We all know “the law” is important—we perhaps even revere it. When Congress and the president create a law, we have to stick by it, for otherwise, why bother even having laws at all? If we respect the wishes of past elected representatives when they reach an agreement by majority vote, then laws we make now will be respected in turn in the future, and all will harmonize—or so it seems in theory.
Then ObamaCare happened.
The Affordable Care Act seems to have mystical properties: a point of relief for some, yet a possible hardship for business owners; an impassioned point of dissent in the politics of the last few years; and, most importantly, one of the chief bargaining chips in a bid to keep the government running or not.
As the impending shutdown of federal government entities looms ever-closer, House Republicans have found the perfect way to stick it to Obama, and finally have some traction: delay the health bill, or no government funding at all. It is no surprise Republicans dislike ObamaCare, and it wouldn’t be so far-fetched to assume that insiders likely saw this ultimatum coming. However, the situation begs the question: is this an appeal for compromise, or simple coercion that goes against the fundamentals of governance itself?
ObamaCare is complicated and will likely cause many problems even as it does a great deal of good. While it mandates that all employees in large and medium-sized companies get healthcare, employers may seek to save money by reducing the number of hours their employees work—the law does not require employer coverage for part-time workers. Additionally, there could be lay-offs.
We have all heard the speculation, and we all know that the law isn’t perfect. But it is a law. The claim by one group that an accord reached by the majorities in both houses of Congress and by the President of the United States just shouldn’t count anymore, without the consent of the rest of our lawmakers, is erroneous, rude, tyrannical, and fundamentally un-American. What happened to “my fellow Americans,” or “the United States” rather than “these States United?”
As a Republican, I despise ObamaCare. I would like it gone, and I’d rather have a President Romney in the White House pushing tax decreases and budget overhauls. But that’s just not how it is. Throwing a hissy fit over the issue by threatening to stop all government function, which would do irreparable damage to the economy, especially in sectors such as research that depend on public funding, is not the way to go. It makes the party look weak and juvenile, it makes the United States government look like a joke to the world, and it completely undermines what it means to pass a law.
Of course, at the same time there is good reason why House Republicans are acting in such a way. While the manner in which they are carrying it out is unjustified, this latest attempt to push back against ObamaCare is almost necessary to finally get the serious attention of Democrats, who have put up a “talk to the hand” attitude at any proposed change to the law whatsoever. How can one expect compromise if one is uncompromising?
Thus, I find fault on the other side of this political “waiting room” as well. It is no surprise Republicans feel this adamant about the Affordable Care Act, and the unwavering nature of Senate Democrats and the President has clearly pushed the House to the edge. Were the countless votes to repeal the law in the House not enough? Were the doubts raised even by Democrats about certain parts of the massive bill not enough? Was the clear sentiment that nothing could truly get done in Washington until the air was cleared over healthcare not enough to spur President Obama to concede just a fragment of his enormous and far-reaching legislation?
The nature of it all raises doubts over whether the law, once implemented, will even reach its full potential, as so many people who are obstinately opposed to it will remain so, and will do whatever they can to skirt around it. I do not intend to say ObamaCare will achieve nothing without consent from half of Congress and their constituents. Trying to impose a law that only 50 percent of Americans support, however, will prove exceedingly difficult. The law won’t be as effective as it could, and malice over the issue will only continue.
In the end, both sides need to stop whining and they need to do it now. Compromise is the only answer: we can’t threaten to stop the government every time we don’t agree on something, and we cannot expect people to happily uphold what they obviously hate in many aspects. Washington needs to do what’s right for America right now, and not what’s expected from their parties. They need to do their job, and if they get voted out as a result, or face political backlash, well, that’s just part of the job description.
It sounds like Washington needs a time out, but, of course, there lies the problem.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.