Steve

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 150
  • Published : May 2, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Obama Health Care Reform
POLS 3125 WEEK 12 WEDNESDAY

Radio Interview
• Who is being interviewed?
•You

• What will you be asked?
• Why did the ACA make it through the many legislative hurdles to enacting health care reform, while Clinton’s health security plan did not?

What will you say?
Starting point:
◦Meta thesis:
◦ The politics around the ACA were different than the politics around Clinton’s Health Security plan, in ways that were more favorable to the passage of ACA than to Health Security.

What do we mean by “the politics”?...

Our 4 themes and other questions re. politics
1. Behavior internal to the Democratic Party during the Obama health care reform effort differed in ways favorable to reform passage as compared to internal Democratic Party behavior during the Clinton effort.

2. The ACA did not fight path dependence like the Clinton plan did. 3. The ACA did not alarm the protected public (did not disrupt pre-existing positive feedback effects) like the Clinton plan did.

4. In crafting the ACA, supporters of the plan did a better job of dealing with the political realities created by fragmented political institutions than did the supporters of the Clinton plan.

Okay, but be more specific…but also be concise!
I will do one example: In crafting the ACA, supporters of the plan did a better job of dealing with the political realities created by fragmented political institutions than did the supporters of the Clinton plan.

Strategy
1. Argue that fragmented political institutions were a key reason for the demise of the Clinton health care plan. 2. Give examples to support and clarify this argument.

3. Argue that the Obama administration’s strategy did a better job of accommodating the political realities that result from fragmented political institutions. 4. Give examples to support and clarify this argument.

Step 1
America’s fragmented political institutions—specifically the Clinton administration’s ineffective strategies in dealing with the power that interest groups have in American politics as a result of those fragmented institutions—were key in explaining the demise of the Clinton health care plan.

Specifically…
A major implication of fragmented political institutions is that interest groups have many doors on which they can knock to try to express their concerns and receive a response to those concerns. Another implication is that coalitions must be forged between actors who may not want to cooperate. From Heaney (2006), we know that an interest group will have more influence over the content of policy if it is in a position to broker coalitions that would not otherwise form or hold together.

And so how did the Clinton effort fail at dealing with these political realities? A major implication of fragmented political institutions is that interest groups have many doors on which they can knock to try to express their concerns and receive a response to those concerns. The Task force met with many interest groups But it did not meet with all of them Interest groups that did not get a meeting felt left out of the process and threw great amounts of criticism at the task force Another implication is that coalitions must be forged between actors who may not want to cooperate. From Heaney (2006), we know that an interest group will have more influence over the content of policy if it is in a position to broker coalitions that would not otherwise form or hold together. Clinton tried to forge a broad coalition on his own, by moving center-right during the general election, moving left immediately after the election, and then moving slightly right again in the content of the proposals he offered for health care reform. It failed.

Okay, so how did Obama do better here?
The Obama administration was wary of having PhRMA be an enemy of the reform plan (Starr: 204). This wariness in part reflects the lessons of the Clinton reform effort (Starr: 204). In meetings, reform...
tracking img