Thirty-three is the number of times the House has voted to repeal The Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three. I understand the notion of “politicking”, and I understand that election years inherently hurt the legislative process. But there has to be a threshold. There has to be a point when Congress can no longer be called a legislative body, when it no longer deserves the seal of the United States.
We have to build an independent, fighting movement for universal healthcare from the ground up, starting with local struggles such as the fight for single-payer in Vermont and the successful struggle that won life-saving liver transplants for two undocumented immigrants in Chicago. Only through these kinds of struggles can we expose the crooked priorities of the for-profit healthcare industry and push for the sane solution, affordable healthcare for all.
The current split within the American society and economic uncertainty made the Obamacare more likely to strengthen Romney’s position. On the contrary, most of the reform supporters were seemingly going to support Obama in any case (whether the bill was passed or not). Why did Obama need to adopt the healthcare in his first term and accept all the risks associated to playing on the nerves of the independent Republican-leaning public?
Obama retreated from universal single-payer before even running for president. The Democrats squelched single-payer advocates and even derailed a bill that did propose single-payer healthcare by expanding Medicare for all.
President Obama took on one of the worst crises in American history in one of the most politically polarized periods of American history and made lemonade. He passed historic legislation, he pulled America back from the brink of economic collapse, and he knows how to moonwalk.
Though the Court’s ruling was a victory for the Obama administration, especially four months before the presidential election, the opinion does not endorse liberalism. For the moment, the Chief Justice silenced criticisms of his court.
The law is not perfect, nor fully operational yet (the mandate not becoming effective until 2014). But, at least the question now can now be “how will it work?” rather than “is the law even constitutional?”
In the first installment of this forum, Hussein Elbakri, of the Columbia Political Review, analyzed the arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. Next Noah Fram, of the Vanderbilt Political Review, discussed the Act from the standpoint of public policy, asking directly if the bill is “a normative good for society.” If we believe Hussein that the bill could be considered constitutional because it is a rational political solution to the healthcare problem, I hope I can jump off from that point and delve into just why the politics are so controversial.
Much has been said about the current debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), especially with respect to its fiscal responsibility and constitutionality. However, both of these topics skim over a fairly fundamental aspect of the new law: What, in fact, would it do? And is it a normative “good” overall?
“Can the government make you buy cell phones?” The question Chief Justice Roberts asked during oral arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is at the heart of fears spurred by many who oppose the bill.
Follow us at
Like us on
Recent Comments