This will be the shortest post I write on this blog, simply because it's such a clear-cut, black and white issue. It's one I have carefully tiptoed around, simply because it's a touchy subject in today's world. I'm talking about the signature piece of reform that bears the mark of Obama's face on it: Health Care.
Quite simply, for the first year of the Obama Administration's tenure, they enjoyed a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, and approval ratings that are going to be the highest that Barack will ever see. Yet, they could not pass the bill, despite countless hours of drafting legislation behind locked doors in the bowels of Washington (probably didn't help).
Now, with a 59-seat majority (60 Yea votes are required to pass), Majority Leader Harry Reid can't get ONE MORE VOTE to pass this bill from anywhere he looks, and is even having trouble keeping progressive and centrist Democrats on board (12 pro-life Democrats, Bart Stupak included, are against the current version's abortion language).
So what does he do? Proposes reconciliation. PROMISES reconciliation. Again, for those of you who don't know, reconciliation allows a piece of legislation to be passed with only 50 votes instead of the traditional 60.
Here's the main point I'm trying to get across: right-wing conservatives hate this bill, moderate conservatives hate this bill, independents hate this bill, moderate liberals hate this bill, and America hates this bill. The only ones in favor are Obama fanboys in Congress; the relatively socialistic wing of our government.
This bill has no business getting passed. Period. If some bipartisan agreement is reached, where it is passed by 60 votes (which would, in the current Senate, require only ONE Republican to vote yes, assuming the Democrats all support it), then fine. I'll shut up. But if this bill sneaks through on a barebones vote with absolute minimal support, it would be a complete abomination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
two issues
ReplyDelete1. Bart stupak is a member of the house not the senate so he wouldn't factor into your "60 votes to pass" theory
2. You only need 51 out of 100 to have a majority not 60
Reconciliation is not something that should be used regularly but when something is not moving and has the support of a majority, and the minority is stalling and preventing things from happening drastic measures must be taken or nothing would ever be achieved on any bill not just health care.
Passing this bill over the objections of so many groups is political sucide for the democrats.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bush was President the Republicans passed a similar plan but for prescription drugs, where the government set standards for prescription drug insurance coverage' they mandated that people have it at a certain age; they mandated that persons on medicaid go in it automatically; they set up an "exchange" for these insurance programs; we ended up with managed care: The govenrment and the insurance companies decide which drugs a person gets, not their doctor. That bill was vigourously opposed by the Democrats.
Now we have about the same bill, excpet for health care insurance; but the Democrats push it, and the Republicans oppose it. So does it matter who is in office? Who really pulls the strings? Mark John Hunter - Alpena
To the first poster:
ReplyDeleteI am aware that Bart Stupak and the other 12 I mentioned are in the House, not the Senate. Looking back, I should have been more specific. I just used examples of the strongest cell of Democratic resistance.
I am also aware that 51 out of 100 is a simple majority, but Republicans (according to Senate rules) can filibuster the bill, a move which requires 60 votes to overcome. Reconciliation side-steps that 60-vote number and allows 51.
-Nick