Remember when Atrios and I used to write over and over again that a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance from private, for-profit, and hated insurance corporations would be massively unpopular? Chalk another one up for the Dirty Hippies:
Voters in swing states stand overwhelmingly on one side of the debate: Three of four voters, including a majority of Democrats and of liberals, say the law is unconstitutional.
That reaction is almost instinctual, says Stuart Altman, a professor of national health policy at Brandeis University who has joined two briefs supporting the law. “People say, ‘The government should not mandate that I have to do anything.’ “He faults the Obama team for not responding effectively enough to what he calls a “torrent” of opposition and misinformation.
“You have this drumbeat of negative comments and almost no positive,” he says. “You’re relying on the president to do the selling, and he’s moved on to other things. The congressional people on the Democratic side are not supporting it. They’re either being very quiet or running away from it themselves because they’re afraid of getting tarnished.”
Overall, this USA TODAY/Gallup Poll appears to have some strange results. For example, it’s the only reputable poll out there that shows the president behind the Republicans in his reelection campaign. Something is probably a little weird with their sample, but it’s clear that there’s a problem for the Democrats when Gallup’s sample shows 75% of voters in swing states (including a majority of liberals) think the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Professor Altman is correct; the president and the Democrats need to go on offense on the Affordable Care Act.
An example of an unpopular policy that has been turned around and become a political plus is the auto bailout. AFSCME is running pro-auto bailout ads in Ohio. The idea is to instill the impression that the auto bailout was a fabulous success (which it was) and that anyone who opposed it has poor judgment. The failure to tout the success of the Affordable Care Act stems from a variety of factors, including progressive disappointment with the lack of a public option, the step-by-step implementation, a scanter empirical evidentiary case that it has been a giant success (relative to the auto-bailout), and sheer exhaustion with the issue after the year-long effort to pass the bill.
But it’s clear now that real damage has been done, and it’s bad enough to put the legislation in peril. If most of the country thinks the bill is unconstitutional and doesn’t much care if the whole thing is repealed, the conservative-led SCOTUS will surely respond. What I suggest is a massive ad campaign that uses real beneficiaries of the health care bill to hammer home the idea that the bill is completely awesome and that anyone who opposed it is a stupid moron.
Make the bill popular, sell it is a the best thing ever, and the silly talk about constitutionality will go the way of birth certificate-talk.
But the Dems need to get on it because it takes time to change perceptions and the Court is going to hear the first arguments in the case about a month from today.
I hate to say it. I really, really hate to fucking say it (damn you firebaggers). But do you know what would have been the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down?
Some sort of public option or earlier Medicare availability.
Goddamn senate.
Some sort of public option or earlier Medicare availability.
Earlier Medicare eligibility would have done wonders. Also, too, Matt Yglesias posted over the weekend that RomneyCare is working out swell in Massachusetts. There is one problem. The RomneyCare law has been amended twice since the original passed.
I just sent this post to Marc Stier, former director of HCAN PA. He was on FB earlier this week saying that lefties who don’t appreciate the ACA are naive, purer-than-though ninnies who don’t get politics. I knew I was right about this from the very beginning: thank you for providing me with more evidence.
When I asked Stier about the subsidies, he told me a family of 3 making $30K per year would pay $100/month. SO I broke down what that means when (after taxes) $30K boils down to $492/week and needs to cover electric/heat/water/mortgage or rent/internet/car insurance/groceries/clothing for kid. There were some fumbling comments about “well, it’s been a long time since I lived on $30K, but but but…”
I’ll also add that another reason people will hate it is because it’s a monthly reminder. It’s not taken out of your paycheck automatically, where it’s kinda “out of sight/out of mind”. It will be a CONSTANT reminder: “there goes another $100 to fucking Blue Cross/Aetna/Wellpoint”.
He’s right. You guys fucking suck.
It was an imperative that the ACA was passed. It’s a tremendous thing that it was. That doesn’t mean there weren’t messaging problems, or flaws in its timed implementation.
