AHCA Is the Legislative Broccoli That No One Wants to Eat

Michael Brochstein via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Hardline conservatives in the House aren’t happy with AHCA, the Republican health care bill. It’s just Obamacare with a fresh coat of paint. And they have a point:

  • When they say that AHCA tax credits are the same thing as ACA tax subsidies, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA’s community rating with a 5:1 age band is the same thing as ACA’s community rating with a 3:1 age band, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA’s continuous coverage provision is the same thing as ACA’s individual mandate, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA’s ban on turning down people with pre-existing conditions is the same as ACA’s ban on turning down people with pre-existing conditions, they’re right.
  • When they say AHCA’s reliance on Medicaid for the very poorest is the same as ACA’s reliance on Medicaid for the very poorest, they’re right.

But moderates aren’t too happy either. And they also have a point:

  • When they say that AHCA tax credits are far stingier than ACA tax subsidies, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA’s community rating with a 5:1 age band punishes old people compared to ACA’s community rating with a 3:1 age band, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA’s continuous coverage provision is a pretty clunky way of implementing ACA’s individual mandate, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA’s ban on turning down people with pre-existing conditions is less rigorous than ACA’s ban on turning down people with pre-existing conditions, they’re right.
  • When they say that AHCA slashes Medicaid support for the very poorest compared to ACA’s Medicaid expansion, they’re right.

You can see the problem. Hardline conservatives object to Obamacare in principle, but AHCA mostly adopts the same principles. Moderates don’t care so much about how it gets done, but they object to voting for a bill that’s likely to produce big electoral blowback when people figure out just how crappy it really is compared to Obamacare. There’s really nothing here for anyone to like.1

Paul Ryan has tried to tap dance around this, but Andrew Prokop is the latest person to mention that Donald Trump isn’t even bothering:

When Trump talks health care in public statements and in accounts of his private meetings, he keeps making the following four pretty simple points:

  1. Obamacare is a disaster that’s falling apart.
  2. If Republicans don’t pass the bill, they’ll do badly in the next election.
  3. Republicans have to pass the bill so they can move on to tax cuts.
  4. He — President Trump — and the Republican Party need this “win.”

There is no case for the American Health Care Act itself there. It’s all either political or a rote condemnation of Obamacare.

I give Trump points for having the right approach here. There’s almost nothing about AHCA that would earn it passage based on the merits. There’s just too much disagreement. Except about one thing: sticking it to liberals and Obamacare. Appealing to that kind of tribalism is literally the only thing that has a chance of producing enough emotional energy to overcome conservative fear of selling out and moderate fear of voter blowback.

It’s likely to work, though it’s encouraging that AHCA is (probably) going to pass only barely in the House. That was supposed to be the easy part. But if it’s a nailbiter in the House, what chance does it have in the Senate? Probably not much, though appeals to tribalism, vindication, and party loyalty are, once again, the only plausible path to victory.

Mitch McConnell, savvy old warhorse that he is, knows this perfectly well, and that’s why he wants to speed AHCA through the Senate in record time. It’s either going to pass or it’s not, and either way, time is not on his side. The longer AHCA festers, the more outrage and opposition it will generate. The justification for doing health care before tax reform is already gone, so if it’s not going to pass, best to find out quickly and move on to the real business at hand.2

1Except for AHCA’s big tax cuts for the rich, of course. Both moderates and conservatives agree about that.

2Tax cuts for the rich reform, of course.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate