Tax Cuts vs. Health Care: Which Issue Wins Over American Voters?

[Zzzptm]

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/15/gop-tax-cuts-political-failure-election

My take: the GOP lost the House, in spite of having passed a tax cut last year and the economy doing very well. With most Americans not experiencing a positive change in income (or at least expressing such a view) and still upset over health care costs and availability, health care turned out to be the most important issue in the 2018 midterms.

There are Democrats who are now voicing that the time for a "Medicare for all" policy has come. There's strong support for that idea in their base and they think it's an issue that can reach out and win more votes.

Currently, the Republican Party does not have a coherent health care strategy. They know that voting against Obamacare cost them some major seats, in particular Pete Sessions' seat where I live in Dallas, Texas. He lost to a first-time politician who managed to win a seat that had been considered one of the safest of the safe Republican seats. The biggest issue that his opponent, Colin Allred, pressed on? That Pete Sessions voted to end coverage for pre-existing conditions.

There were the "Sessions is a corrupt crony" mudslingers, just as there were "Allred is all wrong" attacks from Sessions' camp. But the biggest ad that Sessions ran was, "No, wait, I didn't *really* vote against pre-existing conditions!" That didn't wash.

In Minnesota, where I was on business a few weeks ago, the ads were even starker. The Democrats hit paydirt with an ad featuring a young man with severe birth defects who said without pre-existing condition coverage, his parents would be in the poorhouse and he'd likely be dead. The Republican response was, "Hey, how about those tax cuts?"

I agree with the summary of the article. If the Republicans don't figure out a way to get health care to where it's more available and affordable for a majority of Americans, it's going to lose more national and state elections. Put another way, if the Democrats can sell a program that results in a reduction in overall health care spending that offsets or exceeds a tax increase to support that plan, it's a net reduction in costs for the voters and they'll go for that.

[AnnoMundi]

Healthcare is a very important issue, how can you want to end coverage for a pre-existing condition? That is just plain wrong and evil.

[Typhon]

Time, once again, for me to make sure people know what the actual facts are.

Over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average of 30 seats in the House, and an average of 4 seats in the Senate.  The Republicans lost less than the average seats in the House,  and gained several seats in the Senate.

I guess health care was not as important as some people think.

[BOGBLAST]

I am a moderate and have no political stake in the game. I'm on disability and have no other income therefore I pay no taxes so a tax cut does nothing for me. I'm on Medicare and my Part B coverage comes directly off the top of my check. But I still think healthcare is more important than a tax cut. Affordable healthcare would be beneficial to more people than a tax cut. And pre-existing conditions MUST be covered.

[Vyn]

Healthcare is unimportant...until you need it. At that point, its importance eclipses every other priority.

Similar to saving for retirement (or just a rainy day): you'd best lay the groundwork BEFORE you need to go down that path.

[Zzzptm]

Time, once again, for me to make sure people know what the actual facts are.

Over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average of 30 seats in the House, and an average of 4 seats in the Senate.  The Republicans lost less than the average seats in the House,  and gained several seats in the Senate.

I guess health care was not as important as some people think.

Many of those lost seats were supposed to be safe seats, created by Republican-dominated state legislatures. That they went to Democrats is significant. There were very few Republican senate seats up in this election - 2020 will have more Republican seats up for contention.

In state and local races, there were major inroads by Democrats. Previously comfortable Republican margins are much slimmer.

For Republicans that switched over to voting Democrat, health care was the big issue that did it for many.

As for that 30 in the House number, Democrats flipped 31 seats, with 6 of the 9 undecided races leaning Democrat. Democrats picked up 7 state governorships, with Georgia and Florida still undecided - I saw them slightly ahead in Florida, likely to lose in Georgia.

Republicans lost five state chambers and lost a supermajority control in the North Carolina legislature.

[Zzzptm]

Looking at the tactics, if health care is a winning issue, I'd look for 2020 ads that play up the fear element. Fear about immigration is strong, but fear about losing coverage or going bankrupt to pay for health care is something that strikes deep into American hearts.

When I was a teacher, there were many times we were sick in my family, but didn't go to a doctor because we knew we couldn't afford treatment if it was something severe. Put another way, it was cheaper to pay for a funeral than an appendectomy. I paid for the appendectomy, anyway - cash. Turns out, that was cheaper than the what I would have paid with my existing coverage, which cost me almost $400 a month when I was making around $4500 a month. An eighth of my income, for nothing!

It's better for me now that I'm back in IT, but my wife still doesn't want to go to the doctor out of dread that it will ruin us.

