ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on November 9, 2009


The word "CHANGE", which politicians have used to alter, replenish, reverse, refurbish and transform policies, institutions and ideologies, came into use on Saturday, when the House of Representatives passed its health care reform bill. The House voted for change of a health care system that has been broken for years, and although, the bill passed by a narrow margin of 220 to 215, the occasion made for many to breathe a sigh of relief from the discordant debate that had preceded it.

President Obama praised its passage in the House and called it "historic"; adding that it marked a "courageous vote" for many representatives who risked their own political lives to vote for it. He also predicted that the United States Senate would perform its duty to pass its version of the bill; the one being proposed now by Majority Leader Harry Reid in that Chamber; and said, "And I'm absolutely confident that they will."; meaning that there would be a chance for the House bill to be reconciled with a Senate version in the future. 

That would allow a final bill to pass in both chambers for him to sign into law, bringing to an end an episode of wrangling disputes and arguments from all sides about health care overhaul in the country. It was something that everybody wanted, but the approach to it has been uncertain and controversial at times. 

"Change", which has become a different thing for many, because its interpretation depended on whom you talked to, was the driving force behind all the arguments that were apparent in the "reform" debate. Some wanted governmental oversight to make the system more efficient, and also more pervasive to cover millions of Americans who were uninsured; and some would rather have it (system) tweaked here and there without any interference from the outside to maintain the health care insurance industry's free enterprise outlook. So, which one was better?

However, many would agree that Saturday's vote in the House was not the perfect thing that they had anticipated; yet, it was a fervent attempt to bring into fruition of what would help individuals and families to realize their latent dreams; to have health care insurance coverage for the first time in their lives. 

Though, factions of it was unacceptable (as tax payer money for abortion and the eligibility of illegal aliens for public subsidies); and also, its cost would be astronomically high, considering the fact that health care services would be extended to many more people, it would bring progress to alter a situation that has been festering for many years, in terms of strong opposition to it, in a civilized nation, as America should be, and that was unfair to millions of people.. 

They postulate that America must be a civilization in which all of its citizens are treated and cared for equally; and there must be no discrimination of any kind, of how they may be addressed, when it comes to political, social and even economic matters; that, of course, includes health care insurance coverage. 

Their only hope is for the Senate to see through all the cobweb of imprudent politics; the obstinate pride of capitalism against government involvement in free enterprise, even for reasons to correct an unfair circumstance, and for it (the Senate) to come up with a similar bill that will take the burden of uncertainty off the shoulders of many citizens. 

It will require the CHANGING of hearts and minds of many Senators to do so; and not only that, but it will be "their finest hour", as the president has said, and also in the best interest of all Americans.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.