Obama uses Democratic supermajority early on

That kind of stuff may be effective, but politically it would be a disaster. The mandate itself, and "like your plan, you can keep it" were bad enough as it was. Those measures could have cost Obama the election, and maybe somehow could have led to ironically enough, Mitt Romney coming through with healthcare reform based off of his Massachusetts model, with some adjustments for things like birth control to appease the party. But that might be a long shot.

Abolishing the use of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions was a political slam dunk. The Republicans even thought it was a good idea. However, the mandate was extremely unpopular, and remember, Obama's own party wasn't even sure about the mandate, with some not voting in the House for it because of that. You add punitive measures like that and you might not be able to get it passed. In fact, I am guessing that this was considered, and rejected, for political reasons.

I am sure it was but do it right or don't do it at all. The tax had to be high enough to make sure everyone who was mandated to be on it was on it.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I am sure it was but do it right or don't do it at all. The tax had to be high enough to make sure everyone who was mandated to be on it was on it.
I've gradually come around to that viewpoint. I am conservative on most political issues, but the truth of the matter is that the US economy would be growing fine if we could control healthcare costs just a little bit more, as the late 90s and mid 80s were periods of growth for many reasons but most notably, they came at a time when health costs were not accelerating the way they have for most of the post-Watergate era.

I'm skeptical of single payer for many reasons, and I think the Nordic model is glorified beyond perhaps what is reasonable, but ACA is a crony capitalist mess and there really isn't a Republican alternative I know of. Because I can't point to anything else, I have to assume that true single payer has some merits. If there is a market based solution or some kind of conservative view on health care reform besides opening up interstate competition, which would be good but not nearly good enough, I'd like to hear it. Tax credits for low income families are great, but they're not enough.
 
Last edited:
The Democrats really only had a supermajority in the Senate for four months--basically the months when Paul Kirk temporarily replaced the late Edward M. Kennedy. (Remember that Franken was not sworn in until July, that both Kennedy and Byrd had health issues that kept them from voting for some time, etc.) And even then it was dependent on relatively conservative Democrats like Lieberman and Nelson.
 
The other thing is that Obama spent the first part of his first term trying to soften the hyperpartisan political atmosphere. He actively tried to work with the Republicans and take some cross-party action. It failed miserably, and lost the only chance he had to push stuff through, but it was an admirable attempt. Too bad the Republicans doubled down on partisanship in response. Sigh.
 
I've gradually come around to that viewpoint. I am conservative on most political issues, but the truth of the matter is that the US economy would be growing fine if we could control healthcare costs just a little bit more, as the late 90s and mid 80s were periods of growth for many reasons but most notably, they came at a time when health costs were not accelerating the way they have for most of the post-Watergate era.

I'm skeptical of single payer for many reasons, and I think the Nordic model is glorified beyond perhaps what is reasonable, but ACA is a crony capitalist mess and there really isn't a Republican alternative I know of. Because I can't point to anything else, I have to assume that true single payer has some merits. If there is a market based solution or some kind of conservative view on health care reform besides opening up interstate competition, which would be good but not nearly good enough, I'd like to hear it. Tax credits for low income families are great, but they're not enough.

Also people have to realize the individual mandate is absolutely necessary if you abolish the use of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You can have no individual mandate and allow the use of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or have the individual mandate and abolish the use of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions but you can't abolish the use of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and not have an individual mandate because of the "free rider" problem . Only an idiot would get insurance until after they need it. It would be like forcing the house insurance companies to allow you to pay for fire insurance after the house burned down and pay for a new one even if the house burned down before you bought the insurance.
 
The other thing is that Obama spent the first part of his first term trying to soften the hyperpartisan political atmosphere. He actively tried to work with the Republicans and take some cross-party action. It failed miserably, and lost the only chance he had to push stuff through, but it was an admirable attempt. Too bad the Republicans doubled down on partisanship in response. Sigh.

How? The bill was written behind closed doors nor was there any serious effort to get any Republican support before the rise of the Tea Party and you had massive demonstrations against it. The bill was passed entirely by Democratic party votes which means the Republicans had absolutely no skin in the game and had no reason to not want it to go down in flames. The Democrats had to get at least some Republican support and they had to try to get it early, preferably day one. By the time they tried seriously to get it the bill was already unpopular and it was too late.
 
How? The bill was written behind closed doors nor was there any serious effort to get any Republican support before the rise of the Tea Party and you had massive demonstrations against it. The bill was passed entirely by Democratic party votes which means the Republicans had absolutely no skin in the game and had no reason to not want it to go down in flames. The Democrats had to get at least some Republican support and they had to try to get it early, preferably day one. By the time they tried seriously to get it the bill was already unpopular and it was too late.
???
What bill are you talking about?
 
Another way of enforcing the individual mandate that I just thought of is that when you employ anyone you either have to provide insurance yourself or you have to sign them up to Obamacare or have it verified that they already signed up via the website. No sign up , no job.
 
To be fair to the Republicans-the trend towards hyperpartisanship in the Senate was to a limited extent encouraged by the behavior of the Democrats in the Senate.

