my vision

the health care reform bill is set to be voted on by the senate on christmas eve. this bill has been on a wild ride since the wheels of reform started to move back in march. the plan was simple. americans needed more affordable health care. they needed a better preventative program of screening for illnesses and they needed to have better access to being insured.

a couple of plans were on the table to try and reach these goals. one way was to create a single payer system where everyone's money was to be pooled into one government program allowing access for everyone to have any procedure done for no cost except for the money taken out initially from taxes. the second plan was a more toned down approach of a single payer option which basically would be having a government plan available, but as a competitor to insurance companies in an effort to keep the rates of these businesses fair. the idea was that if the government offered a lower rate, then big business would have to lower their rates for fear of a majority of americans jumping ship to the government plan. a plan that was introduced later on in the debate was a plan to lower the age a person could buy into medicare from 65 to 55 and doing away with the public option.

three ideas that could signal change for millions. right?

as the summer drove on and the debate for health care grew some interesting things started to happen. in town halls across america, "grassroot" efforts were being grown by the republican party and funded by insurance companies to engage politicians who were speaking to disrupt any serious debate being held on the issue. the president was being compared to hitler and the death of ted kennedy was being mocked by the far right. the president and democrats still wanted to try and negotiate a bipartisan outcome with the republicans in an effort of solidarity of getting things done.

the single payer system was almost thrown out immediately as it was lauded as being too much government control over an industry. the public option, at one point looked as though it would have the votes to pass, was then suddenly rejected by joseph lieberman and a couple other senators after it passed the house version of the bill. while still looking for a way to include republican ideas, the senate democrats tried the third option, which was initially sen. lieberman's plan when he ran as vice president in 2004 with al gore, and lower the age of medicare. guess who decided he was adamently opposed to it? you guessed it right. joe lieberman. how can one man who proposed a change in the system with a plan one day adamantly oppose the same thing a few years later?

if you aren't too involved in the process you may say, "well, why is that important? he's just one guy." you see, the democrats hold a 60 - 40 vote majority in the senate. when you pass something with 60 votes, the minority has no way of filibustering a vote, which is to talk and talk and talk and talk about a bill for infinite until the bill dies. joe lieberman was the 60th vote along with bob nelson of nebraska.

what is left is a bill with no public option, no single payer, and no age cut for medicare. it does cut out being denied for pre-existing conditions and a couple other things, but it demands that if you do not have health insurance, you must get it now, like auto insurance, or be fined. i would have no problem with this mandate if a public option was their as competition to the big business insurance companies.

my problem is that politicians have been bought. which leads me to a point.

back when the country was being formed, americans lived in a very different time. their were no televisions, radio wouldn't be used for over a century later, telephones didn't exist. in fact, electricity was just discovered a few decades earlier. america is an enormous piece of real estate and in the non-technological age of the late 18th century, it was even bigger with a tremendous challenge for people to communicate.

this was one of the reasons for america to create congress. people were chosen by americans in certain sections of all the states to pack their bags and go to washington, d.c. and represent the people that voted to elect them. the politicians were the voice of those that had no other way of getting their voice heard. the people needed to have the liaison of this representative with the president because word could be spread easier this way of what the people wanted. it still was a system with flaws, but it was the best that we could do.

during the health care debate, polls routinely had shown that over 60% of all americans were in favor of having a health care reform bill that included a public option and yet it was taken out of the bill. thus, the health care reform bill is now disapproved upon by the majority. the new bill that is being offered is not what the people see as a good enough change in the way that people see fit. it is because campaign contributions to the representatives of the people are more important to the representatives and reelection than what the people actually want.

and that is why i say that there is no more need for congress. it is obsolete. big business cannot control america if it has to buyout all of america. it can deal with a bunch of men and women in a room that pass the laws, but it cannot afford to buy 300 million voices.

america votes once a year in november. in today's times, that doesn't have to be anymore. with the internet, tv, and the telephone we all can have immediate impacts on the way that america can be shaped and it is not being utilized to it's full potential. the capacity of congress can be greatly diminished if we just allow the representatives to introduce bills and legislation, but ultimately give the vote of approval to americans. through computer votes, phone votes, and telephone votes the popular vote can finally win what we want and not be forced to take something that a group of a few deem is good enough for us.

i envision a family coming home from work one day and going to the computer and reading over some bills that are being offered for the day. they can have town meetings to discuss it, hear debates about it from the media, or just talk with the family about it. they can decide for themselves what they feel would be good for them and vote on it one way or the other. people have lost their faith in congress because it doesn't do what they want. when 60% of americans want something and they don't get it, it's easy to see why people don't feel that their vote counts. it's esay to see how they lose faith in washington.

their are many different ways that this plan could be implemented, and i know that the likelihood of it occurring are slim, but it should happen. our lives should not be controlled by corporations and lobbyists. people that we never see shouldn't be deciding what we want. allowing everyone to vote on important legislation all the time would be a true democracy by the people, for the people. having one man in connecticut, or one man in nebraska take away what the majority of america wants because their pockets are being stuffed with money is not.

democracy is the vote of every american counting towards everything, and not who gets rich and powerful.