Political Animal
Blog
As noted last night, one of the most interesting developments in Charlotte yesterday was the frequent and entirely non-defensive expressions of support for and pride in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This was probably more predictable than the surprised reactions from pundits would indicate. Yes, ACA doesn’t poll that great, at least as an abstraction. But as we’ve known for a long time, a sizable chunk of those expressing disapproval of the legislation are people who think it should have been much stronger and/or more “public” than it was—i.e., people with zero sympathy for the GOP point-of-view on the law. And more importantly, polls have consistently shown solid majority support for most of ACA’s key provisions, with the exception of the individual mandate. Given the Republican Party’s ironclad decision not to offer any glimpse of what if anything they’d replace ObamaCare with if they succeed in repealing it, Democrats had little to lose and a lot to gain from dramatizing what Americans would lose if the law goes away—including, very crucially, provisions that have already taken effect.
The potential power of this way of discussing ObamaCare was pretty clearly shown yesterday by Stacy Lihn’s speech about the lifetime cap on insurance payments that ACA outlawed, and that if reimposed could rob her of the ability to secure for her daughter life-saving heart surgery. The speech not only provided a very tangible example of the consequences of the election, but also a tart response to Mitt Romney’s claim that 2008 Obama supporters could point to no moment after his election that their happiness with the president reached the levels of the last campaign. While it’s true Obama is going to have to lay out a proactive second-term agenda tomorrow night, what we’ve heard so far indicates he will not fail to mention full implementation of ACA as a crucial part of that agenda that will almost certainly fall by the wayside if Romney wins.
Now if it were totally up to me, Democrats would be broadening their line of attack on health care beyond ObamaCare and beyond the routine battles over Medicare and talk about the full conservative vision (which I’ve dubbed “repeal and reverse”) for the health care system, including the block-granting of Medicaid, the erosion of employer-based insurance, and such potential nightmares as interstate insurance sales that will destroy state regulation of private insurers. Maybe we’ll hear some of that before the Convention ends. But a robust defense of ObamaCare is a good start on both a positive and negative message that goes beyond endless arguments over who would do what to Medicare.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on September 05, 2012 1:19 PM:
For the life of me, I still can't figure out why the Democrats didn't defend it in 2010, and what the leadership was thinking - if anything.
By not defending their decision to vote for it when they were viciously attacked by the idiot astro-turfed Teabat's, they reinforced in people mind's what was being said about ACA.
Hell, if the people who signed something run from it, how great can it be?
Well, I'm glad they finally figured out it's worth circling the wagons around.
If you're going to get sh*t for something you already did anyway, and thought it was a good move when you did it, you might as well defend it!
Diane Rodriguez on September 05, 2012 1:30 PM:
Last night's theme of collective progress providing assistance and opportunity for the individual fits the behavior of Dems around the ACA. Not much bold individualism was on display during the passage of ACA, Pelosi being the clear exception. The removal of single payer from the discussion was disheartening. There were many more quiet mumblings than full throated support. The GOP, on the other hand, grabs an issue and yells the lies to the rafters.
The collective voice of the convention speakers have given the rest of the Dems cover on this issue. Going forward, I think the ACA can be turned to a positive force.
Mitch on September 05, 2012 1:43 PM:
@gulag
"For the life of me, I still can't figure out why the Democrats didn't defend it in 2010, and what the leadership was thinking - if anything."
My hypothesis is that too many Dems have drunk the GOP kool-aid. I'm not saying that they believe in GOP ideology, but they buy the spin.
Much like with ACA, citizens love the Democrat ideas, but fall for the GOP spin-machine. Dem's notice polls and such telling them that much of the population prefers the GOP talking points, and so the Dems don't fight for their own ideals. They are convinced that America really is a "center-right" nation, and they try to play for that audience.
They don't seem to be aware that Democratic policies are very popular and always have been. They are always too afraid of being stereotyped as Big Spending Dems.
jjm on September 05, 2012 1:52 PM:
@c u n d gulag :
I think that there was very little room for the Democrats to maneuver, what with liberal/progressives screaming about how bad a bill it was without a public option while the GOP was screaming it was a government takeover of healthcare.
