After the passage of the landmark, healthcare reform legislation, earlier this year, it appears that this issue has taken a backseat to many others, such as financial reform, the economy, Iraq War, War on Terror, and more. However, given the many criticisms from most ideological factions and demographic groups pertainning to the healthcare legislation, this issue seems like it will be revisited. It appears that many at the top believe that the future of healthcare policy will be based on the outcome of the midterm elections. I both, agree and disagree, and while you may be right about me sounding like a wishy-washy pol, there is strong evidence to support both of these opposing claims.
I can see why healthcare policy will be impacted by the 2010 midterm elections, for several reasons. If the Republicans gain more seats than anticipated in both Houses on Capitol Hill, they may feel emboldened to stop all of the parts of the bill that promote an activist government, well, except for the giveaway to the insurance companies. If Democratic losses are not significant, they may think this shows that the public is indeed on the side of liberals regarding this piece of legislation. This will probably result in them becoming confident to add on, to the existing legislation. My prediction makes two separate cases, which is that I think 1) Republican gains in the House will be substantial, but 2) that Republican gains in the Senate will be miniscule. Why? 19/33 Senate seats up in 2010 will be defended by Republicans, while only 14/33 are going to be defended by Democrats. I would agree with those who believe that the Republicans will successfully defend almost all of their Senate seats. However, given that they are behind 10 seats, as well as that most Democratic Senators have been long-term, safe incumbents, it is hard to believe that the Dems will not be able to defend 5/14 seats. While there are obviously many other issues at hand, if my predictions are accurate, I would argue, that due to gridlock, the current healthcare policy will be the status quo in the near-future.
Still though, there is a counterargument to this that I agree with, which is seemingly contradictory to my earlier set of arguments. It is that changes to the healthcare legislation, will not be made, at least not because of the 2010 elections. Given how many issues Obama is tackling, efforts to change policy doesn't only include healthcare. Whether it be the Rockefeller (Northeastern) Republican moderates, the fiscal conservatives, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, you name it, there is so much activism on a host of issues, thus, all sides must choose their battles carefully. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that regardless of 2010, the level of partisanship will make damn sure that pushes for change won't be deterred by any of the possible results. Lastly, given that President Obama is governing as an unapologetic, fiscal liberal, essentially means that unless Republicans can build a supermajority coalition, they are probably aware that in terms of how realistic it is to alter the policy, pushing this may not be worth the effort. And for those of you who are fiscally conservative, please don't flaunt your amnesia. Your most conservative icons such as Reagan and George W. were are as partisan and divisive as they come.
I hope this article conveys the various perspectives on my central issue. Only time will tell which of the perspectives is/are right.
Comments