The Republican origin story for the unified anti-administration stance is the administration's reversal of an agreement to leave non-citizens out of a CHIP extension that had been negotiated by Senators Baucus and Grassley.

The unified stance of opposition would have developed in any case but CHIP may have made McConell's argument easier.

However despite CHIP the administration did win the support of some Republicans in the Senate for the stimulus.

Later in 2009 Majority Leader Reid abandoned the administration's effort to woo Olympia Snowe. That Snowe voted against the ACA appears to have had as much to do with how Reid treated Snowe as with the substance of the bill. Of course given her vacillation not assuming her support may have been a good idea.

Still as I argued in another thread the idea of Snowe voting for the ACA is not inconceivable. On substance she was the closest ACA had to a Republican supporter-she even voted for the Senate bill in committee.

At least in part what offended Snowe to the point of opposition were temperamental factors about Reid. His impatience with long discussions-his tendency to end conversations abruptly etc.

Max Baucus spent a lot of time trying to persuade Grassley to come along onto ACA. He was much further away on substance. I'm doubtful he could have been brought along in any event. But the CHIP issue made that even less likely.

Despite this I think Mitch McConnell deserves the lion share of credit for encouraging the unified opposition stance in his conference. A marginally more cooperative Republican conference was possible despite McConnell's influence-but that would mean the same moderates who voted for the Stimulus voting for other administration initiatives-like Snowe voting for ACA-rather than a broader bipartisan pro-administration consensus. Of those Republicans-precisely one is still in the Senate.

On the other hand McConnell-if I remember correctly-came closer to losing in 2008 than any other Republican who was reelected that year.

While I wouldn't call that race close, there may have been a slim possibility of McConnell losing his seat. Had that occurred there would have been a larger Democratic conference and the new Minority Leader may have been less effective-both factors would have made the administration's efforts easier.

If Snowe had favored ACA the Senate bill would have passed earlier. Since the compromises needed to bring her along would have also wooed Lieberman-barring further Democratic defections the ACA would have passed the Senate around December 10th or so.

I'm not sure how long normal conference negotiations would have lasted in that case. No agreement was reached in the 16 days between Congress's return and the Massachusetts election.

But the House and Senate were reportedly close to an agreement by the 19th. Had the ACA passed on or around tenth (possibly earlier) rather than the 24th there would be more time to negotiate and an agreement may have been reached in time for the final version bill to be passed prior to the Massachusetts election.

Had the ACA passed in January of 2010 that would open up scarce time resources to work on other issues. However without a wider Democratic conference I'm unsure what that would mean.

Passing ACA earlier might have implications in Massachusetts. Presumably Brown would have been hurt if voting for him couldn't be a vote to kill ACA.

I'm not sure how to pass other legislation earlier in 2010 without a larger Democratic conference.

Of the administration's 2009-2011 priorities-few failed. Among them were Cap and Trade, the end of the Bush tax cuts for top earners, and raising the Debt Ceiling in a manner that did not raise a risk of default.

Cap and Trade was probably doomed regardless. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would require running the table such that Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal and NEW START are passed earlier at the least.

I have no idea how to deal with the debt limit issue in a less close to the edge manner though.
 
To be fair to the Republicans-the trend towards hyperpartisanship in the Senate was to a limited extent encouraged by the behavior of the Democrats in the Senate.

The Republican origin story for the unified anti-administration stance is the administration's reversal of an agreement to leave non-citizens out of a CHIP extension that had been negotiated by Senators Baucus and Grassley.

The unified stance of opposition would have developed in any case but CHIP may have made McConell's argument easier.

However despite CHIP the administration did win the support of some Republicans in the Senate for the stimulus.

Later in 2009 Majority Leader Reid abandoned the administration's effort to woo Olympia Snowe. That Snowe voted against the ACA appears to have had as much to do with how Reid treated Snowe as with the substance of the bill. Of course given her vacillation not assuming her support may have been a good idea.

Still as I argued in another thread the idea of Snowe voting for the ACA is not inconceivable. On substance she was the closest ACA had to a Republican supporter-she even voted for the Senate bill in committee.

At least in part what offended Snowe to the point of opposition were temperamental factors about Reid. His impatience with long discussions-his tendency to end conversations abruptly etc.

Max Baucus spent a lot of time trying to persuade Grassley to come along onto ACA. He was much further away on substance. I'm doubtful he could have been brought along in any event. But the CHIP issue made that even less likely.

Despite this I think Mitch McConnell deserves the lion share of credit for encouraging the unified opposition stance in his conference. A marginally more cooperative Republican conference was possible despite McConnell's influence-but that would mean the same moderates who voted for the Stimulus voting for other administration initiatives-like Snowe voting for ACA-rather than a broader bipartisan pro-administration consensus. Of those Republicans-precisely one is still in the Senate.

On the other hand McConnell-if I remember correctly-came closer to losing in 2008 than any other Republican who was reelected that year.

