Who Will Be Hurt if the Democrats Pass Health Care Alone

Eight months or so into the Obama presidency, it is pretty clear that Obama's bipartisan efforts have not been, and will almost certainly not be, fruitful. Critics of Obama might claim this is because Obama has already been captured by the far left of his party, while people more sympathetic to the president might point out that the Republican Party has been captured by an angry and out of touch right wing that has driven the party to irrelevancy. The question this raises for the Obama administration is whether or not it is now prudent to abandon efforts at bipartisanship and seek to pass major legislation, most obviously health care, alone.

Critics of this idea point out that previous legislation of such great significance was passed with bipartisan support. This is true, but a little misleading. For most of the twentieth century partisanship while strong, was often not closely tied to ideology the way it is today. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats were far bigger and more important political forces 50, or even 25, years ago, than they are today. So, while, for example, Lyndon Johnson passed both civil rights and Great Society legislation with support from Republicans, those Republicans were northern liberals who had political views and ideology which today would make them far closer to the Democratic than the Republican Party. Similarly, a fair amount of the Democrats who backed much of Ronald Reagan's legislative proposals were conservative Democrats who today would likely be Republicans.

Obama does not have a liberal, or even moderate wing of the Republican Party with which to work, so bipartisan policy making is substantially more difficult for him. The Democratic Party, while far from unified behind any health care plan, is far more ideologically cohesive than in the 1930s or 1960s, making the possibility of passing legislation without the Republicans possible in a way that was not the case for previous Democratic presidents.

David Brooks, among others, has argued that for Obama to pass health care legislation without any Republican support would be a big mistake and ultimately even destroy his Democratic majority. This argument raises two important questions. The first question is: so what? Clearly it is worth trading off this temporary Democratic majority for health care reform. The reason millions of Americans voted Democratic last fall was to pass progressive legislation such as health care reform. There is little point in having a Democratic majority if the party is afraid to use its majority to actually do anything. Inevitably the Democratic majority will be reduced and eventually the Republicans will come back in power. It would be a mistake to let this time go by without passing progressive legislation and get nothing out of this period of Democratic dominance, however long or brief it may be.

Second, this argument is at its core, a bluff. Republicans who argue that Democrats would be hurting themselves by passing a good health care bill without Republican support should not be taken all that seriously. These people generally are not in the business of warning the Democratic Party about making mistakes. These people are more concerned about what will happen to the Republicans if Democrats back Health Care reform without any support from any Republicans. Brooks and others are half right. Health care reform which is pushed through only by one party will hurt one of the parties, but the party it will hurt will be the Republicans.

If the Democrats pass this bill alone, and are able to do it with a public option, not only will the Republican Party have been proven beyond a doubt to be irrelevant in Washington today, but they will have once again put themselves on the opposing side of groundbreaking legislation. A good health care program which provides a way for millions of currently uninsured Americans to get health insurance will become popular, much like Social Security and Medicare have. Republican talk about death panels, socialism, Nazi policies and the like will quickly seem like the overheated rhetoric that it is as this new program will rapidly get integrated into the broader fabric of American politics and American life. It is immeasurably more likely that a few decades from now Americans will wonder why the US waited so long to pass this legislation, than that those same Americans will be living under some kind of socialist dictatorship, as the right wing suggests.

It should not be forgotten, even though the Republican Party would like you to forget, that the majority of Republicans opposed Social Security and Medicare as well. It is likely that a new health care program will be similarly popular and Republican opposition to it will be similarly downplayed by that party as the years go by. It might be better for America, and would certainly be better for the Republicans, if this program were passed with bipartisan support, but passing it alone won't hurt the Democrats. Failing to take advantage of this opportunity will, on the other hand, hurt both the Democratic Party and the country which it governs.

Comments

[maineorbust]

Go ahead, pass this bill without the support of the people, a majority of Americans don't want this bill. It's true that social security was opposed by Republicans along with medicare. There's more to it than that though.

