by EDWARD SZTUKOWSKI
News Editor

I really did not believe the House of Representatives could come to a consensus regarding health care reform, but I was pleasantly surprised to see it pass through the House Saturday night.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act restricts insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history.

It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford it and guarantees coverage for 96 percent of Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

I feel relieved the bill passed the House, as I will soon graduate.

I am facing the real problem of not having health coverage soon because to stay on my parent’s plan, I need to be a full-time student. I graduate in May, and job prospects with health insurance for a fresh-out-of-college journalist are slim.

It would be unrealistic under the current plan for me to pay for health care, but the reform should provide a more affordable option.

The ability to have guaranteed health coverage if this bill is signed is a relieving thought, though it still faces a long road.

Now the Senate must vote on their own version of the health care reform bill, and even after that, the House and Senate must combine bills and vote on it.

Greater bipartisan support is needed for the health care reform bill, though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have you believe the bill already has it.

Democrats contributed 219 votes to pass the bill, and one Republican, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana, went against his party to vote for the bill.

Of course, Pelosi took an opportunity to tout “bipartisan support” for the bill, even though the majority of Republicans opposed the bill.

“Democrats voted for the bill and a Republican voted for the bill,” Pelosi said. “That equals bipartisan.”

When I think bipartisan, I think the majority of two parties agreeing to a compromise, rather than just a member. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill with 167 Republicans, so that means there was bipartisan opposition to the bill, correct?

If we tout things like bipartisanship, at least have it mean something. Do not make it some hollow achievement, which is thrown around because one member of the opposing party supported something.

Cao said he went against his party’s stance because he wanted to put his county’s residents first, even if it went against the GOP’s wishes.

What a refreshing change in politics. A leader who does not blindly follow his party’s path; a leader who listens to the people he’s representing rather than lobbyists.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Show/Hide comments