While I wouldn't call that race close, there may have been a slim possibility of McConnell losing his seat. Had that occurred there would have been a larger Democratic conference and the new Minority Leader may have been less effective-both factors would have made the administration's efforts easier.

If Snowe had favored ACA the Senate bill would have passed earlier. Since the compromises needed to bring her along would have also wooed Lieberman-barring further Democratic defections the ACA would have passed the Senate around December 10th or so.

I'm not sure how long normal conference negotiations would have lasted in that case. No agreement was reached in the 16 days between Congress's return and the Massachusetts election.

But the House and Senate were reportedly close to an agreement by the 19th. Had the ACA passed on or around tenth (possibly earlier) rather than the 24th there would be more time to negotiate and an agreement may have been reached in time for the final version bill to be passed prior to the Massachusetts election.

Had the ACA passed in January of 2010 that would open up scarce time resources to work on other issues. However without a wider Democratic conference I'm unsure what that would mean.

Passing ACA earlier might have implications in Massachusetts. Presumably Brown would have been hurt if voting for him couldn't be a vote to kill ACA.

I'm not sure how to pass other legislation earlier in 2010 without a larger Democratic conference.

Of the administration's 2009-2011 priorities-few failed. Among them were Cap and Trade, the end of the Bush tax cuts for top earners, and raising the Debt Ceiling in a manner that did not raise a risk of default.

Cap and Trade was probably doomed regardless. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would require running the table such that Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal and NEW START are passed earlier at the least.

I have no idea how to deal with the debt limit issue in a less close to the edge manner though.

One or two Republicans aren't enough, if they are there alone almost certainly they lose their next primary and the Republicans still have no skin in the game. You need probably at least a half a dozen or so in the Senate and at least double if not triple that in the House. If not, they will almost certainly lose their next primary or have so little clout they don't matter.
 
Last edited:
For the purposes of clearing the table one or two more Republican votes would have made a difference in 2010 in terms of timing.

Cap and Trade probably can't be done. But a few more votes for cloture on other issues could have led to the expiration of the top level Bush tax cuts.


The 2010 Republican landslide is baked in. The negative political impact of ACA is baked in by August 2009.

Since a larger stimulus is impossible the economy cannot be in such a better position that there is no anger against the administration in that period.

Perhaps more significantly-there's no reasonable change that would make the Democratic constituency show up for a midterm election and as such the 2010 voters were always going to be more conservative. There's also no change that Obama or Reid could make that would save the Democratic Party on a local level.

Thus, I think the absolute best case scenario from the administration's point of view is one in which the Democrats run the table in 2010 on the issues that have a better chance than Cap and Trade and one in which they have the opportunity and foresight to take the Debt Ceiling off the table.

Having even one or two Republican votes for Cloture would be a significant help towards that outcome.
 

Wallet

Banned
If Obama wins a much larger landslide, 400+ electoral votes.

He has more of a mandate, and the conservative democratic senators will feel more pressure.

He gets a bigger stimulus, so a quicker economic recovery. Maybe have Bin Laden killed before Nov 2010. The democrats keep the house.

The democrats keep both house until 2014, assuming Obama wins in 2012.

This leaves plenty of time to fix ACA, maybe even a public option after 2012 if Obama can claim a mandate. But he still needs to win even better then OTL.

Only if the economy has completely removed to 2015/2016 levels and gas is $2.

Also have Ted Kenny live longer until 2012.
 
For the purposes of clearing the table one or two more Republican votes would have made a difference in 2010 in terms of timing.

Cap and Trade probably can't be done. But a few more votes for cloture on other issues could have led to the expiration of the top level Bush tax cuts.


The 2010 Republican landslide is baked in. The negative political impact of ACA is baked in by August 2009.

Since a larger stimulus is impossible the economy cannot be in such a better position that there is no anger against the administration in that period.

Perhaps more significantly-there's no reasonable change that would make the Democratic constituency show up for a midterm election and as such the 2010 voters were always going to be more conservative. There's also no change that Obama or Reid could make that would save the Democratic Party on a local level.

Thus, I think the absolute best case scenario from the administration's point of view is one in which the Democrats run the table in 2010 on the issues that have a better chance than Cap and Trade and one in which they have the opportunity and foresight to take the Debt Ceiling off the table.

Having even one or two Republican votes for Cloture would be a significant help towards that outcome.

Which is why I said they needed to try and get support early. When you pass a major bill like this on a strictly partisan basis you better get it damn near perfect or it will bite you. ACA is now damn near impossible to fix as you won't get enough Republicans to pass any major fixes and enough Democrats are gun shy on the issue it will be difficult to get all of them on board.

As far as Hillary getting a public option or medicaid for all or any other major health legislation I think it is very unlikely despite what some Democrats say in the primaries. Health care burned them badly since ACA passed and enough of them are nervous about it you won't get enough Democratic votes let alone Republican. I think enough Democrats realize this time around that any major legislation passed needs a significant number of Republicans to support it and they won't get it. Any major legislation without bipartisan support is crippled at the start and enough Democrats know it now that you won't get enough of them to support it.
 
Last edited:
Top