Patients Bill Of Rights Act Of 1999 example essay topic

The 106th Congress has been one of the most partisan and ineffectual legislatures in recent memory. The two political parties have barely even kept the government running. Only until recently have they passed Appropriation Bills for the 2001 fiscal year in a lame-duck session. This congress has made little progress in resolving their differences on some of the most important issues. Gun control is at the forefront of American politics. Gun violence has soared in recent years, and many tragedies such as the Columbine school shooting have occurred.

All Americans want a reduction in gun related violence but gun control is still a decisive issue. On March 3rd, 2000, the then junior Senator from New York, Charles E. Schumer, introduced the Effective National Firearms Objectives for Responsible, Commonsense Enforcement Act of 2000. S. 2338 was a bill to enhance the enforcement of gun violence laws. Twelve other Senators including New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan cosponsored this bill. This legislation was an attempt at amending the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Its purpose was to increase appropriations to Federal prosecutors of Firearm Laws, authorize the appropriations of 600 additional firearm agents and inspectors, give greater authority to the Attorney General to prosecute violations of Federal Firearms Laws, bans violent felons from buying and handling firearms and ammunition's, and increase the penalties and fines of illegal gun sales. S. 2338 was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The twelve Senators who sponsored this piece of legislation were mostly Democratic.

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked along party lines. He effectively pigeonholed this bill without considering it for review. Pigeonholing is a practice of ignoring a piece of legislation and letting it die in committee. Many special interest groups were interested in the outcome of this bill. The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, CSVG, was one lobbying group that was interested in this legislation. Lobbies try to influence politicians to vote according to their point of view.

The CSVG wants to increase gun control measures to reduce the violence in America. It believes that violent crimes and firearms have a direct correlation. The legislative arm of the National Rifle Association is a lobby opposing gun control. The NRA represents millions of Americans all over the United States.

It prides itself in promoting and defending the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The Gun Owners of America is another lobby that fiercely opposes any legislation that limits or prohibits firearm acquisition. The Gun Owners of America often work alongside the NRA fighting against gun control. Both groups believe that legislation of this type infringes on the rights of hunters and gun owners. During the 106th Congress, lobbies successfully blocked many bills that tried to increase gun control measures. The two political parties bickered whether the violence present in America was due to a lax enforcement of current laws, as Republicans suggest, or to a lack of firearm regulatory legislation, as the Democrats would have you believe.

In either case, little progress has been made and gun violence continues to be a persistent unresolved problem plaguing American society. The state of health care is another important issue. Everyone recognizes that it must improve and become more affordable but Americans disagree on the most effective way to achieve this goal. Rising cost of healthcare and the inequality of treatment for patients are future challenges that must be overcome.

These concerns resulted in the proposal of a patient's bill of rights to be passed by congress. Its purpose was to protect the interests of the individual over the profitability of the health care industries. On January 19th, 1999, the then Senate minority Thomas A. Dash cle introduced a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage. S. 6 is also known as the Patients Bill of Rights Act of 1999. Concurrently, Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell introduced H.R. 358 to the House of Representatives on the same day. These bills, originating from the Democratic Leadership, had 31 cosponsors in the Senate and 182 in the House, including Sen. Schumer and Rep. Joseph Crowley of New York. However, Republicans pigeonholed these bills in the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and in the House subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

These events marked the beginning of ugly partisan warfare over health care. After having his bill pigeonholed, Sen. Daschle introduced another, the Patients Bill of Rights Act of 1999, S. 1256, with minor adjustments on June 21st 1999. This time, the bill was read twice on the Senate floor and was placed on the Legislative Calendar. However, Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott never acknowledged this bill and it effectively died. These standoffs were the results of pressure put on by major lobbying groups. The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) was one of the lobbies involved in this legislation.

It self-proclaims that it is the nation's most energetic champion of the private free-enterprise health care system. Its primary purpose is to advocate on behalf of the industry in the states and in the nation's capital. HIAA, along with member companies of the Health Benefits Coalition, pressured Republicans to oppose patients' rights legislation. They have given $21 million in campaign contributions to Republicans since 1995.

These lobbies are opposed to the Patients Bill of Rights because, to them, it seems to be a source of new government regulation. They fear that regulation would reduce their profitability, causing many of them to go bankrupt. A major lobby that had supported the Patients Bill of Rights is the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU lobbies for all legislation dealing with individual rights. They fought for the Patients Bill of Rights because they were weary of the immense power of drug companies and HMO's.

These special interests often had power over the doctors in determining the treatment and medication administered to a patient. At times, not the best but the cheapest treatment is chosen for the profitability for the company. The Patients Bill of Rights gives power to the individual and would have prevented corporations from making health care decisions. The ACLU wants to ensure equal service and protection is given to all people in need of health care. Senate and House Republicans tried to pass their own version of the Patients Bill of Rights Act of 1999 with Sen. Lott introducing S. 1344 on July 8th, 1999. After three months of deliberation, the Senate voted to add this bill as an amendment to the Republican House version of the bill, H.R. 2990.

While the older proposals all had the same official title, R. 2990 was titled: "a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals greater access to health insurance through a health care tax deduction, a long-term care deduction, and other health-related tax incentives, to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide access to and choice in health care through association health plans, to amend the Public Health Service Act to create new pooling opportunities for small employers to obtain greater access to health coverage through Health Marts, and for other purposes". This bill clearly shifts the power from patients to the major health industries. In largely partisan vote, the House approved H.R. 2990. In order for a bill to be sent to become law, the House and the Senate must pass the same version of the bill. H.R. 2990 was different from the bill previously introduced in the Senate and on February 1st, 2000 it was sent to a Conference Committee in an effort to resolve differences. The Conference Committee produced meager results. A Patients Bill of Rights still does not exist today. H.R. 1664 is an example of the extremes of the 106th Congress.

This bill sponsored by Representative C.W. Young provided emergency authority for guarantees of loans to qualified steel and iron ore companies and to qualified oil and gas companies, and for other purposes. This bill, introduced on May 4th 1999 and passed on August 17th 1999, allocated money to establish the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program, which provide loan guarantees to large energy corporations. These commercial interests were major contributors to Rep. Young and the Republican Party. This bill created economic subsidies for the oil and gas industries. Numerous amendments were attached to H.R. 1664. They provide a large variety of pork-barrel projects for various members of congress.

This means that it had amendments giving appropriations to programs with no relation to the content of the bill. Republican Representative Thomas Latham of Iowa sponsored H. AMDT. 66, providing $105.6 million to support farm loans and $4 million for administrative expenses. This rider benefited his state of Iowa, which has a large agricultural industry.

A rider is a, last-minute attached, piece of legislation to a bill that would not have passed on its own. Political back dealing was evident on both sides of the aisle. Democratic Representative Peter Deutsch introduced H. AMDT. 75 that provided funding for Central American and Caribbean disaster recovery. He sponsored this rider to reward his Florida constituencies, which has a large Latino population. On August 17th, 1999, H.R. 1664 was signed by President Clinton and became Public Law No: 106-51. H.R. 1664 is a good example of the abuse of Pork-Barrel legislation and last minute riders that were common throughout the last congressional session.

Its members expressed no qualities of statesmanship. Before passing the Appropriations bills for the next fiscal year, a last minute confrontation occurred between President Clinton and Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens. Their dispute was over a law under the Endangered Species Act to prohibit fishing along the Alaskan coastline protecting the endangered sea lion. It is ironic that Republican Sen. Stevens would fight against protection and conservation.

He was a former Assistant Secretary of the Interior who was in charge of the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. The 106th congress was an ineffectual and partisan organization. The battle over gun control legislation and the Patients Bill of Rights are prime examples of the partisanship that existed. It was politics at its worse.

Members of Congress should have risen above partisanship and compromised to find meaning solutions to the problems afflicting this country. Instead of working together to improve people's lives, this congress put money, special interests, and politics above the welfare of the people.