On 2010-02-18, at 7:17 PM, Mike Beggs wrote:
> ... this healthcare debacle
> brings home to me (the) structural basis for it - that the setup of the
> legislatory institutions makes it incredibly difficult for a majority
> government to get through any major reform without getting a
> significant proportion of the other party on-side.
===========================
This is the pretext being used by the administration to explain it's retreat on health care, but I don't think I buy it.
The Democrats have a rock-solid majority in the Senate, although not the super-majority of 60 it ostensibly takes to pass new legislation.
I say "ostensibly" because my understanding is that the 60 rule is a Senate convention, not legally or constitutionally binding. So what is there to prevent the Obama administration, assuming it has the political will to do so, from breaking with the rule and ramming through a public option which is strongly and widely popular? Alternatively, it could extend medicare coverage to those 55 and over which, as an existing program, only requires 51 votes through the "reconcilation" process.
The Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats would rage and attempt to filibuster, but how much better would be the administration's current standing be with the public if, rather than capitulating, it used a filibuster to attack self-serving politicians in the pockets of the insurance lobby, themselves the beneficiaries of a generous taxpayer-paid medical plan?
It's not as if universal health care is so radical as to be unrealizable under capitalism, particularly when it demonstrably would result in significant savings as in the US.