This is not a radical reform but it is a major reform

This is not a radical reform, but it is a major reform. "In one sentence key, Barack Obama summary will, Sunday evening, the entire scope of his bet to high risk on the reform of the health care system. In the aftermath of the "historic" vote of the House of representatives which approved by 219 votes against 212, the most important reform of the U.S. social security system since 1965, the Democratic President makes dividends from his tenacity. Although technically, the Senate must still endorse the reform by the simple majority (of 51 votes out of 100) today thanks to the procedure of "reconciliation", this is more than a formality.

While most analysts gave for "dead" in the aftermath of the January 19, day of the victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, this decisive success gives impetus to the reform of Barack Obama policy. "This vote is not the victory of a party, but a victory for the good s sen," insisted the Democratic President in challenging the way in which his project was caricatured by the Republicans. "What will remain is not a system managed by the Government feared by some or the status quo that serves the interests of the industry of insurance, but a health care system incorporating the ideas of the two parties and that works best for the American people", further underlined Barack Obama be keeping property of any partisan triumphalism.

A leap forward

Even if the reform of 940 billion over 10 years represents a leap forward, with the extension of medical coverage to 32 million Americans (about 46 million people who are today devoid), it is still far from the one-stop system ("single pay") to the European. In drawing lessons from the failure of Bill Clinton in 1993, the Obama administration has opted for the pragmatic approach of progressive universalism ("incremental universalism") by abandoning the idea of a "public option" along the way for the benefit of the establishment of a cooperative non-profit insurance sector. A victory on the same lobbies if the timing of this legislative success is unexpected for the Democratic majority in mid-term elections for eight months, it is not entirely without risk in the medium term. First, because the vote reform without a single Republican voice - in contrast to the American tradition of major texts-, is seen as a failure of "the bipartisan approach" originally by Barack Obama. It may lead the Republicans to radicalized before the November 2 elections. Then, because the opinion public American, still very divided on the benefits of reform, be vigilant on the first concrete effects of the reform expected in 2010: ban on insurers to deny medical coverage to people with pre-existing illnesses, a program of reinsurance for the mature workers aged 55 to 64... Finally, employers remain divided on the effects of the reform: If Wal-Mart distribution giant has not hidden its support, Caterpillar, which funds medical coverage of some 120,000 employees, fears an increase of 2 of medical expenses in the first year, due to the removal of subsidies. Long term, the success of the reform will be also judged on its goal of reducing the Federal deficit of 13 billion over the next ten years.

In all cases, even if the left wing of the Democratic Party regrets the abandonment of the creation of a public option, the success of Barack Obama, which has benefited from the decisive support of the President of the House of representatives, Nancy Pelosi, (read below) represents an indisputable victory on lobbies. Less than eight months of the mid-term elections, this crucial could allow us President long taxed indecision, boost reforms in financial regulation or fight against warming, two large projects where the weight of the lobbies remains crucial in Washington

The reform of American health care system on