A Sense of Urgency Regarding Obamacare?

To set this up, I need to reference an exchange I had with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent.

@ThePlumLineGS Not supporting the GOP repeal stance does not translate into Dems being safe from a potential wave election, no matter how...
— Gerry Daly (@GerryDales) November 27, 2013

@ThePlumLineGS And I am amused at your mischaracterization of my sense of urgency, and saying that I think the now implies the future.
— Gerry Daly (@GerryDales) November 27, 2013

@ThePlumLineGS I will write you a blog post later. Not that it applies beyond myself.
— Gerry Daly (@GerryDales) November 27, 2013

While Greg was glad to hear that I don't have any particular "urgency to reach decision about future right now", I am certain he does not share my reasons.

Before I get to them, however, I want to point out how there did not seem to be any reticence about rushing to a decision back when Obamacare was jammed through Congress, not even allowing the minority to have a chance to read the bill, and certainly not allowing the huddled masses a chance to digest it and express their opinions to their elected Representatives regardless of party. There was an opportunity, and Democrats rushed to take advantage of it.

Hence, they now reap what they sowed.

As for me, let's start with the part about having certainty about the future. I cannot fault Greg for not knowing my stock phrases-- I doubt he read Daly Thoughts back in the peak years; they were almost a decade ago and my peak audience, while pretty decent, still had me only at the middle tier of blogs of that time. One of my frequent phrases is the ever original, "Time will tell." I think it is nearly always the case that one is best served by an understanding that tomorrow's script is subject to revision, if not to a complete re-write.

That is not to say that I don't have confidence in how some things regarding Obamacare will play out. To use a recent example, when the "fixed by the end of November" assertion came down, I was quick to say "there is no freaking way." There was always a chance that I could be wrong, but because of my experience in software development I felt no need to temper my wording. The bigger risk was one that still may come to pass, where just some things get fixed and victory is claimed. Still, there was no way that the big issues could be fixed in that limited time with sufficient testing.

Similarly, there are some aspects of what's to come with Obamacare of which I am very confident. For large swaths of the middle class, costs will go up, not down. For nearly all young adults not on their parents' plans, costs will go up (unless they opt for the penalty). Simple math dictates both of these outcomes-- in order to expand the risk pools to cover everybody while limiting the rates for those in the highest risk pool, both are inevitable. And that's without even considering the fact that an entire new level of administrative overhead was just added to the mix. That overhead has costs as well, much to the approval of the SEIU.

How that will play out is where my confidence ends. Skilled politicians can turn lemons into lemonade. More importantly, unskilled politicians can turn fine wine into vinegar, and the Republicans frequently squander political opportunities. There may end up being enough positive instances to build support for Obamacare despite the higher costs and other adverse impacts. The GOP may decide to find the ten people in the entire country who actually believe what Democrats try to say the GOP as a whole believes regarding contraception, and nominate those for every competitive race in the land.

(Note: in actuality, my confidence does not really quite end there; I have definite opinions on how I think things will play out politically going forward assuming competent political handling by both parties. However, the drop-off in confidence from the above to these opinions is large, and this post is already getting longer than I wanted, so I will save those for another time or just keep them to myself.)

Which brings me to my lack of urgency. While I am uncertain as to what the future holds regarding the popularity (or even the political acceptability) of Obamacare, I am quite certain that, in the here and now, it is harming the Democratic party immensely. Given that I believe they are misguided in most aspects, why on earth would I have any need to rush things? Throw on top of that my natural inclination towards letting things play out a while to get a better feel for the lay of the land, and I am quite content with a deliberate approach.

The only thing that causes me pause with this is the knowledge that people are currently being hurt by the issues with Obamacare, both financially and in terms of unneeded stress. It is only natural and humane to want to help them, just as it was natural and humane to want to try and come up with ways to improve or reform the old health care system to aid and assist those who were out of luck under it. However, the experience of Obamacare should make plain to everyone that the last thing that is needed is to rush things, and that what really is needed is careful thought coupled with public deliberations and debate. Those are safeguards against implementing changes with significant flaws and little public support, and are needed to ensure the likely ramifications are generally understood by everyone. No nasty surprises are needed. Not ever, and especially not now.

Yet, there is a simple step that can be taken where the ramifications would be generally known: repeal.

As Greg likes to point out, there is not majority support for this option according to recent polling. There are two points to this I'd like to make:

1) Time will tell. The way things are playing out right now in terms of public opinion should undercut the confidence of those assuming that there will never be public support for repeal anytime in the near future.

2) Poll questions often are about mere summaries or distillations of things that are actually more complex and nuanced. Until such a time as the public comes to understand those details, and therefore account for them when asked the questions that don't spell them out, it can be a mistake to read too much into them. I find it quite plausible that a lack of support for repeal may mean a lack of support for "repeal, full stop" and not necessarily a lack of support for "reform, but using the old state of affairs as the starting point rather than Obamacare, hence repeal as a necessary step."

That last part happens to be what I recommend. See here.

Greg Sargent's opinion is that everyone needs to calm down and give things a chance to work. I think this is sound advice. Politically, the Democrats have cast their lot with Obamacare, and for the next several years that will be the case even if any portion of them turn on it now. They went all in, and now it's time to see cards, all the way to the river.

Added: As is my wont, I have made some minor edits since posting ("Ready, fire, aim!" isn't just a motto, it's a way of life). Also, there was a fairly important point regarding the current polling which I wanted to make, but (a) forgot to in my post-turkey day-after haze, and (b) decided against tacking-on after the fact since what I thought would be a three-paragraph post turned into the verbose prose above. I will make the forgotten point separately, later.

Added even later: Here's a post containing the point I had forgotten to make; namely that what is really important is public opinion in the states where upcoming political battles are going to be most contested.