4 ms·

And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on heal

And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).

pas 7y ago
It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books. Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  > It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate (), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill. My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like. Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative. (*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".
  - masonic 7y ago
    Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term He did so twice (1965 and 2009).
- masonic 7y ago
  It received just enough to pass, Only Democrat votes. Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats were not allowed to even see the final bill before the vote.
  - pas 7y ago
    It passed after Dems lost the supermajority, no? Hm, I looked it up, this is pretty funny, that one Republican voted with the Dems, but 39 Dems voted against. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml Probably some voted against because it did not go far enough? The Senate vote is (exactly?) split on party lines: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... 60-to-39, so they probably had the magic 60 to pass despite filibuster.
    - masonic 7y ago
      one Republican voted with the Dems No, you're looking at the wrong bill. This[0] is the vote on the actual, final ACA. [0] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).

pas 7y ago

It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books. Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.

humanrebar 7y ago
> It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate (), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill. My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like. Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative. (*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".
- masonic 7y ago
  Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term He did so twice (1965 and 2009).
masonic 7y ago
It received just enough to pass, Only Democrat votes. Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats were not allowed to even see the final bill before the vote.
- pas 7y ago
  It passed after Dems lost the supermajority, no? Hm, I looked it up, this is pretty funny, that one Republican voted with the Dems, but 39 Dems voted against. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml Probably some voted against because it did not go far enough? The Senate vote is (exactly?) split on party lines: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... 60-to-39, so they probably had the magic 60 to pass despite filibuster.
  - masonic 7y ago
    one Republican voted with the Dems No, you're looking at the wrong bill. This[0] is the vote on the actual, final ACA. [0] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml