So far six appellate court justices have ruled, with a result of 3/3. It passed both houses on the most narrow, strictly party-line vote. Even that was on a deal that was patched together with special promises to key Senators. Partly as a result of its passage, a year later, the house shifted and the Senate may, I said may, be up for grabs. 26 states are suing to block it. Court watchers are biting their nails to see which side the 5/4 split on the U.S. Supreme Court falls. No major poll has significant support for the measure, and a substantial number show that people do not like it. By every significant poll, the majority of the country is either moderate or slightly conservative/moderate
At the very least, the nation is evenly divided. At the worst, most people don’t like it.
You can keep the status quo when the nation is fairly evenly split. During that time you can work out compromises and discuss the matter.
On issues that people do not feel strongly about, you can push it through with a small majority or even a large minority. For example, if you wanted to change the speed limit in one state from 65 to 60, or if you wanted to change the drinking age from 21 to 20, you could do it with a strong vocal minority.
However, if you are proposing major change, change that is part of a “fundamental transformation” of the country, change that impacts people’s every day lives, if you do not have significant support, it will only cause anger and resentment.
You cannot do something as big as healthcare reform, the way it was done, on such a narrow base.
With the economy SO fragile,the HC initiative was VERY poorly timed. HC needed to be addressed
but, when the economy is in better shape. For BHO, politically, a disaster, which could sink him in '12, because it widened the partisan divide
which he campaigned he'd try to alleviate in '08.
I think we can disagree on the merits of Obama Care and we can disagree as to what the remedies are, but that doesn't mean we can't agree on how things should get done.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that we would agree that they was it was passed was bad - rushed secret deals, etc - even if we disagree on the merits.
You represent the reasonable person on the other side, so I am not that surprised.
but, when the economy is in better shape. For BHO, politically, a disaster, which could sink him in '12, because it widened the partisan divide
which he campaigned he'd try to alleviate in '08.
I would only add that when the passage was done in secret despite promises for open government, when Nancy says you've got to pass it to read it, and when the budget numbers were hidden in the fine print, it leaves one with no other reasonable belief except that it was a crooked deception. I'm expecting the supremes are going to reject the mandate by a wider margin than 5/4.
Especially about all the secret deals. But I do think it should have been done. Obama had what he thought was a mandate to do certain things and he went for one of the big ones. If he hadn't tried, we may never have done anything to fix health care. Now at least there's a basic law that can be modified as we find out what doesn't work.
Based on my own experience, I certainly see no evidence that health care costs and insurance costs are being contained. My package just went up 17% and I was forced to switch to a plan with more limited choice of physicians to keep costs stable.
And, no, I don't think you wait to try big things until you have a substantial majority. The way this country is now, that could never happen. You try big things when they are needed. Besides, Obama swept into office with a big margin, a super-majority in the Senate and a substantial one in the House. So what was he supposed to do, fiddle around with the margins during a crisis and hope for a bigger mandate next time? The problem is that, because the Dems are dysfunctional, the Senate rules are ridiculous and Obama turned out to be a weak-kneed compromiser, the health care bill was weaker than it should have been.
An overwhelming majority of Americans would tell you that the American Health Care system is broken and needed to be fixed, or at least put on a path where it could be fixed. Americans were going bankrupt is a system that could arbitrarily deny claims or cap insurance payouts. Uninsured Americans were going to emergency rooms, the most expensive treatment option, to receive medical care and then the cost was passed on to us in either higher premiums or delayed healthcare. Premiums were going throught the roof. People were being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and don't forget that insurance companies had doctors on staff that were paid bonuses based upon the number of claims the could reject. After all of this, you still argue that this first attempt at H/C reform was ill-advised? What planet are you on?
Overwhelmingly, the public recognized theses problems within our system, even some of those in the political class. So why wasn't anything done until Obama arrived? Because he was willing to take on the status quo, Insurance companies that were making significant profit, the drug companies that were making significant profit and the politicians that were being financed by those profits. If there was ever a time, that something as major as H/C reform was going to get done, it was going to be in his first term, with the majorities that he enjoyed.
H/C reform was debated over a year...Obama tried to bring the Republicans along. However, they were and continue to be more interested in opposing Obama instead working with him to do what's best for the nation. The current H/C bill probably could have been much better if the Republicans chose to participate instead on obstruct. We got plenty to so called "Death Panel" and cries of "Socialism" from Republicans and precious little else. Yes...the process of approval was ugly, arms were twisted and deals made...and the country is better off for it.