Monday, November 23, 2009

Congress is the weakest link in the government - we badly need reforms‏


Posted by Shyam Moondra

The Congress hit the lowest approval rating on record of 14% not long ago. The people view the Senate and House as the weakest links in the government. The Congress has become a burden on the tax payers with very little positive to show for.

The Congress was created to reflect the views of the American people, to make it a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Today, the Congress is a mess; it has largely become a non-productive institution that exists only because it's in the constitution and not because people really want it. If the Congress were run as a corporation, it would have been dismantled already.

A majority of senators and congressmen are corrupt; they are there not because they truly want to serve their country but they are there to make a comfortable living. Very few members are hard-working people in the mode of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy; most of them are either deadwood or they are just getting a free ride. They spend most of their time scheming how to raise campaign money through lobbyists to get reelected. Most of the work is done by a handful of hardworking members, who do care about the country and the people.

In the last eight years, the influence of the businesses in the Congress has increased tremendously via their intense lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, but mostly at the expense of the ordinary Americans.

We need drastic changes in the role of the Congress and how it operates. We badly need constitutional amendments to reform the Congress and make it more productive and responsive to the people's needs and not their own re-election needs. There are a number of things that could be done such as:
. Imposing term limits. Public service should not be used as a way to make a living.
. Banning corporate and industry lobbying.
. Banning corporate and industry campaign contributions.
. Requiring the members to spend more time in Washington, DC working the public policy issues rather than taking frequent recesses and time off in the name of campaigning.
. Holding the members accountable for non-performance immediately and not by voting them out only after their term has expired.

Now the million dollar question is if the reformers would agree to be reformed.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Recent price increases by drug manufacturers show the need for a government option


Posted by Shyam Moondra

The drug manufacturers recently increased the drug prices in anticipation of the new health care legislation, thereby taking back some of the cost reductions they had promised only two months ago. This demonstrates why any health care reform must include a government option that would keep the service providers' greed in check. In the absence of a government option, it's very likely that the health care reforms would in fact increase the cost rather than reduce it as is hoped for by the legislation supporters.

If a government option is not included in the final health care bill, as an alternative, the bill must include a new regulatory frame-work for the entire health care industry (drug manufacturers, hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors) in which their rates and profits would be regulated by the government commissions just like public utility commissions today regulate telephone, gas, electricity, and water companies.

If the health care bill requires every American to buy health insurance, then it is imperative that prices are reasonable and that means either we have a non-profit government plan or the government regulates the prices and profits of the service providers. It would be unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health care insurance at artificially inflated prices.

In the interim, the drug manufacturers should be punished for their bad behavior. The Congress should immediately consider:
1. Changing the patent laws permitting the marketing of generics sooner.
2. Allowing reimportation of drugs from Canada and Mexico.
3. Suspending the tax subsidies given to the pharmaceutical industry.