Social Security was a "New Deal" program by FDR. When it was passed the average life expectancy for whites was 59 years old. The average for African Americans was 48. The entire program was a scheme to take money out of people's paychecks and never intended to pay them. As I'm sure you're aware it's now going broke. It's also going broke faster than previously stated since less people are working so fewer are paying into the system than before.

As for Medicare and Medicaid the Republicans are right to oppose these programs as well since Medicare/Medicaid fraud is now #1 in the country in terms of how much money is lost. I for one dare you to pass this bill no one's read, (I have been reading it) and continue with this attitude of "we know what's best for the people". Look at the congressional numbers these last few years. it was the Democrats in control.

Americans are tired of watching a government, under Bush and Obama, that stands of, by, and for the government. We want the government to return to standing up for we the people. You can't stand against your constituents, much less call them extremist or irrelevant, and expect approval for your policies not to crumble.

[Crazyquilt]

Under bush it was govt of by and for the corporations.

[Philclock]

Under Obama it's govt of by and for Big Government and the Unions.

[pepperhead28]

I agree with you Mr. Mitchell. Let's just hope the democrats can muster up enough courage to take advantage of this opportunity, and do right by the people

[SeaBlood]

You're right. Obama has nothing to lose by forgetting all about GOP support. And his programs might even be successful! On the other hand, if he insists on politely courting the Republicans, he will surely lose, as the Republicans have no intention of NOT opposing him every step of the way. They must be evil or something.

[NordicSci]

At this point I don't think he is nearly as focused on getting Republican votes (maybe 1 in the Senate) as he is keeping Dems together.

[mrebabbelon]

The Democratic Party is currently the liberal and the conservative party

[canuck4barack]

When the Democrats who opposed the invasion of Iraq lost the vote, they, along with the rest of the country and esp. the men and women who were sent there, all lost.

In this case, if health care reform with the public option is passed, what harm will come to those who voted against it? In the long run they will only benefit from it. Sometimes medicine has to be forced down a screaming child's throat to make him feel better. Eventually, when the fever goes down, the child is grateful that you did it.

[Happylall]

THANK YOU,THANK YOU,THANK YOU!!!! BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!
GREETINGS FROM ITALY , WHERE WE ARE SO LUCKY TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

[Philclock]

EVERYBODY, if the HR3200 one thousand + page central planning monstrosity is what happens.

[ginny1920]

Very well written and reasoned! I agree with you completely! Someone needs to show this to Obama!

[namops]

Very well written and extremely convincing. In my view the main reason the Democrats haven't been able to accomplish as much as they could (and I mean throughout recent history) is once they are holding the cards, they fail to play them for fear of backlash or loss of their position. The Republicans of the recent past especially have never cared what opponents think (for that matter even what persons like myself who are moderate conservatives think ) This was especially so when they had the Presidency and Congressional majority recently. So get off your a**es Democrats and stop reinforcing your "wimpy" but deserved reputation and accopmlish at least ONE thing you and the President promised in seeking election to your offices before the year is out!

[TheQuestion]

I am particularly in agreement with the idea that if the Democrats fail to use thier majority that it will then seem to make no difference if we have Democrats in power.

This is true however untill we look at all the horrible things the Republicans did while they were in power. The word horrible is truly the correct word to use when we look at Dick Cheney & the people that followed him. I can't see me ever voting for another Republican in my life.

[ChelseaC]

Well said.

[SewaneeLeftist]

Outside the silliness of suggesting that the left has Obama prisoner, Mr. Mitchell is exactly right. Do the Right Thing, Dems, and count on Americans to recognize that it WAS the right thing.

