The vote on the proposed reform of health insurance in the United States should be won by Democrats and before Christmas. While I believe that the Quebec health system must be reformed to give greater emphasis to the private sector, I think the current system in the United States is quite absurd. I am therefore pleased that the bill be passed by the Senate.
The first thought that arouses all the debates that took place for 1 year is about what I call here the party line. According to Senate rules, Democrats needed 60 votes out of 100 senators in order that the project can proceed to the final stage on December 24. However, given the polarized positions, Republicans opposing the project, the Democrats needed the votes of 58 Democratic senators and two independents. The first is an independent senator from Vermont who describes himself as a socialist, Bernie Sanders, whose vote was not a major problem.
The second is Senator Joseph Lieberman, running mate of Al Gore in 2000, elected in Connecticut. I must admit, I like Joe Lieberman. While I am not in agreement with all these positions, but I like the politician who does not follow a party line or ideology which must be dictated. Senator Lieberman is a controversial who supported John McCain in 2008 and is often the laughingstock of the Democratic Left who see him as a traitor in the party. These leftists, often guided by the rule of "Believe everything the party says or die, waiting the moment he leaves the Democrats and Republicans will join his friends. Some call him an opportunist since the vote as his constituents asked him in Connecticut, a state where there is a strong presence of conservative Democrats.
However, the presence of a Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, Democratic senator from Nebraska conservative who has also conditioned its vote under certain changes, represents a strength of American democracy. Admittedly, I hear the purists proclaim the opportunism of these two senators who use their vote to increase their power in a situation as important for Democrats and Obama. I think it is rather important to have senators who perform certain applications that allow a project to be nuanced, see improved.
While the Quebec and Canadian political system makes it almost impossible for this kind of situation due to the party line especially strong. However, this does not prevent dissension within the various ideological factions of political parties that would often benefit from being raised publicly by members, if only for the sake of representativeness and democracy.
Several elements of the Quebec and Canadian politics make the average voter cynicism. The "Believe or Die> is certainly top the list.
Krugman
I told you that the two thoughts might seem paradoxical. Now here is the second. Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist, raises a major problem in the American political system in this whole saga of the vote on the healthcare system in this text . It is absurd that after a resounding victory for the Democrats last year during the presidential suite and a majority (18) of these same Democrats in the Senate, the project has been so difficult to pass in the final stage. The rule of "60 Senators" was used historically to prevent a government from passing laws absurd, a kind of weight-cons a group of parliamentarians who have suddenly a "Power Trip".
As shown Krugman, since 2006, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, 70% of bills in the Senate were blocked with the use of this rule.
Previously, I was talking about the cynicism with respect to "Believe or Die" political parties. The "childish" for some members, whether in the National Assembly of Quebec or the U.S. Congress is likely in 2nd place in the list of cynics. Use critical thinking should be rule number 1 of the individual who makes a noble choice but to enter politics. The second rule should be to listen to these people. Not need a course of 45 hours to understand that the voters of Nebraska and Vermont often reflect very different politically. Should perhaps remind the "liberal" Democrat Party.
NB No need for me to come give me a course on political parties and unity. The purpose of the note was to denounce certain absurdities and congratulate some initiatives.
