Print
Is health care reform dead? Megan McArdle says so, offering two arguments -- one persuasive, the other not. Her unpersuasive argument is that Democrats are going to walk away from health care reform because it's unpopular:
Health care's popularity drops any time Congress discusses it. With respect to Nate Silver, who argues that the bill would be popular if they ever passed it and could discuss what's in it, you cannot "prove" that voters like a bill because various bits of it poll well on their own. ...
Moreover, many of the pieces that poll well, like deficit reduction, are things that voters like, but don't believe this bill will achieve. They're not going to believe it any more after you pass the bill through a process that involves buying off every special interest group in sight.
Legislators are not unaware of this problem, and they cannot be magicked into ignoring their constituents by saying, "These are not the polls you are looking for."
This would be a decent argument if the choices on the table were "pass health care" and "go back in time to the spring of 2009 and decide not to take up health care." McArdle does not address the point that both houses of Congress have already voted for health care. They already own the downside. Their opponents can attack them for having voted for tax hikes and Medicare cuts and death panels.
McArdle argues that passing the bill won't make it any more popular. I disagree. The aura of success, shifting the onus onto the Republicans who oppose popular things like a ban on preexisting conditions (and who will be pressured by their base into advocating repeal, something their leaders seem wisely reluctant to do.)
But suppose I'm wrong about that. Suppose there's no upside at all to passing health care reform. McArdle assumes, without explicating her reasons, that walking away from the issue is a way for Democrats to cut their losses. Why, though, would that be the case? Passing the bill may or may not make it more popular, letting it die is surely going to make it less popular. If the bill dies, then it's the subject of lengthy, painful postmortem coverage detailing its flaws and mistakes. It becomes the symbol of big government run amok, and the 60 Senate Democrats and 220 House Democrats who voted for it will suffer politically all the more. Moreover, the already-demoralized liberal base would become apoplectic with the Democratic Party. 1994 was bad, but passing a bill through both chambers then sitting by and letting it die is the kind of behavior that makes even the most pragmatic Democratic voter want to punish his own party.
In sum, I'm totally unpersuaded by the argument that Democrats will let health care die because it's in their interest to do so. It's not. It's a suicide pact, and pretty much every liberal I know -- the kinds of liberals who understand the need for compromise and running to the center -- will be there to hold the pillow over their face if they do it.
Where McArdle is right is her description of how health care will die if Democrats do choose to go that route:
They don't want to say they want to kill it, of course. So instead, they're doing pretty much what I expected: putting it on the back burner. We want to pass health care, but we just have a few things to do first . . .
That sounds a lot like Rahm Emanuel's plan of action, floated in today's New York Times:
Mr. Emanuel, the chief of staff, said he hoped Congressional Democrats would take up the jobs bill next week. Then, in his view, Congress would move to the president’s plan to impose a fee on banks to help offset losses to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the fund used to bail out banks and automakers.
Lawmakers would next deal with a financial regulatory overhaul, and then pick up where they left off on health care.
Let's call this the "My boyfriend is going to do a world tour with his
The timetable Emanuel is laying out makes little sense. The jobs bill will take some time. Financial regulation will take much longer. Let's be conservative and give all this four months. Is Emanuel really suggesting that he expects Congress to return to health-care reform in the summer before the election? Forgetting whether there's political will at that point, there's no personnel: Everyone is home campaigning.
Moreover, there's a time limit on health-care reform. The open reconciliation instructions the Senate could use to modify the bill expire when the next budget is (there's disagreement over the precise rule on this) considered or passed. That is to say, the open reconciliation instructions expire soon. Democrats could build new reconciliation instructions into the next budget, but that's going to be a heavy lift.
The good news, for those inclined to freak out, is that Emanuel is not necessarily speaking for the administration. (See Jonathan Not Me, who unlike me is highly plugged in.) Emanuel's message is not David Axelrod's message. And it's not Obama's message. But Emanuel is out there floating his rock tour/Vegas/Army enlistment plan, and that's a major problem for Democrats, not to mention the national interest.
I see two potential explanations. Either Obama doesn't know what he wants to do, and his deputies are spreading conflicting stories in order to see what takes, in which case he needs to make up his mind pronto. Or else he wants to do what he says he wants to do, but his chief of staff is out there subverting his agenda and making Congress doubt his seriousness, in which case Obama needs to shut up Emanuel or fire him.
