Healthcare Reform
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and I'm sure I'll get some agreement there. So it makes me worry a little when I can think up a "wrong" thing that is easy to implement, knowing that there are some pretty desperate characters out there.
So, here we have a political situation whereby the President is compromising every which way to get a healthcare reform bill pushed through Congress. The problem being that if there is a public option, it probably won't pass the senate, and if there isn't a public option, it probably won't pass the house. There are many other details in the mix, but this is the one that stands out for me.
These US Senators who won't vote for a bill with a public option include a lot of politicians who've accepted huge political contributions from the healthcare & pharmaceutical industries, indicating to me that they have huge incentives to vote against a bill whose passage might benefit their constituents but won't benefit their own personal continued grip on power in the government. This is not their only reason for voting against the public option, but it is a reason that does stand out.
Some of the Republican Senators represent states with Democratic governors. If anything were to happen to the Senators, the Governor would appoint a replacement. Usually, the appointees are from the political party of the appointer, not of the political party of the recent Senator.
The wrong thought I have is this. There are a lot of people, some fifty million, who do not have health insurance, and who probably don't have health insurance in their near futures. Some of them are likely represented by US Senators who will vote against a bill that has a public option. A smaller number are likely represented by US Senators who will vote against a bill with a public option and in a state led by a Democratic governor. Some people are so desperate for health care they'll do anything to get it. Prisons have health care. Dead senators can't vote. Dead senators get replaced by the governors of their states. Senators will likely vote along party lines on this healthcare reform bill with a public option. Voting on the bill has been postponed until the end of the summer recess. I wonder if there's someone so desperate out there who will take out a senator to a) keep that senator from voting against the bill; b) so he, the perpetrator, can go to prison and get healthcare, as well as guaranteed housing for the rest of his life; c) so his Democratic governor can replace his victim with a Democratic senator who will vote to support healthcare reform legislation with a public option clause in the bill.
Sure, it's perverse and twisted and above all, wrong. But I can't be the only one who's thought of it.
So, here we have a political situation whereby the President is compromising every which way to get a healthcare reform bill pushed through Congress. The problem being that if there is a public option, it probably won't pass the senate, and if there isn't a public option, it probably won't pass the house. There are many other details in the mix, but this is the one that stands out for me.
These US Senators who won't vote for a bill with a public option include a lot of politicians who've accepted huge political contributions from the healthcare & pharmaceutical industries, indicating to me that they have huge incentives to vote against a bill whose passage might benefit their constituents but won't benefit their own personal continued grip on power in the government. This is not their only reason for voting against the public option, but it is a reason that does stand out.
Some of the Republican Senators represent states with Democratic governors. If anything were to happen to the Senators, the Governor would appoint a replacement. Usually, the appointees are from the political party of the appointer, not of the political party of the recent Senator.
The wrong thought I have is this. There are a lot of people, some fifty million, who do not have health insurance, and who probably don't have health insurance in their near futures. Some of them are likely represented by US Senators who will vote against a bill that has a public option. A smaller number are likely represented by US Senators who will vote against a bill with a public option and in a state led by a Democratic governor. Some people are so desperate for health care they'll do anything to get it. Prisons have health care. Dead senators can't vote. Dead senators get replaced by the governors of their states. Senators will likely vote along party lines on this healthcare reform bill with a public option. Voting on the bill has been postponed until the end of the summer recess. I wonder if there's someone so desperate out there who will take out a senator to a) keep that senator from voting against the bill; b) so he, the perpetrator, can go to prison and get healthcare, as well as guaranteed housing for the rest of his life; c) so his Democratic governor can replace his victim with a Democratic senator who will vote to support healthcare reform legislation with a public option clause in the bill.
Sure, it's perverse and twisted and above all, wrong. But I can't be the only one who's thought of it.