Single issue...single vote by Congress...is this really too simple an idea? 

We went to a dinner party last night and politics was lightly discussed in a friendly manner.

One of the dinner attendees came up with what I thought was a brilliant idea.

If our representatives in Congress could spend their time and efforts on tackling a single issue and voting up or down on that one issue, perhaps more would be accomplished in a transparent and effective manner.

I have been following a fellow hubber by the name of James A. Watkins. He posted an excellent and thought provoking article regarding reforming National Health Care in the United States. Some excellent ideas have been tossed back and forth with the many positives and negatives of addressing and improving health care for all Americans in a fair and equitable and affordable way. I'll attach a link to his hub at the bottom of this one so that you can read these ideas for yourself.

The mish-mash of elements taken as a whole seem almost insurmountable when all the intertwining factors are taken into account.

The forest is seen but not the individual trees.

What if we were able to dissect this topic much like a surgeon would surgically address one portion of a person's body and correct what was needed in that partial component of the whole person?

Say an otherwise healthy person breaks his leg. A surgeon would focus his time and effort into fixing the leg.

Yes, other people would be involved in the care of the patient...some obvious and some not so obvious. Some examples:

The manufacturers of the surgical instruments, sutures, bandages, etc.

The janitorial people keeping the operating rooms clean

The x-ray department personnel responsible for getting good films of the broken leg

The OR nurses facilitating the operation by assisting the surgeon

The anesthesiologist sedating the patient during the operation

The pharmaceutical companies supplying all the medications for use during and after the operation

From the architects who designed the building to the construction of the building and operating room suite to the electricians and heating and air conditioning technicians who keep needed things operating smoothly, the surgeon performing the operation needs and relies on all of these ancillary people and supplies in order for him or her to aptly do their job efficiently.

This just scratches the surface of everything involved when a person suddenly breaks that leg and needs help for it to properly heal and get back to normality. By no means is this an exhaustive listing of what went into helping this patient.

If the patient had to worry about each and everything meshing perfectly before he could contact that surgeon to fix his leg, he would probably be bewildered and possibly delay his treatment.

OK...back to the point of this hub.

When tackling an issue no matter what it is, why can't we take it apart and address the little pieces making up the whole? While the whole issue or subject may seem insurmountable, if a single part of it was adjusted, corrected, or improved, gradually the entire subject under discussion would slowly be getting better. (Let the surgeon fix the leg. Period!)

Using the health reform hub of James as an example, there are many broken pieces of the puzzle that could be fixed one at a time. I made the suggestion on his hub to institute some kind of limit on the amounts of money granted in malpractice lawsuits. If this was accomplished, costs could be greatly cut as doctors and others in the medical field would no longer have to pay exorbitant rates to maintain their malpractice insurance. The numbers of ordered tests could be cut down to what is actually needed. Today extra tests are ordered just in case someone sues and it is argued in court that perhaps another test could have improved the outcome. So with a litigious society eager to sue at the drop of a hat hoping to win millions of dollars and lawyers encouraging people to sue so that they can get their huge portion of the resulting pie, this forces doctors to order many more tests than are reasonably needed which affects all of us with regard to health costs.

Let's step back from the health care scenario for a moment.

How do we rate our representatives in Congress as to their effectiveness in being advocates for us? Their voting records are the prime measurement for most of us.

But their voting record seldom truly reflects the reason for their votes because so many other things have been added that their votes may actually be addressing the additional components ( pork ) instead of the main subject.

One friend at the dinner party gave this example last night.

Suppose the subject being proposed for a vote is for clean water. Would it make sense for any one of our congress representatives to vote "no" on this issue? Don't we all need clean water? Suppose your representative voted "no" and he/she is up for re-election. The opponent is sure to blast the airways with the "fact" that he/she voted against clean water.

Perhaps in this instance the clean water bill was packed with extra amendments...a mere 5 million dollars, to study the mating habits of a rare species of snail found in one river in the Mississippi Delta. In addition another item attached to the clean water bill would have required that 50 million dollars be spent over the next 5 years studying the effects of contaminated water on the reproductive efforts of albino frogs found along the Tamiani Trail. Another commission would be set up at a negligible cost of 7 million dollars to educate people about the advantages of wearing sunscreen to avoid getting cancer. 23 million dollars would be needed for the addition to the clean water bill to build another "bridge to nowhere" in a small un-populated community of Wyoming.

Your representative voted "no" on the clean water bill! Do you wonder why???

That person just saved the taxpayers from spending an additional 85 million dollars that had nothing to do with the clean water bill. If he/she could have voted on just clean water.......not things regarding snails, albino frogs, the need for sunscreen and "bridges to nowhere" the vote would have been a resounding "yes." And when running for re-election he or she would not have to take time to explain to people why their vote was "no" for clean water.

Some of our bills get so packed with "pork" that the original idea put before Congress gets lost in the plethora of small and large issues that get attached.

Many times our representatives distastefully vote in the affirmative knowing that something good will come of the new bill being voted into law but many needless and expensive things have been slipped into this same bill slightly under the radar screen.

Why not stop this nonsense?

What would happen if our Congress could suddenly vote on single issues without being obscured behind a smoke-screen of attachments and amendments?

If we tackled the health care issue ( for example ) with addressing one component at a time...like limiting lawsuit amounts!...slowly the entire health care industry could be the beneficiary of steady and sure improvement.

Is this too simple an idea?

The thoughtful and educated people at the dinner party last night did not think so and nor do I. Please let me know what you think.