Stephen Hayes:
Ted Cruz has sparked a Republican civil war. He has done the bidding of the GOP fringe, in a self-aggrandizing crusade. And while he has enhanced his own position in the conservative fantasyland he seeks to rule, the practical effect of his quixotic campaign to defund Obamacare has been to elevate the president and jeopardize the 2014 elections for his own party.
That, at least, seems to be the consensus in Washington. We’re inclined to a somewhat different view. We say two cheers for Ted Cruz—and for Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and their fellow crusaders. They succeeded in one crucial respect: Everyone is talking about Obamacare. And the more it gets talked about, the clearer its flaws are to an already skeptical public.
Shortly after an exhausted Cruz ended his 21-hour non-filibuster filibuster, Tom Harkin took the floor. The chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Harkin is an ardent defender of the law, and he spent most of his 30-plus minutes defending the law and listing its many alleged benefits. But he also likened the Affordable Care Act to a “starter home” in need of renovations, an acknowledgment of the fundamental flaws of the president’s health care reform efforts.
Over the course of that day and those that followed, one Democrat after another had to defend the unpopular law. Majority Leader Harry Reid slipped and called the levy on medical devices “that stupid tax—I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that.” Alaska senator Mark Begich, a vulnerable Democrat up for reelection next year, touted the benefits of Obama-care but made sure to qualify his praise. Virginia senator Mark Warner did the same in an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News. “There’s some good stuff in Obamacare, there’s some bad stuff in Obamacare,” he said. Warner claimed the reforms would mean more competition in rural Virginia but acknowledged: “There could be lots of bumps on this. And one of the things that kind of frustrates me is it’s the law of the land. We ought to find out what’s good in it, what’s bad in it.” He expressed concerns about “the disincentive to hire full-time workers,” the lack of tort reform in the law, the difficulty of informing consumers about their choices.
This from a defender of Obamacare.
We’re confident that if Republicans of all stripes can look beyond personality conflicts and purity tests, they will emerge from the debates this fall in a stronger position politically, and perhaps even with some agreement on policy changes that would further weaken the president’s collapsing health care regime.
The context for the current fight matters. In the late spring, Mike Lee quietly began an effort to place Obamacare at the center of the debates this fall on the country’s spending and debt crises. He enlisted the support of Rubio, Cruz, and others, and conservatives in the House launched a similar campaign. Lee hadn’t settled on a strategy—defund or delay, continuing resolution or debt ceiling. He just wanted Obamacare to be the focus of debate. The same was true for many of his allies in the House.
But their attempts to win approval from Republican leaders were unsuccessful. Although neither John Boehner nor Mitch McConnell had ruled out a push on Obamacare, they were skeptical. Republican leaders preferred an approach that sought the restoration of some sequester cuts—in social spending to win Democrats and defense spending to placate Republicans—and would have included an effort to persuade President Obama to reform existing entitlements. Obama-care was not a priority.
“I’d be leery of linking defunding to the [continuing resolution] or debt ceiling hike,” one GOP leadership aide told The Weekly Standard this summer. “No final decision has been made, but shutting the government down or threatening the full faith and credit of the United States to defund the president’s health care law would very likely be seen as unreasonable overreaching.”
Mike Lee told us in mid-July that GOP leaders had offered “nothing” in response to his entreaties and didn’t have a strategy of their own. “There is no plan,” he said.
The prospect of a unified Republican message was gone. So these conservatives launched their outside-in campaign, using grassroots activist groups and the growing conservative angst about the president’s health care law to force it atop the agenda. Cruz eagerly presented himself as the face of the effort.
There’s no doubt Cruz made mistakes. On tactics, he and his allies chose the wrong objective (defunding, rather than delaying key parts) and perhaps the wrong vehicle (the continuing resolution rather than the debt ceiling). And more than once, he put House Republicans in an exceedingly difficult spot. Cruz misled his followers at times by creating the impression that stopping Obamacare was a matter of willpower rather than arithmetic (Republicans alone don’t have the votes). As John McCormack has noted, Cruz alienated many would-be allies with phony purity tests—claiming that conservatives who disagreed with his tactics were part of a “surrender caucus” and even likening them to appeasers of the Nazis. Many conservatives—both inside the Congress and out—have dedicated the better part of the last four years working first to fend off and then to derail Obamacare. Because they disagree with Cruz on a tactical issue, they’re now the surrender caucus? Nonsense.
But Cruz and his allies have succeeded in one crucial respect: The debate is now focused on Obamacare and at precisely the moment when many Americans are beginning to understand just how flawed the law is. Despite the many missteps—sometimes by passive Republican leaders and sometimes by dogmatic defund enthusiasts—Republicans today are in a strong position to capitalize on what Cruz and his allies have done.
Doing so will require a more aggressive approach from Republican leaders and a more realistic one from the defund-or-nothing crowd. The focus should now be on the two provisions of Obamacare that are most difficult for the White House and congressional Democrats to defend—the Obamacare exemption for members of Congress and their staffs and the selective enforcement of the law’s mandates.
Starter home? No, the proper comparable real estate term is “a money pit”.
Lies?
Cruz falsely claimed that the spouses of 15,000 UPS employees will be “left without health insurance” and forced into “an exchange with no employer subsidy.” UPS is dropping coverage for spouses only if they can get insurance with their own employer.
Obama greatly exaggerated when he credited the health care law for bending the cost curve on health care spending. Experts say the down economy is the overwhelming reason that national health care spending has been growing at historically slow rates in recent years.
Cruz said the “IRS employees union has asked to be exempted from Obamacare.” Not so. The union wants its workers to be treated like any other worker with employer-provided health insurance. It opposes a GOP
bill that it says, contrary to law, would “take coverage away from
employees who already receive it through their employers.”
