READ, REFLECT AND RESPOND

In recent weeks there has been angry debate over the proposal for healthcare reform in America. The reform being discussed would likely offer a public option of a government directed health plan. We've heard the debate and the pros and cons of each side. However, the problem is that there is no legislation that has been brought to the floor of Congress. Various committees and groups have presented proposals, but no definitive bill. In a country where smart people with computers exist, why can congress not propose a definitive bill, and then submit it to public discussion. Publish the bill on the Congress website and let those who are interested read the bill. This might take three weeks. Then after having time to read it, let the people communicate with their representatives and senators concerning their views and suggestions. Maybe this period of reflection and response could last another three weeks. Then after these combined six weeks, Congress could debate and vote.

Is such a proposal too laborious and slow? Some would object that no one would read a thousand page bill. If not, then I guess we can't complain, but I have a feeling that a large number would read it. Congress persons should give more attention to those who are informed respondents than they do to people ignorant of the bill. If the bill could be a matter of life and death to some, especially viewed as such by senior citizens, then I think they would be motivated to check it out. Since such a bill would likely change our health delivery system in America for decades to come, younger citizens might also be inclined to take a look at it. Six weeks might not be too long for Americans to be involved in a process that truly invites the will of the people to be expressed. No longer could politicians label opposition as scare tactics based on misinformation, nor could opponents offer criticism of something that has never been proposed. Right now, the debate concerns proposals not bills that have come up for vote.

Recent trends in Congress suggest that my proposal would meet significant opposition, because some congressmen have dismissed the idea of reading bills, especially without lawyers at their side. If my congressman hasn't read the bill or doesn't understand the bill, I want him to oppose its coming up for a vote until he has had time to read and understand it. If he has had time, but hasn't read it, I would like to know that so that I can support someone else in the next election. I also think that if more bills were published and read by constituents, we might call upon congress and the judicial system to simplify legislation so that average people can determine what it means.

Maybe a grassroots movement for such an approach by Congress might work and if it did it would be truly grassroots and not astroturf (or is it astroterf?). Oh well, I said I favored legislation that average people could understand.