Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mass

(27,315 posts)
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:23 PM Nov 2013

The Obamacare "revolt" that isn't by David Atkins The press is screaming with headlines that the v

These last few days, I was puzzled and perplexed by the reaction of the media ad blogs concerning these 39 Democrats who are apparently the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency (Sigh - Once again).

So I am happy to find this.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-obamacare-revolt-that-isnt-by.html


The Obamacare "revolt" that isn't

by David Atkins

The press is screaming with headlines that the vote by 39 Democrats to support the Upton bill constitutes some sort of anti-Obama "revolt". That's not, in fact, the case. There is no "revolt."

Here's what happened:

1) The President promised that people would be able to keep the healthcare they have. Nothing in the ACA at the time it was passed banned plans in effect at the time. In that sense, the President's promise was going to be upheld as far as he knew.

2) Insurers then proceeded to sell a bunch of temporary plans that they knew would be subject to elimination under the ACA due to inadequate coverage. The Right then hyped up that people would "lose" those plans--even though only 3% of Americans are covered by them, even though they're terrible plans, and even though they were only created after the ACA's passage.

3) Rather than defending his stance and the validity of his promise by attacking the insurers themselves, the President proceeded to offer rationalizations and then an apology, and then a reversal of ground by stating that he would, in fact, tell insurers that they would be allowed to continue to sell those plans for at least another year.

4) In the Democratic-controlled Senate, Mary Landrieu offered a bill allowing insurers to continue to sell their existing plans for another year to customers who already have them while forcing insurers to inform customers of other offers through the exchanges. This jibed with what the President seems to want as well.

5) In the Republican House, the Landrieu bill had no chance of coming to the floor. Instead, House Dems were faced with an up-or-down vote on the Upton bill, which allows insurers to sell the cheap garbage plans not only to existing customers but new customers as well, without informing customers of exchange alternatives. Upton's bill is much worse than Landrieu's, but House Democrats' only alternative was to vote for no fix at all, and thus position themselves as refusing to fulfill the "keep your insurance" promise even though the President himself had reversed ground.

6) Happily, the Upton bill stood no chance of passage in the Senate, or of being signed by the President. The President can make the fix through Executive power alone, so if anything crosses his desk for signature, it will look far more like Landrieu than Upton regardless.

7) Given the impossibility of that vote, Democratic House leadership released the most endangered Democrats to vote for the Upton bill, knowing full well that the vote would protect them from the worst Republican demagoguing, while shoring up the President's own misguided desire to fulfill his promise and causing no real ill effects in terms of final policy.

Does that sound like a "revolt"? No, it doesn't. It's actually pretty basic, boring politics. But to the breathless, sensationalist and nuance-free press, it's red meat aplenty with which to deceive readers about "divided Democrats."


So, I know that I cannot ask people in the media to stop hyperventilating, but it would be nice if people here did.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Obamacare "revolt" that isn't by David Atkins The press is screaming with headlines that the v (Original Post) Mass Nov 2013 OP
A lot of noise about nothing BlueStreak Nov 2013 #1
Kick sheshe2 Nov 2013 #2
Much of your analysis is spot on, but I do take some exception to a few points: RBInMaine Nov 2013 #3
The questions is ProSense Nov 2013 #4
The "revolt" is opportunistic spin and ProSense Nov 2013 #5
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
1. A lot of noise about nothing
Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:36 PM
Nov 2013

Nothing will pass Congress. The house only wants to undermine the ACA, and that's exactly what happens if you let insurance companies keep selling junk policies. The Senate bill is better, but you simply cannot force the insurance companies to offer a policy they have determined they don't want to offer. That is the prerogative of the free market. If we had "government run HC, it would be a different story, but obviously we don't.

Moreover, you don't just put together a provider network in a couple of weeks. These companies were planning for a year or more to discontinue those products so they did not sign up docs and hospitals to be in a network for policies that they wouldn't be selling. And many of them put together all new networks for their ACA policies. They can't just presume that Docs will want to be in the network for non-ACA policies. You have to go back to each practice and let them choose if they are going to participate.

