I want to follow-up on last week’s blog surrounding
Representative Lance’s push for his co-sponsored bill in response to the
Affordable Care Act. I would
possibly even challenge to say that the backlash and negativity that Lance is
currently experiencing or from the press that I have seen it may be at least as
bad as if not worse than the negative press that has been out there on
Obamacare. I find this to be
extremely concerning because of the complete 360 turn from the birth of this
co-sponsored bill in Congress just a couple of weeks ago. My question would be if there was some
type of flaw in the system of starting a bill in the hopes of it becoming a
law. Are too many bills killed in
the process? I’m not sure of the
answer to this question, but I wonder if this conflict of the new “Keep Your
Health Plan Act” deems the process problematic.
Like many bills in Congress that I have seemed to notice more
recently-like the “Keep Your Health Plan Act”-are not always entirely what they
seem. Representative Lance has
said from the beginning that the sole purpose of the bill was to keep people
from losing their healthcare plans with insurance companies who did not
necessarily meet the requirements and standards that were laid out with
Obamacare. However, the bill was
enacted solely to allow the insurers to continue to sell a type of individual
plan that were in effect until January 1, 2013 to anyone and not just those whose plans would be cancelled. (Daily Record 2013). The
argument is that Lance’s agenda all along was simply to do whatever it took to
destroy the Affordable Healthcare Act, therefore the legitimacy of his new bill
is in question. Also, he had
previously stated publicly that even Bill Clinton had his support in this new
bill. But that was also a lie. Lance’s opponents are more concerned
that the representative is not necessarily looking at the big picture of
Obamacare and giving it the right chance.
Just because the software implementation has been a struggle and in some
Members of Congress’ eyes a failure, does not necessarily discredit the
policy. Opponents of Leonard Lance
are also concerned that his constituents are not being properly informed of all
the issues in order to fully understand the conflict in Congress
themselves. According to a recent
publication in the Daily Record,
Lance “sent constituents a bizarre poll that intentionally left out the option
to pass the budget bill without defunding the ACA, then the next poll
backtracked and tried to paint him as a moderate. He shows he continues to be a puppet of the Tea Party that
is losing its stranglehold on congressional GOP leadership as more elections
are lost.” I feel that this is
indeed a very valid point.
A
factor that I find interesting is the upcoming election for Lance’s specific
seat in the House. The GOP primary
running mate against Lance is Republican David Larsen who ran against Lance two
previous times. Will the
third time be a charm, especially with all the recent negative press that Lance
has been receiving? I wonder if
the role that this current “deceiving” anti-ACA bill may play would ruin
Lance’s reputation as one of the trusted leaders in the House. Larsen specifically attacked Lance’s
representation ability and true alliance to the GOP, “This is God’s country out
here, and I don’t see Representative Lance as a leader. I am with the likes of [U.S. Senator]
Ted Cruz and [U.S. Senator] Rand Paul.
I’m the true conservative in the race” (Bonamo 2013). I would criticize the strength of
Larsen’s current campaign in that it seems to be solely based on the bashing of
Lance rather than [pointing out Larsen’s specific strategies and goals for the
House and Congress in general if he were to be elected. His chief of staff seems to agree
because he did mention how in order for Larsen to finally beat Lance this time
around he will need a completely revamped playbook and new set of issues to
work with. Many doubt the experience
Larsen has had in comparison to Lance, but this many not be so much of an issue
anymore with the negative aura that seems to be currently surrounding
Lance. I also think that Larsen
has a good argument when he points out that originally Representative Lance had
voted for Obamacare and also to continue to raise the debt ceiling when there
was the issue of the budget being passed.
Both of which align with more liberal ideologies, and would go against
the views of his constituents as well as the political party he represents. I’d worry that Lance may have
originally be voting in order to please his colleagues rather than looking out
for the needs of his constituents or what may be best for the American
people. I think that David Larsen
may be able to build a stronger campaign against Lance than he has in the
past. It will be interesting to
see the outcome of the GOP primaries.
*Sources include:
No comments:
Post a Comment