It is current conventional wisdom that despite campaign promises, the newly elected Republicans cannot actually "repeal" the healthcare plan that was passed this fall. And under opinion polls, the title of the health care gets low approval, but when people are asked if they support individual provisions, polling is much higher. In the end, it may be that a slight majority of Americans approve of the reforms.
While they may not be able to actually 'repeal' the law- one definite possibility is to not fund the provisions they like in the budget that will pass in October 2011 for the 2011-2012 budget year.
Please read these two articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/health/policy/07health.html?_r=1&ref=politics
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/07/republicans-look-budget-maneuvers-prevent-spending-new-health-law/
So, what do you think?
Should Congress try to get a real gauge on what Americans want before they decide?
Should they use budget options to effectively cancel components they don't want?
Should they respect that the law was passed and let it go into effect?
To help you form your opinions, here is a summary of what the reform law did:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts#healthcare-menu
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now that the Republicans have taken control of the House, I would expect there to be a great reversal in some of the new health care reform.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the use of budgets to limit components and effectively "repeal" legislation would be a great method to cancel out the components that they don't want. Eric Cantor of Virginia basically said that he is going to do ANYTHING in order to remove Obamacare. Republican representatives have stated that they may cut spending in the agencies that enforce people to obtain health insurance.
I don't think that just letting the law go into effect is a good idea. If Congress does not fully agree with the terms of the reform, why should it be put into effect? Especially since there is a new majority in the House, I believe that things like this will be overturned rather quickly.
Ms. Duquette, maybe it was just me, but that Myths and Facts page seemed a little bit pushy to me. It sort of seemed like the usual facts that people use to try and persuade people to conform with something that they don't agree with. I would say that it reminds of the commercials about High Fructose Corn Syrup and how it wasn't really bad for you. BS.
Maybe I'm wrong though? Can our government really publish something that is pushing the opinions of its people? I'm interested in knowing the answer.
Sorry if I got off topic.
This is Jessica Schildt.
ReplyDeleteShould Congress try to get a real gauge on what Americans want before they decide?
It’s a challenge to decide which “gauge” is “real” when Americans’ opinions are concerned. Reputable, objective polling agencies are the only ones that I believe should be seriously consulted when making decisions as momentous as this one. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to deliver the legislation that they demand; the purpose of the government is to enact the wishes of the people, from whom their power is derived.
On a slight side note, I do not see what more information needs to be gathered about Americans’ opinion regarding health care. If Americans were content with the direction of health care, more Democrat’s would have retained their seats. What gauge could be more “real”?
Should they use budget options to effectively cancel components they don’t want?
Again, the enormous transition of power in the House of Representatives illustrates a changed opinion in the American public. The New Congress should cancel components of the health care bill (and any other bills) that do not reflect the needs of the citizens who elected them.
Senator Mitch McConnell, paraphrased in the FOX News article, accurately states that “it will be difficult to repeal the law ‘with the president there.’” This health care law is one that President Obama is definitely happy with; thus, he will most likely veto a blanket repeal of it. The only way that the New Congress can repeal this law is to “use the power of the purse to challenge main elements of the law” (NYTimes article).
Again, a side note: dismembering the health care law is not simply something that the New Congress wants, but something that the citizens desire; otherwise, they would not have elected the sixty Republican seats that they did (so far, according the the NYTimes).
Should they respect that the law was passed and let it go into effect?
I wonder where we would be today if we had respected the laws that the British imposed upon us, such as restricting our trade, increasing our taxes without consulting us, and extending an open invitation to Redcoats to stay at our houses without our approval.
I wonder where we would be if we had respected the Compromise of 1850, which included the Fugitive Slave Act. Civil Rights might have been delayed, to say the least. Who would justify respecting such a law?
I wonder where we would be if we respected every law that Congress passed. We have an imperfect system of government, so the fact that a law was passed does not imply that it is a good law. The concept of “loyal opposition” is partially founded on this principle. It defies the American mindset to accept a law merely because it was passed. Just as a theory becomes a law when it has been tirelessly tested and proved accurate, a law passed by Congress becomes acceptable when it is a direct reflection of the wishes of the people. As John Locke wrote, if we the people do not approve of a law, then it is our obligation to change it.
Based on the last link this act seems to be a positive thing. Of course, like Ryan mentioned, they may be trying to make it sound better than it is.
