The Health Care Reform War Without End

The battle over Obamacare is running into overtime, with risks for both parties — and the country.

UNITED STATES - CIRCA 1937: US Politico "Alf" M. Landon.  Former presidential hopful Alf Landon. 
Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
Ronald Brownstein
April 3, 2014, 5 p.m.

In the 1936 elec­tion, one year after Pres­id­ent Roosevelt signed the law cre­at­ing So­cial Se­cur­ity, his Re­pub­lic­an op­pon­ent Alf Landon called it a “cruel hoax” and prom­ised to re­peal it.

Landon won just two states — and, four years later, Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee Wendell Willkie ran on ex­pand­ing So­cial Se­cur­ity. Al­though con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans con­tin­ued guer­rilla war­fare against the pro­gram in­to the 1950s, the pro­spect of full-scale re­peal sank with Landon.

In 1964, Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee Barry Gold­wa­ter staunchly op­posed the cre­ation of Medi­care, the health pro­gram for the eld­erly pro­posed by Pres­id­ent John­son. But after John­son routed Gold­wa­ter and then pushed Medi­care through Con­gress in 1965, op­pos­i­tion col­lapsed. By 1968, Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee Richard Nix­on ac­cep­ted it as settled law.

Al­though the skir­mish­ing around So­cial Se­cur­ity of­fers some par­al­lel, the struggle over health re­form is burn­ing longer and hot­ter than the scuff­ling over any pre­vi­ous ex­pan­sion of Amer­ica’s safety net. It was em­blem­at­ic earli­er this week that just hours be­fore Pres­id­ent Obama an­nounced that the Af­ford­able Care Act had ex­ceeded its ori­gin­al en­roll­ment goal of 7 mil­lion, Rep. Paul Ry­an for the fourth con­sec­ut­ive year re­leased a House Re­pub­lic­an budget that would re­peal the law.

Factors from in­creased po­lar­iz­a­tion in Con­gress to the widen­ing ra­cial, gen­er­a­tion­al, and geo­graph­ic di­ver­gence in each party’s co­ali­tion ex­plain this per­sist­ence. More im­port­ant are the con­sequences. This elong­ated con­flict is ex­pos­ing each side to un­pre­dict­able polit­ic­al risks and deny­ing the coun­try a mean­ing­ful de­bate over ad­dress­ing the law’s in­ev­it­able flaws and mis­cal­cu­la­tions.

Ry­an’s de­fi­ant budget — com­ing im­me­di­ately after the rush that pro­duced more than 7 mil­lion en­roll­ments on the health care ex­changes, plus at least an­oth­er 4 mil­lion sign-ups un­der Medi­caid — cap­tured how much mo­mentum the re­peal cause re­tains in the GOP. How far apart are the two sides? Ry­an’s plan would not only undo the in­sur­ance ex­pan­sions un­der Obama­care but also im­pose fur­ther sharp cuts on Medi­caid, even­tu­ally elim­in­at­ing ex­ist­ing cov­er­age for an ad­di­tion­al 15 mil­lion to 20 mil­lion people.

The skir­mish­ing will only in­tensi­fy if Re­pub­lic­ans win the Sen­ate this fall (even if Obama can still block any re­peal le­gis­la­tion with his veto). And that in turn would in­crease pres­sure on the 2016 GOP pres­id­en­tial con­tenders to cam­paign on re­peal­ing the health law (as Mitt Rom­ney did in 2012). As Ben Dome­nech, a lead­ing young con­ser­vat­ive ana­lyst, wrote this week, “The Re­pub­lic­an Party is wed­ded to the re­peal of Obama­care for the fore­see­able fu­ture. There will not be a single vi­able can­did­ate in 2016 who is not in fa­vor of re­peal or avoids the chal­lenge of put­ting for­ward a health care policy de­signed to re­place Obama­care should they be elec­ted.”

While the late sign-up crush has im­proved over­all at­ti­tudes to­ward Obama­care, the risk for Demo­crats in this war without end is that many Amer­ic­ans will blame the law for every glitch in the health care sys­tem. That danger is evid­ent in sur­veys show­ing that most Amer­ic­ans, par­tic­u­larly whites, view Obama­care more as a trans­fer pro­gram for the poor than something that will help them per­son­ally. Like­wise, a re­cent sur­vey by Demo­crat Peter Hart and Re­pub­lic­an Bill McIn­turff found that while two-thirds of Amer­ic­ans say the law has not af­fected their qual­ity of care, nearly half be­lieve it is in­creas­ing their costs. Com­bined with ideo­lo­gic­al res­ist­ance, such at­ti­tudes will threaten Demo­crats this fall in red-lean­ing con­gres­sion­al dis­tricts and in key Sen­ate races, des­pite the im­proved en­roll­ment pic­ture.

But these ex­ten­ded hos­til­it­ies also risk lock­ing Re­pub­lic­ans in­to a de­mand for re­peal that could ap­pear un­real­ist­ic and dog­mat­ic by 2016. Health care is such a charged sub­ject that the law may nev­er en­joy pre­pon­der­ant pub­lic sup­port. But as more pa­tients and pro­viders rely on it, the in­sti­tu­tion­al res­ist­ance to re­peal will al­most cer­tainly rise. Theda Skoc­pol, a Har­vard Uni­versity pro­fess­or of gov­ern­ment who stud­ies the so­cial safety net, says that com­pared with So­cial Se­cur­ity, which didn’t provide large-scale be­ne­fits for dec­ades, Obama­care is “ac­tu­ally mov­ing much faster” to cre­ate con­stitu­ents who gain from it. Her view is that the law already is “not re­peal­able.” By the time a Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent could pur­sue re­peal, Skoc­pol says, “it will be woven in­to the life of people, fam­il­ies, and busi­nesses.”

Like the pro­gram it­self, the polit­ic­al con­sequences of the health care law are com­plex and pre­cari­ously bal­anced. Com­pared with So­cial Se­cur­ity or Medi­care, Obama­care more ex­pli­citly cre­ates losers (such as healthy people pre­vi­ously ad­vant­aged by an in­di­vidu­al in­sur­ance mar­ket that ex­cluded the sick) as well as win­ners. It trans­fers re­sources from old to young by slow­ing Medi­care spend­ing to fund sub­sidies for the work­ing-age un­in­sured — and in the op­pos­ite dir­ec­tion by re­quir­ing healthy young people to buy ro­bust cov­er­age that re­strains premi­um costs for those older and sick­er.

A course of treat­ment this in­tric­ate in­ev­it­ably re­quires re­as­sess­ments and re­cal­ib­ra­tions. That’s not pos­sible now: Con­gress can’t wield a scalpel while Re­pub­lic­ans are still clam­or­ing for the guil­lot­ine. But the late en­roll­ment surge, even if it hasn’t yet guar­an­teed the law’s sur­viv­al, has meas­ur­ably in­creased the odds that the de­bate over Obama­care will gradu­ally shift from end­ing to mend­ing it. 

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4856) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×