Every Senate Democrat voted for the Senate's health care reform bill, and every Republican voted against it. According to the "village wisdom," embodied in David Broder and the editorial staff of the Washington Post, this is horrible. Bipartisanship should rule the day. In order to pass major legislation, the Democrats should have some Republican support to back them up because...because...well, just because. (Curiously, the "bipartisanship rule" only applies when Democrats are in office.)
The administration and the Congressional leadership tried every which way to get Republican participation. All they got to show for their bipartisanship was additional delay, additional obfuscation, and additional nuttiness. (Remember "death panels"?)
The pending health care bill is not everything one would like. It needs more cost containment, more restrictions on premiums, and less guaranteed profit for Big Insurance. That said, the bill does some good things which many--not just liberals--have been supporting for decades.
The party line vote on health care says that one party is firmly in favor of change while the other one did everything they could to resist it. Personally, I'm glad that not a single Republican voted for reform. It keeps the lines of responsibility clear.
It's the smart move for the GOP at this point, and they can always try running against the crappy stuff that seems likely to get into the bill. Their obstructionist tactics have worked pretty well so far, and there hasn't yet been the backlash against them for those tactics the Dems were probably anticipating.
The tax hikes in the bill are set to go into effect quite soon and there are relatively few goodies in the bill for the majority who are already insured. (I imagine some people will be very surprised to hear that they have "Cadillac" health plans.) The current abortion language is a mess, and if it stays in I for one stay home next year. The big political question for the Dems is if they are better off passing this bill or not passing it. In the short term they are better off passing it, but the long term effect is a trickier matter.
Posted by: Hypatia | December 21, 2009 at 05:01 PM
The GOP is ideologically committed to obstruct. After all, when about half your base thinks Democrats are in league with Satan, you're pretty much obligated to oppose them at every turn.
Unfortunately, this also takes you out of the debate. The GOP does not have a single fingerprint on this bill. They could have had real input, but spurned it.
The Dems better off passing it. Granted, there are a number of items to fix, but this bill does some good things.
Personally, I think the greater political risk is in the short-term, before it really kicks in. The GOP can paint this as whatever they want, which, running true to form, they will. Later, after the provisions of the bill become more well-known, my guess is that public support will increase.
Posted by: John Petty | December 22, 2009 at 02:09 PM
The Democrats owning this mess is a two-edged sword. We'll see which way it cuts.
Posted by: Hypatia | December 22, 2009 at 02:37 PM
I'm pretty much coming to the position that I support the bill. On the one hand, you have Howard Dean, whose word I take seriously on this subject, and on the other hand, you have Paul Krugman, with whom I almost never disagree--and I'm tilting to Krugman.
Problem is: The good stuff the bill does don't work that well politically, and the stuff that really helps the middle class--public option, Medicare buy-in--still needs to be done.
Another thing: I take seriously that Vicki Kennedy said her husband would support it, which I think he would also. Better something than nothing.
Posted by: John Petty | December 22, 2009 at 06:07 PM