Political Connections

Democrats Get Aggressive on Health Care

Emboldened by their successful effort to preserve Obamacare, party members are pushing for new ways to reform and expand the system.

Sens. Tim Kaine and Michael Bennet
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Ronald Brownstein
Add to Briefcase
Ronald Brownstein
April 25, 2018, 8 p.m.

After beating back the repeated Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Democrats, for the first time in years, are taking the offensive on health care. While the flashiest proposal—for an entirely government-run system—remains a distant aspiration, Democrats are again looking for new ways to expand Washington’s role in shaping the health care system.

Their ideas include new plans to expand coverage, restrain drug prices, and create a public competitor to private health-insurance companies. Encouraging all of these efforts are polls showing that support for the ACA clearly increased during the long legislative struggle over its future.

“People are increasingly happy with the Affordable Care Act, but they are increasingly unhappy with the health care system writ large,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut who has coauthored one of the most ambitious proposals.

The most sweeping Democratic proposal is the plan from Sen. Bernie Sanders to create a national health care system in which government would become the “single payer” for all medical services, eliminating private insurance. But while that long-standing liberal goal has newly galvanized many activists, most Democratic officials and policy experts still consider single-payer plans politically unrealistic.

The more relevant movement among Democrats is the revival of ideas to create a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers on the ACA exchanges. That so-called “public option” was a top liberal priority during the initial debate over the ACA. Then, as now, proponents argued that a public insurance competitor—because it would not need to generate a profit—could offer a less expensive alternative and pressure private insurers to cut their premiums. Back in 2009, the House included a public option in the ACA version it passed, but the provision was dropped in the Senate amid opposition by then-Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Two groups of Democratic senators have recently released bills to create a public option, both of which envision a considerably more aggressive role for government than even the House proposal did nine years ago.

One plan, from Sens. Michael Bennet and Tim Kaine, would phase in the new public option. Americans buying coverage on the individual insurance market would be able to purchase it starting in 2020 in areas where few or no private insurance options are available. By 2023, the public option would be available for individuals nationwide. And in 2024, small businesses would be allowed to buy into the plan. An alternative proposal, from Murphy and Sen. Jeff Merkley, would move faster and further. It would make a public option immediately available not only to individuals, but also to employers of all sizes.

Notably, both plans link the public option much more firmly to Medicare than the Democrats did in 2009. The plan the House approved back then encouraged hospitals and doctors that accepted Medicare to participate in the public option. But it also allowed them to opt out, and permitted them to charge participants in the new plan more than the rates Medicare pays.

Both of the new proposals would push providers much further, requiring those who participate in Medicare to accept patients choosing the new public option. That’s a huge lever, because few physicians can afford to renounce participation in Medicare. Both proposals would also require participating providers to accept Medicare reimbursement rates for the new patients (though each allows the government some wiggle room to raise rates if required to maintain a viable network).

This shift partly reflects the leftward tilt in the Democrats’ internal center of gravity since 2009. But mostly it reflects the belief among Democrats that the public’s surprising support for the ACA—particularly the law’s expansion of Medicaid—suggests there may be greater tolerance than previously assumed for aggressive government action to restrain health care costs. To critics who argue that a public option might lead to a government-run single-payer plan by pricing private insurers out of the market, Murphy, in effect, says: So what? “I don’t foreclose the possibility that ultimately enough people will choose [the public option] that it would be hard for private insurers to stay in business,” he told me. “But that would be up to consumers.”

Compared with Sanders’s plan, the public-option proposals present only an incremental expansion of government’s role within the health care system. But Republicans think they could still trigger old public anxieties about a government “takeover” of health care.

The fact that just one Senate Democrat in a competitive race this fall has endorsed either plan—Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin is on the Murphy-Merkley bill—may reflect hesitance over the question of whether GOP attacks would work. The health care debate over the past 18 months has shown how much of the public is unwilling to roll back the ACA. The next 18 months may measure how many Americans are willing to advance beyond it.

What We're Following See More »
DISCUSSES "IMPORTANCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP"
Mnuchin Meets with MBS
13 hours ago
THE LATEST
SAYS HIS DEATH STEMMED FROM A FISTFIGHT
Saudis Admit Khashoggi Killed in Embassy
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Saudi Arabia said Saturday that Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist who disappeared more than two weeks ago, had died after an argument and fistfight with unidentified men inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Eighteen men have been arrested and are being investigated in the case, Saudi state-run media reported without identifying any of them. State media also reported that Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy director of Saudi intelligence, and other high-ranking intelligence officials had been dismissed."

Source:
ROGER STONE IN THE CROSSHAIRS?
Mueller Looking into Ties Between WikiLeaks, Conservative Groups
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter."

Source:
PROBING COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION
Mueller To Release Key Findings After Midterms
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections ... Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice." Mueller has faced pressure to wrap up the investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said an official, who would receive the results of the investigation and have "some discretion in deciding what is relayed to Congress and what is publicly released," if he remains at his post.

Source:
PASSED ON SO-CALLED "SAR" REPORTS
FinCen Official Charged with Leaking Info on Manafort, Gates
3 days ago
THE DETAILS
"A senior official working for the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has been charged with leaking confidential financial reports on former Trump campaign advisers Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and others to a media outlet. Prosecutors say that Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior adviser to FinCEN, photographed what are called suspicious activity reports, or SARs, and other sensitive government files and sent them to an unnamed reporter, in violation of U.S. law."
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