Health-care reform: speed bump or road kill?

Obama at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council annual meeting on November 19.

Implementation of health-care reform continues to suck all the oxygen out of the Washington media echo chamber, where even the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address can become a political football.

The debate is whether 'Obamacare' is fixable or in a death spiral.

Given the current media frenzy, conservative commentators are having the easier time of it.

Start Quote

If politicians stand strong but insurers raise prices and/or exit the market, they'll get slaughtered at the polls”

End Quote Megan McArdle Bloomberg View

Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View lays out two reasons why she thinks the future of health care reform is so tenuous.

First, in order for Mr Obama's programme to work, the public must have faith in the government-run "exchanges," where they can choose from a range of private-sector insurance offerings. If people lose this trust, they'll stay away, and a lack of participation will cause the reforms to fail.

Second, she notes, Democratic legislators and insurance companies need to co-operate to hold the system together. If one side bolts - either voting to repeal key portions of the law (Democrats) or refusing to offer plans on the exchanges (insurers) - things could fall apart quickly.

But like that staple of game theory, "the prisoner's dilemma," both parties have a compelling incentive to be the first to jump ship.

"If insurers stand strong but politicians end up repealing the mandate, then they will have lost a bunch of money for nothing," she writes. "If politicians stand strong but insurers raise prices and/or exit the market, they'll get slaughtered at the polls."

Many conservative commentators also are predicting another round of the kind of turmoil that struck the individual insurance marketplace, where some policies have been cancelled because they do not meet federal minimum coverage standards. This time, the employer-based insurance market will be disrupted, affecting a significantly larger portion of the American public.

Cue more dominoes falling, as employers either pass along cost increases or cancel coverage entirely.

"Millions, then, will not only get herded into the ObamaCare exchanges; they will also lose the benefit of their employer sharing the cost of their health insurance premiums," writes John Nolte for

Start Quote

If the administration can make the website more or less functional, expect insurers to resume their huge push to entice people to enroll”

End Quote Greg Sargent Washington Post

As things get progressively worse, writes Josh Kraushaar in National Journal, Democrats who up to this point have shown "unfailing loyalty to the president" will break ranks to save their political hides.

"More than anything, politics is about self-preservation, and the last two weeks provided numerous examples of how public opinion has turned so hard against the law that even its most ardent supporters are running for the hills," he writes.

Meanwhile, on the left, most arguments in defence of the reform programme are predicated on a big "if": If the Federal health care exchange (and the troubled state exchanges, like Maryland's) are operating soon, the government and insurance companies will be able to start their massive planned advertising campaign to get people to sign up for insurance.

"This is still all about money," writes Greg Sargent in the Washington Post. "If the administration can make the website more or less functional, expect insurers to resume their huge push to entice people to enroll."

As more people sign up, it will be harder to roll back the reforms. Brian Beutler in Salon writes that this is already happening in states that have successfully operating exchanges.

Democratic legislators who already may find it difficult to turn their backs on a programme to which they will be inextricably tied, whether they abandon it now or not, then decide to weather the current political storm. By the time elections roll around in November 2014, the law will be established.

"Modifications to the legislation will surely occur in the future, but major steps toward repeal such as rolling back the Medicaid expansion, withdrawing insurance subsidies, shuttering the exchanges or allowing insurance companies to again deny coverage to consumers with pre-existing conditions seem improbable absent catastrophic, years-long failures far beyond what we've seen to date," writes Brendan Nyhan for Columbia Journalism Review.

Two sides. Two very different views on what happens next.



This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 47.

    Is what we're attempting to fix actually THE problem? Are insurance/pharmaceutical Co. not to blame? Malpractice suits and insurance? Is the FDA not at fault? No cure for cancer and etc. Really? It's "All about the money"! Shouldn't we try to end corruption? Both Dems and Reps are to blame here. It's all about the money and if a fix is going to cost someone money then it won't get fixed properly.

  • rate this

    Comment number 46.

    45. Instilling within the public a 'fear of words': socialism, Communism, etc., is the straw man used by the Republicans to redirect attention from their sponsors quest for profit! The absent ethics of for-profit health care - exploitation of the sick and vulnerable - is criminal by any human rights standard. Medicare for all is simply good business as outcomes are verifiable, just and humane.

  • rate this

    Comment number 45.

    The United States has never been a country bent on socialization of medicine, or much else. Medicare and Social Security, and various programs to aid the unemployed and the poor are here, but they took careful nurturing. The mistake made by the present administration is that they acted like a herd of buffaloes and decided this was to be it. They clearly under thought everything, and made a mess.

  • rate this

    Comment number 44.

    43. Governments in the UK, EC, etc. do run successful single payer health care systems. With the insurance company/HMO's (middle men) pushed out of the way, Medicare for all would be just an administrative adjustment - remember that Medicare has a much higher participation rate due to client age. And getting the rabid tea party/GOP out of the picture would improve every aspect of American's lives!

  • rate this

    Comment number 43.

    42. Maybe it "should," but I feel very very confident it won't for the very reasons I've stated below. My guess is that it will be run on the very opposite if history is anything to go by. And, seriously, would you honestly trust a single-payer system (or any system for that matter) to be run by the US government??


Comments 5 of 47

Try our new site and tell us what you think. Learn more
Take me there

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.