I have a friend in Sydney, Australia who has things a little tough. She has a decent professional job – though its a job in a woman’s career, so it doesn’t pay as well as professional jobs should – and she’s a good worker. She has been working ever since I met her without a break, and keeps the same job for years at a time, so no problems with her work life. Unfortunately she’s a single mother, not because she’s one of those dirty sluts who pop out sprogs by the month to get on welfare, but because after the birth of her child her husband turned into a weirdo Men’s Rights Activist and became insufferable, so they divorced. They have a custody arrangement (one week each) so she doesn’t fall afoul of any of the Men’s Right’s Movement demands for Good Women, but that’s not enough for him: when her child is at her ex’s house he denigrates her verbally, and he refuses to pay for any kind of extra-curricula or developmental activity, so if her child wants piano or ballet or rugby lessons, she has to fork it out herself. Nonetheless, her child is well-adjusted and she’s a good parent.
Unfortunately she has a minor mental disability which, although it doesn’t stop her working and raising children, means that she isn’t so good with money and she’s had a long history of financial troubles. It also means that she has a “pre-existing condition,” and anyone who has lived in Sydney knows that rents are punishing and being dodgy with money is not an easy trait to live with. She’s lucky because she has a good job, but for every person like my friend you can bet there’s another similar person whose job is not so great, who has serious financial troubles and is, as they say, a single pay-cheque away from disaster.
I think I know what this situation is like, though I can’t imagine the additional stress that gets piled on when you have a child, and I can imagine that my friend comes home from work sometimes, sits down and lets out one of those slow breaths, the one’s where you’re mentally thinking “Fuuuuuuck” as you wonder at what you can do and worry about what will happen to you if you don’t do it.
Fortunately, however, my friend lives in Australia, so she is guaranteed health care. She knows that no matter how badly things go, even if she isn’t working (which she is), neither she nor her child are going to lose their health. Which means that if it becomes her goal to shift down from her professional job to a manual labourer, cleaner or bar worker – she will still have guaranteed healthcare. Those weekly worries where she sits down and thinks about what she has to juggle don’t extend to her or her child’s health.
Not so in the USA. The same woman in the USA – changed jobs as an adult, pre-existing condition, child with same pre-existing condition – is likely unable to get health insurance even if she can afford it. The same woman in the USA will come home and she won’t just think “can I afford anything nice for my child this weekend or next,” but will also think “I hope I don’t get seriously sick before my child becomes an adult,” because if she does she will be facing ruin, and her child’s future will take a massive nose dive. Even though she can afford health insurance in any other country in the world, in the USA she will be denied it, or her entire income will be blown on it. And she’s not alone, nor is her case limited to single mothers who had the importunacy to refuse to tolerate Men’s Rights Movement husbands – there are between 10 and 40 million Americans who can’t get health insurance, and for a sizable proportion of them the problem is either that they have a pre-existing condition, or that as sole business operators or independent contractors they don’t have group purchasing power, and simply can’t afford individual insurance.
But not anymore. On Monday Obamacare started, and those millions of people have access to the health insurance exchanges. Insurance companies can no longer refuse them insurance, but have to offer them a basic plan, and the government will subsidize some plans. Medicaid has been expanded to cover the working poor. The primary beneficiaries of Obamacare will be the working poor, the lower middle class, and those with pre-existing conditions. The estimate for the first year is that 7 million people will gain access to health insurance, and the total number of people expected to gain access over the long term is 28 million. This isn’t a flight of fancy either – the Health Insurance Exchanges have been overwhelmed by the unexpected number of customers, just as happened to the NHS when it first opened.
This scares the Republicans. The next presidential election is in two years and they desperately need to win it, but they have a problem: they are implacably opposed to Obamacare. The election is in two years, and the prediction is that in one year 7 million people will take it up. This means that by the time of the election 7 million people will be benefiting from a Democratic policy that the Republicans will be campaigning to abolish. Judging by the scramble to the exchanges, many of those people will have been receiving their insurance for more than a year. For those people, that Friday night collapse onto the couch and “oh, what am I gonna do!?” will no longer include worries about healthcare. If they have two years to experience this level of relaxation and then, at the next election, the GOP and its Tea Party mates rock up claiming a virtue of abolishing the law, what are those 7 million people going to think? Will some of them perhaps think one option is voting?
