The U.S. House's approval of health care reform Monday was little short of the expression ``historic'' ― in not just the American but global contexts and in not just narrow, medical but broad, economic terms.
For now, however, many provisions of the reform bill may dissatisfy more people than they satisfy, as seen by the overall negative public sentiment. Nor can the parliamentary maneuvering process be said to be flawless as some Republicans still complain.
All this suggests that for U.S. President Barack Obama, the current victory may turn into a political disaster in disguise if the backlash from disgruntled voters continues to November's mid-term elections and even to his reelection bid a few years later, although he's sure to do all he can to prevent this scenario from turning into reality.
The real struggle may have yet to start, as a conservative expert said, ``This marks the beginning of the next phase of the 100 year's war.''
This notwithstanding, we are certain history will say President Obama and his fellow Democrats did what was right and what they should have done ― freeing America from the disgraceful label of the ``only industrial country without national medical insurance.'' In strictest― and plain ― terms, the new system may produce net beneficiaries of only 15 million in the low-income bracket, or 6 percent of the U.S. population, at the expense of a far larger number of middle-class families.
Actually, however, this is what liberal politicians deserve praise for: upgrading their nation's public security and welfare to a higher level braving considerable political disadvantage. And they did so in no other country but America, the very bastion of what global economists call the free-for-all capitalism of cruel injustice.
For Koreans, who enjoy one of the best medical coverage systems in the world, the content of the reform may be of less interest than the political process it has undergone. Most impressive were the all-out efforts of President Obama and leading House Democrats in communicating with opponents and persuading them. Equally so were their willingness and flexibility to compromise when needed. No less praiseworthy was how most Republicans accepted their defeat, although not a single one showed much-needed bipartisanship.
Cheong Wa Dae may feel tempted to compare the U.S. politics with Korea's, especially with respect to its controversial setback from constructing a new administrative city, which also faces opposition's veto and adverse public opinions. But such comparison would be ill-advised, if not totally meaningless.
First of all, the U.S. President turned what he pledged to do during his campaign days into action, while President Lee Myung-bak is trying to revise ― or not to keep ― his campaign promise.
Second, unlike President Obama who ventured to throw himself in the middle of the opposition party, President Lee has not tried hard to persuade even opponents within his own party, but has just rebuked them for failing to understand what the chief executive might think as patriotic and historic decision.
Last and most importantly, the U.S. medical reform and Korea's new city plan are both for the sake of a small number of the population at the expense of overwhelming majority. The only difference is the former is for the struggling poor, while the latter is mainly for wealthy, vested interests. Comparison should be made not by form but by content.