ReplyDeleteI believe what is done is done and that it should be left as that. If nothing else give it some time, and if it still seems like such a major issue than something can be done with it at a later date.
As far as seeing what America wants, I am not too sure they do. Clearly someone knew what they wanted or this act would not have been passed in the first place.
If it is just that bad than maybe budget options would be a good idea to make everyone happy, but this may cause more problems in the end.
I believe that congress should try and see what america wants beofre they really decide what to do. Sadly, congress can never get a public opinion in america because so many people dont even want to deal with the P WORD (politics)
ReplyDeleteAlso, i dont agree with congress to try and find loop holes around the new healthcare reform, that was passed.. it passed so i dont see in a reason in trying to change what congress strongly debated about for a long time just because republicians took over the house. if they were to use buget options to go around the health care reform, it would strongly show that government is something that people who ant their way fight for and not the good of a nation.
i think in my above paragraph i said they should let it be, but just in case, yes i believe congress should let the bill be and for it to proceed.. if in later time, and the bill doesnt show any positives, then congress should act.. like it should be for all laws.
I think that congress should try to get an idea of what the people want, but i don't believe they will. The Congress members interviewed in the NY Times article said that they were going to do whatever it takes to stop the reform from happening, even if they have to take it apart piece by piece. It looks like they're already planning to stop the reform, and i'm pretty sure they didn't ask everybody what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Congress trying so hard to stop the bill, because no one knows for sure whether or not it is going to be good or bad. Also, they technically can't stop the reform completely. They can make budget cuts, but that doesn't actually stop the reform, it just slows it down really. I think that even if the people wanted to stop the reform, we should still wait to see how it goes before we do anything drastic.
As many people have said, I think it would be in the best interest of everybody if Congress took in to consideration of the public. However, I think this is very difficult to do, as it is almost impossible to get the opinion of every single American, unless by some miracle 100% of the American population voted in a poll concerning the topic. Wouldn't that be awesome though?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Congress using their budget to basically cancel out certain components of a policy or a bill, I think this could go both ways. It all depends on what the policy/bill is, and what part of it they want to take out. If Congress is fair and balanced, then this wouldn't be a bad idea, as they would (hopefully) take into consideration public opinion while attempting to remove a certain section of a policy. This would make it justified, as it is majority opinion. If they want to take out a policy/bill to suit themselves or just for shits, then no, it's not justified.
Congress respecting and simply leaving alone a law already passed I don't think should happen, but again it depends on the law. If the law is seen as unjust in the eyes of certain congressmen and American citizens, then of course they should fight to have it removed. I realize that all my paragraphs all basically have to do with public opinion, but that's because I believe in it, usually the general public knows what is best for themselves, and allows for more examination into a certain law or policy, it just makes it more just and favorable.
This is Jessica Schildt.
ReplyDeleteI find it necessary to note that the Health Care law passed without a single Republican vote in Congress. Yes, we know that policymakers do not always keep the citizens' votes in mind, but the fact that the law was passed solely by Democrats/Independents shows that it was not desired by everyone. And this means that a significant portion of the American public does not want it. Hence, the New Congress aims to dissemble it in any way possible.
i believe that Congress should eficently act according to polls and public opinion. if the majority of Americans don't want the healthcare bill, why fund it? I think Congress should look deeper than party affilitation and start worrying more about who their actions are really affecting. The healthcare bill is a monumental piece of legislature that should be more fully analized beofre it is put into affect. Congress needs to decide what side the general public is on and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteCongress again should see what the people want before coming to a consenus. Personally, I believe that some parts of the reform bill are a little loco but again Congress should do what is best for the nation as a whole.
I believe that they should respect the law as it was fairly voted on and approved. However, in the future if people begin to have concerns and frustrations with the law, then I belive Congress should review the components of the bill and take out what is causing problems.However, it was passes constitutional and therefore should be respected.
Even though the Reps. just got control of the House, I personally do not believe all of them are stupid enough to cut programs that cost the most money (although I wouldnt be shocked if it happened either). They will not be quick to cut total spending. Because the republicans just got control, they need to be wise in their decisions when cutting programs and Obamacare. They do not want to lose control of the House, as well as Congress, in the next mid term elections. I believe they will slowly act based off of what Americans want because that would put them in favor for the next elections. If Reps. slowly paced their decisions against spending then I believe they willl have a good chance at taking control of Congress and presidential seat next elections. If theat were to happen, then they would be quick to act on their decisions for health care like they all are now.
