Friday, May 24, 2013
the newspaper - University of Toronto's independent weekly
Thursday, 07 January 2010 22:21

Blue Dogs, Republicans tie Obama's hands on healthcare

Joseph Uranowski wonders if Obama can be America's Wilfrid Laurier

Written by  Joseph Uranowski
Blue Dogs, Republicans tie Obama's hands on healthcare Mike Winters

Wilfrid Laurier, Canada’s seventh Prime Minister, was known as “the Great Conciliator” through his tenure as PM from 1896 to 1911. Laurier managed to reign as the fourth longest serving Prime Minister (with a huge majority government win in 1900 and 1904) by always seeking compromise.

PM Laurier did not have altruistic motives behind his work but was forced out of necessity to reconcile his party, which was split geographically and between Protestants and Catholics.

Barack Obama, America’s 44th President, ran on a centrist platform and has been forced to deal with a party divided ideologically even though, like Laurier’s Liberals, the Democrats have majorities in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate while holding the White House. Where Laurier is remembered for his “Naval Compromise” and “Reciprocity” President Obama is wagering his legacy on the success of the Health Insurance Reform bill that passed the Senate 60 – 40 (a strict party-line vote) on Christmas Eve.

The United States is #1 in percentage of GDP spent on health care (approximately 15%) though they remain far from first place when ranked in terms of quality of care. A 2009 estimate puts the number of uninsured in the United States at 47 million. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Presidents have spent time and political on reforming the United States’ Health Care system. In the 1960s Lyndon B. Johnson failed because of lobbying by the health insurance industry and Blue Dogs (Southern Democrats) blocking reform, Bill Clinton failed because of a Republican Congress and accusations that his administration was too secretive in its attempts. Health reform in the United States is the equivalent of fighting a land war in Russia for Presidential administrations.

So what does the population of the United States, and President Obama, get from the Senate Bill? H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does not contain a “public option” but does have an insurance exchange program which would allow those with insurance to keep a similar program when switching careers. The Senate Bill will increase the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.35% on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. The bill finally makes it illegal for insurances companies to deny coverage. All of this, if the Senate bill was signed into law today, would come into effect on December 26, 2011.

Lester B. Pearson, another Liberal PM forced to compromise by presiding over a minority government, passed the Medicare Act in 1966. In 1984 under Brian Mulroney, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors.

From a Canadian perspective the Senate bill, which is still a ways away from being signed into law, seems weak by comparison. Those in favour of more comprehensive health reform in the United States decry obstructionist Republicans and conservative Democrats.

The reason that H.R. 3590 doesn’t include a public option and the United States’ health care system is nowhere close to “socialized medicine” (a term popularized by President Reagan) is their system of government. If the Prime Minister of Canada isn’t passing bills quickly, efficiently and without checks and balances then it isn’t working right. Though Prime Minster Harper doesn’t have a majority, the Conservative Government has operated that way (with no real opposition to prevent them.) John A. Macdonald and the Father’s of Confederation designed our government to give majority governments as much power as possible. The American founding fathers designed the United States’ government to have three equal branches (legislative, judicial and executive) with as many institutional veto points as possible.

President Obama is quick to point out that this isn’t “Obamacare”, it is the US Congress’ health care bill. This isn’t an attempt to distance himself from a bill that doesn’t go far enough for his liking but a pragmatic admission of his own institutional limitations. Perhaps President Obama will be America’s Great Conciliator.

Additional Info

  • Subtitle: Joseph Uranowski wonders if Obama can be America's Wilfrid Laurier

6 comments

  • Comment Link Dan Craig Monday, 01 February 2010 11:13 posted by Dan Craig

    Sorry. Edit: Rothbard (I don't think) didn't win the Nobel prize, but his Austrian school colleague Hayek did. Hayek is a good substitute for Rothbard if the economists we should listen to need to have a Nobel prize.

  • Comment Link Dan Craig Friday, 29 January 2010 12:53 posted by Dan Craig

    For starters, I would recommend that the US not adopt the policies that made the Great Depression much longer than it needed to be. FDR hardly got anyone out of the Depression... It wasn't over until after he was dead and the War was over. Both Hoover and Roosevelt were big spenders and their policies lead to a decade of suffering. This financial crisis came from big business being buddy-buddy with 'regulators' like Geithner in the NY Fed, Paulson, Bernanke and Greenspan. The last thing we need is to listen to the guys who got us into this mess. Cheap money and big budgets only prolong the crisis while select elites get rich. As for an alternative economist, try Murray Rothbard, who also won a nobel prize. Freidman also won a Nobel Prize, but I wouldn't recommend listening to his advice either. About the Soviets, they were actually invited by the government of Afghanistan at the time. Finally, I would argue that the if the US with their over a hundred military bases all over the planet, several (illegal) military interventions, and strong-arm foreign economic policies isn't an empire, then I don't think either of us knows what an empire is.

  • Comment Link Bob Loblaw Tuesday, 26 January 2010 16:21 posted by Bob Loblaw

    Dan Craig: Okay, now I better understand your position. You asked: when has a politician run the economy? Answer: Ever since FDR pulled America out of the Great Depression. And every other instance when an financial bubble has burst. Corporations, businesses, banks, etc., are profit-seeking institutions that need to be regulated by an overseeing (but not directly involved) institution. I don't know of any institution better than an elected government (something the Soviets didn't have) to do that for US citizens.

    Also, if you think Obama is misguided in his economic policies, then what sound economic policy do you propose? Till then, I'll listen to economists (like the Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman) who mostly agree with Obama.

    Finally, the Soviets didn't have the same goals as the US in Afghanistan. For them it was about expanding the Soviet empire (they shared a border with the Afghans which they sought to expand); for the US, it's about security and establishing a functioning democracy. Unlike the USSR, the US is not an imperial power (e.g., Japan and Germany).

  • Comment Link Dan Craig Friday, 22 January 2010 22:10 posted by Dan Craig

    My point was that Obama and his supporters like to point blame at Congress for impeding progress. Although I'm not a big fan of Congress either, at least they're slowing down his massive spending a little bit. The idea that the president should even try to overhaul the economy is a sad representation of where we are in politics today. Since when does a politician run the economy? It didn't work very well with the Soviets... Afghanistan didn't work so well for the Soviets either, and maybe they 'cared' about Afghans too. To address the rest of your comment, it's not that I think Obama's reform is too slow. I think it's misguided and I'm glad it's going slow, but it should be reversed altogether if America wants to come out of this on top. Where do they get all the money for their budget??

  • Comment Link Bob Loblaw Thursday, 21 January 2010 02:43 posted by Bob Loblaw

    Dan, Obama's policies *are* in touch with reality. I love it when people criticize the slow pace of Obama's reform agenda. You would rather that he wake up tomorrow and completely overhaul the banking, insurance and finance system and the stock markets are supposed to continue with business as usual? An abrupt or "macho" move will cause havoc in the stock markets around the world and result in sheer panic. Do you want 2009 to repeat?

    More troops to Afghanistan was the right thing to do. The Afghans need security, not a president who's going to turn his back on them when they're suffering the worst violence in years. Maybe you don't give a shit about Afghans, but someone must.

    And the rest of your tirade made no sense. Obama is too weak to do anything significant, yet he's trying to "out macho" (sic) past presidents? Huh?

  • Comment Link Dan Craig Saturday, 09 January 2010 05:31 posted by Dan Craig

    I wonder how long Obama can keep up this idea that he is being held back by an anti-progressive Congress. Let's forget the idea that a President is supposed to be able to change the world, and let's consider just how unimaginative the current President is...

    He blames 'inflation hawks' and 'deficit hawks' for holding back his idea of a better American future. If only he could print more money without the world calling 'bankrupt' on his larger than life (larger than all of history) budget. I am tempted to believe him except for the fact that he offers nothing new and nothing that is even remotely in touch with reality.

    In Afghanistan, he wants more troops. In housing, he wants prices to go up. In healthcare, he wants insurance companies to remember their 'civic duty'. In banking, he wants the same dimwits that were bailed-out to learn how to run banks properly. All of this without doing harm to the American currency, the American brand, and most of all to his own legacy.

    Welcome to American politics. Obama is an American President and he is trying to out macho all of them, Reagan, JFK, FDR, Clinton and Bush I and II. Obama cannot be Laurier or even Mandela because he is Ceasar.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.
Basic HTML code is allowed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...