The prognosis for repeal of Obamacare
Conservatives continue to sound the alarm about the ‘Affordable Care Act’
Notably, Democrats support the Democratic Party less than Republicans do the Republican Party. Additionally, Democrats’ greater party desertion is not just to vote for third party candidates. They also vote for Republicans in greater percentages (8.4 percent) than Republicans vote for Democrats (7.4 percent). Democrats have done both in four of the last five elections. Both contradict the popular perception of greater Republican disunity — at least among member ranks.
The five elections are equally revealing regarding ideological support. Conservatives and liberals were only slightly less loyal to parties than parties’ self-professed members. Conservatives voted for Republicans on average 81.2 percent of the time, while liberals voted for Democrats on average 84.6 percent of the time.
The evidence contradicts the perception Republicans are the more ideologically-attached party. Judged by liberal and conservative attachments, the conclusion is not true. Taking conservative and liberal voting habits as indicative of how each group feels served by the respective parties, liberals feel Democrats do so markedly better (in each of the last four elections) than conservatives feel Republicans do.
Overturning these popular assumptions about American politics raises a bigger question. Why does the Democratic Party, with a larger percentage of the electorate and greater loyalty from their ideological base, currently trail Republicans electorally in Washington and even more so in the states?
A simplistic answer would be that it is because Democrats desert their party in greater percentages. But that still only begs the question — why — especially with the Democratic Party benefitting from greater loyalty in their ideological base.
Again, the numbers provide the answer. Although the Democratic Party enjoys a much greater degree of ideological loyalty from liberals, that base is a dramatically smaller percentage of the electorate than Republicans’ conservative one. Over the last five elections, conservatives have averaged 33.8 percent of the electorate, just over a third; liberals have averaged just 22.8 percent, well under a quarter.
In American politics, where small single digits matter greatly, the 10.6 percent average difference between liberals and conservatives matters enormously. Even liberals’ greater attachment to the Democratic Party cannot offset such a large quantitative difference.
And there may be more than a simple quantitative difference at play too. Turning back to prevailing conventional wisdom, stripped of identifiers, it premises that ideology was responsible for political disunity. Of course, by that it means Republican Party attachment to conservatives fractures it.
Could not the same premise instead be politically reversed?
The points are there to make a case that the Democratic Party’s stronger attachment to liberals (as evidenced by liberals’ stronger attachment to it) has created a quantitative and qualitative weakness. Quantitatively, the Democratic Party’s ideological ally is simply far less numerous than Republicans’ — thus undercutting their member numbers advantage. Qualitatively, that attachment may also explain Democrats’ higher average party desertion — particularly to the Republican Party — than Republicans.’
It makes sense a party’s members would strongly support it. It equally makes sense each end of the political spectrum would support the party they perceive most closely represents their priorities — all voters do that. The quandary existing in prevailing political analysis comes from the nonsensical conclusions of conventional wisdom: That the currently majority party (Republican), despite its consistent minority of voters, is harmed and fractured because of excessive attachment to one end of the ideological spectrum (conservative). The reversal of conventional wisdom actually better explains current conditions.
For more than seven years, Republican lawmakers, including President Trump, campaigned on a promise to repeal Obamacare. They rightly noted that Obamacare severely disrupted the health insurance markets, making health plans prohibitively expensive for many Americans. They reminded everyone of President Obama’s hollow promise that those who wanted to keep their health care plan or their doctor could do so if they wished.
The drumbeat was such that in 2015, when Mr. Obama was still in office, Congress managed to pass a partial repeal of Obamacare.
The effort was vetoed, of course. But conservatives didn’t give up.
We kept sounding the alarm about the damage that Congress had unleashed by foisting the ironically named “Affordable Care Act” on the public, while the Obama administration insulated them from the full costs of the program with taxpayer subsidies that were never even appropriated. We ran the numbers. We chronicled the plight of real Americans suffering under the law.
Fast forward to 2017. The party that ran on a repeal platform now holds the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress. Surely the plug would finally be pulled on Obamacare.
But no. In a vote that ignored the clear will of the American people, the Senate recently voted against taking the next step in undoing this damage.
In 2015, it was a cakewalk. Now, when there is an administration and a Congress in place that could get the job done, lawmakers have balked at the hard work of governing and undoing the hardships of this disastrous law.
And make no mistake, undoing is exactly what is required here. No half-measures will do. Repeal is a must.
Obamacare cannot be fixed or bailed out. The law’s mandates, insurance regulations, taxes, and expansion of government simply go too deep. No partial effort to address these problems can truly free Americans from the high insurance costs and limited choice they now face.
“For millions of middle-class Americans, paying their health insurance bills is now equivalent to taking out a second mortgage,” writes health care policy expert Robert Moffit. “Competition among insurers is declining precipitously in the individual markets (Aetna just recently pulled out of the Obamacare exchanges), and more and more Americans are left with fewer choices and narrower networks of doctors and other medical professionals.”
That’s why it’s time for Congress to get back to work. Lawmakers need to revisit Obamacare’s central problems, pronto.
Step one, according to Mr. Moffit, is to cut Obamacare’s slew of taxes. Step two is to give the people and their state lawmakers the freedom to decide for themselves (using an amended version of Obamacare’s own Section 1332 waiver process) whether they want to keep Obamacare’s costly insurance regulations and mandates.
Step three: phase down higher Medicaid payments to able-bodied adults without children who can work. This would reorient federal spending toward the poorest and most vulnerable recipients.
Congress also could use a taste of its own medicine, so to speak, which is why Mr. Trump should cancel the illegal taxpayer insurance subsidies for congressional health coverage — monies drawn from the Treasury by the Obama administration without statutory authorization.
“That way, House and Senate members and staff can fully experience Obamacare the way that millions of middle-class Americans do — having to pay inflated premiums without the benefit of special taxpayer subsidies that are available to no other class of American citizens,” Mr. Moffit writes. “If members of Congress want Obamacare, they should get it — good and hard.”
In Washington, there are no permanent victories or permanent defeats. We must continue to press to completely roll back the damage caused by Obamacare and replace it with a patient-centered health system that works better for all Americans.
Make no mistake, undoing is exactly what is required here. No half-measures will do. Repeal is a must.