ReplyDeleteI think all of this talk by Cantor and other avengeful Reps. are just talking. When thy take attendence in Washington this January, I believe they will realize that they will want to keep control and act carefully around Americans demands.
There is no disagreement among Americans that congress should correlate their views with their majority public. With the change in power within Washington, I am sure that a new gauge, used primarily with polling, should occur to solidify the wants of the people. I do agree with Jessica's statement concerning an estimation to the discontentment about the liberal-minded healthcare plan leading to a change in the house. However I disagree with her in that I feel like further evaluation of the public's opinions are needed before making changes to a bill that was, possibly still is, widely wanted by Americans.
ReplyDeleteAnd after deliberating and deciding on the general consensus of the American public's wants and needs, then the actions to budget for the bill can be made. Rather an appealing, as many in the house now want, a revision seems like the best compromise and in this case a concordat may be instated with the revised bill. This revision is to warrant that the law, though already passed under old members of congress, is not completely revoked or unresolved. It cannot simply be ignored as a once passed bill if it doesn't agree with the population's current views. All bills, once irrelevant, harmful, or unwanted by those it affected must be revised rather than ignored.
I personally believe the government should gauge the American opinion on the bill since the bill is a major concern with the American population. Many individuals feel very strongly about the issue, and it would be beneficial to determine whether or not the country feels the bill should be repealed. If the American public agrees that the bill is a positive piece of legislature, then Congress should allow the law to go into effect without inhibiting it; however, most likely the bill will be put into effect with significant reforms by Congress regarding sections that they do not condone. The budgeting method would be an excellent approach to "canceling out" parts of the bill that they do not like. However, if the American population feels that a certain section of the bill should remain, then Congress has the very crucial job of upholding public opinion.
ReplyDelete1.Obviously Congress should find out what the people want. I know that the polls on Obama Care are low, however that does not give any senator or representative the right to take action without using polls that they should create. This ensures that there is a consensus on a certain issue, in this case the health care bill.
ReplyDelete2.Both articles inform us that the Republicans cannot repeal the bill, but they can cancel parts of the bill by canceling the budget. It is a good idea to cancel budget to stall the bill from passing, however the real question is how are Republicans going to cancel the budget. The New York Times article says that one way the Republicans will inhibit the government from gaining revenue is by limiting the funds and personnel of the IRS. I am not sure if you know, but the IRS is the part of the government that collects taxes and turns it into revenue, which is absolutely needed to fund programs such as national defense, and social service.
3.Republicans should should respect the law but Congress members have the right to fight the bill if and only if the people they represent are against it. However they should not develop their standing based on their own beliefs or their colleagues beliefs. I understand why Republicans need to unite to impede the bill from taking action, but Republicans have to focus on other issues that are important to the American people instead of wasting time and resources. Personally, I feel Congress should come back to issue after they solve the unemployment and economic issues.
Congress should wait before making any drastic moves. They should hear the people and use a national poll to come up with a very accurate percentage of pro health care vs against health care citizens. I feel like now that the republicans have taken the house. Things will get ugly. It's hard to predict what outcomes can come about because of the diversity of how the republicans control the house and the democrats control the senate. I feel like very few things will get done because of the problem for the republicans of Obama being able to veto many of their laws. Budget options seems like a very effective way to break off health care bit by bit and especially the parts that are very disliked from citizens. I believe this method will work because of how strongly health care relays on money, therefore to use budgets against it would really bring it down. The new republican house should respect the choice of the people. I know they won't respect health care at all but they should really focus on what the people want. Before anything is to be used against health care, the new republican house should use more polls to find out the most accurate opinion of what the American people think about health care.
ReplyDeleteFor the first question, didn't voters put in Republican's because they aren't seeing desirable results from the Democrats? Voter turnout only accounts for about half of the entire population but still. I know Congress SHOULD do opinion polls to find the general opinion of the people but it seems that the will of the people is already prevalent just by giving Reps the majority in House and almost taking the Senate.
ReplyDeleteIf their goal is to cut parts of the bill they deem as wasteful/corrupt then yes. Republicans want to cut spending from the government and to them that is the biggest way to do that so that is the obvious choice to do.
Well since the bill can't be repealed anyway this question seems moot. But if the question is saying not to tamper with it at all then the answer is no. One of the Republican's goals is to cut spending by the government thus creating more jobs and cutting parts of the bill they don't like would be a major boon to achieving that goal. According to one of the links above, even though the bill doesn't affect average Joe's such as you and I it affects small businesses which are the key to getting the economy to turn around. If they let the law pass it would go against what the Republicans in Congress stand for currently.
While it would be a good idea for Congress to pay attention to opinion polls taken currently on the Health Care Bill, they cannot deny the fact that going into 2008, at least the majority of society was for passing the bill, being that they voted for Obama and his policies. It is only 2 years later and like Duquette said, it is still likely that a slight majority of Americans still support this reform. Because of the new Republican take over in the House however, one can bet that they will stick to their guns on this issue and do anything in their power to vote against it. It's the obvious trend that the disapproval of a President increases in the opposing party, however it would be an incredibly huge mistake if Congress shut down this reform before it really even got started. Though they SHOULD just let it be for a while and see how effective it really is, I doubt they will because everyone in our nation's government is quick to jump down each other's throats and get things done "their own" way. If they put any effort into revoking this reform while Obama is still President, not only is it a waste of time, but it is also an insult. Good things do not just happen over night, and by trying to repeal this reform this early into it's life could be potentially cheating America out of a stable, even Good, economic state.
ReplyDeleteBasically, everyone in Congress needs to relax and look up the word "patience" in the dictionary, because they've obviously never heard of it before. They should focus their energies on the plethora of other economic issues that need work, because as of right now, health care has been covered.
Congress should listen to the people before forcing through such a huge piece of legislature. I think that every single member in both houses of Congress should have been forced to read every word of every line of every one of the 1,990 pages (about 400,000 words) BEFORE they passed it. “With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word….Republicans aide said a print-out of the bill weighs more than 19 pounds and stands nearly nine inches tall” (http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/heath-care-reform-bill-vs-constitution/) It worries me greatly that this bill is so large- and that there are sleepers in it. (Sleepers are little bits of a bill that have little to do with the subject matter of the bill and a lot to do with the political agendas of the people writing the bill.) So, to answer the original question, I think the members of Congress should slow down and form opinions of their own, and then ask the people what they think about it. I also think there should be more economists writing legislation.
ReplyDeleteI think if they are serious about stopping this bill, then budget restraints will be the fastest and most effective way. The IRS people don’t work for free, and would therefore have no incentive to continue collecting taxes and preying on people if they will not get paid for it. From a moral standpoint, budget cuts are probably the most effective means of stopping unwanted legislation that does not include violence, espionage, or other such things.
If people don’t want this law to go into effect, then it should not go into effect. We the people must live by the laws that our government passes; if they will put us in debt or other unwanted situations (and the majority of Americans feel that the law is not in the nation’s best interest or the best interests of the individuals) the law should not be created.
In General- This is a bit of a side note, but did anyone else notice how in the first article (from a liberal paper, I might add) referred to the president as “Mr. Obama” rather than “President Obama”? To me, this seems to indicate a small lack of respect (or a lot of typo’s).
Hopefully, Congress will make an effort to truly gauge what the American public wants before blocking aspects of this legislation. They also need to remember that the American public includes everyone in it, not just the members of their own party. Once Republicans take control in the house,they will obviously be making assumptions based on the values and beliefs held by their party. The possibility that Americans approve at least certain components of this bill is there, and needs to be recognized.
ReplyDeleteUsing budget constraints would be an effective way of eliminating components of the bill that are not approved of, as long as it is done properly. This is something that can, and most likely will, be exploited by opponents of the bill, because it is a semi-valid excuse, especially in the eyes of most Americans who are concerned about the economy at the moment.
Respect is something that is lacking by many political figures in the public eye, and even many Americans at the moment. For instance, Ben Quayle from Arizona had a television ad that blatantly said "Barack Obama is the worst president in U.S history"...And he want to work with him! Also, many conservatives are talking about how their main goal is to sabotage Obama in the next two years-shouldn't all of this energy be put to important matters at hand, like the condition of the country?Just because you do not agree with him does not need to need to be publicly slandering him. To answer the question, there needs to be some kind of respect renewed on a large scale level. It is okay to disagree with the legislation, and try to improve it, but to completely disregard it based on the man who put it in action (you can deny it all you want, but that is a huge part of it)is not fair nor respectful, to not only the president, but the country as a whole. People will argue with me based on how they feel about the bill, but it has to be said.
...Erin, I noticed the "Mr. Obama" reference as well, and thought the exact same thing as you.I'm not really thinking that they are typos.
I find it is important for Congress to know how Americans feel about a certain law before putting it into place. If a majority of the people are opposed to putting the law into practice, what is the point in putting it into practice when people will only be upset that it ever was. When Congress just goes ahead and puts a law into practice without getting the consent of the people, it is as if Congress is not keeping the best interest of the people in mind. With Republicans having gained more power due to the recent election, I think that there will be fewer of these kinds of problems that take place.
ReplyDeleteI think that using budget limits to help “repeal” such decisions made by the legislation, is a very effective way of going about stating our opinions. Everybody needs money, but if you do not get enough people to support, people will not be willing to give the money you need. For instance, R. Scott Lilly stated that “House Republicans cannot enact legislation the president won’t sign. But the president cannot force them to appropriate money they don’t want to appropriate.” (New York Times Article). If people like the Democrats and the President cannot obtain the money they need because the republicans are not willing to support them, perhaps they will be willing to cope more with the Republicans and the American people.
The Republicans should not just let the law go into effect because there are people who will support their wanting to repeal the law. I think that the Republicans will keep the people’s best interest in mind and do what is right even if that means fighting Obamacare. Whether or not fighting Obamacare does anything or not, Americans may find it to be a good thing that the Republicans want what is best for the people.
@Jessica-
ReplyDeleteI liked how you used examples to prove your point about standing up to unjust laws, but don't you think that comparing laws like the fugitive slave law to a health care reform bill is somewhat drastic. Health care reform may not be accepted on a wide scale, but I don't really see it on the same level as a law that is preventing rights of a group of people. Also, a significant portion of citizens may not be happy with the passing, if a single Republican did not vote for it, but, obviously, a significant portion still does approve if it got passed.
@Sam Sidoti-
I like how you mentioned that the word "patience" has been forgotten about in this situation, and that the many other problems have been put aside as well. Many of these politicians need to stop thinking about getting "their own way" and start thinking about what is actual beneficial, or not, for the American people.
@ Jessica
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the New Congress should cancel components of any bill, including the health care bill that is not wanted. As you stated later on the health care bill was passed without a single Republican vote and this goes to show that many people are opposed to the health care bill. Now that there has been a change of power in the House of Representatives, the Republicans have the right and the ability to make necessary changes regarding what the American people want, and I think that they should. You also stated that the people desire to have changes made to, let alone get rid of, the health care bill and that this obvious because of the sixty Republicans the American people voted in during the recent election. What I would like to know is that prior to the passage of the health care bill, did the Democrats and Independents take concern of the American people’s interests and concerns or not? If they had paid more attention to this would they have decided not to pass the bill? I do not know if I missed this part but it makes sense to me that if the Democrats had known how many people opposed the bill that they would not have passed it, saving themselves a lot of trouble in the end.
@Jessica- I agree with you completely- laws that have opposition should be challenged. We have to live with the laws we make, so we should take action if we think a law is unjust or harmful in some way.
ReplyDelete@Sam- I think that Congress should have had patience when they were passing it in the first place.
@Ryan Driscoll- I agree with you- the “Myths and Facts” page does seem biased. I suppose the government can publish or not publish whatever they want (how else could they get away with having classified files?) so we shouldn’t be surprised. We as a nation must simply make ourselves aware that sometimes “reliable” sources have agendas.
About the high fructose corn syrup- before high fructose corn syrup was the in thing, there was coconut oil. Then, the people who grew corn decided to expand their business and used the media to convince the public that coconut oil was unhealthy. Now the makers of artificial sweeteners are putting out ads that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy. Doesn’t it make you wonder if all these ad campaigns might possibly just be concerned about money rather than the health of the public? Remember, there are at least two sides to every story. It is very important to look at the sources of things like articles or ads before deciding where you stand. :)
@Robby- Congress did not debate this bill for a long time; it was passed in SIX MONTHS (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show). Six months is a very short time for a bill to get through both houses of Congress and be signed by the president of the United States, particularly one that is nearly 2,000 pages long. The legislative branch was designed to pass bills into law over a course of years. That way, when the bill was finally passed, it was a well-thought-out, extensively debated law that was more likely to be amenable to the American people. The other thing that bothers me about this bill is that, as Jessica mentioned, not one Republican voted for it. It was passed by a supermajority of Democrats; this means that there are no Republican additions or contributions to it; there was no compromise involved. I think all bills-to-be-laws should contain bipartisan compromise because without it, America is in danger of veering (or being dragged) to one side of the political spectrum – and the goal of our government is to stay in the middle. :)
@Alison- I agree with you – politicians do lack respect, and so do a lot of Americans. You had a great point about how if there are to be changes to a law, they should indeed be because the law is lacking in some way, rather than because people do or do not like the person that signed them into law.
