It is so amazing to me that one of PG columnist Ruth Ann Dailey’s complaints about the passing of the Affordable Care Act is the lack of bipartisan support (“Sebelius Speech Missing More Than a Page,” April 14, Portfolio). As a strict constitutionalist is she somehow now supporting a twist on congressional voting? Should Congress, after a vote count, see how the parties voted and if the majority finds that the minority didn’t vote for the bill, not pass that bill? Is it because we may hurt their feelings? I don’t get it. She doesn’t complain when — along party lines — the Equal Pay Act was voted down.
And forget about her complaining about the absence of a majority in the Supreme Court’s decision not to rewrite that congressional law. I mean those rotten nonactivist conservative judges!
The Affordable Care Act is exactly what she called it, health insurance reform, and not my favorite approach. Whether it will work or not is still hard to predict. That some may be adversely affected by state regulations that have been applied to the act is a state’s rights issue, something close to her heart and should be dealt with at that level.
This president asks all sides to be patient and to give it some time.
I mean it did take a few months and 2,000 lives to finally find out that those who predicted and maybe really knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction were proven right.