The Politics of Health Care

Ben

Truly pathetic, Alex. Would you apply the same lack of principle to poor legislation at Westminster?

SUSAN HILL

Enlighten. Why is it actually bad ? ( I genuinely don`t know.)

Alex Massie

Ben - No. Because the differences between the UK and US political systems are such that comparisons between their respective legislative processes are pretty much pointless.

Apart from anything else, the nature of Westminster is that passing a bill, regardless of its content, is no great achievement. Things are different in Washington and so is the political imperatives behind passing health care. Failure to pass a bill, even an unpopular one, would weaken Obama. Passing a bill, even an unpopular one, helps him. That's all.

Susan: I have no idea. It might work; it might not. I don't think anyone can know. Nor, just as pressingly, does anyone really know if it will, eventually, be popular.

porkbelly

Iowahawk puts it best (as usual): "America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster"

Conservative Cabbie

Alex

Oh dear. After sticking up for you in my last comment, you hang me out to dry with this!

"Whatever one thinks of the merits of the bill that is an achievement for Pelosi and Obama in and of itself."

Of course they passed it. It would be gross misconduct if they didn't with that majority. But Pelosi lost 39 of her own people on this vote so Pelosi's only real achievement is to not quite be capable of gross misconduct.

"They have to pass this unpopular bill in order to show the American public that they can be effective"

Only to a statist & an elitist is this a good prescription for life in a Democracy

"It is A Bill, therefore it is Good. Even if it's actually Bad."

Please tell me that's irony.

Alex Massie

ConCabbie: Well, yes, Pelosi lost some of her members. But some of them were given permission to vote against the bill because voting for it would hurt them next year. (ie, many of the Democratic No votes represent districts that voted for John McCain).

But, yes, getting the bill through the House is an achievement, regardless of whether or not one approves of the bill's substance. Presidents, of both parties, have been trying to do this for more than 40 years. And failed.

As I say, I'm not writing about the merits of the bill in terms of health care. That's well beyond my interest or pay-grade. But politically, passing the bill is important. And that remains true even if, yes, paradoxically, it proves to be a bad bill.

To put it another way: the consequences of NOT passing health care are enormous. And catastrophic. Politically, that is. (Again, I make no claims about the impact on health care itself).

The public hates Congress and thinks that Congress never does anything. So while it might seem paradoxical that passing an unpopular bill could be good for Congress, it remains the case that not passing it might be even worse.

That's all.

Conservative Cabbie

Alex

I'm not sure enacting a multi-trillion dollar bill in the current environment will do anything to endear Congress to the people.

ndm

I'm not sure enacting a multi-trillion dollar bill in the current environment will do anything to endear Congress to the people.

Actually, the current environment has served to remind many people just how fragile their place in the World is. Almost everyone in America has seen the spectre of unemployment and the financial catastrophe that can bring - particularly when it comes with a healthcare problem of any significance

Beefeater

Alex Massie at 11:11:

What a peculiar idea - that a health care bill has been waiting to be passed for 40 years.
There were no obviously catastrophic consequences for not passing it during those decades.
What might have been the political consequences for not passing it? A few Democratic losses. And the consequences for passing it? Many more Democratic losses.

ndm

There were no obviously catastrophic consequences for not passing it during those decades.

Well, none other than that healthcare now consumes 16% of American GDP while providing little apparent benefit over countries that spend far less of GDP on healthcare.