@PG
ReplyDeleteI liked your comment about the small business thing, as before this I haven't even considered how they might be effected by a certain bill that is put into place.
@Jessica
I agree with you when it comes to the health care bill, and how it passed without a ton of support. This is an example of something that I think she be looked at again, and maybe re-done a bit to make it more suitable for those who originally voted no.
@ The Italian Stallion.. or Max
ReplyDeleteI agree with ideas about the polls but the House will most likely act quickly because their polls were the midterm elections. Because the Republicans were elected to majority of the House, they feel that the majority of voters stand agaisnst Obamas health care plan. Its like a direct vote against Obama in my opinion. Because people voted republicans in the House, its like people voted indirectly agaisnt obamas health care and deficit spending in my opinion. I agree with your opinion about what the gov't should do but they will take direct action because thats hust the obvious reputation of a Republican.
@Allison
ReplyDeleteExactly. If they stopped trying to change health care for two seconds they'd realize the unemployment rate is still around 9% and theres so many more important things than trying to solve a problem THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SOLVED. It's just frustrating to me. If they Were actually paying attention to what the people wanted, there would be a LOT more effort going into creating jobs, because that's the number one concern for Americans right now. And like what you said about some of their main objectives being "getting Obama out of office," just makes me feel like jealous 2 year olds are whose representing us. I know that I don't feel that way and there are plenty of others who don't either. Just goes to show that they're not really listening.
@ Erin
Exactly. Firstly I noticed that "Mr. Obama" thing too, and I'm wondering the same thing. I also agree with your point that at the time it was voted on, a lot of members of Congress had not read the bill due to its size. I remember Mrs. McDermott talking about it though, and I remember her saying how completely unreadable it is. It isn't in plain terms and it's way too lengthy. The general guidelines just had to be summed up and went with by most. There was so much heresay as to what the bill actually stated that I'm Still fuzzy about it. So many accusations were made about what it will actually mean for the citizens and their taxes. This just also signifies to me how unruly and untrustworthy politics really are. It just makes you think about the actual people who are making these decisions for our nation.
@ Pg Santiago:
ReplyDeletePg, I agree that the transition of power in Congress might illustrate what the people want, however Republicans came in power because Congress was not able to increase economic power. I doubt people only voted for Republicans because of their staunch opposition against Obama Care, in fact if Congress had succeeded in alleviating the recession, then I believe Democrats would still have the majority power in both houses. It is for this reason I believe that Republicans should do what the people want, which in this case is to restore the U.S. economic prosperity by any means possible.
@ Sam Sidoti:
I totally agree with your argument, candidates who were elected must try their best to satisfy what their voters want. Republicans who oppose the Health Care Bill can bring up the topic after the solve the economic issues that need to fixed immediately.
Robby I agree with you. You don't know something until you try it and I believe things should be left as is until a problem arises. Change can be good but you can change your mind too much.
ReplyDeleteTyler T. I agree (hey that rhymes), not only do people not know what they want, since they are not educated enough on the matter, but the government does not care what they want. As we have seen, it takes a lot for the government to truly listen to its citizens.
I personally believe that Congress should act based upon public opinion and the polls...if the majority is against something, why put it into effect. Considering how big this healthcare bill is, Congress really needs to look more in depth at what the outcome it will have on the people will be. They also need to stop passin stuff due vastly to party affiliation, and put more concern into the public.
ReplyDeleteIf Congress wants to cancel out certain parts of a bill using their budget, I feel its fine, but under certain circumstances. If their doing it without taking public opinion, and just doing it cause they feel its right, I dont think Congress should be allowed to do that. But if public opinion agrees with cancelling out something, then by all means, go for it.
I believe that once a law goes into effect, you have to abide by it. But as time goes on, if the law proves to have issues, certain parts should be adjusted. But whether you agree with the law in place or not, it should be followed.
@ Sam Sidoti: I also like your comment on congress learning patience. And along with that...
