Why Republicans Will Vote to Repeal Obamacare, but Not on How to Replace It

Individual party members are refloating their proposals, but leadership isn’t going to push forward on any of them.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 17: U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks about Obamacare and the ongoing tensions in Ukraine in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House April 17, 2014 in Washington, DC. Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Ukraine and the EU issued a joint statement today on the crisis in Ukraine calling for all illegal armed groups to be disarmed, all illegally seized buildings to be returned to their owners, and for all occupied public spaces to be vacated. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
National Journal
Nov. 12, 2014, 9:43 a.m.

Re­pub­lic­ans’ pledge to “re­peal and re­place” Obama­care will nev­er die, and yet it is not really alive. It is the un­dead—and it has ris­en again.

With the GOP about to take the Sen­ate’s helm, a hand­ful of law­makers are once again tout­ing plans to re­place the Af­ford­able Care Act. Sen. Marco Ru­bio and Rep. Paul Ry­an are re­portedly work­ing on a new plan, and Sen. Or­rin Hatch, soon to be the chair­man of the power­ful Fin­ance Com­mit­tee, used a USA Today op-ed Wed­nes­day to tout a plan he re­leased in Janu­ary, along with Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Burr.

Also on Wed­nes­day, Rep. Tom Price plugged an Obama­care al­tern­at­ive he’s been push­ing since 2009, but which has nev­er come up for a vote. In fact, no “re­place” pro­pos­al has ever come up for a vote in the House, des­pite four years of GOP con­trol. The party has nev­er ser­i­ously got­ten be­hind any one pro­pos­al, and that’s un­likely to change now.

Why? It’s an ex­er­cise in fu­til­ity. Pres­id­ent Obama still holds the White House, and he will for an­oth­er two years. He ob­vi­ously is not go­ing to sign off on re­peal­ing his sig­na­ture do­mest­ic achieve­ment, mak­ing any re­place­ment a moot point.

However un­likely it might be, the only tech­nic­ally feas­ible way to re­peal Obama­care is for Re­pub­lic­ans to win the White House in 2016, get to 60 votes in the Sen­ate, keep the House, and de­cide to use all of that polit­ic­al cap­it­al for Obama­care re­peal.

It’s also an ex­er­cise in fu­til­ity that comes with polit­ic­al costs.

If Re­pub­lic­ans ad­op­ted a uni­form re­place­ment plan, they’d have to de­fend polit­ic­ally pain­ful trade-offs—just as Demo­crats have had to do. Noth­ing in health care policy is free. Why would a polit­ic­al party look­ing to ex­pand its power in 2016 want to face those trade-offs head-on, for two years, when it’s im­possible to ac­tu­ally change the dir­ec­tion of fed­er­al health care policy?

The main cri­ti­cism of Obama­care is that it has too many man­dates, too many reg­u­la­tions driv­ing up premi­ums. It’s equally easy to fore­see the lines of at­tack over a pro­pos­al like Hatch’s: It would raise con­sumers’ out-of-pock­et costs (that’s kind of the point), and pop­u­lar pro­vi­sions of Obama­care—such as re­quir­ing in­surers to cov­er people with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions—would go away. (One per­son’s bur­den­some man­dates are an­oth­er per­son’s con­sumer pro­tec­tions.)

Es­pe­cially if Re­pub­lic­ans are ser­i­ous about de­scrib­ing their plan’s trade-offs frankly, they would be open­ing them­selves up to two years of cri­ti­cism des­pite be­ing un­able to pass the thing be­ing cri­ti­cized—and for­cing their party’s pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate to wrestle with those same thorny is­sues.

But the fact that the GOP plans are un­likely to get much trac­tion does not mean they aren’t ser­i­ous pro­pos­als.

Hatch’s plan is reas­on­ably com­pre­hens­ive, es­pe­cially for something that’s just an idea. There are sev­er­al com­pon­ents, but the un­der­ly­ing concept is to have Amer­ic­ans cov­er a big­ger piece of their own health care costs, mak­ing them smarter and more con­scien­tious con­sumers and, ideally, lever­aging that in­to more price-based com­pet­i­tion with­in health care in­dus­tries.

