Federal Judiciary

Obamacare Fights Back

Democrats were quick to dismiss as 'symbolic' or 'a waste of time' the House Republican effort to repeal Obamacare, but they are sparing no effort to defend the law. Following a week's delay due to the tragic shooting in Tucson, both sides came out swinging Tuesday, foreshadowing a political showdown that is certain to extend well beyond the repeal vote, which is set for Wednesday evening.

The Democratic barrage began early and continued throughout the day. A coherent strategy quickly emerged: Turn public opinion against repeal by highlighting provisions of the bill that most Americans like, such as prohibiting insurance companies from denying care to patients with pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents' plans until age 26, lowering prescription-drug costs for seniors, and giving tax credits to small businesses to offset the costs of providing employees with health insurance.

#ad#Early Tuesday morning, the White House released data from the Department of Health and Human Services estimating that between 50 million and 129 million Americans (nearly half the population) have pre-existing conditions that could be grounds for denial of coverage if the health-care law is repealed. The report was skewered by critics on the right, but Democratic lawmakers reiterated that figure -- the higher 129 million, naturally -- at every turn.

Shortly before members were set to begin debate on the House floor, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (Md.) convened an unofficial hearing of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to hear testimony from 'people who have already benefitted from the health-care law' -- namely, individuals with pre-existing conditions who had been denied coverage -- in an effort to highlight the negative consequences of repeal.

Personal narratives have long been a major component of the Democratic strategy for health-care reform. As Rep. Henry Cuellar (D., Texas) put it, Democrats intended to have a debate of 'abstracts versus real people.' Nearly every Democratic lawmaker who spoke Tuesday recounted at least one story about an individual from their district who would suffer as a result of repeal. For its part, the White House kicked off a two-week series entitled 'Voices of Health Reform' to showcase individuals who have benefitted from some of the law's provisions.

Tuesday also corresponded with the release of a new ad from the liberal interest group Americans United for Change, which urged Americans to oppose repeal. 'The Affordable Care Act gave your family the same coverage that members of Congress get,' the ad's narrator says. 'Call Congress. Tell them you deserve the same health-insurance benefits they get. Tell them, ‘Don't repeal the Affordable Care Act.''

Given the newfound atmosphere of fiscal discipline in Washington, Democrats are also hoping to engage Republicans head-on in a debate over the cost of repeal. By seizing on a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that says repealing the law would add hundreds of billions to the deficit over the next decade, Democrats are seeking to paint Republicans as fiscally reckless. 'Please can we be a little more fiscally conservative in this body?' Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) asked, without a hint of sarcasm.

Republicans, of course, dispute the CBO estimates, arguing that the figures are the result of -- in the words of House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) -- 'gimmicks and spending tricks.' That didn't stop Rep. Chris Van Holler (D., Md.), the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, from warning that ignoring the CBO numbers would be an 'unprecedented' and 'historic mistake.' Van Hollen further wondered why Republicans refused to hold any hearing like the one put on by the Democratic Steering Committee to hear from individuals affected by the law.

#page#Two things are noticeably absent from Democratic arguments. One is the idea that repeal is vastly unpopular with the American people; several recent polls show that more Americans support repeal than oppose it. Second is any mention of Republican plans to introduce a resolution -- immediately following the repeal vote -- that would authorize House committees to draft health-care legislation that provides affordable care, covers people with pre-existing conditions, and meets the law's other goals through different means. Instead of 'repeal and replace,' Democrats would like to portray the GOP strategy as one of 'repeal and forget,' in the words of Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D., Texas).

In a session with reporters Tuesday, Hoyer suggested that Democrats were looking forward to revisiting the health-care debate, but only within the framework of revising the current law. 'None of us did a good enough job [making the case for the law],' Hoyer said, adding: 'We're open to better solutions.'

#ad#Indeed, a number of Democrats have suggested they are open to incorporating Republican ideas into Obamacare, and have already agreed to some changes, such as getting rid of the requirement that forces business to report to the Internal Revenue Service all payments over $600. In doing so, they are seeking to acknowledge the public's unhappiness with the law, while attempting to save it from repeal by convincing Americans that incremental reform is the preferable course of action. 'I hope we can look at bipartisan changes and modifications that would increase efficiency and effectiveness, but [we should] not repeal [the law],' said Rep. James Clyburn (D., S.C.).

Relegated to minority status, House Democrats have few tactical options available other than to simply line up behind the broader party effort to win the battle for public opinion. On the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) will need to keep his majority in line and protect vulnerable Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Ben Nelson (Neb.) from casting votes that will be unpopular with their constituents. Reid has already refused to take up the repeal bill (which is sure to pass the Republican-dominated House) in the Senate. As Hoyer acknowledged, the debate is likely to dominate the actions of the 112th Congress and run straight through to the 2012 presidential campaign, when the stakes will be even higher. Both sides have two years to make their case, and the clock is ticking.

--- Andrew Stiles is a 2011 Franklin Fellow.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on January 19, 2011 (boomark / email).