Furthermore, the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare are going to be working and lower-middle class white males with families. These are the stalwarts of the Tea Party’s campaign, and in the long term they are going to be looking at convincing up to 40 million people that gaining access to health insurance – including subsidies for the working poor – is a bad idea. What are their chances?
This is why they have to throw down now. This is why their specific condition was that Obamacare be delayed a year. They need those 7 million people to be naive, fresh to Obamacare, not yet settled in their new comfort zone, so that they can go to the election with a slogan that appeals to their base and doesn’t simultaneously alienate – or worse still, activate – 7 million early adopters. With a one year delay they have a chance; if Obamacare is enacted now they lose. And if they lose, they lose the following election too, because whoever wins the White House (Hilary Clinton?) is going to be able to say to more than 7 million new Democrat voters “do you trust these people? Last election they said they would remove your health insurance. Do you trust them this election?”
That’s why the GOP is willing to shut down the government, because in two years time they risk irrelevance. They have to destroy the tea party and accept universal health coverage, or they have to fight. And if they choose to fight there is going to be no room for compromise. Will they go so far as to force a default? Do they have any political reason not to, if they are facing a sea change at the next election? I guess not …
October 3, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Strictly you’re describing the effect of not implementing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the US, not the effect of the government shutdown.
The effect of the shutdown is numerous public employees being told to take an unpaid vacation (so watch your spending that could end at any time (so don’t go anywhere). A reasonable analog is being mugged which on the way to the office – you lose a bunch of cash, but at least you can take a sick day to get over it. On the whole you’d probably prefer if it didn’t happen to you.
The forced leave also results in a bunch of services being closed down, impacting people in the US in a range of ways (i.e. tourists to Washington’s monuments can get stuffed).
The final thought I’ve got on it is that the US government should determine whether they think these jobs are essential or not. If they are, then they should be funded and performed. If not, then the government should get rid of those jobs [1].
[1] Ideally at a sensible pace to minimise the economic fallout of say sending a huge number of people home with no pay on a random day.
October 3, 2013 at 9:41 pm
Yes, this post is atrociously mistitled isn’t it? My excuse is I was drunk on sake when I wrote it. Also, I’m generally terrible at thinking up titles.
My real point here was to try and juxtapose the GOP/Tea Party’s political goals with the life goals of the ordinary people they need to vote for them. Obamacare is (potentially) the crunch point at which the GOP is no longer able to convince lower middle class Americans to vote against their interests, because the material damage to their interests will just be too great to sustain the contradiction. And particularly, this law will affect a huge number of working Americans very quickly. Delaying or killing it is an imperative for the lunatic wing of the Republican party, and they have to do it soon – which makes me think they are going to be willing to play a very high stakes game. And it’s high stakes for the Democrats too – not only is this Obama’s legacy, but if the Democrats cave on this issue they will basically be telling the GOP “you can sabotage any part of our legislative program you like by throwing a tanty,” and telling the electorate – “don’t bother voting Democrat, we’ll just cave.” It’s taken three years to get Obamacare to this point – delaying it for another year for any reason is just ridiculous. And while the shutdown is happening, the health information exchanges are registering record interest. I’m sure the GOP are looking at that fact with more than a little fear.
That would be sensible policy-making though wouldn’t it? Meanwhile, the GOP are throwing their toys out of the pram… and massively expanding the size of govt when they are running it!
On a related note, I don’t think shutdowns like this are good advertising for libertarians. They tend to show how important the government is, and how influential it is in the economy. While libertarians claim to have an alternative to govt, it’s hard to make the point that there is a better system if you are simultaneously reminding everyone just how hard it is to live without the current one. Turning a govt shutdown into an argument for how the world can be better without govt might be possible, but it takes a rhetorical skill that I suspect Paul “never saw a stimulus cheque he didn’t like” Ryan and Ron “not racist at all” Paul just don’t have.
October 4, 2013 at 9:17 am
I agree (independent of party) that the US government shows a great example of how not to run a government. At the moment the Republicans are demonstrating that foaming at the mouth is a valid political tactic, but there’s no reason to believe that (if it works) the Democrats won’t do in the future [1].
