Why Republicans and conservatives should support some sort of mandate-delay

**Posted by Phineas

Commenting on my earlier post about the growing Democrat internal strife as Obamacare crashes down around them, ST reader Medbob offered this observation about a possible bipartisan effort to rewrite Obamacare to really (1) allow people to keep the insurance they like:

I don’t know why the Republicans should be expected to do anything other than fold their arms.
We offered to shut it down, we offered to amend it. Both were broken over the knee and thrown back in our face.

While I was thinking only of the enjoyment of watching the Democrats turn on each other like rats trapped in a too-small cage, Medbob asks a good question. Democrats have been desperate to pass some sort of universal health care bill since FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” speech. When they finally did it, they passed it through constitutionally questionable legislative chicanery, forcing it down the throat of an unwilling nation. It was passed solely with Democratic votes, and every attempt to reform it, such as Senator Enzi’s (R-WY) bill in 2010 to allow people to keep their insurance, was defeated by the Democrats in the Senate on a strict party-line vote. The Democrats from the President on down repeatedly deceived the American people with the infamous “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance” lie (2), which rapidly becoming the modern-day peer of “I am not a crook.”

Why should we do anything to help them out of the hole they dug themselves into?

Coincidentally, I was reading the Ace of Spades blog and came upon a post by Drew M. arguing that supporting some form of the Upton/Johnson/Landrieu bills is smart politics:

The bottom line is this is a political move masquerading as policy. The GOP has to be seen doing something. That’s just reality. Millions of people who played by the rules are losing their insurance and quite possibly their doctors as well. It’s simply not an option for a political party to say, “Wow, that sucks for you. Should have voted for us, huh?”. Campaigns are about generating future support, not punishing voters for past lack of support.

The upside is that the GOP is doing this in a way that panders completely to the people who just, “want something done” but is also a poison pill to the Democrats. Obama doesn’t want to “fix” what isn’t a bug in the system but from his point of view, a necessary feature.

The risk in all of this is that the Democrats say “yes”. I have my doubts that the Senate will take up the Landrieu bill let alone pass Upton’s. And the odds of Obama signing any of them are zero (he never has to face voters and he cares more about his plan than some random Democrats).

Emphasis added. I’ll point out that Drew is no squish on this; if he had his druthers, he’d employ the “let it burn” strategy.

But being seen to do something people need, even if it fails, is smart electoral politics, particularly if the Republicans settle on a repeal-and-replace bill as an alternative to the ACA. There’s a risk, of course, that Republicans could then be exposed to sharing the blame with the Democrats, but, like Drew, I think it’s less than the ire we’d face for folding our arms and doing nothing when people are crying out for relief. It’s a good chance to remind people that we’re the adults in the room, while the hard-left leadership of the Democrats digs in against any measure (3), no matter how much the people suffer.

Consequently, I think the best plan is for Republicans to support some sort of relief from the effects of the individual mandate and exploit the opportunity we have in advance of the 2014 elections.

Reasonable people can, of course, disagree.

Footnotes:
(1) Unlike the repeated lies that were fed to Americans over and over again.
(2) Sure, some were just stupid and swallowed the Party line without thinking, meaning they didn’t deceive people deliberately. But the effect and the harm were the same.
(3) It’s beginning to remind me of one of those “Downfall” parody videos. How soon before Pelosi starts issuing orders to Steiner?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

14 Responses to "Why Republicans and conservatives should support some sort of mandate-delay"

ALman says:

November 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm

We’ve known what a poor leader he is. Only a fool could or would ignore that when in-fighting breaks out among those who are his supporters it’s only confirmation of what the opposition has known all along.
jeff says:

November 13, 2013 at 4:53 pm

But being seen to do something people need, even if it fails, is smart electoral politics

I seem to recall you having objections to this very argument, not so long ago.

The thing for Republicans to do, is to offer to get government right the hell out of the healthcare/insurance marketplace, once and for all.

Now is the time to double down on kicking this monstrosity’s head in. “We tried to prevent it, then we tried to stop it, then we tried to kill it. Now, it’s finally dying of its own ineptitude, and we’re killing it some more. See? This is us, fighting.

