Republicans and Democrats each want to achieve the same goal

Unless you’re a politician or a lawyer, it’s pretty hard to read all of the jargon and make any real sense of it. In an effort to try and catch you up to speed, and without going into the vast amounts of bullet points each one contains, here is the core difference between the two plans.

A shared goal

First, you’ve got to understand that the healthcare debate is such a hot one because both sides of the aisle have fundamentally different ways of pursuing efficiency. Both Republicans and Democrats want the same thing, which is to tackle the problems within healthcare and arrive at a solution that balances quality of care with fair pricing, but each has a different opinion of how to get there.

With different strategies

Conservatives believe that a competitive market is the way to go. They would use taxpayer money to create a system where American consumers would benefit within a marketplace where insurers would offer very different options. Healthcare coverage and pricing would then be driven by consumer’s choices. Republicans also feel that the federal government’s role in healthcare should be much smaller than it is now. They believe individual states should be responsible for making individual plans easier to get.

Liberals believe the answer lies not in the competitive marketplace but in a centralized design where purchasing decisions are in the hands of the government. Individuals purchase coverage from state and federal insurance exchanges instead of traditional private market providers, and the affordability of plans comes from subsidies.

There. You are now educated on the main difference between the competing plans.

The bottom line is, both the Republicans and Democrats have some good ideas and not so good ideas in each of their healthcare bills. Ideally, for the American people to truly be served and offered affordable healthcare coverage, ideas from both sides of the aisle would be combined into one cohesive plan that would make the most sense.

Will this ever happen? Time will tell.

The post What are the Fundamental Differences Between the GOP’s Healthcare Plan and Obamacare? appeared first on Citizens Report.

As outlined in a previous CitizensReport article, the pipeline extension has created much controversy, pitting Republicans against environmentalists who are concerned about further exacerbating the ominous effects of climate change. However, with the plunging price of oil in the global market, analysts project that profits from the pipeline would no longer amount to enough to break even.

Via: Politico

Saudi Arabia’s Price War

While analysts believe that oil prices will continue to drop, Saudi Arabia plans to maintain current production in an effort to make “Canadian oil sands output too costly in the American marketplace.” According to The Fiscal Times, Canada is a threat to the nation’s industry dominance, causing them to wage a price war. Extracting oil from Canadian tar sands is extremely costly, and the competition from Saudi Arabia is an added impediment.

Republicans Refuse to Give Up

As the GOP moves to control both houses Congress in 2015, the bill becomes more likely to pass. Despite realistic protests from multiple interest groups, rising Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he plans on making the Keystone XL Pipeline bill his first piece of legislation, according to the Huffington Post.

The consensus for the GOP is that the receding prices are a temporary effect of market adjustment, and that the pipeline would create energy security and further the nation’s alliance with Canada.

“You cannot make major national policy decisions based upon the oil price of the day. We know from our own experience that oil prices will fluctuate and change up and down,” Gov. Chris Christie said in a CNN article. “This provides us with another foundational piece for strengthening the geopolitical position for North America.”

Via: Earth First Journal

Obama’s Federal Permit and Veto Power

Because the pipeline would terminate in Nebraska, the State Department has delayed releasing its environmental review until 2015 when a decision on a related lawsuit from the Nebraska Supreme Court is made. As an effect, Barack Obama has yet to issue a presidential permit that asserts the pipeline is in our national interest, allowing it to cross an international border.

However, Obama has been open about his skepticism, believing the project would only provide long-term economic benefits for Canada. He claims that it would not lower gas prices in America, and that the job creation would be temporary. As well, the president agrees that the pipeline would negatively affect the fight against climate change.

The Debate Rages On

The debate has political, environmental and economic implications. If the GOP-led Congress comes to a majority agreement, it could block Obama’s veto. Although much has changed in the six years that the project has been introduced, it may now possess the necessary political backing for authorization.

The debate about the intended benefits and consequences of the pipeline rages on. But without high oil prices, it seems that it is not feasible for TransCanada to earn profits from the project. However, the question of whether or not the Keystone XL Pipeline will actually be built still remains unanswered.

The post The Keystone XL Pipeline Debate Rages On Despite Profitless Projections appeared first on Citizens Report.