There was an interesting article I saw recently about presidential democracies: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/10/juan_linz_dies_yale_political_scientist_explains_why_government_by_crisis.html
It does a decent job of illustrating why I’ve moved from being a minimalist republican [2] to monarchist for Australia [3].
“They tend to show how important the government is, and how influential it is in the economy.”
I agree it shows how influential the government is, but it actually provides evidence of both how important it has become and why its reasonable to not want it to be that important.
“Paul “never saw a stimulus cheque he didn’t like” Ryan and Ron “not racist at all” Paul”
Should I be offended that both of your example rhetoricians have “Paul” in their name? Are you suggesting something? 😉
[1] Unless you presuppose that the Democrats are either morally pure or stupid. To which I’d respond “politicians” and “I guess it’s possible, but I don’t really expect it” respectively.
[2] That article doesn’t suggest any problems in minimalist republican models with weak presidents, but the debate in Australia seems to come pretty close to “Lets make it like the US”.
[3] I really like a system of government based on the idea of “The Queen has absolute power, and if she tries to use it we’ll string her up and find someone smart enough to realise their job is only to have a pulse. Watch your back Charles.”
October 4, 2013 at 9:46 am
On demand for Obamacare, there is an interesting set of stories on early experiences with it at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/obamacare_began_oct_1_slate_readers_share_their_stories.2.html
The summary would appear to be “the website sucks, but people are hopeful of getting a good deal and think it will make a positive difference to their lives.”
October 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
The article in Slate on Juan Linz’s theories is interesting, I mostly agree with the problems of presidential systems but I don’t think the analysis of Latin America is very sophisticated – no analysis of the “problems of democracy” in Latin America is worth reading if it doesn’t explicitly account for the role of the US in destabilizing the region. I don’t think your control group is uncontaminated if the biggest presidential democracy on your continent is financing coups and civil wars on a nearly annual basis …
My problem with republicans turning monarchist because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is that I think Australians can be more creative than that. I mean if the British can come up with a system like “your only job is to have a pulse” then surely we can do better. I mean, I can think of a handful of schemes involving welfare recipients doing nothing – can’t you? But in the absence of a functioning alternative to monarchy I absolutely agree with you on not changing it.
Definitely this is the argument that libertarians need to put. But I doubt that the current crop of mainstream-accessible libertarians in the US have the rhetorical skills (or the public trust) to be able to make this argument well. And it’s hard to make the argument stick when most people are focussed on all the positive stuff their govt did that they can’t now access. That requires nuance, intelligence, sincerity, etc. So it’s not going to happen. And as you observe from the second slate article, if people see this big new government “entitlement” as something that “will make a positive difference to their lives” then the Republicans are going to have to do a lot better than yelling “debt!” to convince them that govt can be smaller!
October 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm
“I don’t think your control group is uncontaminated if the biggest presidential democracy on your continent is financing coups and civil wars on a nearly annual basis”
The US intervention in Latin America reduces the sample size, but it’s not like other regions (i.e. Africa) have a great record based on presidential democracy either.
“Australians can be more creative than that”
You’re confusing “can be” and “need to be”. I can think of many ways to work harder (less blog commenting jumps to mind) but I can’t think of a stack of good reasons to do so…
“I can think of a handful of schemes involving welfare recipients doing nothing”
As I understand it, the Queen of Australia costs Australia less than any welfare recipient. We don’t give her any money. [1]
“are going to have to do a lot better than yelling “debt!” to convince them that govt can be smaller!”
The quote “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have” does an OK job of starting that line of reasoning, but it’s still based on fear and poorly evidenced (from most people’s point of view).
[1] Thanks UK for picking up the bill for us! If you didn’t I’d have to choose a random dog obsessed welfare recipient and my governance bills would rise by ~$250/week.
October 4, 2013 at 12:59 pm
It is quite cute having the UK pick up the tab for our most expensive welfare bludger, isn’t it?
Your libertarian quote there is perfectly good. I think the problem is finding people in the USA (with access to the media) who can present that argument in a way anyone finds believable…
October 7, 2013 at 1:40 am
Well, as a representative UK tax payer – you’re very welcome 🙂
I liked the bit about the Queen in WWZ – that she refused to leave Windsor when the rest of the government were hiding behind the Antonine Wall!
(I liked to think of her as being like M played by Judi Dench)