And yet you don’t say anything different from what I have siad, consistently:
So maybe you need to direct that “you fuking suck” at yourself as well, since you’re just parroting what I’ve said.
how’s it feel to be a firebagger, BJ?
Booman and I are thinking along the lines of how to make the bill more popular.
Being better is irrelevant right now. It’s already a great bill that’s going to help a lot of people. But if the idiot masses fail to appreciate it properly, and give political space to the corporatist right wing to sabotage and destroy it with impunity, then that is a problem.
So no, the firebagger label belongs to you and you alone, brandon. Enjoy sending more nasty emails to the HCAN guy. He’s a better human being for what he’s accomplished for this country than you ever could be.
you’re right: “the idiot masses” are SO ungrateful. What were you saying a moment ago about not understanding politics?
Calling the people you want to help “idiot masses” isn’t gonna win you anything but disdain from those same “idiots”.
your elitism is showing. And on that note, I have beer to brew. It’s the drink of the idiot masses.
Here’s some politics for you to understand, brendan: the ACA passed.
Let us know when anything you consider up to your standards ever does so.
Uh, yeah, home brewed specialty beer: the populist choice.
Right there with your finger on the pulse of the people, brendan.
What a laughable, cheap, petty remark Joe. And ridiculous.
First of all, homebrewing is cheaper than buying beer in the store; I’m not supporting a market hog like Bud (most recently selling out to InBev, a European owned global corproation) or miller Coors (owned by a south afrian consortium, and most recently seen making life difficult for small brewers -aka small business owners- in Wisconsin); and it actually requires skill to do and lots of manual labor.
Craft beer is also the only growing sector of the beer market, and has been so for the past 5 years. What that means is more and more people are asking for it instead of the mega-brands. If craft brew was the drink of the elites, sales data would show the big beers holding steady, and very little growth in craft.
so yes, homebrewing and craft brewing is VERY populist, and I am grateful that President Carter legalized it. You might also be interested to know that Booman is another homebrewer.
So yeah, spout off all you want, Joe. Did I mention I’m a member of professional brewing associations? Or that this is what i’m going to be doing for a living?
But this is neither here nor there, except as a distraction from the subject from health care. So let’s get back to that for a second. Poll after poll said that people didn’t want a mandate, but that they would accept it with a public option. Even our host recognized this, early in the game, as he says in the title of this very piece:
Booman and I may not agree on much -although probably more than you’d expect- but we both recognized this was a problem. And instead of saying “hmmm, what can we do about this problem so the lunatics in the GOP don’t exploit this”, it’s all “waaah, brendan’s a dick, brendan makes beer at home, he’s an elitist who doesn’t understand the idiot masses.”
It’s an incredibly weak attack on me… and an incredibly revealing statement about how you see your fellow Americans. “Idiot masses” who presumably need to eat the spinach their betters have prepare for them.
What a laughable, cheap, petty remark Joe. And ridiculous.
I write for an audience. In this case, I was writing for the guy who cited his home-brewing hobby in an effort to bolster his populist cred – so “laughable, cheap, petty” seems about right.
“I call it Montaigne Pale Ale, after my favorite medieval French philosopher.”
BTW, this: Craft beer is also the only growing sector of the beer market, and has been so for the past 5 years. What that means is more and more people are asking for it instead of the mega-brands.
is completely innumerate. You can’t cite growth rates as evidence of popularity without reference absolute levels. A segment jumping from 1% to 10% of the overall market (to pick some useful numbers) is still only 1/10th of the market, ie, not popular.
It’s an incredibly weak attack on me… and an incredibly revealing statement about how you see your fellow Americans.
Actually, brendan, I have enough respect for my fellow Americans to expect them to be able to read the bright green letters at the bottom of a blog comment and figure out who wrote what. And I have enough respect for you to think that, someday, you will, too.
joe, joe, joe.
now, you are putting words in my mouth (dishonest) and making claims about my industry that you can’t back up.
Sorry pal, fail. I understand they’re having a sale on shovels at Home Depot, in case you want to keep digging.
You know, posing as someone who is winning an argument, without actually pointing out anything substantive that is wrong, is much less impressive for the reader as you might think.
“Hey, that guy wrote the other guy’s name three times. You know, sort of a ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ thing. Wow, I guess home brewed craft beer really is the choice of the masses.”
“Hmm, I’m not so sure about that.”
“Well, he also did the shovel thing.”
“Yeah, I guess you’re right.”
There were flaws in the legislation as well.
I can get it to do a family of three at that income, but the Kaiser Subsidy calculator says a family of four, earning $30,000 would qualify for Medicaid.
However, if you jack that up to $35,000, you’d wind up paying $1,388 annually for a policy that sells for $14,588.
Of, in other words, Obama asked you to give the insurance industry $1,388 and in return he had the government hand you $13,168, and now you have health care for you and your whole family. Or, if you insist on looking at the glass half full, he got you health insurance at one tenth the going rate.
yeah, i dig that. but that’s based on a single individual buying a policy, yes?
When i was working we had group rates. I always took the cheapest insurance that my employer provided (we had various options). The cheap insurance was free. No deduction from my paycheck, IIRC, although prescription co-pays were higher (not enough to matter to me though).
Look, I know you all think I hate the ACA. This is not the case: I am glad for a lot of the stuff in there, even if I think the mandatory insurance purchase sucks without a public option. but if we are to get to a public option eventually -foot in the door, as you guys were saying back when ACA passed in its imperfect form- it is crucial that the legislation be seen as popular and that Obama be re-elected. So the question is, “what do we do now?”
“Idiot masses”, Bazooka Joe’s line, is not an adequate response to that. I DO think the idea of a massive ad campaign would work.
I also opposed the ACA in its current form. Sure the things like coverage for kids under 26 and no pre -existing condition are nice, but the dems are still stuck explaining that health care insurance was messed up so were fixing it but requiring you to buy insurance from the same people who have been ripping us off for the last 20 years. Here are some of the problems I have with it (info taken from http://www.healthcare.gov):
1. rate increase “review” – this sounds nice, but it actually does nothing to prevent insurance companies from raising rates to what ever they want. These are going on right now. Here is how it actually works: “The HHS review has found that Everence’s 12 percent rate increase for small businesses in Pennsylvania was excessive. . . . We have called on the insurer to immediately withdraw these rates, stop charging consumers unreasonable rates, and provide a refund or credit to any policyholders which have already paid unreasonable rates. Should the company choose not to do so, they must post a justification on their website in 10 days, explaining why they will continue charging their customers excessive rates.”
So basically if a rate is found to be “unreasonable” are they kicked off the exchange? No, they have to post a statment on their website aboout it. shivers oh the humanity, what a draconian penalty!
How is any of this suppoed to work in the incrasing world of multiple part time jobs (thus not covered by the employer requirements), the 1099 “gig economy” temporary contracts with no benefits and a 15% self employment tax?
Who knows, maybe it will all work out just as planned and everybody will be happy with the exchanges and the mandate. But to expect people to be grateful that something called “health care reform” passed congress, with happy neo-liberal tales of the free market and a mandate to buy from the same people whose greed created the problem is not a winning message.
This is what drove me craziest during the Summer of Loud Lies. Polls showed there was solid support — even among registered Republican voters — for a public option. There was strong resistance — among all voters — to a mandate fed to private insurance companies.
And yet we ended up with a mandate and without a public option. Because that what was supposedly “politically realistic”.
You are referring to the bill that passed Congress, right? When you’re talking about “politically realistic,” you’re talking about actually passing, right?
Public opinion isn’t a house of Congress. The Senate is a house of Congress.
I seem to remember Holy Joe torpedoing the early Medicare thing that was all set to go, just because he found out liberals liked it.
This is entirely a small group of senators’ fault, yes. They damaged their President, they compromised the legislation, and they hurt their country.
Not enough armbullyfiresidetwistingchatpulpit. That was the problem
Also, FDRLLBJ!
