Why Democrats Aren’t Falling for the GOP’s Obamacare Pitch

Because it’s a trap! They know that delaying implementation carries many more risks than rewards.

Man's finger caught in mousetrap. 
National Journal
Ben Terris
See more stories about...
Ben Terris
Sept. 26, 2013, 4:10 p.m.

It sounds like the most reas­on­able thing in the world — like life in­sur­ance, or rust­proof­ing. Re­pub­lic­ans say all it will take to avoid the calam­ity of a gov­ern­ment shut­down is for an itty-bitty delay of Pres­id­ent Obama’s health care law. What’s the big deal? He’s already pushed off the man­date for em­ploy­ers to provide cov­er­age by a year, and 22 House Demo­crats even voted for a sim­il­ar stay of the in­di­vidu­al man­date.

“The pres­id­ent knows this law’s not ready; that’s why he delayed it for big busi­ness,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, at a press con­fer­ence last week. “Every­one knows this thing is not ready.” Cer­tainly, Demo­crats could be per­suaded that the rol­lout could use a little more time to iron out the kinks — maybe give the pub­lic more op­por­tun­ity to rally around the law. Win-win, right?

“Ab­so­lutely, pos­it­ively not,” House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., said on CNN later when asked wheth­er a delay would be ne­go­ti­able. Demo­crats aren’t stu­pid. They know what hap­pens when you give a mouse a cook­ie.

Any delay to Obama­care — wheth­er it’s push­ing back the in­di­vidu­al man­date or strip­ping fund­ing for a year — would only open the door to dev­ast­at­ing con­sequences for the law. Once Obama shows he is will­ing to ne­go­ti­ate on his sig­na­ture piece of le­gis­la­tion — and, by im­plic­a­tion, sig­nal­ing that the law may have deep, fun­da­ment­al prob­lems — there will be no end of try­ing to tear it down, with op­pon­ents per­haps gar­ner­ing an­oth­er 41 House votes to de­fund it in the pro­cess.

“It’s not worth dis­cuss­ing, be­cause it’s not go­ing to hap­pen,” Demo­crat­ic Rep. Chris Van Hol­len of Mary­land told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “We’re more than happy to work with Re­pub­lic­ans to fix some of the glitches. But they’re not in­ter­ested in mak­ing ad­just­ments; they’re simply try­ing to wipe it out com­pletely.”

This is no secret. For Re­pub­lic­ans to even im­ply that a delay would be good for the White House (“I ac­tu­ally be­lieve the pres­id­ent wants to delay Obama­care, be­cause it’s such a mess,” said con­ser­vat­ive Rep. Raul Lab­rador of Idaho. “It’s just not work­ing for them.”) is spe­cious. The GOP wants to kill this law, and tran­quil­iz­ing it is just an at­tempt to put it down in hopes that it nev­er wakes up. Se­cure a post­pone­ment to next year, and maybe if the Sen­ate flips, the dy­nam­ic changes. Delay it long enough, and even­tu­ally a Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent might be able to help fin­ish it off for good.

In­stead, the open­ing that Re­pub­lic­ans see is largely rhet­or­ic­al. They say the Demo­crat­ic mes­sage isn’t match­ing up with the cold, hard real­ity of im­ple­ment­a­tion. “The delays the ad­min­is­tra­tion has been forced to im­ple­ment in the health care law have giv­en us a golden op­por­tun­ity to talk about fair­ness: ‘If big busi­ness gets re­lief from the pres­id­ent’s health care law, fam­il­ies and small busi­nesses should, too,’ ” Speak­er John Boehner has been fond of say­ing.

Nat­ur­ally, it’s not that simple and, past the boil­er­plate, few on either side ar­gue with that. The in­di­vidu­al man­date and the em­ploy­er man­date may sound like equal com­pon­ents of the Af­ford­able Care Act, but the re­quire­ment that all con­sumers pur­chase in­sur­ance has a much more far-reach­ing ef­fect. “Only one [man­date] has a sub­stan­tial ef­fect on be­ha­vi­or­al de­cisions,” said Linda Blum­berg, a seni­or fel­low at the Urb­an In­sti­tute. “Only one has broad im­plic­a­tions for re­form and for the chances of achiev­ing the ob­ject­ive of the law.”

Delay­ing the em­ploy­er man­date, Blum­berg ar­gues, has merely cost the gov­ern­ment some rev­en­ue from pen­al­ties. Moreover, the reach of that man­date is min­im­al: Most large com­pan­ies of­fer health care cov­er­age, and many small ones are ex­empt from do­ing so. Delay­ing the in­di­vidu­al man­date, con­versely, would pro­foundly destabil­ize the law.

Obama­care is of­ten thought of as a three-legged stool. To bal­ance the cost of mar­ket re­forms such as al­low­ing those with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions to ob­tain in­sur­ance cov­er­age (the first leg), the in­di­vidu­al man­date (the second leg) forces health­i­er people to pay in­to the sys­tem. To help low-in­come con­sumers pay for the cov­er­age, the gov­ern­ment kicks in sub­sidies (the third leg). Lose any of the three legs and you end up with a use­less piece of fur­niture.

There’s an­oth­er reas­on it makes no sense for Demo­crats to delay the law: It’s not grow­ing any more pop­u­lar with the pas­sage of time. In a re­cent ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post poll, only 42 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they ap­proved of the law — a num­ber that has been con­sist­ent since en­act­ment. The only way to sig­ni­fic­antly change the pub­lic’s view is for the law to work. An­oth­er delay means an­oth­er year of prom­ising be­ne­fits that re­main out of reach.

Again, Re­pub­lic­ans know this, which is why they’re ratchet­ing up the pres­sure on Demo­crat­ic mod­er­ates who have to face the voters next year, such as Sen. Mark Be­gich of Alaska. Bet­ter that someone like Be­gich has to stand for reelec­tion with the law’s vir­- tues still un­cer­tain than with it pro­du­cing tan­gible res­ults.

Be­gich isn’t tak­ing the bait. “This eco­nomy needs to keep mov­ing for­ward. To jeop­ard­ize it over a po­ten­tial shut­down would be a huge mis­take,” he told NJ.

Ac­tu­ally, the Re­pub­lic­ans agree com­pletely. It’s in the defin­i­tion of jeop­ardy that the two sides part ways. “If you want to write a story about how we want to shut down the gov­ern­ment, that’s your fault,” Lab­rador told a re­port­er last week. “If Harry Re­id and the pres­id­ent want to shut down the gov­ern­ment — be­cause what we are ask­ing for is a simple delay of Obama­care — then I hope you write your story that way.”

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×