Loyal Opposition

Did you know the House of Representatives managed to pass a bi-partisan healtcare bill? No, serious! They did. They had members of both parties vote in favor of it, and managed to pass the damn thing!

Well, they had one Republican lawmaker vote in favor, and passed it by two votes.

If that's not seat-of-your-pants governance, I'm not sure what is. And it sure as hell isn't bi-partisan.

I'm not 100% sure who's fault it is this bill isn't more of a consensus. It's easy to blame one side (the Democrats are railroaded the minority party) or the other (the GOP is refusing to play ball on principle). Really, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. 'cause

The big contentious deal with this bill (as I saw it...correct me if you see it differently, please) was the public option. I understand that. I respect that.

It's totally legitimate for conservative lawmakers from both parties to say, "Nuh uh, no way. That's totally unacceptable for a whole bunch of reasons, and if you have it in the bill I'm not voting."

The next logical step is the introduction of a bill or two that are viable alternatives. And sorry: "viable alternative" doesn't mean "ideologically opposite" which is how it's been taken to mean in the last ten years or so. If you make your answering bill too far away from the original, negotiation is pointless...and I believe the GOP lawmakers know this when they introduce bills. The idea of loyal opposition is just lost on lawmakers these days.

Loyal opposition: "applied to the opposition parties in the legislature to indicate that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet ... while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government's power."

While the idea was initially used to allow the minority parties in the British parliament to disagree with the majority party without being accused of treason, it can be applied in a slightly different manner now. While the Republicans cannot currently push their own agenda as effectively as they like (there are penalties for losing elections), they should be staying loyal to the concept of effective governance.

That's what both sides are forgetting about, that they have a job to do. It's all well and good to stand by principles...but we have problems to solve, people, and being pig headed isn't helping anyone.

Happy Veterans Day to You!

Cliche, but thank a Vet...and I don't mean the one who gives your puppy shots. And after you've done that, how about taking the advantage of the freedoms they've protected for you and getting a little involved in your government?

Just a thought.

Health Care Reform (the real post)

I've been sitting here for the better part of two hours now, trying to figure out how to approach this topic. I'm starting to have some serious sympathy for lawmakers, because the sheer scope is daunting as all get out.

I found the text for the actual bill passed by the House a few days ago. I knew the bill would be too big and unwieldy for me to really read. I didn't realize then my half formed thought would be the understatement of the week. Just digging through the table of contents to see the highlights (Public option, rescission abuse reform, exchanges, standards, etc etc) took me just about a half hour. That's without clicking any of those links to try and untangle the legalese.

Are you seriously suggesting those guys up on Capitol Hill actually read this thing (or any other bills) before voting on it?

Title I is all about the immediate reforms Congress wants to address. Prohibiting rescission, getting the uninsured high risk citizens taken care of under a temporary program, pre-existing condition exclusions prohibition, extension of dependent coverage for uninsured young adults, eliminating domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, post retirement reduction of benefits, lifetime limit elimination are all included. All things that needed to be dealt with sooner than when the new law is fully up to speed.

Title II is a key element. It's protections and standards... the pre-existing condition exclusion is specifically outlawed, as is rescission for anything but non-payment of premiums. Rules for rates are laid out, parity in benefits for mental health and substance abuse problems are called for, and essential benefits are defined and required from insurers. An independent Health Choices Administration with a commissioner appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is established. The rest of the section fits the new changes into the existing framework of government (where attorneys general fit in, the Federal Trade Commission, etc).

Title III covers health care exchanges, and the public option. It establishes both of them, and defines the rules and regs for them.

Title IV is all about responsibility, a split between personal and employer based. Looks like tax penalties if you don't have coverage.

Title V is where they work in the penalties/off sets into the tax code.

This is where the text gets funky...it starts over with Title I again, this time labelled "Improving Health Care Value." Looking down the bullets, it looks like Medicare reforms.

Now, I'd link you to the interactive document that Thomas provides...but the site deletes search results after so many hours, creating a broken link. So I'm gonna link you to their search option...

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/111search.html

And tell you to punch in 3962. From those results, you want the third entry...the one that was passed on 11/07/09.

On the whole, I'm not sure what's wrong with the bill. I'm really pretty baffled and growing more and more angry when I consider how close this came to not passing. I think it's time to write some letters.

Post on the Health Care Bill in the House Coming...

I promise. It'll be up by this afternoon.