How to End the Obamacare Debate

With the GOP opposition showing no signs of abating, the Obama administration has to start showing that the health care law is working.

Linda Norman, right, and Joanna Galt, both from Florida, hold their banners during a "Exempt America from Obamacare" rally on the West Lawn of the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013. 
AP2013
Ronald Brownstein
Sept. 19, 2013, 4:05 p.m.

Even amid the high-stakes man­euv­er­ing over Syr­ia and the fed­er­al budget, White House Chief of Staff Denis Mc­Donough has a cal­en­dar on his of­fice door that counts down the days un­til open en­roll­ment for the un­in­sured be­gins Oct. 1 un­der Pres­id­ent Obama’s health care law.

It’s a re­mind­er that noth­ing will shape Obama’s leg­acy more than wheth­er he can suc­cess­fully im­ple­ment, and polit­ic­ally en­trench, his massive health re­form plan. Obama has three years to for­ti­fy the law with enough sup­port to make re­peal dif­fi­cult, even if Re­pub­lic­ans win uni­fied con­trol of Wash­ing­ton in 2016.

The pres­id­ent has a long road to travel. Polls show that most Amer­ic­ans doubt the Af­ford­able Care Act will im­prove con­di­tions for their fam­ily or the coun­try. Im­ple­ment­a­tion of the law’s many pieces has cre­ated com­plex lo­gist­ic­al and com­puter chal­lenges that have already forced the ad­min­is­tra­tion to delay some com­pon­ents. And, most im­port­ant, op­pos­i­tion from Re­pub­lic­ans is blaz­ing un­di­min­ished — and is now flar­ing in­to es­cal­at­ing threats to shut down the gov­ern­ment or de­fault on the fed­er­al debt rather than fund the pro­gram.

No oth­er fed­er­al en­ti­tle­ment has faced such fe­ro­cious op­pos­i­tion after pas­sage. Al­though many con­ser­vat­ives ini­tially raged against Medi­care, that fire ex­tin­guished quickly when be­ne­fits star­ted flow­ing in 1966. Medi­caid, the joint state-fed­er­al health pro­gram for the poor, pro­voked stur­di­er op­pos­i­tion, but two years after its pas­sage in 1965, all but 13 states had signed onto it. (With­in five years, all but two states were par­ti­cip­at­ing.) Re­pub­lic­an res­ist­ance to So­cial Se­cur­ity lingered longer; but after 1936 pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee Alf Landon won only two states while pledging its re­peal, the party con­fined it­self to guer­rilla snip­ing against the pro­gram, be­fore sur­ren­der­ing en­tirely un­der Pres­id­ent Eis­en­hower.

All of that pales be­side today’s cru­sade against the health care law. This cam­paign ex­tends from the con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans’ de­fund­ing de­mands, to the wide­spread re­fus­al of GOP-con­trolled states to ex­pand Medi­caid eli­gib­il­ity, to the pas­sage of laws in states such as Geor­gia and Ohio im­ped­ing “nav­ig­at­ors” work­ing to en­roll people on the in­sur­ance ex­changes. “The mag­nitude of res­ist­ance is un­pre­ced­en­ted,” says Prin­ceton Uni­versity so­ci­olo­gist Paul Starr, au­thor of an ac­claimed his­tory of the Amer­ic­an health care sys­tem.

Without draw­ing mor­al equi­val­ence, it’s fair to say the health care law is fa­cing more wide­spread de­fi­ance than any fed­er­al ini­ti­at­ive since the Su­preme Court ordered pub­lic schools to de­seg­reg­ate in its 1954 Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion de­cision. Obama is un­likely to fold against con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­an de­mands for delay. But, even so, some two dozen states — all but two with Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernors — are re­fus­ing to ex­pand Medi­caid (which was ini­tially ex­pec­ted to provide about half the law’s cov­er­age in­crease) and to es­tab­lish the on­line ex­changes for those un­in­sured people with slightly high­er in­comes. Mean­while, al­most all Demo­crat­ic-lean­ing states are em­bra­cing the law.

This con­trast cre­ates two power­ful dy­nam­ics that will shape the un­fold­ing de­bate. First, it means that with half the states in­hib­it­ing it, the pro­gram won’t en­roll as many people na­tion­ally as Obama hoped. Be­cause many of the res­ist­ing states have big un­in­sured pop­u­la­tions and skimpy safety nets, 8 mil­lion of the 13 mil­lion people po­ten­tially eli­gible un­der the law’s Medi­caid ex­pan­sion live in states that are not in­creas­ing cov­er­age, the Urb­an In­sti­tute cal­cu­lates. Without state out­reach, sign-up on those states’ ex­changes also could slip, again de­press­ing the na­tion­al res­ults.

That pro­spect frames a second, po­ten­tially de­cis­ive, ques­tion: Can the law’s sup­port­ers pro­duce suc­cess in the states that are wel­com­ing it? If Cali­for­nia, Col­or­ado, Min­nesota, and oth­er states that are im­ple­ment­ing the law most en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally can en­roll large num­bers of the un­in­sured, avoid big lo­gist­ic­al snafus, and at­tract enough healthy young people to re­strain premi­um rates, that would strengthen Obama’s hand na­tion­ally — and in­crease pop­u­lar de­mands to par­ti­cip­ate in the res­ist­ing states. If it be­comes “clear that in many of the states that are whole­heartedly im­ple­ment­ing it, it is work­ing well, the in­ter­est­ing ques­tion is, what kind of pres­sure will that put on the “˜re­fusenik’ states?” says Har­vard Uni­versity so­ci­olo­gist Theda Skoc­pol, who stud­ies the safety net. In par­tic­u­lar, suc­cess in par­ti­cip­at­ing states could in­spire grow­ing agit­a­tion from health care pro­viders in the re­fusenik states, which are re­noun­cing nearly $500 bil­lion in fed­er­al money through 2022 (at small state cost) by re­ject­ing the Medi­caid ex­pan­sion, the Urb­an In­sti­tute pro­jects.

In this pro­cess, Cali­for­nia could fig­ure largest be­cause its huge, di­verse, and heav­ily un­in­sured pop­u­la­tion presents a tough­er test than more-ho­mo­gen­ous co­oper­at­ing states such as Min­nesota and Mas­sachu­setts. If Cali­for­nia suc­ceeds, notes An­thony Wright of the ad­vocacy group Health Ac­cess Cali­for­nia, “we can show it can work in a state where the prob­lem is “¦ on the scale of Texas and Flor­ida,” the two largest res­ist­ing states. Cali­for­nia has already ne­go­ti­ated ag­gress­ively to lim­it premi­um rates for in­surers selling through its ex­changes and has en­rolled (through an early-start waiver) about half of those eli­gible for the law’s Medi­caid ex­pan­sion. But, Wright ac­know­ledges, the state con­fronts su­per­sized ver­sions of the same “daunt­ing” lo­gist­ic­al chal­lenges loom­ing else­where as en­roll­ment be­gins. Obama’s best chance of de­fend­ing health care re­form against its en­emies is to en­sure that it works for its friends.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4456) }}

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:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×