Unanimity is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Especially in the U.S. Congress. Fortunately, unanimity is not required for legislative action. By design.
What exactly do we meant by a "bipartisan approach"? Do we mean legislation that is favored by some Democrats and some Republicans (and presumably opposed by some of each party)? Do we mean legislation that is favored by a vast majority of Congress, regardless of party affiliation? Do we mean legislation that is supported by the ruling elite of both parties, regardless of individual consciences?
Clear definitions are required for informed discussion.
In theory, mass action (including legislation) works best when it has the support of as many people as possible. So we'd like to build a big consensus for every law and program. But in reality, there are problems. Including, but not limited to:
Contentions that do not easily accept compromise (abortion, for example).
Political operatives who prioritize power over principle.
Self-assurance that views any deviant idea as obviously stupid and catastrophic. ("That's socialism!!!")
These real-world problems suggest that some legislative problems are not the result of rushed efforts or sloppy work. Do you seriously believe that organized (Republican) opposition to better healthcare is motivated primarily by quality concerns?
Personally I like both "Do we mean legislation that is favored by some Democrats and some Republicans (and presumably opposed by some of each party)? Do we mean legislation that is favored by a vast majority of Congress, regardless of party affiliation?"
I'll definitely agree that Partisan roles are playing a lot in this effort, ON BOTH SIDES.
My concern is that the Democrats are too focused on timeline and pushign this through, feeding the partisan politics.
I'd like to see a long thought out solution, even if it's favored by one side, that is carefully put together. I dunno, it could be media presentation of the bill, but it seems rushed.
Of course, from the bill I reviewed, I hate it based on what it does, so I'm opposed on the bill's current actions as I've read it.
I think it's a mistake to discount the time concern. We need X number of supporting Congressmen to pass any healthcare bill. Maybe we have all X right now. But I would guess that not all X really want a healthcare bill. I'd guess that some percentage fear opposing a popular president and/or a popular idea. But the longer deliberations take, the more vocal popular support fades...and potentially the more popularity the president loses (over failure to take action, and over other issues -- like his problems with civil rights). After enough time, it's no longer a big risk to oppose a healthcare bill, and it effectively dies in committee (if not on the floor).
Another concern *is* partisan politics. I fear that many people think the Democrats are an experiment, and if we don't see enough real improvement soon, we'll see more Republicans return to office in the next election. It's a pretty safe bet that more Republicans = far less chance to pass a healthcare bill, not to mention all the questionable ideology on other issues.
And a third concern is "what rush?" Healthcare has been a political problem for a long time. People have been trying to think of alternate solutions for a long time (Hillarycare, anyone?). Whatever proposals are currently made in Washington should not have been created from scratch over the past few months, so why are they being called hasty?
Admittedly, while I haven't read the fine print, I understand that the currently bill abandons the key ideas necessary for effective healthcare reform. So I can agree with you that what we may get isn't what we either want or need. We just disagree on the specific criticisms.
What exactly do we meant by a "bipartisan approach"? Do we mean legislation that is favored by some Democrats and some Republicans (and presumably opposed by some of each party)? Do we mean legislation that is favored by a vast majority of Congress, regardless of party affiliation? Do we mean legislation that is supported by the ruling elite of both parties, regardless of individual consciences?
Clear definitions are required for informed discussion.
In theory, mass action (including legislation) works best when it has the support of as many people as possible. So we'd like to build a big consensus for every law and program. But in reality, there are problems. Including, but not limited to:
- Contentions that do not easily accept compromise (abortion, for example).
- Political operatives who prioritize power over principle.
- Self-assurance that views any deviant idea as obviously stupid and catastrophic. ("That's socialism!!!")
These real-world problems suggest that some legislative problems are not the result of rushed efforts or sloppy work. Do you seriously believe that organized (Republican) opposition to better healthcare is motivated primarily by quality concerns?Reply
I'll definitely agree that Partisan roles are playing a lot in this effort, ON BOTH SIDES.
My concern is that the Democrats are too focused on timeline and pushign this through, feeding the partisan politics.
I'd like to see a long thought out solution, even if it's favored by one side, that is carefully put together. I dunno, it could be media presentation of the bill, but it seems rushed.
Of course, from the bill I reviewed, I hate it based on what it does, so I'm opposed on the bill's current actions as I've read it.
Reply
Another concern *is* partisan politics. I fear that many people think the Democrats are an experiment, and if we don't see enough real improvement soon, we'll see more Republicans return to office in the next election. It's a pretty safe bet that more Republicans = far less chance to pass a healthcare bill, not to mention all the questionable ideology on other issues.
And a third concern is "what rush?" Healthcare has been a political problem for a long time. People have been trying to think of alternate solutions for a long time (Hillarycare, anyone?). Whatever proposals are currently made in Washington should not have been created from scratch over the past few months, so why are they being called hasty?
Admittedly, while I haven't read the fine print, I understand that the currently bill abandons the key ideas necessary for effective healthcare reform. So I can agree with you that what we may get isn't what we either want or need. We just disagree on the specific criticisms.
Reply
Leave a comment