Last week, Rep. Peter DeFazio introduced an alternative to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, a way to get as many people as possible into the system through a different set of means than the mandate's fines. Would it be more effective than the mandate? Maybe, maybe not, but it's worth thinking about. One thing it would do is make all the lawsuits against the ACA moot, which would be nice. Then this week, a few Democratic senators started talking about the same thing. Here's how Politico played it:
A New Dem Threat To Health Care Law
A handful of moderate Senate Democrats are looking for ways to roll back the highly contentious individual mandate — the pillar of President Barack Obama's health care law — a sign that red-state senators are prepared to assert their independence ahead of the 2012 elections.
They haven't decided whether to propose legislation, but any effort by moderate Democrats that takes aim at the individual mandate could embarrass Obama and embolden Republicans who are still maneuvering to take down the health care law.
Last night, Rachel Maddow picked up on the article, saying that the senators in question were essentially trying to run for re-election by pretending they hate the Democratic Party. But is considering alternatives to the mandate really a "threat" to the ACA? How so? Because Republicans will be "emboldened"? Please.
We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that because Republicans are attacking the mandate, that Democrats love it unconditionally and would be horrified if it were altered. The mandate is a means to an end, but it's the end -- getting near universal participation in the insurance system -- that's important. If another mechanism accomplishes the same thing, supporters of the ACA will be absolutely fine with it.
But wait, you might say -- Ben Nelson is involved! It's true that he spends a great deal of time figuring out how to screw his own party. But don't forget that Nelson voted for the ACA in the end. So he has an interest in making people feel better about it in advance of his re-election campaign next year.
Politico's interest is in taking a question like this out of the realm of policy (bo-ring!) and into the realm of politics, full of conflict, betrayal, and intrigue. But it can be both. Yes, there's a political angle to this question, but the policy question is the important one. If Claire McCaskill is exploring it because she's worried about her re-election, that's perfectly fine if the result is an improvement in the policy. In other words, Democrats shouldn't have anything to be afraid of.