I agree that any measure which requires you by law to buy from some for profit corporations sticks in my craw. Same goes for any law mandating purchase from privatised services.
But there is a simple solution: Build a Presidential AND congressional campaign around providing a public option alternative. ACKNOWLEDGE the problem and campaign for a solution that isn’t available to you without a Dem President and congress.
An even simpler solution is to fund basic minimal services out of the tax base. Public health services are generally cheaper and more efficient. They don’t cherry pick patients/conditions, and they don’t have to fund huge administrative, claims management, marketing, and shareholder costs.
In an advanced economy/society some things have to be there on the basis of need rather than on the ability to pay. Call it socialised medicine if you must. But if you accept the Republican framing don’t be surprised if you end up with a Republican problem. Fund it from the savings you make from ending the (unfunded) Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Call it a peace dividend. Market it as a public good. People don’t have to be able to fund or deserve healthcare – it is a requirement for a healthy society and economy. Employers are saved part of the burden of health insurance.
Let those who want private rooms or delux services pay for them separately. The principle of market provision is maintained for all who want it.
I agree with Frank. It’s better than just campaigning on an accomplishment: it sets a vision for what it should be in the future. Maybe it’s a promise he can’t keep — but he already couldn’t keep it once, and he’s got a lot less to risk this time with the framework already there.
He can promise to do it if the electorate gives him an adequate congressional majority. “Give me a congress I can work with” otherwise you just get gridlock…
In 2010, the opportunity arose for Dems to run ON health care reform or against health reform. All the Blue Dogs ran against it. And many of them were crushed.
In SD, we had Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, who made the horrible mistake of running against it. She could have built the case for health care, but decided to be more repukeliscum than the repukeliscum. Harry Truman was right – given the choice between a pretend republican and an actual republican, the actual republicans win. She lost.
I sent her an email urging her not to run this year, unless she ran as a Dem. Hopefully she read it, and is not running. We’ll see what happens.
Which is why the 2014 start date now makes political sense. Put out a Republican plan and see what the response is. Well, health insurers are lamenting the loss of the glory days and the public hates the individual mandates. And Republican governors are refusing to set up exchanges, which the feds must backfill.
Enough of chaos to argue for Medicare for All in the next two years. And for undoing some of the sabotage of Medicare that has occurred over the last 30 years.
More chaos from republican legislatures, Health Care Compacts. No surprise that Daniels and Indiana is in on it.
Note the name Koch as a cosponsor. Don’t know as he’s a direct relative, but he might as well be. Woe is us.
Remember when Atrios and I used to write over and over again that a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance from private, for-profit, and hated insurance corporations would be massively unpopular?
Was this ever actually a controversial statement? The mandate is the “eat your veggies” element of the law. Were there people telling you that it would be popular?
“silly talk about constitutionality.” Boo, you never cease to make me laugh. Heheheheheeee.
All moot if they do not radically improve the entire healthcare/insurance system.
Well…DUH!!!
If the “private, for-profit and hated” insurance firms and the equally private, for-profit and hated healthcare system itself…up and down the line, from Big Pharma to Big Hospital, Big Testing and Big Brother Doctor…are doing a truly lousy job, if they are pushing drugs in a way that would make the most successful illegal drug dealers green with envy, running up prices as part of the whole insurance scam and doing almost nothing in the way of pre-illness, real preventive medicine on an environmental, agricultural and diet/exercise/simple good fucking sense level, anybody with an ounce of sense would resist such a mandate.
And why would the healthcare system be doing that? Where would be the profit in having a healthy population? It’s exactly like the “War On Drugs”or the “Criminal Justice System.” Where’s the profit in eliminating the drug scourge or rampant criminality for those who are supposedly dedicated to such things? They’d be out of a job. Big money!!! Bet on it. Trillions.
So instead, this system:
1- Pushes pharmacological solutions that plainly do not work very well and simultaneously accedes to the aggressive advertising of bad foo and unhealthy living habits.
