Now that both the House and the Senate have each passed their own versions of a health care reform bill, the next step is to combine the bill. Merging the bill can be done by one of two processes – a formal conference committee or an informal discussion between the heads of the House and the Senate.
There are rumors that Congress plans on using the latter approach to create the bill that will reach President Barack Obama’s desk. In fact, informal discussions have already begun, amongst Democrats only.
There are several issues with creating a merged bill using the informal process. First off with the informal process, Republicans can and will be left out of the issue. It’s understandable why Democrats don’t want Republicans involved in the creation of a merged bill. Based on past experiences with Republicans attempting to block the bill, Democrats would like to involve them as little as possible in order to get some sort of health care bill through Congress and to the president. Never mind that America is still a two-party system and that the Republicans still hold 40 percent of the Senate. This seems to mean little to Democrats.
Another issue is the speed of the bill. For those that support it, they’ll be glad to know that the bill will probably be rushed through Congress since there will be no procedural hurdles for Democrats to overcome. There will also be no opponents to voice whether sections of the bill are in the country’s best interest or not. Congress is looking to rush a bill through for the sake of having a bill passed and in the President’s hands.
The biggest issue with an informal gathering is lack of transparency in the process. A few key members on both sides will be involved, but the negotiations will mainly take place behind closed doors. Under the rules, a formal conference committee must have at least one open meeting, while an informal process has no requirements. Not only does it leave the public unaware of what will be in the bill; it also goes against President Obama’s campaign promise of total transparency in government.
This leaves us to wonder if this is truly a democratic process. One party is creating together the language, leaving out both the other party and the public. Health care may need reform but is this the way we want our government to pursue it?
Printer-friendly version
All Americans won last night
All Americans won last night when Scott Brown (R) won the special election for the Massachusetts senate seat left empty from Ted Kennedy's death. Our government works best when diverse viewpoints are respected and civil debate is allowed.
Sen. Jim Webb (D) released this statement and makes some good points:
In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.
Hard to disagree. For months
Hard to disagree. For months the Democrats have been driving for the finish line with little appreciation for what Americans are looking for. The issue that concerns each of them is if there is greater risk to passing a "bad" bill vs. no bill at all. Only time will tell. However, with 2 Democratic Senators and 1 Govenor already announcing they will not seek re-election, I think we may have our answer.
6 Republicans have retired.
6 Republicans have retired. The retirements mean little. What would be gained by including the Republicans at this, or any other, point. They are completely unified against any health care reform under this administration.
Don't forget that the
Don't forget that the government is supposed to represent the people. And the people are becoming less and less supportive of this bill as more is learned about what is in it and how little it actually addresses the core issue of containing health care costs.
But the Democrats want to hurry this bill through for a "victory" for Obama and "the good" of the country. They don't believe in democracy because they think they know what is best for all of us. But instead of slowing down the process and letting the people really know what is in the bill and what all the impacts may be and having an honest dialog about health care reform, they just want to pass something for their own selfish purposes.
Do we really want to let this thing get passed into law when the elected officials who vote for it and sign it don't even know what all is in it? Why do we let the government get away with behavior that ordinary citizens cannot and should not get away with themselves. (Remember the stimulus bill?) Any elected official that makes a statement after it is passed admitting that they didn't know that particular item was in the bill should be removed from office. If they can't do that much of their job with integrity, then they should not continue to hold the office.
You don't seem to understand
You don't seem to understand representative government very well. If our congressperson's were simply supposed to do our bidding we might as well have computers and pollsters doing the work of government. Sometimes our Representatives are supposed to stand up for somethings, even when it goes against their short term interests or ours. The representative part means that they do what they believe is in our best interests. The democracy part means that we have the ability to check our representatives when we consistently disagree. Polls should have little to do with how the congress is run. Polls are simply a reflection of how people feel at any slice in time.
While I agree that polls
While I agree that polls should not be the only tool in setting policy, they are helpful for spotting trends and should cause one to want to dig down and understand why they have turned south so quickly. Yes, people have wanted the government to do something about health care costs and making sure everyone can get the health care they need. But what the Democrats have come up with is an albatross that does not address these key points very well, if at all. Republicans represent a good portion of our citizens also, yet they have been cut out of the process completely even though Obama promised to be bi-partisan.
It’s convenient to say that the government is supposed to stand up for some things for our own good, but it is highly debatable whether this bill is going to do anyone much good other than those getting the “special deals”. Step back from the rhetoric of how much the Democrats are looking out for the little people and look at what they have actually done. Their goal is not to help people as much as to keep them down so they can continue to “look out for them” by filling their own pockets and gaining more power for their own selfish purposes. These representatives and senators voting for this are for the most part ideologues and will not budge from their position even when they can’t proudly stand behind the bill. That is why they have had to resort to personal attacks. They can’t debate the issues and win, so they attack those that ask a question that they don’t have a good answer for. Is that representation we can be proud of?
Post new comment