When Obamacare is implemented, on January 1, 2014, one of two things is going to happen — your monthly premiums are going to skyrocket or your coverage will be worse. Despite the prestidigitation offered by Covered California, cursory analysis shows that San Diegans are looking at much higher insurance premiums next year.
Let me repeat that. San Diegans will be paying much higher health insurance premiums next year. That ain’t good for Scott Peters.
Here’s why it ain’t good for Peters — he owns ObamaCare now. Despite all of his posturing as a centrist, Peters had an opportunity to repeal this tax and work for meaningful health care reform. But Peters put health insurance company profits above his constituents’ well being. He voted to implement the largest tax hike on the American people. We might as well call it PetersCare now.
Three years later, more Americans dislike PetersCare than like it. House Republicans know this, too. If PetersCare was popular, Republicans wouldn’t hold votes to try and repeal it. Each and every time the House Republicans hold this vote, out-of-the-mainstream Congressmen, like Peters, have to reaffirm their commitment to locking in insurance company profits on the backs of their voters.
Scott Peters is the reason your health insurance premiums will be higher next year. Remember that when you vote in June and November.
Comments 10
hmmmmm…….
Not sure this is going to be the case and I wouldn’t build a full bore political strategy on it.
A) A significant chunk of the electorate in an off year election is going to be seniors who are LARGELY exempt from DIRECT effects of the ACA. The provider cuts will hurt in the long term but I am guessing that it will be pretty hard to draw a line between the extra hour waiting to see your primary care Dr. and ACA – at least in 2014.
B) A good chunk of the workforce in the 52nd works for LARGE employers. Think UCSD, Sony, Qualcomm, HP, Northrop, Poway Unified, etc. etc. Now of COURSE there are self employed folk in the 52 and small employers who are going to be hurt by ACA. But, in general terms, bet you a lunch that a higher percentage of workers are employed by these big entities than the other 4 districts in SD.
C) A good chunk (pray they won’t vote this time) are college students who came out smelling like roses in ACA because they can stay on Mom and Dad’s polices. sSuff athat seems Free! YEAH!!!
Now will Peters be hurt by ACA?. Sure. But it will be because the democratic brand will be hurt in 2014 as some good horror stories roll through the media with firms dropping coverage and some good glitches on the implementation side. But, in respect to the micro poltiics of the 52nd, it is a district profile where the big stguff in the ACA “work” better than most.
Brian,
PetersCare? I know the truth is generally not required in campaign literature (actually, it is never required), but I don’t believe Congressman Peters ever cast one vote on ObamaCare since he wasn’t even Congressman Peters at the time of its passage.
Author
“I don’t believe Congressman Peters ever cast one vote on ObamaCare”
You would have overlooked last month’s vote then:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h154
Brian, I agree with much of what you say, but ultimately I think whether Obamacare hurts Peters is dependent on two things. If Carl makes it a major part of his campaign and thinks attacks Scott Peters on his support for it, and most importantly, sticker shock. If the voters feel the pain in their wallets from the increased premiums, then it definitely hurts him. Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if some shenanigans from the officials in SacTown didn’t occur that delayed the increase in premiums until after the election.
Brian,
Was that vote the 37th or 38th one that the Congress has taken to repeal Obamacare?
Voting not to repeal a law is not the same as voting for the original law. Peters is actually in a great political position. He can be in favor of the very popular parts of the law (no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, on your parents’ coverage until age 26, etc.) while at the same time say he would work to modify the law to make it better if only the Republicans would work with him and stop wasting time trying to repeal it entirety.
“Was that vote the 37th or 38th one that the Congress has taken to repeal Obamacare? ”
It was the first opportunity for Scott Peters to vote FOR the law.
“Voting not to repeal a law is not the same as voting for the original law.”
Tell that to Jim Matheson
Well, obviously supporting health care reform doesn’t hurt you in the 52. Mitt Romney won there.
The latest CNN poll indeed shows that a majority of Americans (54%) are opposed to Obamacare. On first glance, this would seem problematic for any elected official in a swing district who supported the law. On further inspection, however, 16% said they were opposed to Obamacare not because it was too liberal, but because it wasn’t liberal enough (no public option, not single payer).
It is unlikely that the 43% who support Obamacare or the 16% who say it doesn’t go far enough are going to support a candidate who wants to repeal Obamacare.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/27/poll-do-you-support-or-oppose-the-health-care-law/
“It is unlikely that the 43% who support Obamacare or the 16% who say it doesn’t go far enough are going to support a candidate who wants to repeal Obamacare.”
I don’t know about that. The problem with Obamacare is that it’s classic fascism–forced purchases from a select few (gov’t-approved) companies. At least if it were single=payer, it would cost less and be crappy health care ( so reasonable people could just plan around it, like they do social security)
I think this will be an issue–we’ll find out when (if) premiums skyrocket like they should. California is a classic case of the foibles of Obamacare–San Diegans will be subsidizing Los Angelenos, in a classic vote-buying scheme
Brian,
The “forced purchases” were originally a Republican idea (I know that you are a Libertarian) as a way of making everyone be responsible for themselves. Without the “forced purchases,” it is the taxpayers that foot the bill for those who choose to go uninsured but then need medical care.
I am also not sure where you get the idea that this is limited to “a select few government approved companies.” Every insurance company is eligible to provide insurance.
Finally, I strongly disagree with your assertion that single payer would result in “crappy health care.” It is admittedly a very small sample size, but the family members I have who are covered by Medicare have received incredible medical care with much less hassle getting coverage than I have had through my private insurer.