Rigby Elizabeth, Clark Jennifer Hayes, Pelika Stacey
George Washington University.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2014 Feb;39(1):57-95. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2395181. Epub 2013 Nov 5.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) passed with no Republican votes and was accompanied by intense criticism that the reform was "rammed through" the legislative process by the majority party. By contrast, many Democrats emphasized the extensive yearlong debate over health care reform and argued that the final bill represented a compromise of good ideas from both parties. We undertake a policy-centered analysis to help reconcile these conflicting reports of this legislative episode. Drawing on real-time accounts published in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, we compare the success of Democratic and Republican Parties' policy proposals in terms of centrality to the policy agenda and inclusion in the enacted legislation. Our findings indicate that Republican-backed proposals were more present on the policy agenda than in the final legislation--although both were dominated by Democratic policy proposals. In this case, the major limit on majority party power seemed to be intraparty conflict, rather than opposition from the minority party.
2010年的《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)在没有共和党人投票支持的情况下通过,同时伴随着激烈批评,称该改革是多数党在立法过程中“强行通过”的。相比之下,许多民主党人强调了围绕医疗改革进行的长达一年的广泛辩论,并认为最终法案代表了两党好主意的妥协。我们进行了一项以政策为中心的分析,以帮助调和关于这一立法事件的这些相互矛盾的报道。借鉴发表在国会山报纸《点名报》上的实时报道,我们从对政策议程的核心地位以及在已颁布立法中的纳入情况方面,比较民主党和共和党政策提案的成功程度。我们的研究结果表明,共和党支持的提案在政策议程上比在最终立法中更突出——尽管两者都以民主党政策提案为主导。在这种情况下,多数党权力的主要限制似乎是党内冲突,而非少数党的反对。