Pushing a Wet Noodle
A.) As a group we decided to kill things more than to amend or keep them. I think that had a lot to do with the different roles everyone in the group had, and the people they were trying to please. Members were politically at different ends of the spectrum. There were only two issues that everyone wanted to keep or cut completely. As a group, we were all able to agree on provision C, mandating that insurance companies cannot exclude or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and provision G, a mandate that established a patient's bill of rights. The only provisions we amended was provision F, eliminating the first two sentences, as well as provision A, changing the required minimum payment to 45% the cost of the premiums. We decided to kill provisions B, D, E, I, J, L, and M. These were generally provisions that put strict rules on making sure that people had health insurance by a certain point, I myself was for most of these provisions, but the conservatives of the group were usually strongly against. There were more conservatives in the group, so republican was the majority party, which gives them more power. Provisions that looked as though they would cost the country more money, conservatives were almost always voting against.
B.) My role was a strong liberal from Michigan who supported gay rights, and believed in gay marriage, as well as being a strong advocate of the poor. This was very much opposite from other members of my group. My group was the House, so being an outnumbered liberal, I voted and analyzed strongly the way one might, while still trying to keep the constituents happy since it's what members of the House have to do. I voted for most things that were for helping the poor and less fortunate, bringing up the poor and helping them find their way is the way to turn this declining economy around. If we can't build up the less fortunate then we can't fix the economy, the trickledown theory from the liberal perspective. Some other factors that strongly influenced my vote was the fact I was strongly against limiting medical malpractice awards. There should be no cap in the amount of money provided to a patient after getting a procedure done that went wrong in some way, and needs to be fixed. Being backed up by many other trial lawyers and being given money by them to oppose establishing these malpractice limitations is what caused me to feel more strongly about this. Because of this I voted to give people, especially the poor, the most benefits through Medicare as possible, no matter the cost. People's health is most important and is something that should be taken care of as much as possible by government, everyone should be provided with health care no matter their income, or job situation. About 49 million Americans are without adequate insurance coverage, my biggest influence in voting was to lower this number significantly. Unfortunately other members in my group felt the complete opposite of this, making it even harder to analyze and vote to pass these provisions to Healthcare. I felt I was trying to move Healthcare forward as much as possible, while other members were trying to hold it back.
C.) In my role I acted as mostly a delegate, trying to keep my constituents happy while trying to move Healthcare forward as much as possible while being a pork barrel "bringin' home the bacon." Since my position is in the House, it was harder for me to act as a delegate. Being given a lot of money from other trial lawyers, I voted to make them happy and push things in their direction as much as possible. Especially on provisions like provision B, which mandates that an employee could not lose his/her coverage if they lose their job. Other members of group were completely against this, me and one other Democrat were the only ones for this. I voted for this based on my belief that everyone should be provided full healthcare...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document