GOP should acknowledge ACA success
Several days ago, a survey by the Associated Press in Time Magazine found support for President Barack Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, at 26 percent (its lowest in its four-year lifetime). The national media howled, including this excerpt from a Fox News article:
Grace Wang | Daily Trojan
“President Obama is struggling to stop the steady slide in public support for his health care law, as yet another poll shows public approval of the law — and his job performance — hitting a new low.”
Fox has already eaten their words when the ACA was ruled constitutional, but this time it’s even more delicious. Reading a little deeper into the poll’s subtext could have predicted what was coming next. First, just 13 percent wrote that they thought the law would be repealed. Second, 56 percent said frustrations stemmed from problems with the website for them or a member of their family. As the deadline to sign up for insurance without a penalty passed, something remarkable happened: The website held up, and people’s opinions on the law seemed to change faster than the underwear they were wearing during the last poll.
By the deadline’s arrival, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that for the first time in 20 polls, more Americans supported the ACA than opposed it, if only by a slim margin of 49 percent, compared to 48 percent who were opposed.
The wild swings in polling demonstrate two things. First, problems such as the website’s rollout have a huge impact on temporary popularity of a law, but the law critics will have to rely on attacking more fundamental tenets of the law if they want to have any hope of repealing or modifying it. Second, the Republican Party’s over-reliance on criticizing the ACA will hurt their potential in the 2014 midterm elections.
Speaking in the Rose Garden Tuesday, President Obama reported that over 7.1 million Americans have signed up for healthcare since the rollout of the insurance exchange last October. This is significant because despite the glitches with the website, the number beats both the White House’s initial projection by 100,000 and the Congressional Budget Office’s projection by a million.
As long as President Obama is able to announce numbers like this, the law doesn’t stand a chance of being repealed. Arguments that seek to explain if and when health insurance costs will go up because of the law aren’t persuasive until such dire predictions come true, and solutions that call for a rewrite of the law with nothing but the statements of insurance companies to back them up can’t sustain momentum given the volatile poll numbers cited above.
The problem is also that those solutions aren’t politically feasible — thumping American swing voters over the head with healthcare economics might win Nobel Prizes, but it does not win elections. Shocking as it may seem, the vast majority of Americans have never read Nobel Prize-winning research.
Regarding the upcoming elections, it would be difficult to dispute the fact that Republicans will make gains in both the House and the Senate — structural political factors (more Congressmen are up for reelection in districts that President Obama lost in 2012 than in districts he won, for example) have already determined that. But a dependence on criticizing the ACA could be problematic, especially considering the two points of attack with the most political salience.
The first is an argument that has yet to be proven. Because the law relies upon younger, healthier Americans enrolling (to balance the cost to companies of insuring more unhealthy people), if a significant amount of “young invincibles” don’t sign up, healthcare costs will rise. Only time will tell if this happens, but it’s a risky bet — if the statistic goes the other way, President Obama will get to crow in the Rose Garden again, and that won’t be good for the GOP.
The second is a report by the Congressional Budget Office, which was released at the beginning of 2014 and sought to explain that the ACA would cost the United States over two million jobs. As I wrote then, that report is misleading because it estimated Americans would work less hours, not lose their jobs. Consider now this quote from Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former director of CBO, which appeared in the Washington Post, “At some level you have to take your hat off and say congratulations,” said Holtz-Eakin. “It’s an interim accomplishment at best.”
The worst part is, the GOP should already know this. Remember Mitt Romney? He certainly remembers. In his first interview after losing the presidential election, he said this, “I think the Obamacare attractiveness and feature was something we underestimated, particularly among lower incomes.”
The GOP should be careful not to let history repeat itself. If they do, they could have two more years in the minority to think about it.
Nathaniel Haas is a sophomore majoring in political science and economics. His column, “State of the Union,” runs Thursdays.
The Democrats need to acknowledge that their leaders are misleading Americans with the 7M figure. How many of the enrollees were previously insured and lost their plans that were sold in the individual insurance market? They had no choice but to re-enroll under the ACA. That does nothing to help the “uninsured.” And how many of the enrollees have failed, or will fail, to continue payment of their required premiums? That will directly impact the “affordability” of the ACA when the risk is not spread widely enough. As a student journalist, you should learn to question government figures because our leaders often mislead us to achieve political goals that have nothing to do with the policy at hand.
Nate,
A good article. But ask your professors, “do our two American parties ever acknowledge the good actions of each other?” He will tell you “almost never.”
Praise the other party? It makes no sense for the GOP to do this. That is not the way parties compete. Attack! Attack if a criticism will help If the situation were reversed, the Democrats would behave likewise.
What the GOP could do to be helpful, is to find areas of improvement where they will then craft good, workable solutions and the legislation to improve ACA (“ObamaCare”). This could be a fine contribution without praising the opposing party.
ACA is law. With all of its flaws, it was well intended and it is the law. Instead of ranting and raving about repeal, the GOP could earn respect by constructive action rather than contemptible and futile whining. And my politics? I am middle of the road, was skeptical about ACA, but now that it has become law, I want to see it succeed and be an excellent social program for our country.
As far as repeal of the ACA, is it really a law when the deadlines change at the whim of the executive? How about when plans declared “illegal” are suddenly allowed for “one more year”? What about waivers to the president’s political allies? Weren’t the “Cadillac Plans” supposed to be taxed? This is t he problem with creating law by summary. A 2000 page law becomes 20,000 pages of regulations. None of the people’s representatives were involved in shaping the regulations. The president did not sign the regulations. How do the regulations assume the force of law? Will the president really have his minions place people in federal prison over some regulation created in hiding away from the people?
The ACA a success? What were the “goals” of the legislation? Cover the 35M uncovered? Lower costs? Allow people to keep their plans and doctors? It is nice for the president to stand before a camera and declare “mission accomplished”. However at what cost? While there are great anecdotes of people getting covered for less – there are just as many of people getting covered for more. With a bit of digging it is easy to see that the government has added new tax burdens. One must realize that there is no government program that creates wealth or services spontaneously – all of government is cost shifting. In the end all must pay for what they get from government. We pay in $$$, time, less choice, resentment, and in many unseen ways.
Yes, the ACA is a success in creating confusion and reaping new tax revenues. However, those were not its advertised goals.