Last week, Richard Hanna, a
Republican from central New York who just retired from Congress, admitted
something that almost no member of his party in elected office has been willing
to concede in public. “At the end of the day, the Affordable Care Act will in some
form survive, and the millions of people who are on it will have insurance,” he
said. “It’s something this country
needed and something people want. Politically, it’s untenable to just wipe it
away. So who really won? In my argument, the president, Obama, won. At the end
of the day we will have some sort of national health care that’s going to look
very similar to what we have.” The mania for destroying the law is faltering
because the Republican crusade to kill Obamacare was always based on delusions
that are no longer possible to conceal.
In the aftermath of the
presidential election that handed them full control of government, Republicans
quickly converged on a plan to execute their longtime battle cry of repealing
Obamacare: They would immediately repeal the law, perhaps even signing the bill
to do it on Inauguration Day, after which they
would have leverage over shattered Democrats to force the opposition party to
supply votes to pass whatever the majority came up with. Since that point, they
have moved steadily backward.
In early January, several Senate
Republicans indicated opposition to repealing Obamacare without a replacement —
enough defections to kill repeal, given that the party can only lose two Senate
votes. The plan to quickly repeal, and then figure out a replacement, appears
to have been halted, and the party has yet to decide what will take its place. A week after the inauguration, a
secret recording of a Republican Congressional brainstorming session revealed
the party had not advanced beyond step one in conceptualizing a plan, let alone
achieving consensus on any of the numerous dilemmas they would need to resolve.
“We’re in the information-gathering mode right now,” says Representative Mark Meadows. At
the current trajectory, sometime next week, a Republican staffer will Google
“What is health care?”
In an interview Sunday with Bill O’Reilly,
President Trump conceded that health care was “very complicated,” and floated a
timetable for devising a replacement that could extend into next year:
Yes, in the process and maybe
it’ll take till sometime into next year, but we’re certainly going to be in the
process. Very complicated — Obamacare is a disaster. You have to remember
Obamacare doesn’t work, so we are putting in a wonderful plan. It statutorily
takes a while to get. We’re going to be putting it in fairly soon. I think
that, yes, I would like to say by the end of the year, at least the rudiments,
but we should have something within the year and the following year.
While Trump is known to be an
unreliable narrator of his own administration’s policy, the climbdown from his
characteristic boasting of rapid victory is nonetheless striking. He seems to
have absorbed from his advisers the difficulty of the situation and the need to
reel back expectations.
As the Republicans continue their
long retreat, they are encountering every false premise that brought them to
this point. The most important of these is a misconception about Obamacare’s
popularity. For most of the time since 2010, polls have showed negative
approval for the law, the single fact that conservatives have leaned on most
heavily since 2010. Of the countless polemics against the Affordable Care Act
that have appeared since 2010, the law’s mediocre approval ratings are the data
points conservatives invoke more than any other. It is the foundation for their
belief the law is corrupt and was passed illegitimately, that the public shares
the GOP’s root-and-branch rejection of its very design, and that Republicans
have a mandate to repeal it.
Supporters of the law have had a
different explanation for its poor approval ratings. People have very little
information about what the law does, and even many people who benefit from it
are not aware.
The long, tortured negotiations
required to pass the law did not prove the process was corrupt or failed, but
that health-care reform is intrinsically difficult. People will fight much
harder to avoid losing a benefit they have — even if that benefit is not
actually at risk — than to create a new one they don’t. Proponents of
health-care reform always believed that bringing health care into reality would
make it much easier to defend.
That has turned out to be
correct. The law’s growing popularity can be seen across several dimensions.
Repealing Obamacare first, without a replacement, is wildly unpopular, drawing 20 percent approval or less. Repealing the law and starting
over with a new one — the Republican position since 2010 — draws support from one-third of the
public, while keeping Obamacare and fixing it gets nearly twice as much
support. On the straightforward question of whether Barack Obama’s
health-care reform was a good idea or a bad one, for the first time ever, “good
idea” now wins:
Republicans suffer from an
additional handicap that Democrats did not face in 2010: they are not merely
over-promising what they can deliver, they are promising the exact opposite.
While GOP rhetoric has lambasted the cost of plans offered by Obamacare, their
alternatives would all impose even higher costs. An extended public debate over
actual, filled-out Republican plans that force people onto catastrophic plans
that do not cover basic medical expenses would be a political debacle.
It is not only majority opinion
that is swinging against Republicans on health care. Lobbyists, too, tend to
organize against change. Hospitals are demanding that
Republicans either keep covering the Americans who have insurance through
Obamacare, or else compensate the hospitals for the losses they would suffer
from facing millions of customers who can longer pay for their care. AARP has staked out opposition to one of the GOP’s
favorite proposals to tweak Obamacare, which would allow insurers to charge
even higher rates to older customers. Obamacare only permits insurers to charge
older customers up to three times as much as the young. Republicans have railed
against the burden this places on younger workers buying insurance — and it’s
true that Obamacare makes the young pay more so the old can pay less. But now
Republicans are learning the difference between posturing against a law, and
cherry-picking its downsides, and actually having to endorse an alternative
position. When you have to pick winners and losers, not just complain about the
losers in the other party’s law, you make people mad.
The energy among political
activists has reversed, too. In 2009, tea-party activists flooded town halls
and harried Democrats, often frantic with terror at imaginary “death panels”
they believed the law would contain. Now it is advocates of Obamacare mobilizing in anger and chasing terrified Republican members
of Congress down the street. Conservatives spent years lionizing demonstrations
against Obamacare as the justifiable anger of a free people. Now they can see
what health-care reform looks like from the opposing end.
There is no guarantee that
Obamacare will survive. The Republican majority may decide melting down the
health-care markets is worth the backlash. It wouldn’t be the first time they
have taken a political gamble that seemed irrational. It’s possible that the
Trump administration might intend to preserve Obamacare but wind up killing it
through sheer managerial incompetence; a White House that can screw up
something like an introductory phone call with the prime minister of Australia
could screw up anything.
Still, the pattern of the three
months since the election shows the cause of Obamacare repeal collapsing. Obama
and his party were able to design a plan that squared the minimal humanitarian
needs of the public with the demands of the medical industry. There is no
evidence at all that Trump and his party can do the same. It is dawning on the
Republicans that the cost of destroying this achievement in social policy may
well be to destroy their majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment