I can appreciate what you posted about the fact that you didn't want to support the health reform because the 400+ amendments that were submitted didn't get a chance to be heard. They have to do with issuesas important and meaningful as coverage and preventive care for women, preventive tests etc. We all understand that these are important.
However, I just want to say that as much as every single one of these amendments deserves a chance to be heard, they ultimately are too specific (relatively speaking) compared to the greater issues that the reform is tackling and would resolve if passed.
I am urging all senators to pass this reform now and to find a separate way for the content of these amendments to be considered in a different step so that it doesn't compromise some of the more global aspects we are dealing with. Call them something other then amendments if you have to.
The great issues in the health reform that we should focus on include elimintating the abuse of the private insurances companies, dealing with the fact that the current health system is not financially viable and preventing people from dying. 10s of thousands of americans die each year because they don't have health insurance. We are in the worst social crisis in this country since the 30s. 10s of thousands of americans loose health insurance every day.
They may die if this doesn't pass.
A lot has been compromised to please the republican side already and to take into account budget constraints. The public option was dropped very early on in this debate to disappoint many and the reform went from a version covering 58 million more americans to 31 million. How many more people have to die and how much more has to be compromised in this reform?
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
How many more people must die?
Reconciliation may be the way for this health reform. Democracy is failing us. Tens of thousands of people are dying every year because they don’t have health insurance and our current system is not viable anymore, it’s costing $8000 per person. We simply need to do something yesterday. The reform as it is proposed today already has an obscene amount of compromises for the republican side already but it's never enough.
They say that the reform in the senate was presented on wednesday for a vote the following saturday when there were months prior to that were the debate was open. Opponents didn't debate cause they were too busy playing the media and deploying strategies to make anything democrat look bad.
For the Republicans and the moderate senators, the reform already went from coverage for an additional 58milion to 31 million and the public option was dropped very early on in the debate. There is nothing socialist about the version of this reform whatsoever. It is just a common sense reform.
There were 400+ additional amendments that didn't get considered for this reform in December 2009. They all deserve to be considered, but they need to be handled separately from the reform itself. Give senators opportunities to submit amendments after the reform passes. Call the amendments something else. Whatever it takes. The big principles of this health reform cannot be compromised because of amendments that relatively speaking are pertaining to details. Anything is 'detail' compared to the fact that tens of million people die each year and that citizens of this country get denied health insurance while the top 5 insurance companies have made a profit of 2.2 billion, which is 56% higher in 2009 then 2008. How much abuse will we allow in this country?
They say that the reform in the senate was presented on wednesday for a vote the following saturday when there were months prior to that were the debate was open. Opponents didn't debate cause they were too busy playing the media and deploying strategies to make anything democrat look bad.
For the Republicans and the moderate senators, the reform already went from coverage for an additional 58milion to 31 million and the public option was dropped very early on in the debate. There is nothing socialist about the version of this reform whatsoever. It is just a common sense reform.
There were 400+ additional amendments that didn't get considered for this reform in December 2009. They all deserve to be considered, but they need to be handled separately from the reform itself. Give senators opportunities to submit amendments after the reform passes. Call the amendments something else. Whatever it takes. The big principles of this health reform cannot be compromised because of amendments that relatively speaking are pertaining to details. Anything is 'detail' compared to the fact that tens of million people die each year and that citizens of this country get denied health insurance while the top 5 insurance companies have made a profit of 2.2 billion, which is 56% higher in 2009 then 2008. How much abuse will we allow in this country?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
My electronic letter submitted to the White House today
I submitted this today in response to Obama's State of the Union Speech.
"Great speech but I would like to suggest something that you have omitted: outsourcing is the number one problem. It is killing jobs that will never come back.
we need to charge penalties to companies that do. It's the only way. We can't compete with the cheap workforce in India and Asia and even if they double their salaries overseas, they will still stay way more competitive. On a given market, if one company outsources to cut costs, other companies are forced to do so. This needs to end and it will not end without government intervention and regulation."
By the way, Obama reads ten letters a day according to this lovely video:
"Great speech but I would like to suggest something that you have omitted: outsourcing is the number one problem. It is killing jobs that will never come back.
we need to charge penalties to companies that do. It's the only way. We can't compete with the cheap workforce in India and Asia and even if they double their salaries overseas, they will still stay way more competitive. On a given market, if one company outsources to cut costs, other companies are forced to do so. This needs to end and it will not end without government intervention and regulation."
By the way, Obama reads ten letters a day according to this lovely video:
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
R.I.P. (if you can) Tedd Kennedy
Tedd Kennedy's Senate seat went to a Republican today.
