Targeted Strikes and the Politics of Replacing Obamacare

Elise Viebeck of The Hill reports that conservative organizations that had championed the defund strategy are increasingly open to “targeted strikes” designed to prevent the Affordable Care Act from becoming firmly entrenched:

“Whatever the fight is, we want to be involved in that fight,” said one prominent activist.

“If there is a good delay bill, I certainly wouldn’t want to sacrifice that just holding out for something else.” Republicans see an opening in the step-by-step strategy with 10 Senate Democrats, including seven who are up for reelection next year, moving to support extending the healthcare enrollment period.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D), a centrist from West Virginia, is also preparing legislation to delay the individual mandate.

The fact that conservative activists are open to piecemeal legislation is an encouraging sign. It represents a turn away from an “all-or-nothing” approach, though one would hope that “targeted strikes” are motivated primarily by a desire to protect the interests of consumers and to pave the way for conservative health reform. The next part of Viebeck’s raises an important question:

Both are notable signs of fracture among Senate Democrats, who remained in near lock-step during the shutdown battle as Republicans broke apart. Conservative groups say they’re ready to pinpoint vulnerable Dems with targeted bills and that activists are energized to elect “more Ted Cruzs” in 2014.

If Republicans elect “more Ted Cruzs” in 2014, is the congressional GOP more or less likely to coalesce around a realistic proposal for replacing Obamacare? The central dilemma for a conservative replacement agenda is that legislation that will expand access to affordable coverage through market-driven means will require more spending in some areas (e.g., a refundable credit that will help cover large numbers of people who are currently uninsured) and less spending in others (the timetable for Medicare reform, for example, might have to be moved up), and this will entail political risk.

One can imagine a scenario in which congressional Republicans unite around a serious replacement agenda, as they united under the Ryan Medicare reform proposal; but one can also imagine a scenario in which a small number of GOP lawmakers opportunistically attack a serious replacement proposal on the grounds that it is too expensive or redistributive. If our goal is to get to a market-driven, fiscally sustainable U.S. health system, a serious replacement agenda is essential; but if individual politicians choose to raise their profile at the expense of their colleagues, a replacement agenda along these lines is very vulnerable. 

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More