Thanks a lot Massachusetts.

So now the Republicans have gotten back their ability to filibuster in the Senate with a victory in the Senate race in Massachusetts. And such irony being as it was Ted Kennedy's seat that was open. Now they can lead the charge to kill whatever version of the health care bill that continues to languish in Congress while these shithead politicians bicker and argue over the rights of people they claim to be "representing" while having no idea what the lives of these people are like. I'd say it's a safe bet that pretty much everyone in Congress was fortunate enough to have health care most of, if not all of their lives. So while they have never known the true devastation that illness can bring to a poor family, they still consider themselves worthy of making the final decisions regarding whether those people will ever have the opportunity for proper medical care. This is quite sad and very frustrating. One of the more interesting things I have heard from the new Senator-elect is that he is going to Washington to "serve in the best interests of Massachusetts." No shit. Isn't that what every elected official is supposed to be doing? But what I find most interesting about that quote, which I believe was in response to a health care related query, is that Massachusetts (if I'm not mistaken) pretty much has universal health care for their state in one form or another. So naturally, the new Senator's interest in keeping his own state's status quo intact trumps his concerns for how the residents of Oklahoma or Montana or Oregon live. Which makes the whole national debate over this issue that much more perplexing. And on a larger scale, the whole operation of federal government. When you consider the population of America and the size of some of its states, doesn't it seem like the more time passes the less influence Washington should have over issues the truly deserve individual state decisions by the local populace? Now I'm all for everyone having the ability to recieve health care although I don't think in any way that it should be mandatory. If someone wants to decline health care then there should be means for them to be loosely cared for (like our already in place aspect of never being turned away in a life threatening situation from an emergency room) while also providing for a residual backlash against said person once they are treated. And I think it's only fair for each state to have more say over this matter. Now I understand that the federal government's involvement is based on the problem that states might individually decide not to offer universal health care and that leads us back to the problem we currently have. So by establishing federal laws about it, people can finally have access to proper health care no matter their financial standing. Why this is such a debate at all baffles me? I know it involves a lot of money, that it has as many negatives as positives, etc. But as one of the most powerful countries in history, doesn't it seem ridiculous that providing for our citizens isn't the number one goal in all social programs? The fact that party lines can blur the seriousness of the issue at hand makes me sick most days. Other days I just laugh. Anyway, I'm rambling now but my point at least is that I look forward to several more weeks/months of this political back and forth with the eventual outcome most likely not being satisfactory to anybody. Sarcastically speaking.