“Intentionally Obscuring The Obvious”: Five Things Every American Needs To Know About Health Care Reform
“Discover the obvious,” Jonathan Cohn said on Monday.
Cohn is one of the nation’s foremost health care journalists and the keynote speaker of the journalism portion of “Hearsay or Fact: A Symposium on the Communication of the Affordable Care Act,” hosted by the Center for Healthcare Research and Transformation.
A senior editor at The New Republic and author of Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis—and the People Who Pay the Price, Cohn decided to use his time to give five rules about reporting on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). His first rule was an admission that people who follow the everyday tribulations related to Obamacare — like wonks in every field — often assume they don’t need to report on “the obvious” and thus fail to report on the issues that matter most to the public.
He pointed to the success of fellow panelist Stephen Brill’s Time magazine cover story “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us” that illuminated the outrageous variation in medical prices and profits from one hospital and one patient to the next, a well-known fact to experts that came as a shock to many Americans.
What’s obvious to everyone about the debate over Obamacare is that the public is confused. Nearly two-thirds of Americans didn’t know in late September that the health care exchanges were opening on October 1 and 67 percent of the uninsured said “they don’t have enough information about the law to know how it will impact their families,” according to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. The uninsured, of course, make up this law’s key demographic. They are the people this law is designed to help most, and their participation in the health care marketplaces will determine if the law is a success.
Why are people so confused? Much of what should be “obvious” has become obscured — intentionally.
Democrats passed the ACA with only Democratic votes — and Joe Lieberman. Republicans have responded with an unprecedented effort to scare voters, starve implementation and sabotage the law, an effort that helped doom the launch of Healthcare.gov, which the White House has to own as a greater act of self-sabotage than anything Republicans could have pulled off themselves.
The political battle over the law has overwhelmed any pertinent policy discussion. So it’s no wonder that people can’t even agree on the basic premises that made health reform necessary and an improvement over the current system, with 56 percent of Americans saying they’ve heard more about the politics and the controversies of the law than any discussion of its practical impact.
Here are five “obvious” premises that every American needs to understand so we can begin to have a rational debate on health care reform.
Before The ACA, America’s Health Care System Was Already ‘Socialized’
You should know by now that the United States spends more than any country on health care, even though approximately 50 million citizens have no insurance whatsoever. This is how we ended up with the 46th most efficient health care system in the world.
The Affordable Care Act attempts to fix this in a number of ways, including health care exchanges, subsidies, Medicaid expansion and regulation.
Since 2011, the government has set how much insurance companies have to spend on actual care – 80-85 percent depending on their size — and the minimum standard for the policies they can offer, among several other regulations. So even though private insurers remain in business and the government hasn’t taken control of the medical industry as it has in the United Kingdom, Republicans argue that it’s “a government takeover” of the health care system. Based on this standard, health care has been “taken over” by the government and even “socialized” for decades.
Since 1965, Americans over 65 and under the poverty level were guaranteed basic care, though it took until 1982 before the last state, Arizona, accepted Medicaid. This left America with a single-payer system, with a giant hole mostly made up of Americans under 65 with jobs, and their families.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that tried to plug that hole — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This law states that any hospital that accepts any federal funds — which basically every hospital in America does — cannot turn away any patient, regardless of his or her ability to pay. As this bill provides no reimbursement for this care, the costs of those who can’t pay get passed on to those who can.
In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which mandated guaranteed renewability for all health insurance plans, requiring that an insurer has to offer you renewals of your policy without charging you any more based on any new information it has about your health.
These are three of the key “government takeovers” that helped lead to the broken health care system that we are now attempting to fix, while maintaining a private insurance industry.
The ACA clearly isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, health economist Thomas Buchmueller pointed out at Monday’s symposium.
That would be a two-page bill that said, more or less, “Everyone is now on Medicare.”
Rich People Get Their Health Care Subsidized By Taxpayers
Single payer is a simple, proven system that would insure all Americans, save lives and cut costs. And it will likely never happen in America as long as the filibuster exists in the Senate. Still, liberals will not stop offering this ideal solution whenever Republicans complain about costs or cancellations.
