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 »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×