Share This Page

Is GOP fooling itself?

| Friday, Aug. 2, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

When Washington conservatives gather to talk among themselves and the discussion turns to ObamaCare, it's not unusual to hear predictions that the president's health care law will “collapse of its own weight.” It's a “train wreck,” many say, quoting Democrat Sen. Max Baucus.

Some predict chaos beginning Oct. 1, when the law requires ObamaCare exchanges, the online marketplaces in which people will be able to shop for insurance, to be up and running. And maybe that will happen; the administration seems far behind schedule in the work that needs to be done.

On the other hand, a lot of thoughtful conservatives are looking beyond Oct. 1 to Jan. 1, the day the law (except for the parts the president has unilaterally postponed) is scheduled to go fully into effect. On that day the government will begin subsidizing health insurance for millions of Americans. (A family of four with income as high as $88,000 will be eligible for subsidies.) When people begin receiving that entitlement, the dynamics of the ObamaCare debate will change.

At that point, the Republican mantra of total repeal will become obsolete. The administration will mount a huge public relations campaign to highlight individuals who have received government assistance to help them afford, say, chemotherapy, or dialysis, or some other lifesaving treatment. Will Republicans advocate cutting off the funds that help pay for such care?

The answer is no. Facing that reality, the GOP is likely to change its approach, arguing that those people should be helped while the rest of ObamaCare is somehow dismantled.

The administration is fully aware of its advantage. Recently officials invited several prominent liberal bloggers to a special White House ObamaCare briefing. Administration officials are quite confident that, whatever problems arise, ObamaCare will be solidly in place after the money starts flowing on Jan. 1.

“Neither Democrats nor Republicans liked to emphasize how much the Affordable Care Act debate was about redistribution rather than health care as such, but there's a lot of money here,” wrote Slate's Matthew Yglesias, who attended the briefing. “The law is structured to be financially beneficial to a large majority of people, and the infrastructure is in place to make that clear to a critical mass of them.”

Truth be told, many Republicans did note that redistribution is at the heart of ObamaCare. But the fact is, the redistributing will begin Jan. 1. And whatever else goes wrong with ObamaCare, look for the White House to apply whatever fixes it must to make sure the money keeps flowing.

None of this is to say ObamaCare won't face huge problems. The most obvious is that it will make things worse for more people than it helps. If that disparity is huge — that is, if on one side there are many millions of people paying more for coverage than they did previously, losing coverage they were satisfied with, and suffering through great uncertainty, while on the other side there are far fewer people receiving direct government subsidies — if that happens, then the political fight over ObamaCare will intensify rather than fade.

Collapse of its own weight? The administration's insurance against that is the billions of dollars that will start flowing out of Washington Jan. 1. Once that happens, Republicans will likely stop talking about ObamaCare's collapse and will instead start searching for ways to limit the harm done to millions of Americans.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.