What if Obamacare failed to pass Congress?

What if in 2009/2010 Obamacre had failed to pass the US Congress? It is still proposed, but Congress, either the Senate or the House, does not pass it. This is easier than it seems, despite huge Democrat majorities Obamacare passed by the skin of its teeth. That's why the Republican ads in 2014 said each Democrat Senator' cast the deciding vote for Obamacare'. If one Democrat(Lieberman, Nelson, Blanche Lincoln are possibilities) had voted against Obamacare and joined the filibuster, it would have failed. If the dying Senator Byrd had not been brought in to cast the vote, maybe he is too ill, then it would have been filibustered and any delay would have likely meant even more opposition and probably killed the reform, especially since Brown wins Ted Kennedy's seat. Or even if one more seat was Republican after the 2008 Senate elections, such as Coleman who lost by such a miniscule margin that recounts carried on until June 2009. And even if it passed the Seante, it could still fail in the House, as conservative and pro-life Democrats fled from it IOTL. Obamacare only passed the House by 5 votes, an easily reversible margin. So, what would be the effect if it had been stopped in any of these ways? Well, a character from my TL has an idea:

"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him and we will show that we can, along with the American people, begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society."-Senator Jim DeMint

Would that be true? How would the election results be altered? Would Obama do better with no Obamacare or worse having been humiliated and with few accomplishments? What would happen in the 2012 election TTL? What would be the effects on other aspects of recent history? What if?
 
Clinton failed spectacularly on healthcare too and it didn't kill him politically. I think Obama is temporarily hit by it but it's also not a campaign issue in 2012 - which is actually both good and bad. Good because Obamacare was/is unpopular, significantly so at points, and not having that would probably have helped in some ways. However, 2012 was also about voter turnout and a driving force among Democrats getting out the vote, beyond just reelecting Barack Obama, was to not allow for Obamacare's repeal - which was a staple in Mitt Romney's campaign. It might've turned off a good amount of voters but it also rallied the base and, to an extent, especially in a close election, elections are won or lost by base turnout.

With no Obamacare, the dynamics of the race don't shift so radically that Obama is a lock for reelection like Clinton in '96, so, turnout might be the ultimate difference.
 
Perhaps but Obamacare failing would have lasting effects. Without it Obama's main accomplishment would be presiding over a mediocre economy at best and preventing it from getting worse. Plus TTL Obama might look weaker and so more Republicans run. Anybody else have ideas on this? Could it be Obama's Waterloo?
 
Perhaps but Obamacare failing would have lasting effects. Without it Obama's main accomplishment would be presiding over a mediocre economy at best and preventing it from getting worse. Plus TTL Obama might look weaker and so more Republicans run. Anybody else have ideas on this? Could it be Obama's Waterloo?

The best way to ensure no Obamacare: Norm Coleman and Ted Stevens hold their Senate seats.

That puts the Senate at 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. Even if Specter switches, the GOP has enough votes to filibuster Obamacare, and possibly the stimulus. The 2010 mid-terms go the GOP's way for the most part, and they get the House back, and this time, the Tea Party is not as frustrated.

At that point, Obama, with no real accomplishments, loses a close election to Mitt Romney in 2012.
 

jahenders

Banned
The best way to ensure no Obamacare: Norm Coleman and Ted Stevens hold their Senate seats.

That puts the Senate at 55 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. Even if Specter switches, the GOP has enough votes to filibuster Obamacare, and possibly the stimulus. The 2010 mid-terms go the GOP's way for the most part, and they get the House back, and this time, the Tea Party is not as frustrated.

At that point, Obama, with no real accomplishments, loses a close election to Mitt Romney in 2012.

The other way for it to fail would be for Ben Nelson not to vote for cloture to end a filibuster attempt. He was (supposedly) 'on the fence', but agreed after getting a gift (i.e. bribe) of an extra $100M for Nebraska to cover additional costs. After it passed, he left the Senate and was rewarded with a cush, high-paying job as head of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, implementing Obamacare. This then set him up for a super-lucrative law practice a few years later.
 

MrP

Banned
At that point, Obama, with no real accomplishments, loses a close election to Mitt Romney in 2012.
Obamacare or not, Obama would still be reelected in 2012. By then it was clear to the majority of American voters that the Republicans were no longer even trying to be a party of government.

There are those on the left of the Democratic Party who might have called the ACA's failure a blessing in disguise: the US health care system would still be in desperate need of a complete overhaul and, with the milquetoast Heritage Foundation-inspired solution stillborn, the only remaining choice would be genuine UHC. Whether that would have worked or not, the health care issue would certainly have been further fuel on the fire of the electorate's anger in the 2016 election cycle.
 
Problem for Republicans

This could become a major problem for the Republicans. Basically, Obama could challenge the Republicans to publish a detailed plan of their own. As with any major legislation, the details will upset some one. The proposal to eliminate the state borders on medical insurance policies would take power from the states and move it to the federal level. The proposal to give a large tax credit to purchase medical insurance has the challenge of people having to purchase the policy in the current year and then get the income tax refund in February or March of the next year. If the people who need the tax credit to pay for the insurance premiums, how do you get them the money the year that they need it?

I am sure that there are other challenges. The Democrats could push the Republicans for details and then let the public decide. The Republicans could find themselves equally unpopular.

Regards

Stubear1012
 

jahenders

Banned
Obamacare or not, Obama would still be reelected in 2012. By then it was clear to the majority of American voters that the Republicans were no longer even trying to be a party of government.

There are those on the left of the Democratic Party who might have called the ACA's failure a blessing in disguise: the US health care system would still be in desperate need of a complete overhaul and, with the milquetoast Heritage Foundation-inspired solution stillborn, the only remaining choice would be genuine UHC. Whether that would have worked or not, the health care issue would certainly have been further fuel on the fire of the electorate's anger in the 2016 election cycle.

If Obamacare fails to pass, it's hard to see the butterflies.

First, the Obamacare battle was THE biggest contribution to a dysfunctional presidential/congressional relationship -- Obama had totally 'rode roughshod' over the Republicans, giving them near zero input on Obamacare and doing a LOT to sour that relationship and the relationship of Dems/Reps within congress. So, if Obamacare fails, that relationship may not sour as badly. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi might even decide it makes sense to work with the Republicans -- instead, they took the opposite lesson.

Second, if Obamacare fails, there will probably be a significant effort on an alternative. That'll take LOTS of presidential/congressional focus, leaving less time for some of the other contentious issues.
 
Top