Obamacare has very little to do with quality healthcare, however it certainly has a lot to do with the size and scope of government. Obamacare ensures that healthcare is increasingly and inevitably paid for by the government. In doing so, it fundamentally transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state. I give Obama and the Democrats a lot of credit; they were willing to pass a deeply unpopular, incredibly flawed bill because are in it for the long-haul and are willing to take a few mid-term shellackings to advance their long term agenda. They understand that enlarging the state is likely to benefit the political party that believes in and expands the reach of government. The recent election results validate the success of that strategy and demonstrate how over the long-term, society can be transformed (or deformed depending on your point of view) by government.
Republicans are wrong to blame uninformed voters (indeed most studies demonstrate that Republican voters are somewhat better informed than their Democratic counterparts), Hurricane Sandy or the Media. Even with an eloquent candidate, it's increasingly difficult to sell a message of self-sufficiency and freedom to a populace that is increasing willing to trade freedom for government security. As Benjamin Franklin warned, "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
Unfortunately for Progressives, they are wedded to a redistributive model designed in the 1930's that is economically unsustainable. Much of the post-election commentary on both sides of the political spectrum has focused on the emerging Democratic/Progressive coalition. While this coalition is composed of many disparate interest groups, they largely share with a single common interest; sustaining their share of government largesse. Margaret Thatcher once quipped "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". (BTW, I in no way think Obama or the majority of Democrats are socialists--they are statists.) Once the money runs out, these disparate groups are likely to turn on each other as each special interest claims a piece of the shrinking pie.
The American electorate has joined the rest of the Western world by voting for the irrational hope that we can continue to sustain ourselves in a lifestyle that we are unwilling to earn. During the past four years, we borrowed ~ $5 trillion dollars for which we received ~$1 Trillion of GDP growth. In other words, for every $1 of economic growth, we borrowed $5. There is only one entity in the world willing to bankroll that rate of return and it's not China. The US Treasury is now forced to sell ~3/4's of it's debt to the Federal Reserve. I would posit that a Ponzi scheme based on one spouse selling to another is unlikely to end well.
