Off to the Races

The GOP’s Health Care Dilemma

Republicans can either pass an unpopular bill or betray a core promise.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., listens to a question while speaking with the media after he and other Senate Republicans had a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, Tuesday, June 27, 2017, in Washington.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
June 29, 2017, 8 p.m.

There are di­lem­mas and then there are real di­lem­mas. On health care, Re­pub­lic­ans are in a real di­lemma.

Con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans prom­ised their base a mil­lion times that they would re­peal and re­place the much-des­pised (by the GOP base) Af­ford­able Care Act. No am­bi­gu­ity what­so­ever. In the House, they voted over 60 times to re­peal the ACA, though the re­place part was a little vague. Now that Re­pub­lic­ans oc­cupy the White House and hold ma­jor­it­ies in the House and Sen­ate, the Re­pub­lic­an base would be re­war­ded with re­peal of Obama­care, right?

But here comes the di­lemma. While Amer­ic­ans are not ex­actly de­li­ri­ously happy with Demo­crats’ health blue­print, they like it a lot bet­ter than the Re­pub­lic­an House-passed Amer­ic­an Health Care Act. It’s un­likely that Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans will come up with something any­time soon that will be much more pop­u­lar than the ver­sion passed by their House col­leagues.

So, do Hill Re­pub­lic­ans be­tray all of those prom­ises to their base to re­peal and re­place Obama­care, or do they pass something that people will hate even more? That’s what you call a di­lemma.

Obam­care has had a rocky ride. You can have a spir­ited ar­gu­ment over just how hard Demo­crats tried in 2009 and 2010 to get Re­pub­lic­an sup­port for the con­tro­ver­sial bill, but ba­sic­ally Demo­crats took ad­vant­age of very large ma­jor­it­ies in the House and Sen­ate to jam the ACA through Con­gress in early 2010—and paid the price for it by los­ing 63 seats and their House ma­jor­ity, along with six Sen­ate seats, in that Novem­ber’s gen­er­al elec­tion. The af­ter­shocks con­tin­ued four years later, as Demo­crats lost nine Sen­ate seats and their Sen­ate ma­jor­ity (along with 13 more House seats) in 2014. The ACA was a Pyrrhic vic­tory for Demo­crats, at least elect­or­ally.

When it was first en­acted, the ACA ap­peared to get a pos­it­ive re­sponse; the non­par­tis­an Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion monthly health care polls showed 50 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans in Ju­ly 2010 had a fa­vor­able opin­ion of the ACA, and 35 per­cent saw it un­fa­vor­ably. But soon Obama­care’s poll num­bers turned south, with un­fa­vor­able num­bers ex­ceed­ing fa­vor­able for much of the next six years—fa­vor­ables gen­er­ally run­ning in the mid-30s and 40s, un­fa­vor­able in the 40s and low 50s. But that was among all Amer­ic­ans; the ACA was seen very fa­vor­ably by Demo­crats and some­what un­fa­vor­ably by in­de­pend­ents. Re­pub­lic­ans, mean­while, de­tested the law.

But start­ing soon after last Novem­ber’s elec­tion, the pro­spect of the ACA ac­tu­ally be­ing re­pealed began to sink in, and its pop­ular­ity in­creased. In the June 14-19 Kais­er poll of 1,208 adults na­tion­wide, 51 per­cent had a fa­vor­able view, 41 per­cent un­fa­vor­able; 29 per­cent had a very fa­vor­able view, and 27 per­cent a very un­fa­vor­able opin­ion. Con­trast that with the Ju­ly 2014 Kais­er poll that showed 37 per­cent fa­vor­able, 53 per­cent un­fa­vor­able, with just 15 per­cent see­ing it very fa­vor­ably, 35 per­cent very un­fa­vor­ably.

