Democrats’ strategy for vulnerable, Obamacare-supporting congressmen up for reelection this fall seems to be, “Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative.”
As Eugene Robinson writes, “Democrats should talk about what’s right with the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. They should talk about the millions of formerly uninsured Americans who now have coverage. They should talk about the millions of others who are covered for the first time under Medicaid. They should talk about the young people who are able to be covered under their parents’ policies. They should talk about the diabetics and cancer survivors who now cannot be denied coverage…”
First, there’s no evidence that “millions” of formerly uninsured Americans have coverage. Of the few million who have signed up, surveys suggest that the majority previously had insurance, and the preponderance of the latter shopped on the exchanges because they were kicked off their old plans.
Second, a vast expansion of Medicaid is hardly something to crow about. Ballooning Medicaid coverage can hardly be considered an integral part of a supposedly innovative redesign that was supposed to cut costs by restructuring the insurance industry.
Third, it’s not clear that most Americans view coddling young adults through their 20s by allowing them free coverage while living in their parents’ basements as a gain.
As for those with preexisting conditions, this is a legitimate example of an Obamacare feature that is popular with the public and will do good for a lot of people.
But we can’t just point to people who make out like bandits under Obamacare and call it a day. There are more people who end up worse off by getting kicked off their plans, having to sign up for plans with more expensive premiums, and getting stuck with narrower networks of doctors.
A piece of legislation that affects the citizenry must be sound in its entirety. Each piece must be constitutional. The collection together must do more good than bad. And the bill must not do undeserved harm to any of the people it affects.
Obamacare fails on all counts.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional, despite what Supreme Court Justice John Roberts thinks. Until recently, Obamacare had booted more previously insured people off their plans than enrolled uninsured customers. And numerous patients found their continuity of care disrupted by having to switch plans.
Certain provisions of Obamacare are popular, but the law isn’t “certain provisions,” it’s “all of it.” I hear certain provisions of “having a job” are popular, like “getting a salary,” but that doesn’t mean we can keep the salary part without including “getting up early” and “dealing with annoying coworkers.”
In the best-case scenario, Obamacare would’ve been a zero-sum game, in which the government confiscated resources from some taxpayers and redistributed them to others. But Obamacare architects weren’t content to spread the wealth around; they had to upend the whole system while introducing chaos, uncertainty, arbitrary dictates, and capricious waivers to politically connected cronies.
Obamacare isn’t a zero-sum game, it’s a negative-sum game.