Ry­an has an even big­ger health care plan: Par­tially privat­ize Medi­care and shift Medi­caid away from ded­ic­ated fed­er­al fund­ing, in­to a block-grant pro­gram. And Price has had a health care plan for a long time, which he has re­in­tro­duced in the wake of his party’s midterm gains.

In­side Hatch’s “re­peal and re­place” op-ed was an in­sight in­to what Re­pub­lic­ans are more likely to do re­gard­ing Obama­care in the next two years: “Con­ser­vat­ives should also take ad­vant­age of all op­por­tun­it­ies to re­peal any part of the law and re­place it with bet­ter policies that em­power Amer­ic­ans, not Wash­ing­ton,” he wrote.

There are small, tar­geted pieces of Obama­care where Re­pub­lic­ans might be able to force Obama’s hand. The top pri­or­ity is the law’s tax on med­ic­al devices. There’s already plenty of bi­par­tis­an sup­port for re­peal­ing the tax, and once the the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice said it would no longer es­tim­ate the total costs of all the law’s pro­vi­sions, taken to­geth­er, it got much easi­er for Obama to give up some of the law’s rev­en­ues.

The em­ploy­er man­date also might be changed or even elim­in­ated, which would be an even big­ger win for the GOP.

Cri­ti­ciz­ing an un­pop­u­lar law and hold­ing bi­par­tis­an votes to ac­tu­ally change it have ob­vi­ous polit­ic­al up­sides and very little risk. As for “re­peal and re­place,” though, don’t hold your breath.

What We're Following See More »
ATTACHED TO UNRELATED BILL
House Republicans Look to Pass End-of-Year Tax Bill
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans have gone back to the drawing board on end-of-year tax legislation. On Monday morning they introduced new legislative text to reform retirement savings, delay Obamacare-related taxes, and provide technical corrections to the tax overhaul law they passed last year. If enacted, the bill would also provide tax benefits for communities that have suffered through natural disasters, including last month’s wildfires in California." The measure is attached to "a separate but unrelated bill to clear its potential path to becoming law."

Source:
SAYS THEY'RE BLACKMAILING HIM
Jerome Corsi Sues Mueller, Agencies for $350M
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi filed a lawsuit on Sunday accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of blackmailing him to lie about President Donald Trump in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The suit, which seeks $350 million in actual and punitive damages in U.S. District Court in Washington, was filed six days after Corsi entered a formal complaint with the Justice Department alleging prosecutorial misconduct by Mueller." Corsi alleges that Mueller illegally leaked information from the grand jury, and that Mueller's team "threatened him with prison unless he agreed to testify falsely that he served as a liaison between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the Republican political strategist Roger Stone."

Source:
BOTH SIDES' POSITIONS HAVE HARDENED OVER BORDER
Trump Meeting with Schumer, Pelosi on Tuesday
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A year-end spending deal to fund one-quarter of the federal government rests on a critical meeting this week between President Trump and two top Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will meet with Trump Tuesday morning to talk about what agreement the two sides can reach, if any, when it comes to funding for a southern border wall."

Source:
COHEN ASSISTING INVESTIGATION
Prosecutors Looking at Other Figures in Trump Org.
1 days ago
THE LATEST

In the wake of Michael Cohen's guilty plea, "the federal prosecutors in Manhattan shifted their attention to what role, if any, Trump Organization executives played in the campaign finance violations, according to people briefed on the matter. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s self-described fixer, has provided assistance in that inquiry, which is separate from the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III."

Source:
FINANCIAL CRIMES, PLUS LYING TO CONGRESS
Mueller Requests Four-Year Prison Time for Cohen
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, should receive a “substantial” prison term of roughly four years, federal prosecutors in New York said on Friday. Mr. Cohen, 52, is to be sentenced in Manhattan for two separate guilty pleas: one for campaign finance violations and financial crimes charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, and the other for lying to Congress in the Russia inquiry, filed by Mr. Mueller’s office."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login