“And when it’s killed, and dead, and gone, we’ll be there to offer you: nothing! Why? Because as the government has fully proven, it has no business mucking up the works between you, your doctor, and your insurance company.” -Republicans
Nate says:

November 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Okay, I’ll be honest; this:

But being seen to do something people need, even if it fails, is smart electoral politics, particularly if the Republicans settle on a repeal-and-replace bill as an alternative to the ACA.

For one thing, the Democrats will never vote to repeal their baby (funny how all of a sudden they’re not willing to abort a ‘problem baby, eh?) Second, I see ‘replace’ and my brain says, ‘Let’s trade Democrat-inspired national health-insurance for Republican-inspired national health-insurance.’ Either way, it’s government-run health-insurance.
Phineas says:

November 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Jeff:

I seem to recall you having objections to this very argument, not so long ago.

Always possible, though I don’t recall where.

Nate:

Second, I see ‘replace’ and my brain says, ‘Let’s trade Democrat-inspired national health-insurance for Republican-inspired national health-insurance.’ Either way, it’s government-run health-insurance.

Like the old song says, “It ain’t necessarily so.” A replacement plan could simply remove impediments to a free(r) market and encourage people to save for minor medical needs, leaving insurance where it should be — for true catastrophes. For example: 1) Repeal the ACA; 2) Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines; 3) Make employer-based insurance portable and/or end the tax preferences it’s received since WWII; 4) encourage pre-tax Health Savings Accounts; 5) federal tort reform. I think that would go a long way toward fixing the real problems in our health care system without coming anywhere near “government run.”
Great White Rat says:

November 13, 2013 at 7:43 pm

From Jeff:

But being seen to do something people need, even if it fails, is smart electoral politics

I seem to recall you having objections to this very argument, not so long ago.

Yep, I recall the same thing. Somewhere around the end of August, we had a discussion on that where Phineas opposed fighting the implementation of Obamacare because the impending government shutdown would make us look bad. Jeff, Mwalimu Daudi, and I disagreed. We wanted to “do something people need” – namely, stop this disaster before it got going.

There’s a risk, of course, that Republicans could then be exposed to sharing the blame with the Democrats

Which is one of the things I predicted back then.

From Nate:

Second, I see ‘replace’ and my brain says, ‘Let’s trade Democrat-inspired national health-insurance for Republican-inspired national health-insurance.’

Agreed. Now, the five options Phineas mentions in the comment above, are all fine, but they’re not a ‘replacement’ for Obamacare to me. Each one of those ideas is a move away from government involvement in health care. What he listed in the comment isn’t what he advocated in the main post.

I think the best plan is for Republicans to support some sort of relief from the effects of the individual mandate

What kind of ‘relief’ do you have in mind? It’s probably too late for the insurance companies to reinstate all the plans they’ve been forced to drop, due to Federal and state regulations. So what’s your idea? More subsidies?
Phineas says:

November 13, 2013 at 11:13 pm

GWR:

Somewhere around the end of August, we had a discussion on that where Phineas opposed fighting the implementation of Obamacare because the impending government shutdown would make us look bad.

Oh, okay. Now I see where this originated. You’re right, I did oppose the defund/risk-a-shutdown strategy. I did so because I believed (and still do) that it was a bad strategy that could not work: Obamacare could not be defunded (or delayed by defunding) by the CR because the funding was mandated in the ACA itself. Even during the shutdown, Obamacare continued to function. To defund Obamacare for even a year would require amending or repealing parts of the ACA, and that was not going to happen. Also, politically, the public opposed even a partial shutdown. I don’t think whatever it was we gained from this was worth the price we paid.

Now, however, I think the political calculus has changed: Obamacare is now a known train wreck. People are being harmed by it in increasing numbers. A poll I saw today argues 55% support repeal. While repeal probably isn’t possible until 2017, we can show we’re on the side of the angels by aligning ourselves with the public desire, unlike the shutdown.

We can also put the Democrats in a helluva bind by making them either block a bill that allows people to keep the insurance they like, or pass it and send it to Obama, who himself would then face that same bind: publicly keep or break his promise in an undeniable way. Either protect Obamacare but forcing the people to give up the insurance they like and buy a more expensive product they don’t want, or sign it and deal a death-blow to his namesake bill. (FWIW, I think he’d veto it.)

So, yes, I opposed the defund/shutdown strategy and I think passing something like the Upton/Landrieu bills is the better strategy, because I think the latter has a good chance of working and the former had none.