So when it comes down to it, it is a bunch of noise about nothing. Those insurance companies that are in a position to extend the old policies and want to do that will do so under the Obama plan. And the media will be completely confused about what is going on. But by the time any of that takes shape, there will be a million people who will have enrolled in ACA policies and the media will have reached the point in their narrative when it is time to say that the website is now working. In fact it has been working pretty well for a couple of weeks, but that didn't fit with the narrative.

So we just have to ride this one out. Congress is irrelevant.

 

RBInMaine

(13,570 posts)
3. Much of your analysis is spot on, but I do take some exception to a few points:
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:10 AM
Nov 2013

First, Obama DID say in his rally in Massachusetts and in interviews that he based his assurance in '09 on the grandfather clause. So he HAS made that point. Not strongly enough and repeatedly enough I grant you, but it has been made.

Next, regardless of who is at fault, politics is perception, and the perception of the policy holders is that they are mad about the cancellations even though it is shitty insurance in most cases and are especially mad in light of Obama's stump statements. They unfortunately are impatient, worried, and/or unwilling or unable to process the complexities of the situation. They just want some kind of insurance. Obama calculated that he needed to show empathy and sympathy for the policy holders and that trumped getting into a knife fight with the insurance companies who could argue an "unclear grandfather clause as written" and who I'm sure he feels he needs to have "onboard" to make the ACA work. In fact, he met with insurance CEO's yesterday to encourage them to extend the junk plans. He is trying to play a middle of the road game with this one, and I'm sure he is also calculating that in a few months once the exchanges and website are running full-bore, this controversy and hype will dissipate and the ACA and website will be getting much higher marks. He wants to appear empathetic, sympathetic, willing to admit imperfections in himself, and focused on getting the problems fixed and not be in a knife fight and seeming unjustifiably defensive when the majority perception is he was too unclear in his stump speech of a few years ago. He wants to appear like the "good guy trying to be "accountable", "honest," and "fixing some honest mistakes." It may make sense. It is kind of a "damned if you do damned if you don't" scenario. On the one hand he may appear too weak, and on the other he may seem unjustifiably "defensive" and just "digging himself in deeper".

I take a position between yours and Obama's approach. I don't think he should have gotten into a loud knife fight with the insurance companies given the perception and was right to say that while there was no intention to be inaccurate he could have been clearer. But he also did and still does need to get more pointed about the grandfather clause issue and the insurance companies' sale of bad policies AFTER that law was passed , and the need to reform the bad individual market plans. He can make those points and then pivot to "But now the focus needs to be fixing this and working together, not playing an endless blame game."

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. The questions is
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 06:25 AM
Nov 2013

"Next, regardless of who is at fault, politics is perception, and the perception of the policy holders is that they are mad about the cancellations even though it is shitty insurance in most cases and are especially mad in light of Obama's stump statements. "

...why? And it's entirely possible that this is more media hype, creating the impression that legions of people are angry when only a small select group is affected. Even in that group, not everyone is upset.

300,000 Floridians' health policy cancellations undone
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024042968

Hurricane Katrina, The Obamacare Rollout, And Allowing Privilege To Shape Our Politics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024044297

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. The "revolt" is opportunistic spin and
Sun Nov 17, 2013, 06:42 AM
Nov 2013

any Democrat pushing it is simply helping the GOP scaremongering.

Scared Democrats have been siding with the GOP for years. Hell, 34 House Democrats voted against the original health care bill.

It's a regular occurence, but somehow this time it's huge!!!

30 House Democrats Joined the GOP to Sell You Out to Wall Street. Which Ones?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/29/1251635/-30-House-Democrats-Joined-the-GOP-to-Sell-You-Out-to-Wall-Street-Which-Ones

28 Senate Democrats vote with Republicans to cut Food Stamps.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/telliottmbamsc/blog/2013/06/28-senate-democrats-vote-republicans-cut-food-stamps

"Thirty-five Democrats joined Republicans in passing the employer mandate delay. Only one Republican voted no."
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/311813-house-votes-to-delay-obamacare-mandates

Vulnerable Democrats (19) Side With GOP on Anti-EPA Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/08/08greenwire-vulnerable-democrats-side-with-gop-on-anti-epa-63903.html

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Obamacare "revol...