2-Keeps the whole drug trade going by a system of benign neglect combined with secret support. (Iran Contra, just for starters.)
and
3-Continues to fill the prisons with inmates which in turn keeps the police establishment/so-called “justice” system/prison system (and by extension the whole welfare system) making huge money while the educational systems that could actually do some good are starved of funds and forced to teach useless, multiple-choice “learning” to bored, uninterested and increasingly rebellious, angry students.
And neither the Dembamacrats nor the Romnublicans are going to do a goddamned thing to change this mess. Notreally. They’ll just change the forms it takes. Like putting another body on the same old automobile or a fading beauty’s plastic surgery.
Your solution?
More advertising.
Sell that shit, baby.
Bush II’s solution?
“Go shopping.”
Yours?
“More advertising.”
Nice.
“Advertising” as opposed to “doing” is what has gotten us into this position in the first place.
If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
“Advertising?”
You are part of the problem.
Is your decision to be part of that system based on a belief that it is the only pragmatic way to deal with our position?
I am sure that you think so.
I am also sure that you are wrong. It only creates another bubble. And when that one pops? What then? More advertising? Another election that is supposed to “change things?”
Please.
Real reform on an infrastructural level…the societal infrastructure, starting with the Feds and aimed right at the corporate-owned Permanent Government for which your man Obama is the current spokesperson…is the only possible real solution for this problem. You consider it impossible, I am thinking, because at heart I believe that you see the contradictions currently inherent in our fucked up system.
O ye faint of heart!
The time approaches when half-measures will no longer do. When the bubbles will become increasingly frail and eventually start doing the ol’ popcorn dance.
Half-measures applied to previous half-measures that have themselves been aimed at other half-measures will eventually produce a reverse geometric progression that tends inexorably towards zero, and when that Zero Day arrives? What then?
Or…stand and fight now.
Your choice.
As always.
So it goes.
Down like a motherfucker if we don’t get something real happening.
“Advertising?”
I don’t think so.
AG
Did you and Atrios have 60 votes in the Senate? 50 votes?
I think 50 votes could have been gotten if they took enough of a risk. Was it worth the risk? Dunno — I’d have erred on the side of caution and “sold off a PO” as well to ensure it passed.
But now there’s a framework. So there’s no risk for pushing hard for it.
50 votes is the same as no votes at all.
Literally.
If you only have 50 votes, there will be no vote. At all.
Reconciliation was possible is my point. I’m not even saying the votes for it were there. I think they could have been gotten with some work. But imo it was not worth risking the entire legislation. Clinton’s taxes were passed under the same measure, same with Bush’s.
You really wanted the ACA law to be a temporary meansure up for review in 10 years time? And you do know that only bidgetery items can be put forward for reconciliation.
Did I say that? I don’t mean to be rude, but do people even read what I say? I said it wasn’t worth the risk to pass that part of the law because it could have killed the whole thing, or the choice fixes (and the student loan stuff).
But now with a framework in place it’s worth fighting for those 50 votes at some point.
Also, a PO can pass through reconciliation.
Did I say that?
The other option is that you don’t understand reconciliation.
We’ve been through this, Joe. It could be passed with it as an option. Booman and I went over this as well. Go google Ezra’s comments on it.
If it had a public option/medicare expansion it would have been worth it.
I’m talking about a political reality that means that something with the support of most Dem and Repub voters was never really on the table, at the same time that something opposed by most Dem and Repub voters was never at any risk of being taken off the table.
Sure, public opinion isn’t a house of Congress. But neither is the insurance industry.
I’m talking about a political reality that means that something with the support of most Dem and Repub voters was never really on the table, at the same time that something opposed by most Dem and Repub voters was never at any risk of being taken off the table.
Are you under the impression that bills are passed by “most Dem and Repub voters?”
No?
Then you aren’t talking about political reality.
Sure, public opinion isn’t a house of Congress. But neither is the insurance industry.
As opposed to the Senate, which is the only political reality that matters when you’re trying to pass legislation, as opposed to posture for voters.