HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA

There are two important aspects of the healthcare bill that narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. The first is that it will give healthcare coverage to 32 million Americans, who currently don't have it. Seen with European eyes, that can only be right.

Secondly, it rescues the Obama presidency from what might have been a complete disaster. After just over a year in office, and despite promising advances on a number of fronts, he lacks concrete achievements. By staking so much of his political capital on healthcare reform, an issue that stymied Bill and Hilary Clinton together, he effectively went for broke. After the recent election upset in Massachusetts, where the Republicans took Edward Kennedy's old seat, healthcare reform looked dead in the water. So he has done well to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Republican critics are complaining about the procedural measures in Congress, which have been used to pass the bill, notably the use of budget resolutions in the Senate, which only require 50 votes, instead of the normal 60 for new legislation (a figure which the Democrats, post-Massachusetts, no longer have). However, it is the critics which are in the wrong in my view. The Senate has already passed the bill that the House has just endorsed, and with the requisite 60 votes. In other words, the big issue has already been accepted. What will now happen is amendments. Most democracies work on the principle of a simple majority, and I can't see anything wrong with having a simple majority in the Senate amend something they have already accepted. Constitutional lawyers and irate Republicans may well get into a lather, but I can't see that the average American will.

What the average American may get into a lather about, on the other hand, is the effect of the legislation in practice. At the moment it appears to be deeply unpopular. But perhaps they will accept it in time. We'll see.

Walter Blotscher