[notajesusgigolo]

Whether or not they want to admit it, the wingnuts and bluedogs are the only ones who will be hurt by voting against healthcare reform. They will have, again, announced to the world that they don't give a rat's arse about the one in four American workers who earn less than 2/3 of the average income, can't afford health insurance on their $11/hour wages, toil for employers who can no longer afford exhorbitant coverage that's doubled in less that 7 years, and don't have sick leave because it's not required by law.
These are the same Americans who have no choice but to overwhelm our emergency rooms when seriously ill, leaving the rest of us to pay for it with increased hospital rates.
The most telling facts are that their illnesses - which they can't afford to have treated properly and in a timely manner - cause them to miss work or show up too sick to do their job adequately.
So, our economy is losing over $430 billion annually from non-productivity, or $4.3 trillion over ten years.
Add to that the 164 million schools days lost yearly to student illness, or a funding loss of $8.85 billion.
These figures are available from the U.S. Bur. of Labor Stats, U.S. Dept. of Ed., and Hewitt Associates reports.
Egotistic politics and fear-mongering bred from greed have no place in this discussion - and those who would ignore important facts have no place in government.

[jayjay4142]

If the drug companies didn't spend so much money trying to prove that thier drug is better than the other guy's drug which treats the same thing, Maybe they could lower costs. That and paying outrageous salaries to tjier top executives .

[KayrenD]

To say that the political and social rifts in our country will NEVER be healed may be both premature and extreme, and I recognize that I'm doing my best to be generous about human nature. It seems that some people don't understand simple logic and must be SHOWN that something can work. It is unreasonable to expect perfection from the start; we will need to start somewhere and work out the bugs as we go along. Switzerland had a health care system like ours and made the transition to universal health care a few years ago (according to PBS Frontline). Seeing that the huge insurance companies (e.g., United Health Care, CIGNA, AETNA) are raking in literally billions from those of us who are covered, what is wrong with levying a hefty (federal and state) tax on their profits and subjecting all operating costs, in order to fund universal health care and reign in (and reduce) premiums and co-pays for those of us already insured? I want a public option, but if that is off the table (in the short term, at least), then maybe something like this could work. The insurance company shareholders will hate it, but so what? These companies may still earn a profit, but not the outrageous profits we have seen these past years, at the expense of our citizens. I don't know how much would be generated, but--in this way--at least the cost of universal care wouldn't add to the deficit.

[DemForChange2]

Thank you for this analysis. Every time a tea bagger utters government can't run anything, then the response should include, "then you want to eleminate Social Security and Medicare". That we cannot get a rational upper hand in this conversation makes me feel that we maybe no longer have a democracy. The majority voter voice is being shouted down by lackeys who are making money in investments in insurance companies making a killing off the suffering. Really disgusting to see these arrogant, self-centered, greedy money grubbing loud mouths at the town halls railing against a woman in a wheel chair worried about losing her home due to health care costs. Moral decay is speaking through the mouths of these screaming town hall thugs.
I do believe we, the majority, can take some of the power out of the influence peddling done by insurance companies and right wing's funding sources. We can withhold profits from companies who contribute to the players obstructing health care reform that we voted for.
Please visit http://www.boycottgrassley.org to use your wallet, i.e. consumer voice, to "buy influence" in favor of a public insurance option. A national boycott on selected targets to send a message about the majority wanting health care reform may be a tactic that could return the power of governance to the people.

[Dengold]

As we are seeing now, Social Security is, was, and was always intended to be a ponzi scheme (Bernie Madoff was a piker in comparison). It will go broke, if not in my lifetime (I'm 63), then certainly in my children's lifetime. I can't even begin to list all the promises that were made about Social Security when it was being framed that have now been broken (i.e. the most you would ever pay, the account in your name, etc). Medicare is similarly unsustainable financially. I also believe that you are seriously deluding yourself if you think that the anger out there is manufactured. Talk radio is certainly adding as much encouragement to the crowds as they possibly can, but this movement is way above their direction or control (Republican Party leadership is too incompetent to even consider here). Of course, not every attendee is genuine, but my own view is that the vast majority of the non-genuine types are from the Left, not the Right. I suspect that President Obama will press on regardless; how that decision will play in 2010 and 2012 remains to be seen.