Cruz said the unemployment rate for black teens “is over 10 times higher than it is for college graduates — 38.2 percent.” True, but that’s comparing apples to oranges. The unemployment rate for white teens, aged 16 to 19, is also high, at 20.5 percent. There’s still a racial disparity, but the rate is nearly double, not 10 times higher.
Cruz cited an outdated quote from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, to back up his claim that Obamacare is slowing job growth. Zandi told us the slowdown in job growth at small businesses is “no longer the case.”
Sen. Rand Paul wrongly argued that “everybody is going to pay more” for health insurance under the law. The fact is, some will pay more and some will pay less. Some currently uninsured Americans will pay little or nothing because of the law’s expansion of Medicaid.
Cruz said Obama promised three-and-a-half years ago — in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was passed — that premiums “would drop $2,500″ for the average family by the end of his first term. That’s not exactly what the president said or when he said it.
@This one:
You are in error as usual, and provide no citations, and from the gist of your most recent drivel, it seems a safe bet you simply plagerized some other leftist’s swill without attribution. Here’s some cited info about the evil abomination of this socialist power grab:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/09/29/average-cost-of-obamacare-silver-plan-328-per-month/
Unlike a cell phone plan, however, health insurance for many is a product that won’t get daily – or even weekly or monthly use. Which remains one of the 4 big unknowns to the President’s signature legislation. Will the uninsured – those without access to insurance through an employer and those that tend to be in lower income brackets – actually buy health insurance at scale as the President hopes? Or will the penalty be more of the default choice?
The penalty may seem minor for year 1, but it does increase dramatically for the second and subsequent years.
* 2014 – $95 per uninsured person (or 1% of household income over filing threshold)
* 2015 – $325 per uninsured person (or 2% of household income over filing threshold)
* 2016 (and beyond) – $695 per uninsured person (or 2.5% of household income over filing threshold)
In that same article, there is a handy chart that shows the deductibles, co-pays for pharmacy and clinic office visits under the bronze and silver plans. How does a $40-$60 co-pay for office visits sound, with a 40-60 PER CENT co-pay for prescriptions, with an average $5150 up to $6350 annual deductible sound (bronze plan)? Under the silver plan, your office co-pays will be $30-$50, with prescription co-pays of 40-50 PER CENT, and annual deductibles averaging $2550 and running up to $5000. Keep in mind, your premium will be based primarily on your age and your annual income, as obamacare is primarily a marxist wealth redistribution scam.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/09/26/on-october-1-obamacares-price-tag-will-surprise-americans/
Obamacare will actually lead to many families paying more for their healthcare than they were before the law went into effect. This cost increase is not some trivial amount, but is estimated to run an average family of four between $650 and $1,000 per year over the next decade. And that cost increase is not a piece of Republican propaganda. The estimates come from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; in other words these are the government’s own estimates of what is going to happen under Obamacare. And we all know just how accurate the federal government is at estimating how much government programs are going to cost, don’t we?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/04/interactive-map-in-13-states-plus-d-c-individual-health-premiums-will-increase-by-an-average-of-24/#
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/
This references the quote Obama made regarding decreasing health insurance premiums by $2500/yr, and shows how disingenuous/ill-informed you are with your flawed post:
It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.
And from the same article, discussing Obama’s lies about obamacare cutting costs:
In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise. At the time, Factcheck.org charitably deemed this claim as “overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers.” The Washington Post less charitably awarded it Two Pinocchios (“Significant omissions or exaggerations”). Yet rather than learn from his mistakes, President Obama on July 16, 2012 essentially doubled-down on his promise, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.” He made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that in three separate reports between April 2010 and June 2012, the Medicare actuaries had demonstrated that the ACA would increase health spending. To its credit, the Washington Post dutifully awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”)
Even CBS news has come out with the truth about obamacare’s increased costs, TO…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57604782/study-insurance-costs-to-soar-under-obamacare/
And leftist NBC reports that a majority of Americans do not understand or want obamacare:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-rising-costs-nbc/2013/09/16/id/525913
Not that I expect you, TO, as a leftist shill, to actually read any of the sources provided – much less provide any intelligent response to refute any of the valid points made. We know that leftists believe in making everyone equal by severely restricting freedom and resources, rationing out what the government steals from the population based on political reliability.
@Ditto: I thought more like a slum — and after almost 5 years – why are there any ‘kinks’ that need working out? The SOB’s have had plenty of time to ‘get it right’
IMAGINE if they TED CRUZ AND OTHER would not have DONE ANYTHING TO TRY TO GET RID OF IT,
THAT MONSTER LAW,WOULD HAVE PASS SMOOD AS BUTTER, AND THE TROUBLES WOULD HAVE COME AND THE PEOPLE COULD NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF IT,
AMERICANS WOULD HAVE CHOKE ON IT,
GOOD OF THOSE GOPS TO REFUSE TO LET IT GO THINKING OF THE CITIZENS, AND FOLLOWING THEIR ADVICE,
WHO WITHOUT THEM , HAD NO RESISTANCE ON THE LAW SHOVED ON THEM BY FORCE,
AN UN AMERICAN WAY TO PROPOSE A DANGEROUS LAW,NOT CREATED TO HELP THE POORS,
BUT TO ADD MORE POORS TO THE SYSTEM, SO THEY COULD TAKE CONTROL OF THEM,,
@This one: I would say be honest, but that would be beneath you.
What Cruz said is true. The comparison is true. the rate you quote as nearly double is comparing white teen age to college grads. NOTE: when trying to prove someone is wrong, don’t post quotes that prove you are wrong and not he.
yeah, it’s no longer a ‘slowdown’ it’s a full fledged ‘halt’.
Uh, actually, that is true, he did say that.