Nancy Pelosi stood on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Sunday night, prior to the looming passage of the president’s health care reform plan, and encouraged her colleagues to vote yes, saying, “We will be joining those who established Social Security [and] Medicare.”
They weren’t.
Medicare had overwhelming bipartisan support when it was enacted. It passed the House with 307 votes, including 70 Republicans. Social Security was even more popular. It had 372 votes in the House. Republicans supported it by a margin of 81-15.
Obamacare received 219 votes. No Republicans supported it, and 34 Democrats voted no.
Social Security and Medicare are available to everyone, and thus benefit everyone. Obamacare is welfare for sections of the middle class.
A CNN poll released Monday showed 59 percent of the country opposed the final legislation.
Yet, Nancy and her troops marched on. They enacted the most expansive government program in 40 years with perhaps the four hardest won four votes in American legislative history.
Tennessee got $100 million in Medicaid funding to secure votes. Democrats threatened primary challenges against congressmen who voted no. Meanwhile, Obama’s union allies threatened to pull financial support for Michael McMahon of New York and spent $1.3 million in a campaign to pressure fellow New Yorker Scott Murphy.
In the end, the pressure the administration and its Capitol Hill allies exerted on wavering congressional Democrats forced into law a bill assumed dead only a few weeks ago. Even pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak caved after fiercely opposing the bill’s lax restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortion for months. All Stupak got was a meaningless executive order, a piece of paper signed by Obama that can be reversed at any point.
Votes from Stupak and his allies proved to be essential. So after months of bribes, threats and negotiations, House leaders did not lock up the votes for this version of health care reform until just hours before.
Democrats have blamed opposition to their bill on this “process,” their way of referring to all the arm-twisting and horse-trading. Yet they insist that the “substance” of the bill is good and their processes are not atypical in Congress.
They miss the larger point. Of course horse-trading and special deals are the norm in Congress. That is true in pretty much any political institution. Hence the reason conservatives object to allowing Congress to govern health care. In any program Congress runs, politics will always trump personal, medical, financial and moral considerations.
It is hard to imagine any other congressional majority logrolling similar legislation after so many setbacks. Throughout this debate, it has been amazing to hear Democrats describe their quest for health care reform as something that has been 100 years in the making. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon and Clinton are all extolled for having tried and failed on health care. It is as if a mysterious villain kept them from a most noble act.
Never did Democrats consider that, maybe, universal health care failed in the past because the American people didn’t want it.
Their fascination with health care has become more like a weird obsession. However many obscure procedural tactics needed to be exploited, whatever other agenda items fell by the wayside, health care reform had to be passed. That is because health care reform has now extended the government further into a very personal issue. Whatever the short-term consequences, eventually Democrats, as the party of government, will benefit from this expansion of dependency.
Liberals insist their plan, now the law of the land, will not be repealed anymore than will Social Security or Medicare. Far from ending a century-long debate, however, the Democrats just forced an enormous change on a reluctant public.
In 1973, the Supreme Court took a similar step. It struck down state laws banning abortion before the public was ready to accept a legalization of the procedure. The result has been the most drawn out and divisive political issue of recent history.
This act will become our next great controversy. Health care reform is not as solemn an issue as human life. It has, however, given moral standing to opponents of big government.
Those opponents will go forth and fight. They will fight in the courts. Twelve states have already filed suit against unconstitutional provisions of the measure.
They will fight and win elections – Massachusetts has already elected a Republican to the Senate on a pledge to oppose this reform.
They may never win this fight. But they will make an issue out of it. In 2012, they may even elect a president because of it. If they do, Obamacare may not be the law of the land as long as its supporters think.
Tray Smith is a freshman majoring in economics. His column runs bi-weekly
