The Political Effects of the Health Care Debate

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Health care, health care, health care. It’s all you see on the news, read in the papers, and hear on the radio. Will it pass? When? What will it look like if it does? What will things look like if it doesn't? We've been looking both at the broad strokes and picayune details of the various plans; today, we take a look at the potential ramifications of this debate on the political landscape.

The Democrats practically swept the 2006 elections and handily won the 2008 presidential elections, while the Republicans struggled with an identity crisis. But with this health care battle, has the G.O.P. found the grounds for a resurgence? Joining us with their take are Reihan Salam, from the New American Foundation, and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University.


Melissa Harris-Perry and Reihan S Salam

Hosted by:

Andrea Bernstein and Amy Holmes


Jesse Baker, David J Fazekas and Melissa Locker

Comments [3]


It is really irritating when you have people on without identifying their political affiliations. Amity Schlaes the other day as a seemingly objective commenter on the "death panel" nonsense. Reihan Salam today on health care. And why do you insist on framing the discussion, like the rest of the media, as Obama falling apart.

It was clear from the moment he started pushing for Congress to pass a bill that there would be, not opposition, but obstruction from the right. If the brilliant White House strategists have missed anything, it is that Republicans do not intend to support any health care reform just as they did not under Clinton and as with the stimulus. Thinking he is a post partisan president is perhaps Obama's biggest weakness. What do you think will happen when the "opposition" party and their spokes people in the media announce that they want him to fail.

They put party before country and have done so for 30 years. Stop trying to be so trendy and do some real journalism.

Aug. 18 2009 02:19 PM

It's hard to understand why some people would refuse a program like nationalized health care that will provide a safety-net for those in need (which could be you next.) I do think that people are being mislead by the groups that are benefitting from the current system. But, why is it so difficult for some people to think for themselves or do some investigations on their own. By the way, I know how the health industry functions in western Europe and in Japan and they are excellent.

Aug. 18 2009 09:18 AM

I am sure that people are so confused they don't really understand what reform means. Also, people are not comfortable with change and we need real change to do this right.

Howard Dean is correct. We can't not have a public option. There is just too much at stake.

No system is perfect, certainly not ours. We need to work on getting something out there that will work at least for the most part. Its better than the alternatives which leave so many people in desperate need. I think we have no choice but to have a public option but I also believe that having private insurance option is really about profit under the guise of taking care of people.

Aug. 18 2009 07:29 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.