Obamacare’s Problems Could Haunt Democrats for Years

The party’s strategists thought the program would show white voters that government programs can help them. It’s not going so well.

Rocky rollout: HealthCare.gov.
Ronald Brownstein
Nov. 14, 2013, 11:59 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s health care law is now com­pound­ing a polit­ic­al prob­lem it was meant to solve: the gen­er­a­tion-long loss of faith in gov­ern­ment act­iv­ism, par­tic­u­larly among the white middle class.

For dec­ades, Demo­crat­ic strategists have viewed uni­ver­sal health care as their best op­por­tun­ity to re­verse the doubt among many voters, es­pe­cially whites, that gov­ern­ment pro­grams can tan­gibly be­ne­fit their fam­il­ies. Now the cata­stroph­ic rol­lout of the health law threatens in­stead to re­in­force those doubts. That out­come could threaten Demo­crat­ic pri­or­it­ies for years.

Even be­fore its dis­astrous launch, the health care law faced anxi­ety about its goals. On the plan’s best days, polls found Amer­ic­ans split al­most evenly on wheth­er re­form would be­ne­fit the coun­try over­all. But even then, noth­ing ap­proach­ing a ma­jor­ity ever said the law would help their own fam­il­ies; among whites, few­er than one-third said they ex­pec­ted to per­son­ally be­ne­fit. Far more whites said the law would help the poor or un­in­sured. That meant, as the law de­b­uted, most whites viewed health care more like food stamps than So­cial Se­cur­ity.

With its chaot­ic launch, the ad­min­is­tra­tion has now ad­ded de­ri­sion over the law’s ex­e­cu­tion to sus­pi­cion about its mo­tiv­a­tion. In fair­ness, the health care law, which re­por­ted mod­est but not hor­rif­ic first-month en­roll­ment num­bers, is not the first so­cial pro­gram to stumble out of the gate. So­cial Se­cur­ity ini­tially faced what one his­tor­i­an called “grave ad­min­is­trat­ive dif­fi­culties.” Al­though the Chil­dren’s Health In­sur­ance Pro­gram passed un­der Bill Clin­ton is now widely praised, en­roll­ment grew slowly, as the Cen­ter on Budget and Policy Pri­or­it­ies noted this week.

Don­ald Kettl, dean of the Uni­versity of Mary­land’s Pub­lic Policy School and an ex­pert in pub­lic ad­min­is­tra­tion, points to oth­er mit­ig­at­ing factors in the health law’s struggles: the tech­no­lo­gic­al com­plex­ity of con­struct­ing on­line ex­changes as­signed so many tasks; the un­ex­pec­tedly large num­ber of states that re­fused to es­tab­lish their own ex­changes; and an un­pre­ced­en­ted level of polit­ic­al res­ist­ance dur­ing im­ple­ment­a­tion.

And yet even with those caveats, Kettl says no ma­jor fed­er­al ini­ti­at­ive has failed so thor­oughly upon its un­veil­ing since the bal­list­ic-mis­sile pro­gram’s first years in the 1950s pro­duced a suc­ces­sion of ex­plo­sions and fail­ures to launch. “The last time something blew up on the run­way like this,” Kettl says, “things were lit­er­ally blow­ing up on the run­way.”

The af­ter­shocks from this fail­ure are already rat­tling many win­dows. The most im­me­di­ate dam­age is meas­ured in Obama’s de­clin­ing rat­ings for com­pet­ence, trust­wor­thi­ness, and over­all per­form­ance. Al­though sur­veys have not yet found any gust­ing de­mand for re­peal, they con­tin­ue to re­cord gale-force mis­giv­ings about the law’s im­pact, par­tic­u­larly among whites. In the exit polls taken dur­ing Vir­gin­ia gubernat­ori­al elec­tion last week, two-thirds of whites said they op­posed the law; in­cred­ibly, a 52 per­cent ma­jor­ity of white voters said they strongly op­posed it (three-fourths of minor­it­ies, mean­while, said they backed the law).

This re­sur­gence of res­ist­ance has em­boldened Re­pub­lic­ans and sig­ni­fic­antly in­creased the odds that the 2016 GOP pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee will again run on re­peal­ing the law, as Mitt Rom­ney did in 2012. It has also un­nerved the pres­id­ent’s party. The Demo­crat­ic con­fu­sion was vis­ible in former Pres­id­ent Clin­ton’s sug­ges­tion this week that Obama should al­low con­sumers re­ceiv­ing can­cel­la­tion no­tices in the ex­ist­ing in­di­vidu­al mar­ket to keep their cur­rent plans.

Be­cause the in­di­vidu­al mar­ket now largely ex­cludes the sick (through rules such as deny­ing cov­er­age for preex­ist­ing con­di­tions), the re­l­at­ively mod­est num­ber of Amer­ic­ans who use it tend to be healthy. If they are al­lowed to re­main out­side the new sys­tem, the more com­pre­hens­ive policies sold on the ex­changes could tilt too heav­ily to­ward the old and sick. And that, notes Jonath­an Gruber, a Mas­sachu­setts In­sti­tute of Tech­no­logy eco­nom­ist, “would gen­er­ate a huge [premi­um] rate shock in 2015” that could fur­ther dis­cour­age the healthy from en­rolling and risk a fatal down­ward spir­al.

Even if the former pres­id­ent in­ten­ded to dis­tance Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton from the back­lash with his re­marks, his rem­edy would ex­pose her, and oth­er Demo­crats, to great­er risk that the new sys­tem will sink en­tirely and sub­merge them all in fu­ture elec­tions. Help­ing those los­ing policies to af­ford new cov­er­age makes more sense for Demo­crats than al­low­ing them to re­main out­side the sys­tem.

As the health law teeters, the stakes are so great be­cause the struggle en­cap­su­lates each party’s core ar­gu­ment. It em­bod­ies the Demo­crat­ic be­lief that so­ci­ety works bet­ter when risk is shared — between young and old, healthy and sick — and gov­ern­ment in­ter­venes in private mar­kets to try to ex­pand both se­cur­ity and op­por­tun­ity. The fury of the Re­pub­lic­an res­ist­ance re­flects the party’s in­sist­ence that mar­kets work best un­fettered, that cent­ral­ized gov­ern­ment pro­grams can­not achieve their goals, and that Demo­crats are un­duly bur­den­ing the “makers” to sup­port (and polit­ic­ally mo­bil­ize) the “takers.”

If most Amer­ic­ans con­clude Re­pub­lic­ans are right about the health care law, that judg­ment would in­ev­it­ably deep­en doubts about oth­er gov­ern­ment ini­ti­at­ives. In this world, Demo­crats could still hold the White House in 2016 around cul­tur­al af­fin­ity, but they would likely struggle to achieve much if they do. If the pres­id­ent can’t ex­tin­guish the flames sur­round­ing Obama­care, this run­way ex­plo­sion could re­ver­ber­ate for years.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4574) }}

What We're Following See More »
Many GOPers Still Think Trump Can Be Brought to Heel
16 minutes ago
Trump Finance Guru Has History of Contributing to Dems
1 hours ago

"Like Donald Trump himself, the Trump campaign’s new national finance chairman has a long history of contributing to Democrats—including Hillary Clinton. Private investor Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s new campaign fundraising guru, has contributed more than $120,000" to candidates since 1995, about half of which has gone to Democrats.

Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
18 hours ago

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
19 hours ago

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Sen. Murphy: Trump Shouldn’t Get Classified Briefigs
19 hours ago