Why Democrats Aren’t Falling for the GOP’s Obamacare Pitch

Because it’s a trap! They know that delaying implementation carries many more risks than rewards.

Man's finger caught in mousetrap. 
National Journal
Ben Terris
See more stories about...
Ben Terris
Sept. 26, 2013, 4:10 p.m.

It sounds like the most reas­on­able thing in the world — like life in­sur­ance, or rust­proof­ing. Re­pub­lic­ans say all it will take to avoid the calam­ity of a gov­ern­ment shut­down is for an itty-bitty delay of Pres­id­ent Obama’s health care law. What’s the big deal? He’s already pushed off the man­date for em­ploy­ers to provide cov­er­age by a year, and 22 House Demo­crats even voted for a sim­il­ar stay of the in­di­vidu­al man­date.

“The pres­id­ent knows this law’s not ready; that’s why he delayed it for big busi­ness,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, at a press con­fer­ence last week. “Every­one knows this thing is not ready.” Cer­tainly, Demo­crats could be per­suaded that the rol­lout could use a little more time to iron out the kinks — maybe give the pub­lic more op­por­tun­ity to rally around the law. Win-win, right?

“Ab­so­lutely, pos­it­ively not,” House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., said on CNN later when asked wheth­er a delay would be ne­go­ti­able. Demo­crats aren’t stu­pid. They know what hap­pens when you give a mouse a cook­ie.

Any delay to Obama­care — wheth­er it’s push­ing back the in­di­vidu­al man­date or strip­ping fund­ing for a year — would only open the door to dev­ast­at­ing con­sequences for the law. Once Obama shows he is will­ing to ne­go­ti­ate on his sig­na­ture piece of le­gis­la­tion — and, by im­plic­a­tion, sig­nal­ing that the law may have deep, fun­da­ment­al prob­lems — there will be no end of try­ing to tear it down, with op­pon­ents per­haps gar­ner­ing an­oth­er 41 House votes to de­fund it in the pro­cess.

“It’s not worth dis­cuss­ing, be­cause it’s not go­ing to hap­pen,” Demo­crat­ic Rep. Chris Van Hol­len of Mary­land told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “We’re more than happy to work with Re­pub­lic­ans to fix some of the glitches. But they’re not in­ter­ested in mak­ing ad­just­ments; they’re simply try­ing to wipe it out com­pletely.”

This is no secret. For Re­pub­lic­ans to even im­ply that a delay would be good for the White House (“I ac­tu­ally be­lieve the pres­id­ent wants to delay Obama­care, be­cause it’s such a mess,” said con­ser­vat­ive Rep. Raul Lab­rador of Idaho. “It’s just not work­ing for them.”) is spe­cious. The GOP wants to kill this law, and tran­quil­iz­ing it is just an at­tempt to put it down in hopes that it nev­er wakes up. Se­cure a post­pone­ment to next year, and maybe if the Sen­ate flips, the dy­nam­ic changes. Delay it long enough, and even­tu­ally a Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent might be able to help fin­ish it off for good.

In­stead, the open­ing that Re­pub­lic­ans see is largely rhet­or­ic­al. They say the Demo­crat­ic mes­sage isn’t match­ing up with the cold, hard real­ity of im­ple­ment­a­tion. “The delays the ad­min­is­tra­tion has been forced to im­ple­ment in the health care law have giv­en us a golden op­por­tun­ity to talk about fair­ness: ‘If big busi­ness gets re­lief from the pres­id­ent’s health care law, fam­il­ies and small busi­nesses should, too,’ ” Speak­er John Boehner has been fond of say­ing.

Nat­ur­ally, it’s not that simple and, past the boil­er­plate, few on either side ar­gue with that. The in­di­vidu­al man­date and the em­ploy­er man­date may sound like equal com­pon­ents of the Af­ford­able Care Act, but the re­quire­ment that all con­sumers pur­chase in­sur­ance has a much more far-reach­ing ef­fect. “Only one [man­date] has a sub­stan­tial ef­fect on be­ha­vi­or­al de­cisions,” said Linda Blum­berg, a seni­or fel­low at the Urb­an In­sti­tute. “Only one has broad im­plic­a­tions for re­form and for the chances of achiev­ing the ob­ject­ive of the law.”

Delay­ing the em­ploy­er man­date, Blum­berg ar­gues, has merely cost the gov­ern­ment some rev­en­ue from pen­al­ties. Moreover, the reach of that man­date is min­im­al: Most large com­pan­ies of­fer health care cov­er­age, and many small ones are ex­empt from do­ing so. Delay­ing the in­di­vidu­al man­date, con­versely, would pro­foundly destabil­ize the law.

Obama­care is of­ten thought of as a three-legged stool. To bal­ance the cost of mar­ket re­forms such as al­low­ing those with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions to ob­tain in­sur­ance cov­er­age (the first leg), the in­di­vidu­al man­date (the second leg) forces health­i­er people to pay in­to the sys­tem. To help low-in­come con­sumers pay for the cov­er­age, the gov­ern­ment kicks in sub­sidies (the third leg). Lose any of the three legs and you end up with a use­less piece of fur­niture.

There’s an­oth­er reas­on it makes no sense for Demo­crats to delay the law: It’s not grow­ing any more pop­u­lar with the pas­sage of time. In a re­cent ABC News/Wash­ing­ton Post poll, only 42 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they ap­proved of the law — a num­ber that has been con­sist­ent since en­act­ment. The only way to sig­ni­fic­antly change the pub­lic’s view is for the law to work. An­oth­er delay means an­oth­er year of prom­ising be­ne­fits that re­main out of reach.

Again, Re­pub­lic­ans know this, which is why they’re ratchet­ing up the pres­sure on Demo­crat­ic mod­er­ates who have to face the voters next year, such as Sen. Mark Be­gich of Alaska. Bet­ter that someone like Be­gich has to stand for reelec­tion with the law’s vir­- tues still un­cer­tain than with it pro­du­cing tan­gible res­ults.

Be­gich isn’t tak­ing the bait. “This eco­nomy needs to keep mov­ing for­ward. To jeop­ard­ize it over a po­ten­tial shut­down would be a huge mis­take,” he told NJ.

Ac­tu­ally, the Re­pub­lic­ans agree com­pletely. It’s in the defin­i­tion of jeop­ardy that the two sides part ways. “If you want to write a story about how we want to shut down the gov­ern­ment, that’s your fault,” Lab­rador told a re­port­er last week. “If Harry Re­id and the pres­id­ent want to shut down the gov­ern­ment — be­cause what we are ask­ing for is a simple delay of Obama­care — then I hope you write your story that way.”

What We're Following See More »
“CLINTON MUST BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT”
Bernie Sanders Seeks to Unite the Party
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Instead of his usual stump speech, Bernie Sanders tonight threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, providing a clear contrast between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump on the many issues he used to discuss in his campaign stump speeches. Sanders spoke glowingly about the presumptive Democratic nominee, lauding her work as first lady and as a strong advocate for women and the poor. “We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he said. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president, and I am proud to stand with her tonight."

“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
×