Our Nation"s Healthcare - Politically Correct Process to Passing the Bill
Politically correct..
..
is it possible in heath care politics? January 20th 2010 gave birth to a different type of legislative body.
And nobody could be more surprised than the Democratic Party.
With American legislators on the verge of passing the biggest health care bill in the nation's history, an unusual event left the Democrats in awe.
Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator, crushing the Democrats stronghold in Congress.
Previously held by Ted Kennedy, a lifelong democrat and proponent of the Health care bill, the seat provided Democrats with a filibuster proof majority in the senate, outnumbering the GOP 60 to 40.
Scott Brown won the Massachusetts senate race in a landslide and was welcomed to office with chants of "Seat him now! Seat him now!" Now if the Democratic Party wishes to pass the health care bill with little imposition from the Republicans they have to make some compromises.
The House may consider passing the Senate's version of the bill without the mark-ups or revisions.
This is a feasible option because it would enable democrats to avoid the long impeding process of a potential filibuster.
Although some are unhappy with the Senate version of the bill, many are under the impression that some version of the health care bill is better than no version at all.
With mid-term elections right around the corner Democrats are eager to enact legislation in case tides turn and Republicans rally support for a Republican majority hold in congress.
It appears that President Obama will not be urging to rush legislation quickly through the House.
With quotes like: " Giving this some time and letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward"(Dallas Morning News).
And with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on the skeptical side, it seems the Senate's Version of the bill just doesn't have enough support amongst its legislators in the House.
Pelosi points fingers at parts of the legislation that congressman claim aid only certain states.
For example; an addition was made to the bill regarding specifically Nebraska's Medicaid system to win over the vote of Senator Ben Nelson.
Another controversial topic concerning House representatives is the issue regarding Federal subsidies the Senate's version of the bill would offer to individuals, particularly that the subsidies are not sufficient.
Also the tariff on "Cadillac Insurance Plans" as they are called on Capitol Hill, that some fear would anger union members and was language that was left out of the House's version of the bill.
Now Democrats have made some agreements to merge both versions of the bill, however it is not enough in the eyes of the Republican Party, who fear government interference in the industry.
If Democrats wish to pass the healthcare bill now they are limited to one option; write an entirely new, and essentially more moderate, version of the bill that would meet republican's conservative standards.
It is time to become politically correct in politics.
..
is it possible in heath care politics? January 20th 2010 gave birth to a different type of legislative body.
And nobody could be more surprised than the Democratic Party.
With American legislators on the verge of passing the biggest health care bill in the nation's history, an unusual event left the Democrats in awe.
Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator, crushing the Democrats stronghold in Congress.
Previously held by Ted Kennedy, a lifelong democrat and proponent of the Health care bill, the seat provided Democrats with a filibuster proof majority in the senate, outnumbering the GOP 60 to 40.
Scott Brown won the Massachusetts senate race in a landslide and was welcomed to office with chants of "Seat him now! Seat him now!" Now if the Democratic Party wishes to pass the health care bill with little imposition from the Republicans they have to make some compromises.
The House may consider passing the Senate's version of the bill without the mark-ups or revisions.
This is a feasible option because it would enable democrats to avoid the long impeding process of a potential filibuster.
Although some are unhappy with the Senate version of the bill, many are under the impression that some version of the health care bill is better than no version at all.
With mid-term elections right around the corner Democrats are eager to enact legislation in case tides turn and Republicans rally support for a Republican majority hold in congress.
It appears that President Obama will not be urging to rush legislation quickly through the House.
With quotes like: " Giving this some time and letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward"(Dallas Morning News).
And with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on the skeptical side, it seems the Senate's Version of the bill just doesn't have enough support amongst its legislators in the House.
Pelosi points fingers at parts of the legislation that congressman claim aid only certain states.
For example; an addition was made to the bill regarding specifically Nebraska's Medicaid system to win over the vote of Senator Ben Nelson.
Another controversial topic concerning House representatives is the issue regarding Federal subsidies the Senate's version of the bill would offer to individuals, particularly that the subsidies are not sufficient.
Also the tariff on "Cadillac Insurance Plans" as they are called on Capitol Hill, that some fear would anger union members and was language that was left out of the House's version of the bill.
Now Democrats have made some agreements to merge both versions of the bill, however it is not enough in the eyes of the Republican Party, who fear government interference in the industry.
If Democrats wish to pass the healthcare bill now they are limited to one option; write an entirely new, and essentially more moderate, version of the bill that would meet republican's conservative standards.
It is time to become politically correct in politics.
Source...