Health Care And The 1994 Precedent

[babylonsister]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/health-care-and-the-1994-precedent


Jonathan Chait
Health Care And The 1994 Precedent


There has been a lot of argument over whether passing health care reform or letting it die would offer the most attractive strategy for Democrats. Norman Ornstein and Tom Mann really move the ball down the field by looking more closely at what happened in 1994:

Heading into that election season, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, described the Democrats’ condition bluntly: “Imagine it’s October, and the Democrats are going to get up and make the following case: 'We’ve run the House for 40 years, we’ve run the Senate for eight years, we have the White House, and the Republicans are so much more clever than we are that they’ve obstructed us. We need you to elect more dumb Democrats so we can overcome those clever Republicans.'” Conservative Democratic Senator John Breaux, of Louisiana, echoed that point on health policy, saying, “We can blame the Republicans for filibustering, but we have the responsibility to govern.”

To be sure, there were many reasons for Democrats’ massive losses in 1994, including scandals and angry gun owners. But the failure to fulfill their responsibility for governing contributed mightily to the debacle. That was the conclusion of pollsters from both parties in the aftermath of the November contests. Two weeks after the election, Republican pollster Bill McInturff found that “one of the most important predicates for Republican success was not having health care pass.” He noted that the collapse of the plan reinforced voters’ belief that Washington was in a dysfunctional state of gridlock. At the same time, Democratic pollster Mike Donilon, who worked on the losing campaign of Pennsylvania Senator Harris Wofford, said he believed that Wofford would have won had health reform passed.

Obviously, everybody on the right is now saying that the Democrats would be far better off if they let reform die. I may have a faulty memory, but I don't remember anybody arguing in 1994 that the Democrats had really made a shrewd move by abandoning their legislation.

[shotten99]

1. Amen.

[JoePhilly]

2. If this dies ... this is what happens politically ...

The GOP will be able to tell whatever LIES they want about "the bill that did not pass", and they will be able to make those STICK.

See ... with no passed bill ... the GOP has an open playing field to make false claims about what they will claim the Dems TRIED TO PASS.

The debate will be ABSTRACT. There is a House bill, a Senate bill, and a Proposal from the president ... none of which passed.

They will jump into the gaps, make up insane BULLSHIT and the Dems will have nothing to counter it because THERE IS NO BILL THAT PASSED.

Oh ... and then, Democratic voters will stay home because they will have seen the Democrats in Congress COLLAPSE with huge majorities. They will be seen as WEAK and PATHETIC.

[Jennicut]

3. It was labeled too controlling by the govt, too confusing, and none of the Dems were organized

behind it. It was probably not a bad proposal back then. It was also attacked on the left.The defeat of it allowed the Rethugs to take control of congress and made us wait some 15 years later to get another plan. Obama is way, way closer to getting his plan passed.

One thing is, if the Rethugs wanted to campaign against it, they would let it pass and not play games. They are afraid of letting it pass because people may actually come to like some things in the bill.