(Seattle Times) Congressional Democratic leaders worked throughout the day Thursday to settle lingering intraparty disagreements over abortion, federal insurance subsidies, and other issues. The more moderate Democrats such as Bart Stupak (D-MI) have threatened to not vote for the bill unless restrictions on abortion are included in the final healthcare bill. Consequently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will come up with some type of bribery to force the undecided Democrats to vote for the bill. Democratic leaders believe the House will have to first vote on the Senate healthcare bill without having to change it. I just heard the latest news that the Democrats are planning on referring to the budget reconciliation option. Under that option, the Senate can't filibuster a bill when budget reconciliation process is used. Under reconciliation, the party in charge in the Senate can opt to vote a bill through with a simple majority (51) instead of a supermajority (60). They have the right to do so. I remember when the Democratic Party was screaming back in 2005 when the Senate Republicans were debating on changing the rules to allow for a simple majority in confirming Bush's judges instead of a supermajority. However, the problem over this healthcare debate is not about changing the Senate rules. It's the substance of the bill that's pathetic. This healthcare bill is unconstitutional. The government doesn't have the legal authority to take over the role in controlling our nation's healthcare system.
According to an Associated Press poll, large majorities of Americans believe the Congressional leaders are out of sync when it comes to passing this healthcare bill. It says that most Americans believe there should be bipartisan support for this bill. I've heard Senate Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham talk about the lack of bipartisanship in the Senate and the need for the healthcare bill to be bipartisan. I would like to see bipartisanship when it comes to various issues such as domestic drilling for oil or energy alternatives, but sometimes bipartisanship can be lethal. Most of the time when I see Congress coming together in bipartisanship to consider a measure, it's bad for the American people. Congress came together to vote to bailout AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae for example in October 2008. However, Congress came to the aid of their campaign donors. I don't call this true bipartisanship. They were just helping out their campaign donors. But as I mentioned earlier, the problem with this bill is that it's unconstitutional. It's not the government's place to control one sixth of the nation's economy. There are issues revolving around the cost of health care. There are issues when it comes to the insurance companies. Premium rates continue spiraling upward and many people can't afford to pay for the high costs. There is a genuine need for healthcare reform. The proper way to solve this problem is not for the government to take over the healthcare industry.
Some of the solutions to solving the cost of healthcare is to implement tort reform which would place a limit on medical malpractice lawsuits. In other words, there has to be a limit on how much money a doctor can be sued for. The malpractice lawsuits are ridiculous. It's unnecessarily driving up the costs of healthcare. Other ways in solving this problem are to allow for more competition amongst the healthcare insurance companies. Allow customers to purchase medical insurance across the state lines, which would encourage more competition among healthcare providers and it would lower the costs. Also, the government could use antitrust lawsuits against any insurance companies that are engaging in monopolies. Monopolies in a certain industry can drive up costs. Also, Medicare and Medicaid fraud needs to be eliminated as well. Things of that nature are what's needed to bring down the costs of healthcare. That's what would solve the problem. The government has no business in trying to provide healthcare for all Americans. This bill is too bogus and nobody knows what the costs to implement this bill would be. Also, the benefits of this bill won't kick in until around 2013, which is a few years after the American people have been taxed to cover this massive healthcare bill. Nobody knows all the provisions that are in this particular bill. You'll be paying a lot more for this healthcare coverage than the benefits you would receive from it. The costs far exceed the benefits of this bill. Nobody would purchase private insurance in which you would pay more than what you would receive from it.
Another problem with this bill is that Congress is trying to include a public option into it. This would give the government the right to provide healthcare for America. This in turn would cause the government to be in competition with the healthcare providers in the private sector. Eventually as a result of the government being in competition with the private sector, the government would place the insurance companies out of business. Then eventually nobody will have a choice but to purchase government healthcare. Then the government can change the rules and charge whatever fees they so desire. There's much about this bill the American people don't know. President Obama hasn't been up front with the American public when he said in his campaign in 2008 that there would be transparency in his administration. The American people aren't aware of many provisions of this bill. Something's wrong with this equation. It's been said that everybody will be required to purchase health coverage if this bill is passed. If not, you could be fined. You can't trust the government. This bill needs to be rejected.
In spite of many of the polls which says the American people don't want this bill passed, the Democrats are so insistent in passing this bill. Why? Why would the Democrats push for the current version knowing it could cost them on election day? What's their motivation? This is another topic in which I will cover in another blogpost.
No comments:
Post a Comment