ReplyDelete@Erin Torchia: The point you made on the extensive length of legislation that is in debate is very important. I remember Mcdermott talking as well about how long the health care reform bill was and how even as an advanced placement english teacher, she had trouble understanding it. Considering how important this stuff is, congress should really make sure to read and process the information before making quick decsions.
@Chris Hulse: I like your point on party affiliations. I agree that in a society where such a great number of people label themselves as independents, we cannot let congress base bias due to party systems and political idealogies over public opinion.
@Chris
ReplyDeleteI really liked your argument concerning a bill being put into effect. The government should always make it one of their top priorities to follow public opinion to some degree. If the population completely disagrees with an action or bill, then why should the government have the right to pass that bill or commit that action? I personally feel that the government should begin to listen to the requests of the people more often, as public opinion influence is too low in my opinion.
@Sam
Your comment concerning the spontaneity of officials in changing the opposing party's legislation and running the government their own way is very true. Speediness is not always effectiveness, and it is true that the Republican party should at least let the bill be so as to see its effect on society and whether or not it is a positive piece of legislation.
@ Chris Hulse:
ReplyDeleteChris, I agree with your opinion that candidates should forgo party affiliation when they create opinions and take action. I also believe that we should do our best to know what Congress wants to achieve, and make our own opinions which candidates have no choice but consider.
This is Jessica Schildt.
ReplyDelete@ Tyler Toussaint- How long do you think that the New Congress should wait to start changing the bill? If they wait too long, then it may be too late to alter it in any significant way, which is definitely a major goal of the Republican party.
@ Pg Santiago- I agree with your analysis of the will of the American people. It is largely based upon their actions in voting for the members of the New Congress. Polls should be considered, like you said, but they should not be the only things considered. Voting is an important indicator of the will of the people, and should be treated as such.
@ Allison Stackhouse- I do not think that my examples were too extreme, although I sincerely appreciate the criticism because I felt that it was constructive.
I admit that I have not read all 2000 pages of the health care bill. However, I know that it mandates citizens to obtain health care, and that those who do not wish to invest in private health care may pursue a government option. There are many problems with this.
When the government is involved in the private sector, the private sector suffers because it cannot compete with the government. In this case, the government is offering (or subsidizing, I am not sure) health care, and people are being forced to obtain health care; thus, many will opt for the government option, which will stunt the growth of the private sector health care options.
Forcing citizens to buy health care is a violation of rights. We should not be told what to buy. Nowhere in the Constitution is this mentioned. Indeed, we are supposed to have the freedom to buy whatever we please, as long as it is not illegal. Just as the fugitive slave law “prevent[ed] the rights of a group of people,” the health care bill violates the rights of every American citizen by forcing them into an action that is supposed to be their choice. I have difficulty respecting such a law.
@ Danielle Lackey (regarding your comment on my post)- I wish I had as much optimism as you do. It would be nice to believe that the old Congress would not have passed the bill if they had known that Americans do not want it. However, they did know, and they passed it anyways because it was part of their agenda. Every party has an agenda, and rarely are they clearly and honestly presented. I wish I could believe that the old Congress were oblivious to the fact that health care is unwanted, but I do not. They would have passed it regardless. And they did.
@Eric - I completely agree with your statement on how the talk by Cantor is just talk. I really don't think they will make any affirmative actions or any drastic changes because now that the republicans have the house they need to keep it and not lose control of it by making decisions that the American people don't want.
ReplyDelete@Chris - I like how you said that Congress should act on Public opinion. I do agree with you on that but I would just argue that Congress shouldn't agree with public opinion all the time. Sometimes the public can be wrong and congress can know what's right for the American people better than what the American people know is better for themselves.
@ Alison
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that both parties should take in the considerations of the entire American population, not just those of their party. Now that the Republicans have gained power hopefully they will be more open to the opinions of all Americans than before.
@ Jessica
You are totally right when you say that parties have agendas that they follow and I wish that that was not the case. Hopefully as the years go by, all of the parties will be more open to listening to what the American people have to say.
@Max....how can you say that Congress knows whats best for me? Thats like saying if we went for ice cream and you tell the worker youd like chocolate, and they respond, "Nah, you'd be better off with vanilla". Whether or not thats true, thats not for them to decide. Congress should side with public majority, and let us stand or fall on our decision.
ReplyDeleteDon't argue Chris just go with it lol ;)
ReplyDelete