“At least at this point in the story of the healthcare law, just ahead of the US Supreme Court arguments next week, one side has made a much bigger investment toward winning the argument with voters,” said Elizabeth Wilner, vice president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, in a prepared statement. “For the law’s supporters, closing the gap in advertising would require not just more spending and different targeting, but the sudden boost of a Court victory.”
I mean, this issue applies to more than just the health care argument, but I definitely think that it’s the most pronounced in the HC debate. It seems to me that in their efforts to remain the level-headed counterparts to the radical Republicans, the Democrats have been handily losing the health care battle; seriously, if the Dems had defended and championed the ACA just as viciously as the Republicans have been demonizing it up until now, I firmly contend that there would be a larger number of the electorate on the Dems’ side on this issue. But no, instead all they’ve been doing is running away from it, and meanwhile the Republicans have refused to allow us all to move the fuck on.
No idea. As a WAG I would assume part of it is that the current crop of politicians and advisers came of age during Carter and Reagan, when being a leftist was considered weak and pathetic. So maybe they take that prejudice with them to this day. But I really don’t know why.
There is also the fact that the right has more of a holy war element to it, while the left doesn’t have that kind of passion.
Plus the fact that the true left minority neuters itself by obsessing over single payer and the public option, rather than the substantial humanitarian and fiscal accomplishments of Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act was the tightest piece of social legislation passed in the last 50 years.
Sure it extended health care to parents with children who are up to 26 immediately. And it put a stop to rescission: the practice where big insurance companies with cancel policies once policyholders come down with cancer-- all because they didn’t report wholly trivial and irrelevant acne treatment years earlier. But it also cut the long term deficit and -contrary to what is reported at Fox News- estimated long term costs have declined since its passage. Indeed, anybody who repeals it will need to increase the deficit or fund offsetting tax increases or budget cuts.
Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. Not one.
In theory, the Supreme Court decision from this week’s arguments will be based upon sound legal principles and not public outcry, political blubberings, or scare tactic “news” reports. And so, in keeping with that theory, it’s not incumbent upon Democrats as a whole to stand up and fight for the health care law because the decision lies entirely within a branch of government they don’t control and shouldn’t be able to influence.
Now, come November, we’ll see what fight the Democrats have in them.
I’m sure there are examples of Demorcatic Party affiliates signing in from left field, but it seems the GOP is where you go when you want to see wackiness on a consistent basis. And just because one side gets all Geobels with its spin machine, the other is not obligated to also lose its mind in order to compete. Sometimes it makes sense to just be the adult in the room.
If I were to find fault with the Democratic party, it would be the extent to which they let the democratic process, which sometimes looks like heated disagreement, be spun to appear as disunity. Especially when the GOP is the very image of lockstep nonthink that should truly terrify Americans.
Its also easier to have a simple emotional appeal as to why something is bad than why it is good, particularly if it is good only for a rather small minority of people who are unlucky enough to be uninsured with substantial health problems.
When the law was being discussed and passed, it was incumbent on them to make a strong argument that it was good policy, and they did not do that nearly as much as they should have. I think that’s what the OP is talking about more than the Supreme Court case in particular.
It’s a little bit more complex than that, I think. Democrats, as a party, are more diverse than Republicans. If the Democratic party started taking a hard line stance on dissent or disagreement, like the Republicans do, I literally do not believe that the party would survive it. The tea party is the first real dissenting voice the Republicans have had in years, which is why it is (imho) destroying the party. You can only play hardball when you have a unified base, which the Democrats haven’t had since before… Roosevelt, maybe?
The Obama campaign has embraced the phrase Obamacare. I suspect that they will be talking up the ACA.
The Democratic Party is a coalition of liberals, moderates and conservatives. So it takes a while to come to an agreement. Congressional Republicans are made up of crazies and those afraid of being primaried by crazies. So they all voted against the ACA - which is basically Romneycare. No surprise, both plans were designed by Jonathan Gruber, who worked off a plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s.
The healthcare mandate is the bitter medicine necessary to make health care reform economically viable. Without it, insurance companies are likely to enter an adverse selection death spiral (though the process might take some time, and it would only affect the individual market. Plus there might be loopholes.) So while the ACA was highly responsible (you can tell this by the fact that arguments against it are either empty of policy content or wholly demagogic), it’s not necessarily an easy sell. Cost controls, long term deficit reduction and even saving lives statistically seldom is.
They are trying to keep their jobs.
They read the poll numbers, most of the electorate are opposed to the ACA. Rightly/wrongly/informed/misinformed/uninformed as they may be, that is the truth of the numbers. If they stand up for the bill, it will be highlighted during their re-election campaign and they know this and are afraid of losing their job.
They are trying to keep their jobs.
The HC industry is ~17% of the economy. They have lots of money for lobbying and campaign contributions. If they stand up for the ACA, they will be held accountable by their opponent at election time with backing from the HC industry…see item #1.
They are trying to keep their jobs.
Many of them voted for the bill after being coerced/arm twisted into doing so by the Democratic administration in return for favors for their district as well as direct support for their reelection campaign. Note how well this worked in the mid-term elections. White House support is not exactly a guarantee of re-election.
I don’t know, take advantage of the fact that all your statements were not correct back when this stuff was actually passed, as the majority of people were for healthcare reform, and the individual mandate was specifically added because the insurance industry wanted it.
Or they run ads without attaching their names to it, actually utilizing those super PACs’ anonymity to their advantage.
Or they could not give a shit about keeping their jobs. If it turns out the electorate doesn’t want this stuff, even after giving it a fair shot, then they aren’t actually doing their job of representing them, and thus they need to no longer be in their job. If they are in their job for money or prestige, they need to be kicked out anyways.
Really.
Statement #1–they read the poll numbers…at the time it was passed, the poll numbers were 80% positive for Obama.
Statement #2–the HC industry is 17% of the economy. So you are saying it was not when this was passed?
Statment #3–they were coerced and arm twisted into voting for the bill. So you are say that is not true?
OK, you win.
The point is that the Democrats are acting in their own self interest. That is all that they are doing. To think otherwise is naive.
The Democrats are very divided, because they want change but they’re not agreed on exactly what. Medical care is prime example, but every other issue is the same. There are zillion ways that the US medical system can be reformed, and there are factions within the Democrats supporting this way vs that way.
The Republicans are very united, because they just need to oppose every change. It’s easy to stand together behind “no health care reform” and “no change in marriage law” and “no tax reform” and … When they do want change (such as in abortion laws), it’s a simple yes/no issue: ban abortions. They’re not divided over how or details.
Hence, Democrats appear to have no unity (i.e., no backbone.) Republicans appear to be strongly united.
And that makes them different from Republicans … how?
If the Constitution prohibited governments from forcing people to buy private goods, this case would be over, and in fact the law probably would not have passed.
The anti-mandate side are hoping for a decision that the Constitution speaks from silence, and forbids all that is not explicitly permitted. To which I say, you most likely will not get your wish, and heaven help us all if you do.
By the way, how many of the strict constructionists supported defaulting on the debt to Social Security? Show of hands!