Update: Jonathan Cohn has more on this.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
COMMENTS (15)
Please stop quoting McArdle, I don't know the last time she has written anything worthy of rebuttal. I don't think it is any of these things, I think it is simply a case of not knowing how to go forward without it blowing up in their faces. Everyone is trying to hindsight a hasn't happened yet. It is getting downright anal.
Please stop quoting McArdle, I don't know the last time she has written anything worthy of rebuttal. I don't think it is any of these things, I think it is simply a case of not knowing how to go forward without it blowing up in their faces. Everyone is trying to hindsight a hasn't happened yet. It is getting downright anal.
"It is getting downright anal."
Is getting? Better to say "has gotten".
"It is getting downright anal."
Is getting? Better to say "has gotten".
Colonel Mustard. In the library. With the filibuster.
Colonel Mustard. In the library. With the filibuster.
This goes back to the one real flaw I saw in Obama's primary campaign: He can't kill the bear. When confronted by a bear (Hillary Clinton, healthcare reform, etc.), don't wound the bear. Aim carefully and kill the bear, or don't shoot. In the case of healthcare reform, the difference between wounding and killing is one of time. Nearly all of the increased public disapproval of the bill owes to the length of time Congress has debated it. Pass the bill in three months, and you've killed the bear and survived. Let debate linger for seven, eight, twelve months, and all you get is mauled to death by an angry, wounded bear.
This goes back to the one real flaw I saw in Obama's primary campaign: He can't kill the bear. When confronted by a bear (Hillary Clinton, healthcare reform, etc.), don't wound the bear. Aim carefully and kill the bear, or don't shoot. In the case of healthcare reform, the difference between wounding and killing is one of time. Nearly all of the increased public disapproval of the bill owes to the length of time Congress has debated it. Pass the bill in three months, and you've killed the bear and survived. Let debate linger for seven, eight, twelve months, and all you get is mauled to death by an angry, wounded bear.
-
1a:
Obama knows what he doesn't want to do.
[Hint:] If left to congress, a replay of the first round will bleed him and the bill. So, he's letting his deputies freelance conflicting stories to keep the targets in motion. He'd only deciding the best time to take a stand.
Yes, I'd have bet, as recently as a few days ago, More Time = More Bad. But the GOP will be occupied with a few economic choices that are too tempting to ignore. Health care isn't dead but the wrong attention now may kill it. Short a passage, a rest is OK so long as something is succeeding.
Regarding Rahm? He didn't made the case to Obama that he was a whiz with congress. Give him an F for urgency, and that was ... view full comment
-
1a:
Obama knows what he doesn't want to do.
[Hint:] If left to congress, a replay of the first round will bleed him and the bill. So, he's letting his deputies freelance conflicting stories to keep the targets in motion. He'd only deciding the best time to take a stand.
Yes, I'd have bet, as recently as a few days ago, More Time = More Bad. But the GOP will be occupied with a few economic choices that are too tempting to ignore. Health care isn't dead but the wrong attention now may kill it. Short a passage, a rest is OK so long as something is succeeding.
Regarding Rahm? He didn't made the case to Obama that he was a whiz with congress. Give him an F for urgency, and that was the area the President was most self-critical. Rahm's job is getting action on the jobs bill. Again, if he's winning there and Obama is securing health care from sinking, it's hardly a retreat.
Obama needs to land some punches, pick up a few first downs (pick your sport) but he needs some positive momentum before he raises up the pieces of the bill which will pass. A bill which 2,3 or 4 Republicans can brag about will get their vote, especially when it appears part of their future. (Medicare passed when they bet on it's future value)
Finally, he's a basketball guy. The bill is on the bench because it has four fouls. It can't take any more hits on defense but in Obama's hands he knows he can score. Face it, the do nothing strategy may be less appealing for people who will be around do defend it. It may not be a tactic the public will tolerate until Fall and the GOP has begun to fight within. The pendulum may be swinging back...
-
The right answer is Obama, as Compromiser-in-Chief.
The right answer is Obama, as Compromiser-in-Chief.
Chait is correct: the political damage to the Democrats is already done, and failure to pass reform will compound it by confirming in the public's mind their suspicion of both the reform legislation and the Democrats (can't you hear the Republicans: the legislation is so bad that even the Democrats have abandoned it!), whereas passing reform will actually reveal the benefits to the public that cannot be subverted by Republican propaganda. But it's also a great idea to keep Reid and Pelosi and the rest off the public stage, to allow Obama the chance to sell reform (like soap I like to say, without all this talk of mandates, tax increases, and subsidies). As for McArdle, she has been against ... view full comment
Chait is correct: the political damage to the Democrats is already done, and failure to pass reform will compound it by confirming in the public's mind their suspicion of both the reform legislation and the Democrats (can't you hear the Republicans: the legislation is so bad that even the Democrats have abandoned it!), whereas passing reform will actually reveal the benefits to the public that cannot be subverted by Republican propaganda. But it's also a great idea to keep Reid and Pelosi and the rest off the public stage, to allow Obama the chance to sell reform (like soap I like to say, without all this talk of mandates, tax increases, and subsidies). As for McArdle, she has been against reform from the start; not surprising for a Rander.
Right now the ball is in the court of the House Democrats. They could, if they had the will and the cojones, pass the Senate bill without waiting for the reconciliation issues to be guaranteed. They could send a health care reform bill to the President for signing tomorrow, but they are preoccupied with the flaws of the bill, worried that the Senate will not come through on the reconciliation compromises, and spooked by prospect of electoral defeat. So my candidate for health care murderer is the House Democrats. Obama may qualify as an accessory before the fact.
Right now the ball is in the court of the House Democrats. They could, if they had the will and the cojones, pass the Senate bill without waiting for the reconciliation issues to be guaranteed. They could send a health care reform bill to the President for signing tomorrow, but they are preoccupied with the flaws of the bill, worried that the Senate will not come through on the reconciliation compromises, and spooked by prospect of electoral defeat. So my candidate for health care murderer is the House Democrats. Obama may qualify as an accessory before the fact.
-
raylward wrote, "...the political damage to the Democrats is already done, and failure to pass reform will compound it...".
I do believe they understand that. I also believe they see the best alternative is to let Obama have at it, they'll take the credit and avoid the scorn.
However, both sides realize they've sullied their own reputations less than his and he has three years to recover. Now the GOP has to be careful, "Any plan but his." may end up sounding like "Anyone but us.". Only a small percentage of voters and George Will vote for people who do nothing.
It was a mistake for Democrats to not pass the bill soon enough but the GOP may regret the result after all - - - It ... view full comment
-
raylward wrote, "...the political damage to the Democrats is already done, and failure to pass reform will compound it...".
I do believe they understand that. I also believe they see the best alternative is to let Obama have at it, they'll take the credit and avoid the scorn.
However, both sides realize they've sullied their own reputations less than his and he has three years to recover. Now the GOP has to be careful, "Any plan but his." may end up sounding like "Anyone but us.". Only a small percentage of voters and George Will vote for people who do nothing.
It was a mistake for Democrats to not pass the bill soon enough but the GOP may regret the result after all - - - It's getting late, it's not a bill they can run against and it's still not dead. For all the grief they caused, Obama could make a sale. A guy as sharp as Obama should make it possible to have people voting for something they were against...
I mean, that's what it took for a black guy to get elected and that was tougher sale than this damn bill.
-
-
I'll say it again. The votes are not there in either the Senate or the House. The Dem version of HCR is dead.
I'll say it again. The votes are not there in either the Senate or the House. The Dem version of HCR is dead.
Leftists like Jonathan Chait just don't get it. America is not a socialist country. The great unwashed out there in America love their freedom, and they are quite capable of telling their supposed betters among what Vladimir Nabokov aptly named the Stalinist bourgeoisie to go get stuffed.
According to Chait and his ilk the leaders of the Democratic Party, most of them fools and knaves who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, are supposed to know how my family and me should spend our money and live our lives. Give me a break.
Leftists like Jonathan Chait just don't get it. America is not a socialist country. The great unwashed out there in America love their freedom, and they are quite capable of telling their supposed betters among what Vladimir Nabokov aptly named the Stalinist bourgeoisie to go get stuffed.
According to Chait and his ilk the leaders of the Democratic Party, most of them fools and knaves who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, are supposed to know how my family and me should spend our money and live our lives. Give me a break.
I'll say it again. The votes are not there in either the Senate or the House. RIP HCR.
I'll say it again. The votes are not there in either the Senate or the House. RIP HCR.
Comments such as "America is not a socialist country" unintentionally illustrate the problem. Republican demagogues have distorted HCR and the Democrats have done a poor job of setting the record straight. There's nothing remotely socialist about HCR. Not unless you also believe that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are also socialist -- and if you do, then you're at the fringe of an already right-wing party.
To such commenters, I'd challenge you to first define "socialist," and then explain why HCR meets that definition. And tell us which healthcare problems don't need fixing in your view: 40-plus million uninsured? Rising, already crippling healthcare costs? Insurance company ... view full comment
Comments such as "America is not a socialist country" unintentionally illustrate the problem. Republican demagogues have distorted HCR and the Democrats have done a poor job of setting the record straight. There's nothing remotely socialist about HCR. Not unless you also believe that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are also socialist -- and if you do, then you're at the fringe of an already right-wing party.
To such commenters, I'd challenge you to first define "socialist," and then explain why HCR meets that definition. And tell us which healthcare problems don't need fixing in your view: 40-plus million uninsured? Rising, already crippling healthcare costs? Insurance company abuses?
The reason there are -- if that's true -- not the votes in the House is entirely due to the lack of vertebrae in Dem lawmakers, and not due to the inherent value of reforming health care in the U.S., which will be even more urgent in the future if it's not done today.
Lack of leadership from the White House the last couple of weeks doesn't help, of course.
The reason there are -- if that's true -- not the votes in the House is entirely due to the lack of vertebrae in Dem lawmakers, and not due to the inherent value of reforming health care in the U.S., which will be even more urgent in the future if it's not done today.
Lack of leadership from the White House the last couple of weeks doesn't help, of course.
"Obama needs to shut up Emmanuel or fire him"
Thanks Johnathan -- lets attack the only person in the White House who thinks in POLITICAL TERMS. How about an attack on his intelligence like you and your colleagues attack Senator Lieberman's intellect when he killed the public option and the Medicare buy-in. Rahm has more political intelligence in his pinky then you and your pals have gained in your life times. Rahm knows how to win elections. Do you or your pals have any political sense. The first law of politics is -- SURVIVAL by winning re-election by representing the constituents who elected you. Rahm knows how to read polls and election results which unequivocally point that he ... view full comment
"Obama needs to shut up Emmanuel or fire him"
Thanks Johnathan -- lets attack the only person in the White House who thinks in POLITICAL TERMS. How about an attack on his intelligence like you and your colleagues attack Senator Lieberman's intellect when he killed the public option and the Medicare buy-in. Rahm has more political intelligence in his pinky then you and your pals have gained in your life times. Rahm knows how to win elections. Do you or your pals have any political sense. The first law of politics is -- SURVIVAL by winning re-election by representing the constituents who elected you. Rahm knows how to read polls and election results which unequivocally point that health care reform -- particularly for independent voters -- is a losing issue. Look at the exit polls from Massachusetts. Stop with the sermons, the academic clap trap, and the p.r. flacking for the left wing democrats and thinking about politics. Which brings to Nate Silver's statement that once it passed people would love health care reform.
Not true. Have you ever read the bill or looked at the CBO scoring documents. The bill which is built on scoring tricks and quicksand does the usuual trick -- Backload the entitlement expansions to 2013-14, and front load the Medicare cuts and taxes. Why this structure -- It is the oldest trick in the book to fit large entitlement expansions into a CBO ten year scoring window. Yes, there would be some relatively minor insurance changes which would primarily impact the small individual market. But in the early year 2010 to 2014, it is mainly pain for the public particularly Medicare beneficiaries. When was the last time that happen in a bill -- the passage and repeal of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 which among other things created the first Medicare Drug Benefit. The problem was there was an immediate surtax on the elderly and the drug benefit did not begin for three years. THEREFORE IT WAS REPEALED IN 1989 WHEN JOHN DINGELL AND DAN ROSTENKOWSI WAS THE CHAIRMEN OF THE COMMERCE AND WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEES (AND WAXMAN AND STARK WERE THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN).