Was it a mistake for Obama to focus on health care reform so early?

[Frodo]

In retrospect, was it a mistake for President Obama to have put so much focus, so much political capital on health care reform when he did, instead of on job creation and rebuilding infrastructure?  

  

[Link]

In retrospect, was it a mistake for President Obama to have put so much focus, so much political capital on health care reform when he did, instead of on job creation and rebuilding infrastructure?  

  

No.  If you are a leader you have to do the right thing even if its not the most politically expedient thing.

[courts]

Democrat: No.

[BigSkyBob]

Obama's mistake was to stand for the office. He simply wasn't up to the job.

[courts]

From the perspective of Obama it made perfect sense. He had already shoved through a stimulus, plus a bunch of other rebates and gimmicks on top of QE. It was either get healthcare shoved through too or wait another term basically (if it ever came). None of that is an endorsement of any of the above for the less attentive, btw. Anyway:

Obama's mistake was to stand for the office.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The mistake was to cock it up.

[King]

In retrospect, was it a mistake for President Obama to have put so much focus, so much political capital on health care reform when he did, instead of on job creation and rebuilding infrastructure?  

  

No.  If you are a leader you have to do the right thing even if its not the most politically expedient thing.

Except they didn't do the right thing as what ending up passing as 'Obamacare' will end up being neutral reform.

[memphis]

His mistake was trying to make it a bipartisan reform. The GOP was never going to play ball. He wasted a full year trying to water down the bill enough to make them happy.  The bill also needed some cutesy name and a poster child. Call it the HEART act or name it after one of the countless Americans who has died for lack of care.

[Paul Kemp]

Yes.

[anvi]

I think he did it for two reasons. 

First, he was convinced by what I presume were Democratic House members that a big sweeping health care bill wouldn't pass Congress without a Dem majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, so he had to seize the moment.

Second, Obama told a lot of stories on the campaign trail about how his mother, afflicted with cancer in her last year or so, spent large amounts of time on the phone seeking coverage from insurance companies.  I think there was a personal component to the matter for him, and guaranteed issue was the prize he wanted to win.

Was it a mistake to pursue health care reform so early?  No, not per se. It's an incredibly important issue, and how it is handled will have a profound impact on our country's future.   Had the stimulus bill been better crafted and more effective, and had the health care bill not been such a total cf by the time it was done, it would have been fine.  The details of these bills and their results were the disaster, not the pursuit itself.

[Sam Spade]

The problem was really not choosing to focus on health care reform or on the timing, rather the problem lies in the manner in which the plan was pushed forward.  Regardless of what has been posited on this site, in general, a majority of the populace opposed it because they felt that it was shoved on them without telling them what it was.  This lack of knowledge or transparency made it such that people thought that Obama was trying to bamboozle them, and as such, caused them to put faith in the extreme connotations of what the plan actually was (death panels??). 

Part of this has to do with the fact that every Democrat remembered Hillarycare, and remembered that once her detailed plan was presented, it was torn apart by amplifying the worst things about it (most of it was bad anyway, but whatever).  So, the natural reaction (as is often in life) was to do the precise opposite - tell no one what the Obamacare was, so that the broader idea would not get destroyed in details.  Someone forgot to tell these people that when you present no plan, it is insanely difficult to convince people you have a broader idea in the first place, except for some gargantuan leviathan that no one understands and most people fear.

Of course, it is quite possible that any method would have been susceptible to attack.  I've argued for years that Dems, politically, should campaign on health care all the time, but never do anything about it but incremental change because people are for the idea of universal health care in theory, but against it in application.

[J. J.]

In retrospect, was it a mistake for President Obama to have put so much focus, so much political capital on health care reform when he did, instead of on job creation and rebuilding infrastructure?  

  

If you want to make it an either/or choice, yes.  I would question if it was.  I think he could have done both.  It was a mistake in not doing both.

In terms

I think he did it for two reasons. 

First, he was convinced by what I presume were Democratic House members that a big sweeping health care bill wouldn't pass Congress without a Dem majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, so he had to seize the moment.

I think this point is the most compelling reason.  It was unlikely that he could have waited.  He had to strike when the iron was hot.  On that level, it was no mistake.

As a political matter, Obamacare was a mistake on several levels. 

First, Obama assumed it would become popular and save the Democratic Party in 2010.  It didn't.  It doesn't look like it will be any more popular in 2012.  The signature issue of the Democrats is a net negative for the party.