So--when did they have room to crow? No talk show ever gave it a fair shake, as I recall and once the Koch fueled AFP got into the act with the absolutely HORRENDOUS town halls that they brownshirted, everyone was understandably skittish. You don't remember those violent, ghoulish characters turning up at every Democratic reps town hall and menacing them in word and deed?
That, plus the 20+ attorneys general demanding that the Supreme Court call it unconstitutional gave the Democrats very little breathing room.
Once SCOTUS ruled, the approval rating for ACA went up several points into the positive rather than the negative.
With this convention, the Democrats have the first opportunity to lay it all out. Good for them--
c u n d gulag on September 05, 2012 2:04 PM:
Thanks, folks, and I understand that.
But in my mind, THIS was exactly what Gov. Patrick was talking about, when he told Democrats that they had to grow a backbone!
I think one of the reasons people who might not side with the Conservatives do end up voting that way, is that they LOOK AND ACT certain.
Sh*t, when they were called out on torture, TORTURE, they basically looked everyone in the eye and said, "Yeah, SO WHAT?"
The renamed torture "extraordinary rendition," and defended it.
And they defend it TO THIS DAY!
Democrat's passed a feckin' health care bill, for Kerrist's sake, after the efforts of many prior Presidents, and then, when the right did their inevitable wailing, shrieking, and tearing of the hair and garments, ran away from it as if the Death Panels really were the entire stated goal of the entire excersize.
Grow a feckin' backbone, Democrats.
Don't let on to the Republicans, but I think I saw the beginning of the formation of one last night, when Democrats finally did trumpet the ACA, instead of fleeing for the hills, like they were out of musket-blls, and the Red Coat Army was a'comin'!
Celui on September 05, 2012 3:44 PM:
In MO, the surest way to bring down the curtain on a political career is to admit the need for taxes or to support the benefits that taxes bring us all. The TeaParty screamers along with the Norquist-inspired Republican stonewallers, fueled by the Kochs and other moneyed interests, have been all to eager and able to shout 'TAXES' every time a Democrat opens his mouth. What we hear constantly is how McCaskill has voted 100% with Obama to raise our taxes, and yet, we hear nothing about the actual tax reductions brought about by the 'Stimulus' bill which is perpetually portrayed as 'disastrous' and 'failed.' Whatever is needed now, it must begin with loud and strong repetition of the benefits accrued through the ACA, because this act in itself is most visible to each and every voter. The Republicans campaign on 'repealing Obamacare' and portray this tax penalty as punitive to all when it is, in fact, going to affect very few citizen taxpayers. Tarring with a broad brush is the name of today's game. Get on the ball: shout about the lack of lifetime cap, extension of young people on parents' policies, the annual free health checkup, the insurance changes that benefit the customers, and the limitations on cost growth. Refute the nonsense about 'raiding' Medicare for Obamacare. Get out the local experts to tell the truth. And, get to this cadre of MSM coifs who can't bring themselves to call a lie a lie. I wish Diane Rehm were a household name for this nation. No BS there; just great journalism. And Craptcha has got to go!! Seventh attempt to submit. What gives????????
Doug on September 05, 2012 5:59 PM:
While I've always fully supported Obamacare, I was never a great supporter of the mandate; EXCEPT that it was an improvement over what was, or wasn't, in place before. That's the "progress" in progressive, I guess.
IF the mandate, allied to the exchanges, can rein in the growing costs of HC, fine. If not, THEN we can offer some form of nation-wide, cradle-to-grave form of Medicare financed by taxes on ALL income. However, until we have several years of actual experience operating under all the provisions of the ACA to see how well, or badly, it accomplishes the goals set for it, I see nothing to be gained by whining about how the ACA isn't "good" enough.
To those suffering from captcha: I rarely have any problems and if I do, one to three attempts at something legible is all it takes. I'm running on Windows XP, could that have anything to do with it?
at the end of the day on September 05, 2012 9:39 PM:
The richest nation should provide health care to its citizens. A mere fee for those electing to not have insurance is fair. Plus, originally, President Obama did not want to have that fee/mandate in the bill.