Institutional and political obstacles to reform.

M. Weir

Health Affairs

Abstract:From the institutional and historical vantage point taken by Theda Skocpol and Hugh Heclo, the balance of an explanation about why Clinton’s health care reform plan failed is not any minor strategic or tactical error but rather the weight of the institutional and political obstacles that the administration confronted. I have identified four issues here. Scope of reform. The first puzzle is why the Clinton administration undertook what seems, with hindsight, to have been a tremendously risky process with so few political and environmental resources. Although Heclo does not address this question directly, he suggests that the decision to push comprehensive health care reform represented a continuation of the campaign mode into governing. Skocpol points to the favorable public opinion polls, but it would be useful to know more about the administration’s reading of these polls. Did it overinterpret or misread them, as some have suggested, or was the administration more aware of the risks than the discussion here has given it credit for? To understand why the administration acted as it did requires looking at how health care reform fit into the administration’s broader political strategy. Central to that strategy was a conscious attempt to build a new Democratic majority by combining the support of the middle-class and lowerincome groups. Enacting policies that would benefit both groups was a key element of this strategy; health care was seized upon as the most promising policy area in which to achieve these political objectives. Health care reform had many advantages: It did not evoke the racial divisions that have troubled the Democratic Party since the 1960s, and it was an “economic issue,” not a social issue. The Clinton plan itself. The second issue is why the administration chose the par-