In con­trast with Obama­care’s gradu­al des­cent, pub­lic opin­ion on the Re­pub­lic­an House-passed AHCA sunk like a lead bal­loon. The new Kais­er poll showed just 30 per­cent had a fa­vor­able view, 55 per­cent un­fa­vor­able. The Kais­er num­bers are backed up by plenty of oth­er data. The June 17-20 NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al poll by GOP poll­ster Bill McIn­turff of Pub­lic Opin­ion Strategies and Demo­crat­ic poll­ster Fred Yang, two of the best in the busi­ness, had 41 per­cent say­ing Obam­care was a good idea, 38 per­cent that it was a bad idea.

That’s hardly any­thing for Demo­crats to write home about. But for the AHCA, just 16 per­cent said it was good idea, 48 per­cent a bad one. With­in those num­bers, 34 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans thought it a good idea, 17 per­cent bad idea, and 47 per­cent had no opin­ion. Among in­de­pend­ents, it was 16 per­cent good idea, 48 per­cent bad idea, 36 per­cent no opin­ion, while among Demo­crats it was 4 per­cent good idea, 73 per­cent bad idea, 22 per­cent no opin­ion.

Polling this month by McIn­turff and POS for the Amer­ic­an Med­ic­al As­so­ci­ation in six states shows the ACA had net good-idea num­bers of 11 per­cent in Col­or­ado and Ohio, 8 per­cent in Nevada, 1 per­cent in Alaska, minus-6 per­cent in Arkan­sas, and minus-12 per­cent in Ten­ness­ee. For the GOP House-passed le­gis­la­tion, it was minus-14 in Arkan­sas, minus-20 in Ten­ness­ee, minus-33 per­cent in Alaska, minus-34 in Nevada, minus-40 per­cent in Ohio and minus-41 in Col­or­ado.

Simply put, on health care, con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The fact that the ini­tial plan from Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell’s (a pretty smart guy) had at least four Re­pub­lic­ans (Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ron John­son) who thought it didn’t go far enough in elim­in­at­ing Obama­care, and at least five (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Shel­ley Moore Capito, Dean Heller, and Rob Port­man) that wor­ried it went too far showed that this was a mat­ter of split­ting the baby.

If I were a Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­an, I would sup­port the bill, know­ing that it would prob­ably fail any­way, then tell my base that ‘I tried,’ then move quickly on to oth­er is­sues. People take health care very per­son­ally; passing something this hated by voters would be even worse than break­ing their re­peal prom­ise. As Sen. Joe Manchin said of West Vir­gini­ans and health in­sur­ance last month, “They’ve got something they nev­er had be­fore. They don’t know how they got it, they don’t know who gave it to them. … They’re go­ing to know who took it away from them.”

This is le­gis­la­tion that would be bet­ter handled next year, in a back room, with prag­mat­ic House and Sen­ate mem­bers from both parties try­ing to fig­ure out what is work­ing, what isn’t work­ing, and how to make it work bet­ter.

What We're Following See More »
SAVE THOSE PERTAINING TO EXEC BRANCH
Sessions: DOJ Will No Longer Issue Guidance Documents
18 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday the Justice Department will revamp its policy for issuing guidance documents. Speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual conference in Washington Friday, Sessions said the Justice Department will no longer issue guidance that 'purports to impose new obligations on any party outside the executive branch.' He said DOJ will review and repeal any documents that could violate this policy." Sessions said: “Too often, rather than going through the long, slow, regulatory process provided in statute, agencies make new rules through guidance documents—by simply sending a letter. This cuts off the public from the regulatory process by skipping the required public hearings and comment periods—and it is simply not what these documents are for. Guidance documents should be used to explain existing law—not to change it.”

Source:
STARTS LEGAL FUND FOR WH STAFF
Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DISCUSSED THE MATTER FOR A NEW BOOK
Steele Says Follow the Money
3 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Source:
BRITISH PUBLICIST CONNECTED TO TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Source:
SPEAKING ON RUSSIAN STATE TV
Kislyak Says Trump Campaign Contacts Too Numerous to List
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak said on Wednesday that it would take him more than 20 minutes to name all of the Trump officials he's met with or spoken to on the phone. ... Kislyak made the remarks in a sprawling interview with Russia-1, a popular state-owned Russian television channel."

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