Obsession

Majority Leader Harry Reid accused the Republicans of being 'obsessed' by Obamacare and couldn't figure out why.  Let's have a look at the history of big and controversial legislation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - now widely credited solely to the Democratic Party - was passed with 199 Democratic votes (65% of the Democrats) and 166 Republicans (80%).  Not so controversial when you look at the votes but viewed so today.  Anyway, very bipartisan.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was even more lopsided with 400 votes in favor vs. only 104 opposed, getting the majority of each party.

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (part of LBJ's War on Poverty) passed with 32 Republican votes and 254 Democrat votes.  Clearly not a favorite of Republicans but still able to coax about a sixth of them to vote in favor.

No Child Left Behind (2001) passed with huge bipartisan support, 473 to 53.

Medicare Part D (2003) passed by a very narrow margin, but enjoyed bipartisan support.

The Authorization for Military Force in Afghanistan (2001) - which has become extremely controversial since it was approved - had almost unanimous support, passing 98 - 0 in the Senate and with only 1 vote in opposition (Barbara Lee of CA) in the House.

The Authorization for the Iraq War (2003) got 263 Republican votes and 103 Democrat votes in favor.  Of course, not long after this, most of the Democrats denounced their votes with claims of being 'lied to' by the administration.  Nonetheless, this now hugely controversial vote enjoyed considerable bipartisan support.

The Affordable Care Act (2010) got 279 Democrat votes and 0 Republican votes.  Also, not to be overlooked, it had 34 Democrats voting against it.  The opposition to the bill was bipartisan but not the support.  Here is the most consequential legislation in decades and yet it was passed on an entirely partisan vote.  Why is anyone surprised that the party that voted 100% in opposition would be so determined to undermine it?

The President and the Democrats continually say that the Supreme Court upheld the law.  Yes, but the President has dramatically altered what the Supreme Court approved.  He has delayed the Employer Mandate (without benefit of Congressional Legislation), the cap on benefits, subsidy based on income, and about half the deadlines.  The President has offered more than 2000 waivers from the law.  He has provided for the Congress to get health care subsidies not available to the common folk, effectively exempting them from the law.  The law did not provide for the Federal Government to setup Exchanges but they've done it anyway because half the states declined to do so!  This is not the law the Congress passed or the Supreme Court found Constitutional.  Presidents do not get to rewrite laws to their liking.  Considering this, why is anyone surprised that some are adamantly opposed?  This is not the rule of law.