Bipartisanship a no-go in health debate
Oct 13, 2009 | 3429 views | 0 0 comments | 42 42 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dear Editor:

I am beginning to get a bit frustrated with President Obama and his civility.

What does it take for him to realize that the term “bi-partisanship” by his opponents has become nothing more than just another way of saying, “Obama must fail,” regardless of how much he will compromise. It is the capturing of the White House once again that is the impetus for their approach to any direction or suggestion he may propose. “NO” works for anything and everything. The subject matter itself is secondary at best. Obstructionism is the name of the game and his “Waterloo,” as has been stated, is the goal.

And now we have the Public Option. It appears that the American people, doctors including the AMA, hospitals and all those concerned with what is most beneficial for the public, want a Public Option.

The private health care insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants do not, since it would impact on their obscene profits.

With all the money they have invested in assuring the death of the Public Option, there is little possibility that it can garner the necessary votes of Republicans and the Blue Dog (read: Blue Cross) Democrats who are in their pocket.

Then again, occasionally the term “Reconciliation” pops up. Getting a bill passed through “Reconciliation” requires a mere majority of votes, 50%+, while disallowing filibuster. There are many who suggest he take that course since it is the only way he can circumvent a certain blockade of the Public Option by the political benefactors of the private health care and drug industry by both parties.

“Reconciliation” isn’t new. It has been used 19 times from 1980 through 2008 by the administrations of both parties; 9 under Reagan, 2 under Bush Sr., 3 under Clinton and 5 under Bush Jr., the most famous or infamous depending on which side your bread is buttered, are his two Tax Cuts primarily for the wealthy.

Bush rammed them down the throats of the dissenters with “Reconciliation”. The first for 1.3 Trillion in ’01 and 350 Billion in ’03; Cheney being the tie breaker in one and the Democrat’s own Blue Dog Ben Nelson, the tie breaker in the other. Yes, that’s the same dog Ben Nelson who now states he would never vote for “Reconciliation”.

I say go for it. What have you got to loose, “Bipartisanship”? You can’t loose something you never had.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Zizelis

Bayside,

Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet