Republicans Are Not Thankful For Obamacare

November 5, 2013Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Albert Hunt had a column this past Sunday that made a surprising claim: Republicans are actually very lucky that Obamacare exists or else their internal fighting would be even more prominent. Here’s Hunt:

Republicans are thankful for President Barack Obama’s health-care law; it provides a respite from their bitter schisms.

The government shutdown and the near-default were devastating for the party. If it takes a drubbing, as expected, in the Virginia gubernatorial race this week, there will be fresh recriminations.

This is wrong. The bitter schisms exists because of Obamacare. Imagine what party unity would look like if Obamacare didn’t exist. There wouldn’t have been a disastrous shutdown fight that split the party into two factions, one looking to use it as leverage to stop Obamacare and another wanting to fight another day.

Many commentators have noted that the internal divisions in the Republican Party are mostly ones of tactics, not policy. John Boehner did everything in his power to keep his party unified by listening to the extremists. However, while this satisfied the Tea Party, it infuriated many Senate Republicans and moderates in the House. For Boehner, this was the better option, but the result is an establishment that says it is ready to take on radical candidates in primaries next year. Without Obamacare, none of these divisions take place.

The majority of Hunt’s column focuses on immigration reform and the dangers it pose politically for the Republican Party. This danger is magnified by Obamacare as well as the government shutdown that sent their favorability plummeting to historic lows. Without Obamacare, the party would have a higher approval rating and a bit more room to ignore popular policies such as immigration reform. The defund strategy only puts more pressure on the GOP to do something constructive for the country.

Hunt is correct that HealthCare.gov’s catastrophic start has given the party something to rally behind, but this “respite” is just that. It’s a small break from all the infighting over tactics that Obamacare has caused the GOP. On the contrary, the party would be more unified and in a much better position politically if the Affordable Care Act didn’t exist. Republicans certainly aren’t thankful for it.

Why Middle Class Plan Cancellations and “Rate Shock” are the Big Stories

November 5, 2013Danny Vinik 3 Comments

Jonathan Chait and Kevin Drum both have posts today that lament that media has focused on cases of “rate shock” amongst the middle class instead of necessarily focusing on the millions of people receiving subsidies and those with pre-existing conditions finally being able to purchase insurance. Here’s Chait:

Why has their plight attained such singular prominence? Several factors have come together. The news media has a natural attraction to bad news over good. “Millions Set to Gain Low-Cost Insurance” is a less attractive story than “Florida Woman Facing Higher Costs.” Obama overstated the case when he repeatedly assured Americans that nobody would lose their current health-care plan. There’s also an economic bias at work. Victims of rate shock are middle-class, and their travails, in general, tend to attract far more lavish coverage than the problems of the poor. (Did you know that on November 1, millions of Americans suffered painful cuts to nutritional assistance? Not a single Sunday-morning talk-show mentioned it.)

Drum adds:

In addition, I can only assume that writing about the people who are benefiting from Obamacare would strike DC reporters as a little too much like shilling for the Obama administration.

The real reason that the media has focused on the middle class has three reason. First, Obama lied to them about keeping their plans (Chait mentions this). Liberals continue to underestimate how infuriating this is to the average American. Obama sold the law on the premise that anyone who liked their plans would get to keep them. They would get to keep their network and doctors as well. This was a crystal clear message from the president so that people wouldn’t be spooked about change. This has nothing to do with whether this change is necessary (it is). The fact is Obama lied to get his law passed. The Americans he lied to are predominantly middle class ones who are purchasing insurance through the exchange and are not eligible for Medicare. Is it surprising that the media’s attention has been focused on the people Obama lied to in order to pass the Affordable Care Act?

Second, liberals bought into the framework that Obamacare would be judged based on “rate shock.” This isn’t necessarily a fair way to judge law. Some people will pay more for more comprehensive coverage, others will pay less for better coverage, some will pay more for worse coverage and others will have the chance to purchase insurance for the first time. The effects of Obamacare are more than just the sticker price of insurance, even after subsidies are factored in. The law requires insurers to cover 10 essential health benefits, places limits on the deductible, and eliminates the cap on lifetime costs. These are all important aspects of Obamacare that drive up rates.

The problem is that for months now, health wonks have spent most of their time arguing about rates under Obamacare. That’s been the focal point of discussion. Not surprisingly, the law is being judged based on “rate shock” now. However, to be fair to the law’s supporters, this was always going to put them at a disadvantage as the easiest way to evaluate Obamacare is by what happens with insurance rates.

Finally, the failures of HealthCare.gov have ensured that the focus will be on all those receiving cancellation letters. If the website functioned properly, many Americans who found out their plans were cancelled would log on to the federal exchange, see they are eligible for subsidies and cheaper plans, and become happy supporters of the law. Others would find out their plan is still more expensive and continue to be furious at the administration. But under that scenario, some of the stories of middle class Americans receiving notices that their plans were discontinued would be alleviated. That would help relieve much of the pressure that the White House is under. Unfortunately, they royally screwed up the website.

Thus, the media’s focus on middle class cancellation notices and “rate shock” is the result of Obama’s lie, a misleading framework for evaluating the law and HealthCare.gov’s catastrophic launch. Without the president’s deceit and the marketplace’s struggles, the media would have had many more opportunities to cover the law in a positive light. Unfortunately, the administration never gave them that opportunity.

The Most Important Race Today Is In Alabama

November 5, 2013Danny Vinik 1 Comment

It’s election day today and there are a couple of important races. First, in Virginia, Terry McAuliffe is likely on his way to become governor as he holds a sizeable lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli. Cooch has received little financial support in the race, alienated women with his positions on birth control and has simply been seen as too extreme for most Virginians. There is also a libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, on the ballot who has cannibalized some of Cuccinelli’s support. In the lieutenant governor’s race, the Republican Party nominated someone even more radical than Cuccinelli in E.W. Jackson. Democrat Ralph Northam is likely to win in that one. The most competitive race in Virginia is for attorney general where Democrat Mark Herring and Republican Mark Obershain are neck and neck going into today.

Out in New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie is set to win reelection over Democratic candidate Barbara Buono by a sizeable margin. Many commentators believe that Christie has spent the last few days aiming his message not at New Jersey residents, but at Republicans throughout the country in anticipation of a presidential run in 2016.

The most important race, though, is the Republican primary in Alabama’s First Congressional District, a special election after Rep. Jo Bonner took a job at the University of Alabama earlier this year. This race pits the establishment candidate Bradley Byrne against far right winger Dean Young. The winner of today’s primary will easily win the general election in this very red district and both men will likely have identical voting records in Congress.

Byrne, while still very conservative, is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NRA and other business groups. On the other side, Young has received little support from Tea Party organizations throughout the country. Instead, he has focused his message entirely on social issues, particularly gay marriage, and has tried to out-conservative Byrne. Despite the disadvantage in money and national support, polls show that Young’s strategy may be working. Turnout is expected to be low since it’s a special election in an off-year, an advantage for Young whose extreme rhetoric will rally people to get out and vote.

The implications for this race stretch far beyond Alabama though. This is the chance for the moderate wing of the Republican Party to show that they can defeat a fringe candidate. As Mother Jones’s Tim Murphy points out, there are few, if any, actual policy differences between the two. Instead, this election is symbolic. This is a race that the establishment should win. There are so many things lining up in Byrne’s favor that a loss here will demonstrate what an uphill battle it is for the moderate wing of the party.

Murphy’s piece does a good job outlining Byrne’s advantages:

He’s received more money and support than Young
He has a solid conservative record
Young was unable to name the House GOP Whip or Treasury Secretary (Seriously)
Young is a birther
Bonner and Jack Edwards, another former Congressman from AL01, endorsed Byrne

This should give Byrne a sizeable lead, but it hasn’t. The race is still very tight. Luckily for the GOP, nominating Young won’t risk losing the seat. The district is too conservative for that to happen. If Young loses, the Tea Party won’t be particularly upset. They realized that there was no purpose in getting involved in this battle as both Young and Byrne will vote the same in the House. All it does is risk an embarrassing defeat. Thus, Tea Party groups have not intervened at all (something Young is not happy about).

The establishment and business wing of the Republican Party thought differently though. They saw a way to defeat an extreme candidate and have made a sincere effort to do so. A victory would be a reminder that they can defeat conservative candidates, but it wouldn’t be much of a win. After all, the limited support Young has received means that the establishment is not really taking on the Tea Party here. They are taking on a radical candidate with almost no outside support. That makes a defeat very embarrassing. Is the establishment so inept that they can’t take a solid conservative candidate, provide him with generous donations and defeat a right-wing nutjob who can’t name the House GOP Whip? That would not be a good sign for the party’s ability to challenge more well-supported Tea Partiers in races next year.