Can irrational GOP opposition to "Obamacare" be explained by brand differentiation?

[Mr Spinkles]

Something occurred to me which might partially explain the otherwise inexplicable, irrational, and hysterical GOP reaction to "Obamacare".

Brand differentiation.

There are two parties. They are like Coke and Pepsi. If one brand targets adults, the other has to target youth. Similarly, if the incumbent party (Democrats) are in favor of reforming/strengthening our private, free-market health insurance system, what advantage does the opposition (Republicans) gain from supporting this? They have to differentiate their brand, otherwise there's no impetus for consumers (voters) to switch products. They have to grab the segment of the market that opposes "Obamacare", or (in this case) basically create such a segment through a propaganda campaign. They have to make sure "Obamacare" fails, too -- if it's successful, that's even worse for the opposition's brand.

It's similar (but not equivalent) to the reason Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party after the passage of Civil Rights. If Democrats become the party of Civil Rights, then that creates a constituency that is no longer represented by one of the two parties. Like a vacuum, such an unrepresented constituency pulls on the two parties, and the only one that can fill the vacuum, and the only party that stands to gain from it, is the opposition. Even if that happens to be "The Party of Lincoln", ideological consistency is a low barrier to political gain.

The difference this time is that I don't think most of the people in the GOP realize why they oppose Obamacare. In the case of Civil Rights it was a conscious political move. This time I think the cause was still political but it wasn't necessarily a conscious choice, more like an instinctive reaction, later rationalized.

The higher-ups in the GOP, I would wager, made a strategic decision to oppose "Obamacare". Much in the spirit that Mitch McConnell said the job of the GOP was to make Obama a one-term president (how does the GOP accomplish that goal if it allows Obama to pass sweeping, successful, bi-partisan health reform?) The implementation of this decision was affected by two constraints: (1) Since an actual socialist health care system is out of the question, the only way for the GOP to oppose the private, free-market system reformed by Obamacare is through mindless opposition, without proposing anything constructive whatsoever. (2) Since there is no coherent argument based on actual conservative, free-market principles to oppose "Obamacare", the GOP must rely on emotion, prejudice, and propaganda (death panels, comparisons to Nazis, freedom .... something, something, etc.)

The concept of brand differentiation, in this particular case, seems to me to explain the otherwise inexplicable behavior of the GOP towards Obamacare, in a way that ideology / rational conclusions based on (conservative) principles cannot explain.

Your thoughts?

 

[Slapstick]

Something occurred to me which might partially explain the otherwise inexplicable, irrational, and hysterical GOP reaction to "Obamacare".

Brand differentiation.

There are two parties. They are like Coke and Pepsi. If one brand targets adults, the other has to target youth. Similarly, if the incumbent party (Democrats) are in favor of reforming/strengthening our private, free-market health insurance system,

That isn't the job or responsibility of our government.

what advantage does the opposition (Republicans) gain from supporting this? They have to differentiate their brand, otherwise there's no impetus for consumers (voters) to switch products. They have to grab the segment of the market that opposes "Obamacare", or (in this case) basically create such a segment through a propaganda campaign. They have to make sure "Obamacare" fails, too -- if it's successful, that's even worse for the opposition's brand.

As far as I am concerned... Obamacare or nationalized healthcare shouldn't be given to everyone. It should only be provided to those who can't afford it, like foodstamps and medicare.

It's similar (but not equivalent) to the reason Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party after the passage of Civil Rights. If Democrats become the party of Civil Rights, then that creates a constituency that is no longer represented by one of the two parties. Like a vacuum, such an unrepresented constituency pulls on the two parties, and the only one that can fill the vacuum, and the only party that stands to gain from it, is the opposition. Even if that happens to be "The Party of Lincoln", ideological consistency is a low barrier to political gain.

Southern Democrats were the ones who were racist and part of the KKK. If you choose to rewrite history then let it be known that democrats were the ones who had slaves and supported racism.

The difference this time is that I don't think most of the people in the GOP realize why they oppose Obamacare. In the case of Civil Rights it was a conscious political move. This time I think the cause was still political but it wasn't necessarily a conscious choice, more like an instinctive reaction, later rationalized.

I will tell you right now why most people oppose Obamacare.

GOP and others are sick and tired of government bailouts starting with the BUSH administration that bailed out all of the banks in 2008. In a truly capitalistic society that wouldn't happen, but it did. It angered people the point that they no longer want unwanted government spending that can't deal with its own deficit and Obama care just happens to be in the middle of the crossfire.

The higher-ups in the GOP, I would wager, made a strategic decision to oppose "Obamacare". Much in the spirit that Mitch McConnell said the job of the GOP was to make Obama a one-term president (how does the GOP accomplish that goal if it allows Obama to pass sweeping, successful, bi-partisan health reform?) The implementation of this decision was affected by two constraints: (1) Since an actual socialist health care system is out of the question, the only way for the GOP to oppose the private, free-market system reformed by Obamacare is through mindless opposition, without proposing anything constructive whatsoever. (2) Since there is no coherent argument based on actual conservative, free-market principles to oppose "Obamacare", the GOP must rely on emotion, prejudice, and propaganda (death panels, comparisons to Nazis, freedom .... something, something, etc.)

The concept of brand differentiation, in this particular case, seems to me to explain the otherwise inexplicable behavior of the GOP towards Obamacare, in a way that ideology / rational conclusions based on (conservative) principles cannot explain.

Your thoughts?

The rest of you argument carries no weight.

 

[Falvlun]

As far as I am concerned... Obamacare or nationalized healthcare shouldn't be given to everyone. It should only be provided to those who can't afford it, like foodstamps and medicare.

This sentence indicates that you have absolutely no idea what the ACA actually does.

 

[dawny0826]

The Democrats are trying to strengthen and reform our free market health insurance system through the ACA.

This seems an oxymoron to me, as a libertarian.

The Obama-esque concept of a free market health care system is not reflective of true, free market health care system, private or otherwise.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That isn't the job or responsibility of our government.

As far as I am concerned... Obamacare or nationalized healthcare shouldn't be given to everyone. It should only be provided to those who can't afford it, like foodstamps and medicare.


I will tell you right now why most people oppose Obamacare.

GOP and others are sick and tired of government bailouts starting with the BUSH administration that bailed out all of the banks in 2008. In a truly capitalistic society that wouldn't happen, but it did. It angered people the point that they no longer want unwanted government spending that can't deal with its own deficit and Obama care just happens to be in the middle of the crossfire.

[youtube]w62udf3AT-o[/youtube]
Stabenow takes on Ted Cruz - YouTube

Seems that we can provide Universal Healthcare....But let's be clear....ObamaCare (ACA) is far from being universal healthcare. It's a plan based on a Republican idea from the Heritage Foundation and modeled after RomneyCare (Massachusetts Healthcare Exchange). In fact.. a few of the people instrumental in crafting RomneyCare helped to craft ObamaCare. Considering we spend at least twice what other industrialized nations spend on their universal healthcare...we can certainly afford to do it here. Healthcare is one of the biggest drivers of debt in this country.

 

[Falvlun]

The Democrats are trying to strengthen and reform our free market health insurance system through the ACA.

This seems an oxymoron to me, as a libertarian.

The Obama-esque concept of a free market health care system is not reflective of true, free market health care system, private or otherwise.

I think it makes more sense if you consider the ACA to be a bunch of regulations on the free market health care insurance system. No market is truly "free", and if it were, that would be a human rights catastrophe. Regulations are necessary, and a legitimate function of government.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think it makes more sense if you consider the ACA to be a bunch of regulations on the free market health care insurance system. No market is truly "free", and if it were, that would be a human rights catastrophe. Regulations are necessary, and a legitimate function of government.

Exactly....

 

[dawny0826]

I think it makes more sense if you consider the ACA to be a bunch of regulations on the free market health care insurance system. No market is truly "free", and if it were, that would be a human rights catastrophe. Regulations are necessary, and a legitimate function of government.

I agree. No market is without or should be without regulation. However, it's dishonest to claim that that the ACA resembles a free market system.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree. No market is without or should be without regulation. However, it's dishonest to claim that that the ACA resembles a free market system.

Why not?

Also note that the ACA isn't a system in and of itself. It's not a healthcare plan for this country. It is a set of regulations on the health insurance industry. It also sets up insurance exchanges so that individuals can obtain the bargaining power that big businesses have.

Also, why do you think that healthcare should resemble a free market system to begin with? Isn't that what we have, which apparently isn't working?

 

[Sunstone]

Something occurred to me which might partially explain the otherwise inexplicable, irrational, and hysterical GOP reaction to "Obamacare".

Brand differentiation.

There are two parties. They are like Coke and Pepsi. If one brand targets adults, the other has to target youth. Similarly, if the incumbent party (Democrats) are in favor of reforming/strengthening our private, free-market health insurance system, what advantage does the opposition (Republicans) gain from supporting this? They have to differentiate their brand, otherwise there's no impetus for consumers (voters) to switch products. They have to grab the segment of the market that opposes "Obamacare", or (in this case) basically create such a segment through a propaganda campaign. They have to make sure "Obamacare" fails, too -- if it's successful, that's even worse for the opposition's brand.

It's similar (but not equivalent) to the reason Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party after the passage of Civil Rights. If Democrats become the party of Civil Rights, then that creates a constituency that is no longer represented by one of the two parties. Like a vacuum, such an unrepresented constituency pulls on the two parties, and the only one that can fill the vacuum, and the only party that stands to gain from it, is the opposition. Even if that happens to be "The Party of Lincoln", ideological consistency is a low barrier to political gain.

The difference this time is that I don't think most of the people in the GOP realize why they oppose Obamacare. In the case of Civil Rights it was a conscious political move. This time I think the cause was still political but it wasn't necessarily a conscious choice, more like an instinctive reaction, later rationalized.

The higher-ups in the GOP, I would wager, made a strategic decision to oppose "Obamacare". Much in the spirit that Mitch McConnell said the job of the GOP was to make Obama a one-term president (how does the GOP accomplish that goal if it allows Obama to pass sweeping, successful, bi-partisan health reform?) The implementation of this decision was affected by two constraints: (1) Since an actual socialist health care system is out of the question, the only way for the GOP to oppose the private, free-market system reformed by Obamacare is through mindless opposition, without proposing anything constructive whatsoever. (2) Since there is no coherent argument based on actual conservative, free-market principles to oppose "Obamacare", the GOP must rely on emotion, prejudice, and propaganda (death panels, comparisons to Nazis, freedom .... something, something, etc.)

The concept of brand differentiation, in this particular case, seems to me to explain the otherwise inexplicable behavior of the GOP towards Obamacare, in a way that ideology / rational conclusions based on (conservative) principles cannot explain.

Your thoughts?

I think that may very well be part of it. I do believe, however, that there are other factors at play too.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As far as I am concerned... Obamacare or nationalized healthcare shouldn't be given to everyone.

Obamacare is not nationalized healthcare. You appear to have demonstrated my point about misinformation being a key driver behind conservative opposition to "Obamacare".

The Obama-esque concept of a free market health care system is not reflective of true, free market health care system, private or otherwise.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Can you describe 3 specific things the Affordable Care Act does?

You may be interested in this.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.
...
The same goes for health insurance exchanges, another idea formulated by conservatives and supported by Republican governors and legislators across the country for years. An exchange is as pro-market a mechanism as they come: free up buyers and sellers, standardize the products, add pricing transparency, and watch what happens. Market Economics 101.
...
With the transparency, mobility and choice of the exchanges, businesses and individuals can decide for themselves which insurers (and, embedded in their networks, which providers) deserve their dollars. They can see, thanks to the often derided benefits standardization of the reform act, what they are actually buying. They can shop around. And businesses are free to decide that they are better off opting out, paying into funds that subsidize individuals’ coverage and letting their employees do their own shopping, with what is, in essence, their own compensation, relocated to the exchanges.

Emphasis added. I highly encourage you to read the entire article.

Here's an example of the ACA reforming our free-market health insurance system: standardized ways of reporting benefits. I have seen it firsthand. They do the same thing with mutual funds, there's a standard way that legally every mutual fund must report its performance each year. This allows consumers to easily compare different mutual funds and "shop around". A huge problem with free-market health insurance was that plans are so complex, it is difficult for consumers (even companies) to compare plans, and therefore make rational choices about where to invest their dollars. The ACA helps the market function it does not replace it with "nationalized healthcare" or some other imagined GOP nightmare scenario.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree. No market is without or should be without regulation. However, it's dishonest to claim that that the ACA resembles a free market system.

It's market economics 101, actually. Key components of the ACA:

1. Inter-state exchanges designed to help consumers easily compare and purchase health insurance provided by privately-owned companies competing in the marketplace.

2. Standards of health insurance benefits and the way such benefits are reported. This is similar to the way that there are (safety) standards for cars and how they report their emissions, so consumers know what they are getting. Or the standards for the way mutual funds report their performance -- again designed to help consumers make choices in a competitive, private marketplace.

3. Everyone is required to have health insurance (again mainly provided by for-profit, competing companies) much in the same way that all car-owners are required to have car insurance. Last time I checked, the car insurance industry definitely resembles a competitive, free-market system in spite of this requirement. Hence the fierce competition between car insurers in TV commercials. Hence the increasing competition between health insurers on TV commercials (haven't you noticed?)

 

[Slapstick]

[youtube]w62udf3AT-o[/youtube]
Stabenow takes on Ted Cruz - YouTube

Seems that we can provide Universal Healthcare....But let's be clear....ObamaCare (ACA) is far from being universal healthcare. It's a plan based on a Republican idea from the Heritage Foundation and modeled after RomneyCare (Massachusetts Healthcare Exchange). In fact.. a few of the people instrumental in crafting RomneyCare helped to craft ObamaCare. Considering we spend at least twice what other industrialized nations spend on their universal healthcare...we can certainly afford to do it here. Healthcare is one of the biggest drivers of debt in this country.

What kind of industrialized nations are you referring too? We have well over 300 million people while others like Canada only have 30 million and are considered post-industrialization.

 

[Slapstick]

Obamacare is not nationalized healthcare. You appear to have demonstrated my point about misinformation being a key driver behind conservative opposition to "Obamacare".

So what you are saying is people are not forced to buy into it if they don't want to. Meaning, if someone doesn't have health-care insurance and doesn't want it then they have the option not to have it.

 

[Slapstick]

I spend a lot less at a doctors office to get a shot than I would if i had insurance. On top of that people pay more for a cellphone than they would for health coverage. If people really cared about their health they would get their priorities strait.

 

[Falvlun]

So what you are saying is people are not forced to buy into it if they don't want to. Meaning, if someone doesn't have health-care insurance and doesn't want it then they have the option not to have it.

No, what he is saying is that a universal mandate does not magically make the ACA into nationalized healthcare, no more than the universal mandate on car insurance somehow makes the ownership of cars nationalized (or, rather, state-owned and run).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So what you are saying is people are not forced to buy into it if they don't want to. Meaning, if someone doesn't have health-care insurance and doesn't want it then they have the option not to have it.

Yes people must buy health insurance (or pay a tax) but from private, for-profit companies like Aetna, BCBS, United, Wellpoint, etc. competing in the marketplace. Not "nationalized" health insurance.

I spend a lot less at a doctors office to get a shot than I would if i had insurance. On top of that people pay more for a cellphone than they would for health coverage. If people really cared about their health they would get their priorities strait.

That is your uninformed opinion. The facts paint a different story:

"Medicaid covers some parents and low-income individuals with disabilities, but most adults without dependent children—regardless of how poor—are ineligible for Medicaid. As a result, over 40% of poor parents and adults without children are uninsured (Figure 19)."

"For example, a parent in a family of three working full-time at the minimum wage could not qualify for Medicaid in 29 states in 2007.44"

"When people are unable to obtain employer-sponsored coverage and are ineligible for Medicaid, they may be left uninsured for long periods of time if individual coverage is either unaffordable or unavailable due to their health status."

"Despite strong ties to the workforce—over eight in ten uninsured come from working families—about two-thirds of the uninsured are individuals and families who are poor (incomes less than the federal poverty level or $21,203 for a family of four in 2007) or near-poor (with incomes between one and two times the poverty level). "

"For many of the uninsured, the costs of health insurance and medical care are weighed against equally essential needs. The uninsured are about three times as likely as those with health coverage to live in a household that is having difficulty paying monthly expenses as basic as rent, food, and utilities.20"

"In 2007, 58% of all low-income employees were offered and eligible for employer-sponsored coverage, leaving more than four in ten without access to this coverage (Figure 16)."​

The above quotes are from a Kaiser Foundation 2009 report, before passage of the Affordable Care Act. The key drivers that emerge as reasons people don't "get their priorities straight" are: (1) Employers don't offer group insurance; (2) Individual insurance is unaffordable; (3) Individual insurance discriminates against people based on their health status; (4) Many of the poor are ineligible for public insurance.

Finally, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences' Institute of Medicine concluded in a 2004 report:

"Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage."​

Emphases added throughout.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, what he is saying is that a universal mandate does not magically make the ACA into nationalized healthcare, no more than the universal mandate on car insurance somehow makes the ownership of cars nationalized (or, rather, state-owned and run).

Exactly, thank you.

It's amazing, we can't even have a discussion about whether the ACA is good or bad, because people can't (won't?) understand what it is. I have to admit I am impressed by how effective the GOP and its offshoots have been at muddying the waters to the point where a coherent discussion is impossible for most Americans. My hat goes off to them, bravo and well done.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think that may very well be part of it. I do believe, however, that there are other factors at play too.

That seems sensible. I'm curious to know, what do you think those other factors are?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I will tell you right now why most people oppose Obamacare.

GOP and others are sick and tired of government bailouts starting with the BUSH administration that bailed out all of the banks in 2008. In a truly capitalistic society that wouldn't happen, but it did. It angered people the point that they no longer want unwanted government spending that can't deal with its own deficit and Obama care just happens to be in the middle of the crossfire.

The Affordable Care Act reduces the federal deficit. Source. What does this fact tell us about people who oppose the ACA on the basis that "government spending ... can't deal with its own deficit"?