The truth about all this is that it's a political cycle. Last time a president enjoyed the majority for his full term at the house and the senate was in the eighties. It was actually in 1980 because it was Jimmy Carter whose mandate ended in 1980.
Political analysts try to make it all about that this Scott Brown victory is a defeat for Obama. It's truly not. Obama was having high expectations for this country and for the world. He is being forced to play this political game, to campaign for little senate seats instead of campaigning for peace around the world. By the time he sided with Martha Coakley for this Massachussets seat, they already knew that it was too late unfortunately. I just don't think that he ever realized that he was going to have to lower himself to that petty level of politics. And it is not what he excels at.
It just doesn't happen that way anymore where a president enjoys the majority of his party in the house for his full mandate, and it's been that way in the entire western world. It's now all about coalition which makes it hard to accomplish anything. A US president nowadays only passes 50% of his reforms in the senate during his mandate.
The saddest part about all this is that our taxpayers' money is being thrown away. An imperfect but decent health reform was about to pass and provide justice to 34 Million Americans, now it's going away and we have to start from scratch and pay senators and legislators all over to make it happen. With the partisanship that is currently ruling Washington, it may take months and it's a waste.
But it raises a real question: how can we make bipartisanship work anymore. Barack Obama's been trying to push for that kind of political consciousness.I encourage you to seek some inspiration in 1972: president Nixon at the time was campaigning for bipartisanship and good judgement over petty politics in his State of the Union:
This speech really resonates today. I wonder why...
The truth about all this is that it's a political cycle. Last time a president enjoyed the majority for his full term at the house and the senate was in the eighties. It was actually in 1980 because it was Jimmy Carter whose mandate ended in 1980.
Political analysts try to make it all about that this Scott Brown victory is a defeat for Obama. It's truly not. Obama was having high expectations for this country and for the world. He is being forced to play this political game, to campaign for little senate seats instead of campaigning for peace around the world. By the time he sided with Martha Coakley for this Massachussets seat, they already knew that it was too late unfortunately. I just don't think that he ever realized that he was going to have to lower himself to that petty level of politics. And it is not what he excels at.
It just doesn't happen that way anymore where a president enjoys the majority of his party in the house for his full mandate, and it's been that way in the entire western world. It's now all about coalition which makes it hard to accomplish anything. A US president nowadays only passes 50% of his reforms in the senate during his mandate.
The saddest part about all this is that our taxpayers' money is being thrown away. An imperfect but decent health reform was about to pass and provide justice to 34 Million Americans, now it's going away and we have to start from scratch and pay senators and legislators all over to make it happen. With the partisanship that is currently ruling Washington, it may take months and it's a waste.
But it raises a real question: how can we make bipartisanship work anymore. Barack Obama's been trying to push for that kind of political consciousness.I encourage you to seek some inspiration in 1972: president Nixon at the time was campaigning for bipartisanship and good judgement over petty politics in his State of the Union:
This speech really resonates today. I wonder why...
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health reform: How many compromises is it going to take?
If anyone needs more evidence that this “checks and balances” parliamentary system is not working at this point, I don't know what they need to see.
This social reform debate is a disaster. It is excruciating watching this. Democrats have been open-minded, they have made compromises, they have given up the public option, they have now given up the extension of Medicare, but that's still not enough. We are facing a republican filibuster that has decided not to make any compromise. I wouldn't be surprised if some sketchy things are going on behind the scenes to give incentives to some strategic senators to spurn the bill or to spurn amendments that are put on the table in order to sabotage this project altogether. It certainly looks like this is what's going on. These senators are a shame. We elected them to represent the best interest of the people, not to get distracted about whether or not they are going to get re-elected during their entire mandate. In addition to the lack of integrity of some, we are in the presence of two major problems (and countless small ones):
Every senator is seizing this opportunity to make it their moment. Every senator (and there's 100 of them), is all of a sudden trying to push some issue or another. Some of them are legitimate. Some of them feel like it may be their only chance in their career to push an issue that they strongly believe in. Their heart is in the right place and the issue is a valid one (like Sanders). Every senator is trying to either steal the spotlight and/or bring a new amendment to the table. Everything is getting mixed. All of a sudden this becomes about abortion etc. One issue harms the other.
Why can't they just pass individual bills instead of sticking every single debate into a massive bill that should be simply aimed at ensuring access to health insurance to more people and stopping the abuse from private insurance companies? Most likely because the system is set up in such a way that it is a miracle if anything passes the finance committe and then the house. They all feel like it's never gonna happen again, like it's “now or never”. Well they shouldn't feel that way. They feel that way because the system is broken. Why is the system set up in such a way that senators feel like they have to push an issue at a time at the risk of jeopardizing the greater bill? This legislative process is not working.