The right has its own fantasy solution that is about as improbable as single payer: getting rid of the tax exclusion of premiums for employer-sponsored insurance.
As a result of an accident of history, employers and employees do not have to pay taxes on costs of health insurance policies.
Conservatives hate this. “We call the tax exclusion for ESI a tax ‘break,’ but when you think about it, it operates more like a tax hike,” writes the Cato Institute’s director of health policy Michael F. Cannon, another symposium participant. “It coerces workers into handing control over $11,000 of their earnings to their employers, who then choose the workers’ health plans for them.”
John McCain campaigned for president on ending this “tax break,” which costs taxpayers more than the costs of all the subsidies and Medicaid expansion in the ACA, according to symposium participant Dr. John Z. Ayanian. This will never happen because it would be far more disruptive than Medicare for All and — unlike effective single-payer systems around the globe — it has never been proven to work, anywhere.
As a result, taxpayers will continue to help subsidize takers like Ted Cruz, whose family’s $40,000-a-year insurance policy from Goldman Sachs entitles them to a subsidy large enough to put a family of four on Medicaid, though the Cruzes are clearly able to afford their own health insurance.
Republican Arguments Against Obamacare Are Opportunistic And Contradictory
Republicans fought the passage of the ACA by conjuring images of “death panels” pulling the plug on grandma and a “government takeover” that would destroy America.
The problem with these warnings was that approximately 80 percent of Americans get their health insurance through their employers. Most of these people haven’t and likely won’t notice much of a change in their coverage whatsoever, unless they’ve gone in for preventive or reproductive health care and discovered that they didn’t have to pay a co-pay for it.
That’s why Mitt Romney’s continual assertion that President Obama was embracing “European” solutions never made sense to most Americans.
Republicans didn’t seize on the president’s now-disproven promise “If you like your insurance, you can keep it” until late 2013, though it was clear that it never jibed with his other promise to make sure insurance policies met minimum standards.
Now their fixation on cancellation notices boxes them in, in two ways. First, it ignores that their plot to repeal Obamacare would result in as many as 137 million cancellation notices. Second, right-wing policy proposals would force cancellations that target far more than the estimated 5 percent of Americans who are having their plans changed by the ACA.
“Even if free-market health care reformers were able to pass the plan of their dreams — which would involve tweaking the tax code to end the bias in favor of employer-sponsored insurance — it would likely mean a lot of people would get dropped from their current plans,” the Washington Examiner’s Philip A. Klein notes.
The Republicans’ advantage is that they’re so stuck on the “repeal” part of “repeal and replace” that they’ve never actually passed an ACA replacement. Their rhetoric, and the fact that the only real conservative alternative to single payer requires an individual mandate, means any plan they pass would likely end up generating the same criticisms they’re lobbing at the ACA.
We Can’t Go Back To The Pre-Obamacare Health System
Dr. Ayanian pointed out that though the ACA may not be embraced by a majority of the American public, three key policies have: young people staying on their parents’ plans until age 26, closing the Medicare Part D prescription-drug donut hole, and the ending of concerns about pre-existing conditions.
The Republican Study Committee Obamacare replacement plan, which the House has not voted on, provided pre-existing conditions protections, but only for those who are already insured.
The Washington Post’s Jonathan Bernstein puts it simply — repeal “is dead”:
No one is ever going to kick young adults off their parents’ insurance (or change the law so that insurance companies are allowed to do it). No one is going to bring back the various limitations in pre-ACA insurance policies. Some trimming of the new Medicaid rolls might be possible. But no one — no politician who has to face reelection, at least – is going to just toss all those people off their insurance with nothing to replace it.
Beyond all this is simply the Humpty Dumpty-ness of the situation: The old system has been slowly pushed off the wall for three years now, and by this point it’s really beyond repair, whatever the merits or politics of the situation. Garance Franke-Ruta captured some of this in making the point that delaying things would be impractical at this point, but it really goes beyond that. Too many people have already done too many things to make a full reversal even remotely plausible.
Before the ACA became law, millions of Americans lost their insurance, rates were rising faster than the rate of inflation and the federal government was absorbing more and more health care costs. Repealing it would be a nightmare in that it would reveal a broken health care system badly in need of some type of fix.
Republicans Are Hurting Themselves, Their States And The Working Poor To ‘Punish’ Obama
Because the Supreme Court gave them the chance to do it, about two dozen — all Republican — states have completely rejected the Medicaid expansion in the ACA, even though the government will cover 100 percent of the costs of the expansion for the first three years. States could then opt out of the coverage or continue it with the feds’ contribution decreasing to 90 percent by 2020.
Medicaid expansion should be a huge transfer of wealth from rich blue states to poorer red states, as most of America’s public assistance programs are. Instead Texas, with the largest uninsured population in the nation, has rejected expansion, but will still contribute to helping to insure Californians.
By rejecting Medicaid expansion, just four states – Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina — will leave 5 million poor people with jobs uninsured. This will result in more emergency room visits that the uninsured cannot afford, and higher rates for the insured in those states.
By: Jason Sattler, The National Memo, November 5, 2013
“The Last People We Should Take At Their Word”: In Shocking Development, Health Insurance Companies Still Suck
The Affordable Care Act was designed to solve the big problem of health security—namely that nobody in America had it—and find a way to get coverage for the 50 million Americans who were uninsured. It also attempted to address lots of other problems, and this week it’s a good time to remind ourselves that many of its provisions came about because, to put it bluntly, health-insurance companies are despicable scum who will literally kill people (more on this below) if it makes them more money. I bring this up because now, people in the news media are learning about a scam insurance companies are trying to pull on some of their customers, and are not only not portraying it as such, but are simply taking the insurance companies’ word and blaming the whole thing on the Obama administration.
I realize that part about “despicable scum” is a little intemperate, and without question there are employees of the insurers who are good people. But as a whole, outside of the tobacco companies or gun manufacturers it’s hard to find an industry that so frequently destroys people’s lives when they’re at their most vulnerable and fools so many people into thinking they’re safe when they aren’t. Because of the shocking behavior insurance companies are capable of, the ACA had a number of provisions meant to rein in the companies from their most horrific abuses. It made lifetime caps on coverage illegal, meaning that people with the worst illnesses and accidents won’t go bankrupt because their insurance companies abandon them. It outlawed denials for pre-existing conditions. It banned “rescission”—remember that one? That’s when you get the worst news of your life, for instance that you have cancer, and the insurance company swings into action. They start poring over every document you’ve ever signed to see if they can come up with a reason to kick you off your coverage and avoid paying for that expensive treatment. Like the woman who got a cancer diagnosis and was scheduled for a double mastectomy, then got booted from her policy because her insurance company’s diligent efforts unearthed that she had forgotten to tell them she had once been treated for acne, which allowed them to claim that her original application for insurance was fraudulent and therefore they could rescind her whole policy.
That’s what I mean when I talk about them literally killing people. If someone has a life-threatening illness and will die without treatment, and then the insurance company to which they’ve been dutifully paying premiums decides to say “screw you” and make it impossible for them to get treated, then that’s an accurate way to describe it.
And as you’ve heard, these very same companies are now sending letters to thousands of their customers, telling them that the policies they’re on (which in many cases are junk insurance that covers virtually nothing) are being cancelled, and they’ll now have to pay hundreds of dollars more every month. Those customers are naturally aghast. And reporters are running to find them and air stories about the horrible “rate shock” Obamacare is producing. What those reporters aren’t doing is asking what you’d think would be relevant questions, particularly since it’s health insurance companies we’re talking about. Questions like: Is this letter accurate? Is there something the insurance company isn’t telling this customer? Might they be trying to pull a fast one, to maximize their profits at this person’s expense?
Even though it was only last week, I think I was among the first to raise the possibility that these cancellation letters are a scam, and now it’s looking more and more like that is indeed the case. One after another of the people who have been featured on breathless news stories about insurance cancellations turns out to have much better options on the new health insurance exchanges, in many cases for better coverage at lower prices than they’re paying now. The letters appear to be an effort to lock customers into high-priced policies before they discover that they have other options available to them. But we aren’t finding out about that from the big media outlets, who just prefer to run the same credulous story over and over about the 60-year-old Florida woman with a $54 a month joke of an insurance plan whose insurance company is trying to sell her a plan for many times as much.
This whole thing should serve as a reminder that while the ACA tried to create a regulatory framework that would curb the worst abuses of the insurance industry, the whole thing was also engineered to maintain the position and profits of that very industry. And if you think they suddenly decided to value their customers’ physical and financial health over their own profits, you’ve got another thing coming.
While we’re on the topic, Brian Beutler gives us something else to think about:
Let this be a reminder to the Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House who killed the public option. It could’ve been designed as a default plan for cancelees. And its very existence would have imposed discipline on the system — if everyone knew they can enroll in a plan modeled on Medicare, insurers would be less inclined to swindle their customers. Ironically, but predictably, the Democrats who will face the greatest political consequences of the turbulent final throes of the old individual market are in many cases the ones responsible for leaving it in the hands of for-profit insurers. But there’s plenty of blame to go around here, including to reporters treating missives from health insurance companies as reliable testimony.
You’ll remember the absolute horror with which Republicans greeted the possibility of a public option being included in the law. They were terrified that if Americans were allowed to choose to enter a Medicare-like program, lots of them would do it, and the insurance companies would lose customers. This was a perfectly legitimate fear; if Medicare is any indication, a public option would have likely been less expensive than private insurance and produced happy customers, and every person who chose to get their insurance from it would represent a rejection of conservative ideology. President Obama claimed he favored the inclusion of a public option, but never displayed any enthusiasm for it and seemed eager to drop it as one of the many failed gestures intended to win the Republican support that never materialized.
That may be a topic to revisit on another day. But if there’s any rule that reporters should follow when reporting on the rollout of the ACA, it’s this: Don’t take insurance companies at their word. They’ve already shown us who they are, and there’s no reason to think they’ve changed.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, November 5, 2013
“What Congress Didn’t Say”: Obamacare Outlaws Policies That Are Essentially Worthless
As I watched Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius being grilled by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week, it was immediately clear to me just how many of them are in the pockets of the industry I used to work for.
Former colleagues of mine undoubtedly had a hand in writing the members’ comments and questions. Their behavior showed just how much more willing they are to protect the profits of health insurers than protect the health and financial well- being of their constituents.
I got the same treatment from many of those committee members when I provided testimony in March — or tried to. I had been invited to talk about the business practices of insurers — practices that have contributed to the rising number of uninsured and underinsured Americans. Among them: refusing to sell policies to millions of us because of preexisting conditions and charging exorbitant premiums for skimpy coverage to others.
When I tried to tell the tale of a Florida woman who died of cancer last year because she was priced out of the market and was unable to buy coverage at any price, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from my home state of Tennessee, cut me off. She clearly had no interest in hearing about Leslie Elder or anything else I had to say. Instead, Blackburn held forth for more than five minutes and gave me all of 20 seconds to respond.
Throughout that hearing, a former co-worker from my Humana days, who later worked for the industry’s big lobbying group and then the Bush administration, stood a few feet behind Blackburn. That former co-worker now serves as senior policy adviser to the committee. So I was not the least bit surprised that Blackburn was determined to give me as little time to talk as possible.
During the Sebelius hearing, Blackburn and other GOP members talked about letters constituents have received informing them that their policies will not be available next year. How could that be, they asked, when the president assured us four years ago that, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Blackburn, et al accused the president of being dishonest.
Obama should not have used those exact words. That’s because one reason for the Affordable Care Act in the first place was to protect us from insurers all too willing to lure us into inadequate policies with slick marketing materials. Insurers have made billions in profits from selling such junk insurance, and people like Blackburn clearly want to get rid of the law that makes junk insurance illegal.
As I wrote in Deadly Spin, a years-long industry strategy has been to shift more and more medical expenses to patients. As part of that strategy, big insurance firms bought smaller companies that specialize in limited-benefit plans, which often provide such skimpy coverage that some insurance brokers have refused to sell them.
Cigna, for example, marketed a limited-benefit plan to narrowly targeted prospective customers: mid-sized employers with high employee turnover, such as chain restaurants. The underwriting criteria was specific. The average age of an employer’s workers couldn’t be higher than 40 and no more than 65 percent of the workers could be female. (Insurers have long charged women more than men because in their eyes being born female is a pre-existing condition.) In addition, employers had to have a 70 percent or higher annual employee-turnover rate, meaning that most employees wouldn’t stay on the job long enough to use their benefits. Employees also could not get coverage for care related to any pre-existing condition during their first six months of enrollment.
Limited-benefit plans like that one, blessedly, will not be available next year, and that’s because of the Affordable Care Act. Neither will plans with sky-high deductibles. Another way insurers have shifted costs to patients in order to enhance profits: luring or forcing them into plans with such high deductibles they join the ranks of the underinsured the moment they enroll. When people in these plans get seriously sick or injured, they are on the hook for thousands of dollars in medical bills they’ll have to pay out of their own pockets.
Millions of Americans — including my son, Alex — got letters from their insurers in the years before the ACA was enacted informing them that their plans were being discontinued. Why? To fulfill the industry strategy of moving people out of plans with affordable co-payments and co-insurance obligations and into high-deductible or limited-benefit plans. Such plans are far more profitable.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear a politician railing against Obamacare because people are getting letters from their insurers. The truth these politicians want to obscure is that Obamacare is protecting their constituents from buying coverage that provides little to no shield against financial ruin. And that protection is something the insurance industry wants to get rid of.
By: Wendell Potter, The Center for Public Integrity, November 4, 2013
“Happiness Today, Bankruptcy Tomorrow”: Why Letting Everyone Keep Their Health-Care Plan Is A Terrible Idea
The current furor over President Obama’s broken “keep your plan” promise confusingly melds together two very different claims. The first is a simple question of accuracy and honesty: Obama made a promise about his legislation, the promise has not come true, and a certain level of abuse is deserved. (Karl Rove huffs, “This is a serious breach of trust with the American people.” And you know that Karl Rove takes breaches of presidential trust with the utmost seriousness.)
The justifiable scrutiny of Obama’s veracity has melded seamlessly into a second and very different claim: That Obama’s broken promise is not merely a violation of trust, a fair enough charge, but an act of unfairness to those who have lost their plans.
The health-care debate has suddenly come to focus almost obsessively on the alleged victims of Obamacare, who have lost their cheap individual insurance. Here’s Matthew Fleischer mourning the loss of his bare-bones plan in the Los Angeles Times; here’s David Frum doing the same for the Daily Beast. Mary Landrieu, a vulnerable red-state Democrat, is introducing legislation to ensure that nobody can lose their individual health-care plan.
The idea underlying this notion, while facially appealing, is in fact misguided and morally perverse. No decent health-care reform can keep in place every currently existing private plan.
The New York Times has a helpful graphic displaying the structure of the insurance market:
The left and top-right squares show the four fifths of Americans who get coverage through the government. Those on the left who get covered through their employer get tax-subsidized insurance, and those in the top right get insured by the government directly. Obamacare leaves that structure in place (though it has a series of mechanisms designed to hold down their cost inflation).
The main coverage provisions affect the people in the bottom right quadrant. Most of that quadrant lacks any insurance at all, which points to the dysfunctionality of buying individual insurance before Obamacare. Some of them — 5 percent of the population — have a health-insurance plan. Health-care reforms have always thought of the people within that segment as being essentially the same group of people. Those are mainly healthy, non-poor people who have been skimmed out of the insurance pool, leaving behind those too poor, or too likely to need medical care.
Obamacare is designed to pool the bottom-right quadrant into risk pools, somewhat like the people on the left and the upper right. The poorest of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, though a Republican Supreme Court and Republican state governments collectively decided to leave them uninsured. The rest have coverage through the new health exchanges. By design, those exchanges prevent insurers from skimming out the healthy and excluding the sick. Some of the 5 percenters will get less expensive health care, mainly because they qualify for tax credits. Others think they will have to pay higher costs but, upon inspection, will be getting cheaper coverage on the exchanges.
But some other portion — an as-yet-undefined fraction of the 5 percent — will actually be paying higher insurance premiums in the exchanges, and their complaints are echoing across the land. Should we feel concerned for their plight? No, we should not, for three reasons.
First, a great many of the people who are happy with their individual health-insurance plan are happy only because they are unaware of its actual value. This sounds patronizing, but it also happens to be demonstrably true. Even highly educated consumers within this market were frequently snookered by insurance plans that turned out to leave them exposed to surprise costs — they incur a sudden high medical cost and discover their plan does not actually cover them. The fine print is a game of wits between insurer and customer that the insurer always wins. A large share of the people telling us now they’re happy with their individual insurance simply haven’t been exposed to a negative surprise. The handful of reporters who closely followed the individual-insurance market before last week are all watching the eulogies for the lost individual plans and having their brains explode.
Second, it is true that some people actually are getting decent individual health insurance, and have to pay more under Obamacare. Before, insurers could charge them a rate based on their individual likelihood of needing medical care, and some people are lucky enough to present a very low actuarial health risk. Now those people will have to pay a rate averaging in the cost of others who are less medically fortunate.
Have those healthy 5 percenters who do have decent insurance “lost” under Obamacare? In the very immediate sense, yes. That is what Obamacare advocate Jon Gruber is getting at when he concedes that 3 percent of Americans will be worse off under the new law. They’ll be paying higher rates in 2014 than they would have.
Yet this takes an oddly narrow view of their self-interest. You may pose a low actuarial risk today, but you cannot be certain your luck will continue for the rest of your life (or until you qualify for Medicare). Even people living the healthiest lifestyles suffer illnesses and accidents, or marry people who have a uterus. Those who are paying a higher rate are getting something for their money: a guarantee that some future misfortune won’t lock them out of the market. You might call such a guarantee “insurance.”
So some of the 5 percenters are wrong, some of them are short-sighted, but they have identified a basic moral principle: Why is it fair to steal from them, the healthy, and give to others, who are sick? If they have truly mastered the fine print of the individual insurance market and want to gamble on remaining a good actuarial risk forever, should they be permitted to keep their winnings? Having drilled down through the practical arguments, here we get to the final reason, the moral bedrock of the issue.
Their objection has an intuitive, libertarian appeal that obscures the fact that the vast majority of insured Americans already submit to this form of redistribution. Indeed, they’re submitting to a much more stringent form of this redistribution. The exchanges are allowed to charge older people up to three times the premium they charge the young. But in the employer system, they’re not allowed to charge older people any higher rate at all. The shift from healthy to sick in the employer insurance pool is massive. Adrianna McIntyre, a 24-year-old wonk prodigy, notes that her employer-based coverage charges her more than three times the rate she could get in the new exchanges.
People accept this transfer from the healthy to the sick because it is the only way to make medical care affordable to the sick. This is a simple mathematical truism. If your medical care costs more than you can afford to pay, the difference must be borne by those whose medical care costs less than they can afford to pay. There are any number of ways to handle this transfer. One is taxes, and Obamacare does use taxes to make insurance more affordable for many of its recipients. There are other potential methods — conservatives like to tout high-risk pools, at least in the abstract — but none escape the basic math.
The healthy 5 percenters do recognize that Obamacare carries out this transfer. Fleischer complains he is “being taken advantage of.” Frum, writing in the same spirit, complains that he must pay $200 more now that insurers can no longer reward him for his excellent health:
That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall.
The complainers are right. But they won’t quite face up to the full implications of their complaint. If you believe the healthy are entitled to keep the financial benefits of their good health, then you must also believe the sick must be denied medical care. Should that principle be the foundation of our health-care system?
By: Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, November 1, 2013
“Plan Versus No Plan”: Virginia’s Gubernatorial Race Is A Referendum On ObamaCare, And The GOP Is Going To Lose
Republican Ken Cuccinelli became a national conservative star as Virginia’s attorney general by leading the legal fight to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional all the way to the Supreme Court. Now he’s running for governor, and he’s making health care the defining issue of his campaign.
As the federal rollout continues to be plagued by website problems and renewed criticism over discontinued low-coverage individual plans, Cuccinelli told his supporters Monday, “We need people to know Nov 5th in Virginia is a referendum on ObamaCare.” His latest ad slams Democratic opponent Terry McAuliffe for wanting to “EXPAND OBAMACARE,” and closes by saying “to stop ObamaCare and higher taxes, there’s only one choice.” Outside conservative groups are also running ads excoriating McAuliffe as a supporter of ObamaCare.
Virginia voters appear to agree with Cuccinelli that health care is one of the most important issues of the campaign. The Washington Post poll conducted October 24-27 asked likely voters how important eight different issues were to determining their vote. Along with job creation and education, health care tied for first, with 72 percent saying those issues were “very important.”
And yet, in that same poll, Cuccinelli is losing by 12 points.
In fact, Cuccinelli is losing in every single poll that’s been taken in this race save for one in early July, suggesting that his defeat is a near-certainty.
Republicans are clinging to a bit of hope after a Quinnipiac poll released this week showed him only down by 4 points. But that poll only shows a minor tightening — within the margin-of-error — relative to the previous Quinnipiac poll from earlier in the month. Further, both Quinnipiac and the Washington Post polls peg Cuccinelli’s level of support around a meager 40 percent. And both polls show a third-party candidate in the race drawing support away from both major party candidates, which suggests if the also-ran fades in the stretch it won’t upend the stable trajectory of the race to date. (The Huffington Post synthesis of all the polls to date estimates McAuliffe’s lead to be a healthy eight points.)
Why isn’t health care helping Cuccinelli in the swing state of Virginia, despite all the very real problems ObamaCare has been facing this month? After all, the candidates’ positions on health care couldn’t make the choice any clearer. Cuccinelli wants the law repealed. McAuliffe says “it’s time to implement the law” by accepting federal money so the state can expand Medicaid coverage for the working poor, and having Virginia establish its own health insurance exchange.
The simplest answer is: McAuliffe’s position is shared by a whole lot of Virginians.
A plurality of 49 percent supported ObamaCare in a different Quinnipiac poll taken October 2-8. Voters said McAuliffe would do a “better job” on health care by a nine-point margin over Cuccinelli.
Of course, now that the shutdown is over and the program’s rollout is suffering significant flak, you might expect those numbers to worsen for McAuliffe. But this week’s Washington Post poll finds voters now trust McAuliffe to do a “better job” on health care by a whopping 21-point margin.
There is another plausible reason: Republicans still refuse to bolster their criticism of ObamaCare with serious policy alternatives.
Despite Cuccinelli’s insistence that the election is a referendum on ObamaCare, his website fails to include a page dedicated to what he would do about health care. Instead, he buries a few paragraphs on health care on his overall “Issues” page, which offers several conservative buzzwords but no actual policy specifics. Meanwhile, McAuliffe spells out his health care agenda in a seven-page white paper.
Plan beats no plan.
Despite all the troubles the Obama administration has had in getting ObamaCare off the ground, what’s been clear all month is this: Whatever misgivings and uncertainties persist, millions of people are going to Healthcare.gov and want the new system to work. But only Democrats, and a very small number of Republican governors, are showing a commitment to making the system work.
This should be a wake-up call to Republicans who thought the shaky Affordable Care Act rollout would shred belief in governmental competence, undermine liberalism, justify conservative obsession with repeal, and infuse Republicans with fresh momentum.
Because as this Virginia race shows, without plausible Republican policy alternatives, Democrats will able to ride out the inevitable hiccups that come with implementing new government programs and avoid any mass anti-government backlash. Simply hating on ObamaCare has not, is not, and will not be a potent political weapon.
By: Bill Scher, The Week, October 31, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 