Another of your points:

Each one of those ideas is a move away from government involvement in health care. What he listed in the comment isn’t what he advocated in the main post.

I don’t see contradiction: repeal Obamacare and replace it with a package of the five items I used as an example. Does “replace” mean that one statist plan may be replaced only by another statist plan? I feel conservatives have to have something ready to offer, whether the programme I mentioned above, or something else. As another example, here is a proposal from Ponnuru and Levin in the WSJ. (If you hit the subscriber wall, Google the title and you find a way past…) We can’t just be the party of “no” and “opposition,” we have to offer a governing alternative.
Great White Rat says:

November 14, 2013 at 8:08 am

Also, politically, the public opposed even a partial shutdown. I don’t think whatever it was we gained from this was worth the price we paid.

You’re dead wrong on that. What we gained – and by we, I mean those like Ted Cruz, not those who shied away from the fight – was the clear demonstration to the public that we were RIGHT. Had we not fought, had we agreed with you and voted to implement Obamacare without argument, the public would have every right to blame us just as much as the left. Hell, we’re seeing some attempts to do that in spite of the fact that some of us stood up to be counted – imagine how much worse it would be if we hadn’t.

As for ‘the price we paid’, what price was that? Go up to your average citizen today and ask them how they were hurt by the government shutdown. First, you’ll get a quizzical look as he tries to recall when that was. Then, after average citizen thinks about it, you’ll hear some kind of an answer about memorials and national parks being blocked off or something similar, none of which hurt us.

Now, you’re probably right that the effort back in the late summer wasn’t going to succeed. That was no reason to run up the white flag. Some congressional Democrats might have had some second thoughts – because unlike Obama, they must face the voters again – about going on record once more in favor of this catastrophe. But we’ll never know that because too many on our side were willing to cave. By the way, if you’re not willing to fight unless you’re guaranteed victory, then you’re never going to win. And after a while no one will follow you.

I think the political calculus has changed: Obamacare is now a known train wreck.

Those of us with our eyes open knew it was a train wreck then. We already had seen many of our fellow citizens thrown out of their jobs. We didn’t seen to see millions more told to go find different doctors and pay much higher insurance premiums to understand that.

So I see two possibilities here. Either you didn’t see that this was a disaster waiting to happen (which doesn’t reflect well on your perceptiveness), or you did see it coming but were willing to see Americans hurt and in some cases devastated (“we know you have stage 4 cancer, ma’am, but we’re forced to cancel your policy”) for the sole purpose of obtaining a better ‘political calculus’.

That’s the political equivalent of saying you had to destroy the village to save it.

We can also put the Democrats in a helluva bind by making them either block a bill that allows people to keep the insurance they like, or pass it and send it to Obama

Unfortunately, that train has left the station. As I said above, restoring those policies by the end of this year isn’t going to be possible. You can’t just snap your fingers and wish it all away. That’s what I tried to warn you about last August. Sure, it might pass – with the Democrats getting credit, of course – but even if Obama signs it, the damage has been done. It’ll be at least another year before all the appropriate regulations to permit those old policies would be written. The damage to some people will be incalculable, and in some cases fatal. But that Obamacare bureaucracy is here to stay now. And he’s got three more years to use it to quietly morph Obamacare into a single payer program, one new regulation at a time.

repeal Obamacare and replace it with a package of the five items I used as an example.

So you were for implementing Obamacare before you were against it. Got it.
Great White Rat says:

November 14, 2013 at 8:30 am

As for the Ponnuru op-ed, I agree that there’s much in there that would be better, and I’d certainly get behind it. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t undo the damage that’s been done for some time, and we’d have to do battle with those who use the Obamacare failure as a reason to move to a total single payer system.
jeff says:

November 14, 2013 at 9:14 am

Phineas, I think the mistake you repeatedly make is seeing the equation through a political numbers prism. It isn’t a matter of having more votes in assembly. Obamacare isn’t a political football that somehow becomes better if you change its name to Boehner-care.

It’s a matter of right and wrong. The nuances of political maneuvering only distort the fight. And a fight is all that it is. And therein lies the beauty of it.

Socialized medicine is Communist victory.

“We” don’t put “them” in any kind of bind, if we aren’t seen opposing the thing which is most obviously evil to us. It’s not evil because of a glitchy website, is it?

It’s evil because it’s a cancer that eats your individual Liberty.
ST says:

November 14, 2013 at 6:25 pm

GWR, I don’t understand why opposing the shutdown means someone wasn’t up for a fight – in fact, it’s not an accurate assessment in my view. There were well-meaning people who wanted to fight tooth and nail against Obamacare – Phineas among them – but by way of a different strategy that perhaps didn’t involve a partial shutdown, which can, do, and ARE always blamed on Republicans (as this one was). He was right in that that polls showed the American people did NOT want a shutdown even though they did want a resolution to the various Obamacare issues. Whether you or I know anyone personally impacted by the shutdown is not the point. I’ve seen some suggest that we lost the VA Gov race, in part, due to the shutdown. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know.

Many of us had nightmares of people going into the voting booth next year with visions of the GOP as “obstructionists” over the shutdown and other various issues, even though in reality being an obstructionist when it comes to this administration is a must – though people who don’t follow politics closely don’t always see that (the GOP’s messaging strategy isn’t all that great, as we all know). With that vision in mind, some suggested we try ways that wouldn’t hurt us as much politically in the short term because we worried we’d lose many seats in the House and even more in the Senate, which would be an absolute NIGHTMARE with having two more years of a lame duck President who thinks he can do anything he wants to. Him having more Democrats in the House and Senate would be a disaster for this country.

Furthermore, your argument on Phineas being “wrong” about the shutdown seems to be based on an implied belief that people woke up thanks to Ted Cruz’s filibuster and the shutdown that followed. How do we know that? Isn’t it possible that the more media reports that have flowed out on so many losing their plans has been what’s finally moved the American people distinctly out of the “PRO-OBAMACARE” column, with many demanding answers? How many people who aren’t diehard anti-Obamacare proponents like you, me, Phineas, and others actually listened to Ted Cruz in the middle of all the media stories vilifying the hell out of him? I admire the heck out of what Cruz did – but there were principled people who also spoke out strongly against Obamacare who didn’t want the eventual shutdown and preferred a different way. Why characterize them as waving the white flag? Can we not have differences of opinion without those kinds of accusations being leveled?

Sometimes an opinion isn’t necessarily wrong or right. It’s just an opinion that may or may not be vindicated depending on the fluidity of the situation going forward and the actions and reactions of various players involved. But differing opinions on how to go about achieving essentially the same outcome doesn’t necessarily = to giving up the fight.

From this point forward, can we please move beyond the “who was right/wrong” about the shutdown? The fact that matters most at this point is that we all are largely on the same page going forward – and after months of infighting over this issue I, for one, am glad to see it and am ready to move on from it. We work better when we’re fighting Democrats more than when we fight each other.
jeff says:

November 15, 2013 at 7:05 am

No. I don’t think we can move beyond it, any more than we can “accept” the law just because it’s the it’s-been-passed-now-get-over-it law. I don’t think we should assess every strategy based upon what the poll numbers “say”. For that matter, I’m highly skeptical of every poll, not just the ones that seem to, or almost, support my stance. Polls are the product of a democracy, representing the whims of the mob. Who here wants that?

“Blame” for the shutdown? I think Republicans should OWN the shutdown, as in, “that wasn’t so bad, was it?”

And Ted Cruz was pooh-poohed here and elsewhere for his willingness to stick out like a sore thumb, but did so because he’s willing to choose principle over political expediency. Some people DID wake up because of Cruz’s filibuster. Some folks who were wishy-washy, are less so now, and I think that includes old Yellow-stain Boehner.

Some people are “die-hard” Obamacare opponents, and some are “fair-weather” opponents. If Ted Cruz’s efforts fall more in the “bothersome” category for Phineas, than the “heroic”, then he’s really more of a fair-weather opponent.

The GOP is dead. It is the reason that Cuccinelli lost. The GOP will default to protecting its brand way ahead of protecting the individual or the Constitution.

We are already in the nightmare.

I think Republicans can resurrect themselves, but they have to stop playing paddycake with the enemy. Stand up and be counted now, saying that you despise government “healthcare” for the overreaching symptom of diseased government that it is. Not something that Republicans can “fix, to see what’s in it.”

If, like Phineas, you see the demise of Obamacare only in terms of a political victory for your “club”, then your have to be counted as part of the problem. It’s tackle, not tag.
Great White Rat says:

November 15, 2013 at 10:47 am

Jeff’s already written a good response. I’ll add just a few thoughts.

There were well-meaning people who wanted to fight tooth and nail against Obamacare – Phineas among them – but by way of a different strategy

And that strategy was…..what? How was agreeing to fund Obamacare to the fullest extent possible a strategy to fight it “tooth and nail”?

He was right in that that polls showed the American people did NOT want a shutdown

No, they didn’t want a shutdown. They had mental images of police and fire stations being closed, of Social Security checks not being sent, of total anarchy. What actually happened was so much more benign. What it did was highlight the pettiness of the administration – closing memorials to veterans in wheelchairs, harrassing people who wanted to stop by the roadside and take pictures at national parks, Harry Reid snarling “why would we want to do that” when asked about helping a kid with cancer. If anything, the shutdown woke up a few people to the fact that the government is way overexpanded and there’s a lot of it we can do without.

So tell me: which experience do you think the voters will remember next November: a couple of weeks where they were apprehensive but nothing happened, or the ongoing, continuing Obamacare disaster, complete with cancelled plans and unavailable doctors?

With that vision in mind, some suggested we try ways that wouldn’t hurt us as much politically in the short term

Again, what would that be? All I heard from the anti-Cruz faction was to do nothing because they had a scary poll.

Furthermore, your argument on Phineas being “wrong” about the shutdown seems to be based on an implied belief that people woke up thanks to Ted Cruz’s filibuster and the shutdown that followed.

I think you misread me. I’m not arguing that people woke up thanks to the shutdown. I’m arguing that giving Phineas and the rest of the anti-Cruz faction their way, and the subsequent disaster of Obamacare, proved that Cruz was right. Whether people have made the connection and awakened is unknown yet. If we were smart, we’d be screaming that from the rooftops now so that the voters DO wake up to that fact.

Can we not have differences of opinion without those kinds of accusations being leveled?

Surely you couldn’t have missed the accusations being leveled at Cruz and those of us who opposed Obamacare a couple of months ago? Why didn’t you use those exact words then? Phineas’ level of disapproval was mild, that’s true. But elsewhere, we were called everything from tools of Soros, to traitors, to Democrats back then – and that was from the Republicans!

But differing opinions on how to go about achieving essentially the same outcome doesn’t necessarily = to giving up the fight.

Again, we heard nothing substantive from the anti-Cruz faction about how they wanted to achieve essentially the same outcome. What we heard was that there are polls that don’t look good, so let’s not press the issue at all. For a group that now claims that we should be “for” something, they certainly weren’t “for” anything two months ago.

What they missed is that once this monstrosity took root, it would be damn near impossible to remove it. If you know the damage is going to be permanent, and your plan is to let it happen and maybe later see what you can do about it, that’s tantamount to giving up the fight, yes.

Jeff’s also touched on a very important point: what’s our goal? Is it to do the best by our fellow citizens, or is it to gain power? If we’d rather let Obamacare go into effect so people will be hurt irreparably, and as a result we win elections – what Phineas calls a better ‘political calculus’ – then there’s something wrong with us. If I’m looking for a party that places power over principle, over what’s best for the country, and is willing to let millions be hurt to get that power, I can become a Democrat.

Final note: do you not see the irony in the title of this post? Ten weeks ago, those of us who sided with Senator Cruz were lambasted – here and elsewhere – because we wanted, at the very least, to delay the mandate. Now, the same people – here and elsewhere – who criticized us are clamoring for a way to….wait for it….delay the mandate.
jeff says:

November 15, 2013 at 2:16 pm

I loathe Kay Hagan as much as I like-like-like Sister Toldjah. But, I’m going to tell Mizz Hagan that she can have my vote next November, if she’ll start screaming for nullification of Obarrycare, this November.
ST says:

November 15, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Got it, guys – staunch conservatives like Phineas and myself who have fought tooth and nail against big government liberalism for years (decades) are “part of the problem” and shining examples of the white flag coalition simply because we disagreed on the best strategy when it came to opposing Obamacare.

Good to know.

I get so sick of this “true cons” bull sh*t. I’m closing this thread before I lose it. If either of you have anything further to say to me on this you can do it over email. We’re done here.

Comments are closed.