve had our fun with the demographically challenged Sen. Conrad, consider what he’s actually saying, and what it means for the Obama Administration’s political approach.

fixing rural medicare rates is an easy deal to make, if the return is solid support for a real public option. Conrad and rural Senators have been whining about this for years.

There’s no reporting at all to suggest that the Administration went to him and said, hey Kent, we want a real public option and need your vote. Now your real estate and underlying costs are cheaper than urban areas, so there’s never going to be 100% parity, but yeah, your Medicare rates are too low, so let’s find a number that keeps you happy in return for support.

By: raven333

raven333 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:04:46 +0000

Well, yes, if you count the cows.

Croak!

By: marcos

marcos — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:41:23 +0000

I mean seriously, couldn’t we give every resident of both Dakotas and Nebraska a gold brick to take the pressure off of those Senators who hesitate to support a Public Option and still come out ahead financially over time?

By: marcos

marcos — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:52:09 +0000

Why not look into whether Conrad has a point about Medicare inequitable reimbursement rates so that his objections to Medicare for All, or tying reimbursements to Medicare rates, might be resolved?

Politics is the mathematics of addition, not subtraction.

By: Elliott

Elliott — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:49:01 +0000

hmm, never tried Opera — I’m Foxy, FireFoxy.