소개글
[정책론] 워싱턴 D.C 의료개혁 논란-낙태문제에 대한 바트 스투박(Bart Stupak)의 제안 중심으로(영문)에 대한 자료입니다.
목차
1.Introduction
2.Advocacy Coalition Framework
3.Kingdon’s Multiple Stream
본문내용
‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’(H.R.3590),’
‘Health Care and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act of 2010’(H.R.4872),
U.S. health care system
Different fundamental normative axioms of the coalitions involved.
Whether federal subsidies can be granted to private insurances that provide abortion. (The current law was evident in that federal funds cannot be used to directly provide abortion)
Pro Life vs. Pro-Choice
Realize how various factors like the objective of policy entrepreneurs, institutional characteristics, and political fluctuations interact to influence the final outcome
we will focus on changes in systemic governing coalitions, that being the special election in Massachusetts on January of 2010.
While the election of Scott Brown did not amount to a system-wide governing coalition change, Democrats were not able to block Republicans from filibustering health care reform legislation. This consequently led to Democrats relying on a complicated legislative procedure, in which the House had to pass the Senate version (H.R.3950), and then to amend portions of the Senate version to accommodate the needs of Democratic House members through reconciliation. Furthermore, the election scared off former proponents of health care reform, to the point in which Pelosi figured that only 180 House Democrats were sure to vote for reform. Pelosi and Obama were able to regroup and garner support for the passage of the bill, but this meant that the margin of error was very slim.
Republicans would not have been able to filibuster and the Democrats would have been able to push their reform legislation without effective opposition. The ordinary process of conference committees would have been held behind closed doors to narrow the differences between the Senate and House bills. In this process, Stupak could have received some statutory language that would be less strict than his original amendment, but to the extent in which he could be satisfied with. Also, under the rules of the reconciliation process, nonbudgetary language cannot be included in the reconciliation bill, which blocked the possibility of Stupak receiving some version of statutory language. Thus, Stupak confronted a situation in which for the passage of health care reform, he had to accept the passage of legislation that could result in federal funds being provided to insurance plans that provide abortion services. Stupak’s opposition to abortion language had the magnitude of blocking the passage of the whole reform bill, as Stupak’s opposition meant that the House would also be not able to pass health care reform legislation. There was no other path for the House and Senate to narrow their differences and pass identical health care reform legislation.