Two of my co-workers have told me about their experience looking for health insurance while they weren't working. One of them got denied because he is asthmatic, the other one won't even asked because he “knows” he would get denied because of his weight. Every year, 40,000 people die because they don't have health insurance.
This terrible fiasco has nothing to do with Barack Obama. He is at the mercy of the senators at this point. This is some devastating evidence that this country is just too divided. We simply can't get along. We can't even meet in the middle. This is wasting time and taxpayers' money.
I have just written a message to Olympia Snowe to ask her why she is joining the Republican filibuster. To the Republicans that are using extremely low political tactics to ensure that this doesn't pass for a few months and waiting for the elections next year so they can take control again, I want to say that they don't belong in the senate. In fact, they don't belong in politics. Political leadership is about being a grown up, making compromises, knowing when it is appropriate to swallow your pride for the people and holding the stakes of what's best for the country higher than you own personal political agenda. I am ashamed of our “democracy” today.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
To be or not to be Ben Nelson from Nebraska
Many senators can only dream of being in a position similar to what has been Joe Lieberman's in the past months. This is quite a good indicator of the limits of the "checks and balances" system.While we know that it is reasonable to say that there is a risk in rolling out a big health care reform in the midst of the major economic and social crisis that we live in, and while we know that it takes political courage to do so, Mr. Lieberman has opted for a filibuster.
This is someone who can currently sway the health care debate any way he wants, and holds the fate of many cancer patients in his hand, some of which will die because of his media-friendly filibuster threat(s). Today, when asked whether he had hopes to run for as a presidential candidate in 2012, he confirmed that it is not out of the table. Well enjoy your attention-grabbing career move Mr. Lieberman while we know that it will cost some people their lives and the lives of their kids.
Senator JL and the health reform
Many senators can only dream of being in a position similar to what has been Joe Lieberman's in the past months. This is quite a good indicator of the limits of the "checks and balances" system.While we know that it is reasonable to say that there is a risk in rolling out a big health care reform in the midst of the major economic and social crisis that we live in, and while we know that it takes political courage to do so, Mr. Lieberman has opted for a filibuster.
This is someone who can currently sway the health care debate any way he wants, and holds the fate of many cancer patients in his hand, some of which will die because of his media-friendly filibuster threat(s). Today, when asked whether he had hopes to run for as a presidential candidate in 2012, he confirmed that it is not out of the table. Well enjoy your attention-grabbing career move Mr. Lieberman while we know that it will cost some people their lives and the lives of their kids.
Friday, December 11, 2009
That evil antitrust law
The chaotic and sometimes seemingly stumbling endeavors by the White House to pass a health reform has served as a powerful witness
Stupak tried to make it about abortion (and failed), and republican detractors tried to take that opportunity to divert the attention of the real debate: the fact that 40,000 US citizen die every year in the US because they don’t have health insurance. I repeat. 40,000 US citizens die every year and could live if they were able to afford treatment and had health insurance.
In the midst of all this noise, we all try as diligently as we can to understand all the intricate and intertwined elements of this debate, what has emerged as a dangerously possible show stopper is the issue of the public option.
We can only support and follow. Doing so sheds some light on why it has repeatedly failed since the last success in 1964: it is simply too complicated and I suspect that a lot of the House Representatives and senators don’t necessarily understand everything.
I understand why the public option’s cost and difficulty of implementation can be prohibitive, what I have yet to understand, however, is why on earth can’t we simply put a ban on that evil antitrust law that protects Insurance executives while they are criminals and let people die for profit. What could possibly be a viable argument against the ban?
Stupak tried to make it about abortion (and failed), and republican detractors tried to take that opportunity to divert the attention of the real debate: the fact that 40,000 US citizen die every year in the US because they don’t have health insurance. I repeat. 40,000 US citizens die every year and could live if they were able to afford treatment and had health insurance.
In the midst of all this noise, we all try as diligently as we can to understand all the intricate and intertwined elements of this debate, what has emerged as a dangerously possible show stopper is the issue of the public option.
We can only support and follow. Doing so sheds some light on why it has repeatedly failed since the last success in 1964: it is simply too complicated and I suspect that a lot of the House Representatives and senators don’t necessarily understand everything.
I understand why the public option’s cost and difficulty of implementation can be prohibitive, what I have yet to understand, however, is why on earth can’t we simply put a ban on that evil antitrust law that protects Insurance executives while they are criminals and let people die for profit. What could possibly be a viable argument against the ban?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
