The White House rang in 2015 by promptly issuing a veto threat to the first Obamacare challenge from Republicans.
But that doesn’t mean Obama would never budge on adjustments to his signature domestic initiative, just that it makes little sense for him to do so now, say those at the center of the Obamacare clash.
“From the perspective of somebody who has held a veto pen before, it’s an art form as much as it is a direct power,” said Mike Leavitt, former Utah governor and Health and Human Services secretary under President George W. Bush. “Often, it’s best used as a means of pre-empting something as opposed to responding to action.”
The White House asserts that Obama will not compromise on legislation that undermines the core principle of his reforms: shrinking the number of uninsured Americans. And his refusal to engage in a debate about changing the law to require larger employers to provide health insurance to employees working 40 hours a week, rather than 30, is designed to avoid giving Republicans leverage for pursuing a larger Obamacare overhaul.
The president also could veto legislation that would scrap Obamacare’s tax on medical devices, a provision that both Republicans and many Democrats want to kill.
Even if Obama vetoes both pieces of GOP legislation, many Republicans see it as a win because the president is defending an unpopular law. The White House counters that the conservative attack will become tired and undermine Republican pledges to prove they can effectively govern.
In offering piecemeal legislation, the Republican approach is more about building a message, peeling off as much Democratic support as possible to paint Obama as an obstructionist unwilling to back smaller changes supported by centrist lawmakers in his own party.
“To establish a position for future negotiations, it makes a lot of sense,” said Stephen Northrup, a former senior Republican Senate health staffer. “Pass a few bills that have some Democratic support. That puts Republicans on stronger ground, perhaps during negotiations on a budget.”
Obama’s calculus not to give in could look much different in a few months, when Democrats must engage in budget battles with Republicans seeking Obamacare changes and deal with the potential ramifications of the Supreme Court ruling on the legality of Affordable Care Act subsidies.
“Unless all Obama wants to do is play defense in his last two years, they must have a list of things they’re willing to give — there is so much the White House needs to work with Congress on,” Leavitt predicted. “The first week of the session is too early to reveal those cards. The pressure has to build first. Right now, they’re boxing in the first round and just feeling each other out.”
Some healthcare experts said Obama’s unwillingness to engage with Republicans looks suspect, given his numerous unilateral delays on major provisions of the health law, including the employer mandate.
“The administration itself has already deviated from original concepts,” said Dennis Smith, former health secretary under Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker. “Remember, President [Bill] Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before finally signing it. There’s going to be lots of movement.”
That movement, apparently, will have to wait at least a few months.
Ahead of his State of the Union address, White House officials feel emboldened by a series of executive actions reasserting Obama’s standing in the face of his lame-duck status. If anything, Democrats say, the current political environment gives the president even less reason to hand Republicans a victory.
“It’s about making sure you’re not being taken political hostage,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist and former Clinton aide. “Obama is doing stuff. Republicans are not speaking with one voice. The veto is part of a larger strategy of staying on offense.”