Second, it runs the risk of being struck down as unconstitutional, at least in part.    It is not only his signature policy but it has been a Democratic signature policy since 1992 (and arguably 1948).  If struck, it becomes Obama, and the Democratic Party violating the Constitution.  That could have a lasting negative for the Democrats.

Had they listen to Sam, they'd be in better shape.

[Link]

If struck, it becomes Obama, and the Democratic Party violating the Constitution.  That could have a lasting negative for the Democrats.

Uuuhhh... ok. Nap time.

[anvi]

Indeed, the whole venture was extraordinarily risky, and the bill got progressively worse as the process dragged out. The consequences could unfold just as you say, J.J., we'll see.

I could fall on my sword here, as I'm always tempted to do with this issue, and say that the opportunity the moment offered justified Obama giving it a shot, and that, if someone goes down in politics, there are worse reasons to go down than trying to do something important.  It's for this reason, among others, that I don't buy the idea at all that "Obama has no balls."  Yeah, he actually does.

But, in the long run, it's the execution that really matters.  And, in this case, there is no denying it, the execution was terrible.  Obama's problem is above the neck, not below it.

[J. J.]

Indeed, the whole venture was extraordinarily risky, and the bill got progressively worse as the process dragged out. The consequences could unfold just as you say, J.J., we'll see.

I'm not saying it will happen; I'm saying it is a risk (and an unnecessary one).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are right.  Obama gambled twice with Obamacare.  First, that it would be popular.  Second, that it would be constitutional.

He didn't use his head for the first one.  He may not have for the second.  The first one could be enough to defeat him; the combination would be enough to defeat him.  He would survive being popular but unconstitutional, he could survive being unpopular, but constitutional, but he would not survive being unpopular and unconstitutional.

[greenforest32]

The mistake wasn't when it happened, but what happened. The stimulus was too small and spent in the wrong areas (1/3 tax cuts) and the health care reform bill was the 1990s Republican gift to the for-profit insurance industry instead of the liberal single-payer proposal.

In short the content produced from elective office is too weak compared to the campaign. Really sums up his presidency and the Democrats national results so far. It's why they lost in 2010 after winning in 2006. 2012 won't be as good as 2008 either.

Liberalism is popular. Conservatism isn't. Even when pushed by the supposed "left-wing" party.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

The mistake wasn't when it happened, but what happened. The stimulus was too small and spent in the wrong areas (1/3 tax cuts) and the health care reform bill was the 1990s Republican gift to the for-profit insurance industry instead of the liberal single-payer proposal.

In short the content produced from elective office is too weak compared to the campaign. Really sums up his presidency and the Democrats national results so far. It's why they lost in 2010 after winning in 2006. 2012 won't be as good as 2008 either.

Liberalism is popular. Conservatism isn't. Even when pushed by the supposed "left-wing" party.

I would disagree with the idea that many people cling to liberalism over conservatism.  When it comes to America, it's usually a matter of which side can polarize the populace, and in this respect, Obama made a huge mistake by not letting the Democrats define healthcare, but rather letting the Republicans, setting the tone for 2010.

Politics is a game of popularity, and of public perception, however, it isn't the ideology that is popular -- it's whether you can get people to hate the opposing side.

[t_host1]

NO! how else would all the progressive Marxist's survive? Without the controlled confiscation of life, the consumption of the equity and liberty from others  - explains why, they the Dem's, socialist/marxist, lib's and so forth are in a fight for their existence.

The so-called reform of health care is just one of the tools to transform out of constitutional governing as Obama has stated many times - forget about the past declarations and such - the why America became.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No; it was a mistake to cave in to the Republicans at every stage of the process.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Out of four year term, the first year in the only moment you can actually do something huge.

Next year, you have midterm elections campaign and then about two years of presidential campaign.

Obama knew it's now or never.

[Paul Kemp]

Out of four year term, the first year in the only moment you can actually do something huge.

Then he probably should have gone for single payer.

[lowtech redneck]

Out of four year term, the first year in the only moment you can actually do something huge.

Then he probably should have gone for single payer.

He wouldn't have gotten it through congress, too many Democrats were opposed to it. 

[Sbane]

Pushing through a corporatist bill didn't help the Democrats though. Of course many of the Democrats opposed to a better health care bill lost anyways, so maybe there is some justice in the universe.

At least Obama got the ball rolling. Even if Republicans change Obamacare, they dare not repeal all of it. That is assuming they have any brains left.

[Landslide Lyndon]

His mistake was letting a corporate stooge like Baucus running the show.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

HUBRIS - this POTUS made the mistake of  going against the will of The People who elected him in the first place.  ignoring those town halls was a fatal mistake.