At Vox, Sarah Kliff and Ezra Klein purport to reveal “The Lessons of Obamacare.” Were I reviewing these lessons in a full column for The Federalist, I would probably spend a fair amount of space to mocking the delusion and disingenuousness shot through the piece.
For example, do they expect anyone to buy that they had to do extensive reporting to “unearth” the lesson that the Democrats — from Pres. Obama on down — should not have lied about the trade-offs their proposal entailed?
Conservatives noted this lying about trade-offs throughout the Obamacare debate; even the New York Times conceded in the straight news part of the paper that promises about keeping your plan and doctor “may not be literally true or enforceable.” People like Klein clowned themselves pretending the law was a success even after it passed, but now want to pretend they learned a lesson.
Similarly, Kliff and Klein again spread the horse manure about the individual mandate being an idea with substantial GOP support. Avik Roy has called Klein out by name for this silliness in the past, but it’s apparently far too comforting a myth for Voxers to drop.
But the important part of their article is not what the GOP should learn from Obamacare. Rather, the key point is that the GOP should learn what Kliff and Klein (and I) believe Democrats will take as the lessons of Obamacare.
They voxplain: “For Democrats, those lessons are relatively straightforward. It is easy to imagine the next Democratic president passing a health care bill that does four things: expand Medicaid coverage up to 200 percent of poverty, boost subsidies in the exchanges, add a public option that can use Medicare or Medicaid’s pricing power, and let people above age 50 buy into Medicare. ”
As progressives, Kliff and Klein are required to conclude that the failure of big government was that it wasn’t big enough. But politically, they are probably dead on.
After all, the House GOP bill doesn’t even fully reverse O-care. Democrats (and some conservatives) see a GOP that is not ideologically committed to fundamental reform and even dumb enough to accept coverage stats — the only measure by which O-care succeeds — as a metric of GOP success.
Republicans are not entirely ditching O-care’s Medicaid expansion now. They would be no more likely to remove people from Medicare. Thus, the next Democratic strategy will center around a squeeze play that is simpler (indeed, one more in line with Obama’s claim to “build on what works”) and more difficult to reverse.
The GOP lost the war over O-care in part because they thought they were fighting the last war. Instead, polarization made a larger Dem majority more unified, even willing to accept a bill that bought off the interest groups who helped torpedo Hillarycare in the 1990s.
The GOP — and conservatives — really ought to be looking at approaches that anticipate the next time the Dems control Congress and the White House. That approach could be something radically more free-market than anything on the table now. Or, given the that the GOP really isn’t all that conservative, it could be something more like Avik Roy’s plan, modeled on the universal coverage plans in Switzerland and Singapore.
It’s probably too late for the GOP to think that many moves ahead, rather than continue to fight the last war. The GOP’s nickname as the Stupid Party is often well-earned.
PS: Consider subscribing to WHRPT in the sidebar (the posts come straight to your inbox; no muss no fuss). And following WHRPT on Twitter. Thanks for reading and sharing!