This diary on the Australian health care system mentioned a thing called a "double disolution" as a key to how universal health care got passed here in 1974. I thought I'd quickly explain.
Our founders came up with a nifty safely valve. Namely, that if the Senate is being seriously obstructionist the whole Senate can be sent out to face re-election at 6 weeks notice. Fun huh?
In case folks in the US are wondering what was meant by "double disolution" in the comments on this piece I thought I'd explain what a double disolution is. It was central to the difficult birth of universal health cover here in Australia in 1974.
Our founders wanted our Senate to be a house of review but they recoginised that it could get out of hand. The constitution has a provision where if the Senate rejects important spending bills twice the Prime Minister can ask the Governer General to declare a double disolution election. This puts the whole House and Senate up for re-election at 6 weeks notice (normally only half the Senate is re-elected at once and then the new Senate doesn't take office until the following July).
After a double disolution election the bills that caused the issue can then be resubmitted to a joint sitting of the new House and Senate. Usually about 7 or 8 weeks after the GG pulls the election trigger.
As you might imagine this concentrates the mind of Senators just a bit. Especially if they know that the positions they are taking are likely to be bad news electorally. To know that if it gets deep enough they could find themsleves out on their arse in 6 weeks or sitting in a hostile joint sitting 2 weeks after that makes them think.
Mind you, as I write the Senate has already provided the PM with at least 2 DD triggers, one on cap and trade and one on federal state health funding and control (taking it off the states and giving it to the feds). The current conservative plurality in the Senate appears to believe that it can get by electorally or are too idealogical to care.
In 1974 this is how universal health care happened here. A conservative Senate blocked the bills twice and a double disolution was called which Labour won. The subsequent joint sitting passed the bills, and so now we've had univsersal health cover for the last 35 years. The Whitlam labour government lost the next election a year and a bit later after being dismissed by the GG. There is a sometimes a case made that voting for universal health cover was ultimately a career limiting move for Labour MPs but the demise of the Whitlam government was more complex (and messy) than that. In any case most, if not all, would probably say it was worth it. Something for current congressional dems to ponder.
The lesson may be that progressive health care is always hard to get enacted, regardless of time and place, but we may have got there a lot sooner than the US because our Senate has different rules.