And it's not a misplaced dread - I've got a friend in IT who has for-reals health insurance with actual benefits, and the insurance agency just cut off his cancer medication. He has to pay $40K a year for this while his lawyer tries to get his coverage for that medication restored. Turns out, those "death panels" that Republicans threatened would come with Obamacare already exist and they work for the insurance companies.

There's a lot of raw emotion in health care, and that's a goldmine for a political strategist.

[Typhon]

The problems with healthcare have little to do with politics.  The main problem is the health insurance companies themselves.  Their number 1 priority is profits. 

https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-1513302495-18f3710a-c0b4-4ce3-8b7f-894a755e6679.html

[Zzzptm]

The problems with healthcare have little to do with politics.  The main problem is the health insurance companies themselves.  Their number 1 priority is profits. 

https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-1513302495-18f3710a-c0b4-4ce3-8b7f-894a755e6679.html

True. And they know that politically, their situation is endangered if Congress makes moves to limit their profits. That's when they lobby hard to keep Congress friendly.

[Typhon]

Time, once again, for me to make sure people know what the actual facts are.

Over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average of 30 seats in the House, and an average of 4 seats in the Senate.  The Republicans lost less than the average seats in the House,  and gained several seats in the Senate.

I guess health care was not as important as some people think.

Many of those lost seats were supposed to be safe seats, created by Republican-dominated state legislatures. That they went to Democrats is significant. There were very few Republican senate seats up in this election - 2020 will have more Republican seats up for contention.

In state and local races, there were major inroads by Democrats. Previously comfortable Republican margins are much slimmer.

For Republicans that switched over to voting Democrat, health care was the big issue that did it for many.

As for that 30 in the House number, Democrats flipped 31 seats, with 6 of the 9 undecided races leaning Democrat. Democrats picked up 7 state governorships, with Georgia and Florida still undecided - I saw them slightly ahead in Florida, likely to lose in Georgia.

Republicans lost five state chambers and lost a supermajority control in the North Carolina legislature.

 
The fact of the matter is that Trump did better in the midterm elections in both the House and the Senate than the last 6 presidents did.

[Zzzptm]

Last 6 Presidents? OK, that's Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Carter. All the way back to 1978? OK, I'll play.

Net results for president's party...

1978: H -15 S -3
1982: H -27 S -1
1986: H -5 S -8
1990: H -9 S -1
1994: H -54 S -8
1998: H +5 S -0
2002: H +8 S +2
2006: H -31 S -6
2010: H -63 S -6
2014: H -13 S -9
2018: H -38, maybe 40 S +2

Third biggest House loss, tied for second place in Senate gains. The best gains in midterms? 1998 where Clinton gained in the House and stayed even in the Senate and 2002 where Bush II gained in both.

Don't know where you got that last six presidents claim, but it's bogus.

Meanwhile, I'll have fun saying Trump is a second-rate Dubya.

[Typhon]

2018: H -38, maybe 40 S +2

Third biggest House loss, tied for second place in Senate gains. The best gains in midterms? 1998 where Clinton gained in the House and stayed even in the Senate and 2002 where Bush II gained in both.

1) Those are not the 2018 numbers.

2) I said Trump beat the average, not the best over all, the average.

[Zzzptm]

No, those are the 2018 numbers. Plus 2 in the senate once the Florida thing settles out and loss of 38 confirmed in the House, likely to go to 40 once other recounts are finished.

"Beat the average" is premature. He's only got the one midterm, hasn't yet faced a "6-year itch" midterm, which only Clinton came out of with a net gain.

His party lost control of the House, which happened to Obama, Bush II, and Clinton. Prior to the 1994 swing that put the GOP in control in the House, the Democrats had pretty much kept control there since the 1930s, with just two terms of GOP control under Truman and Eisenhower.

Looking at the numbers making up that average, there's that one huge blowout in 2010, when Obamacare was a massive issue and the Republicans were all about "government death panels" that would deny care. The Democrats found a way to turn it around and show that insurance companies' financing of politicians to roll back coverage gains made in Obamacare is a real threat, not a bogeyman like the death panels.

Considering the ads I endured here in Dallas, I recall that Allred v Session was very much about health care, while Beto O'Rourke's ads made scant mention of health care. For all of O'Rourke's fundraising and charm, I'm thinking if he'd gone on the attack with health care, it would have pushed him on to victory. It worked for Allred, that's for sure.

Health care is one of those issues that touches all Americans, not just the coastal folks.

[Typhon]

"Beat the average" is premature. He's only got the one midterm, hasn't yet faced a "6-year itch" midterm, which only Clinton came out of with a net gain.

   Well of course I am only talking about this 1 midterm.  I really am not in the habit of speaking on things that have not happened yet.

[Zzzptm]

  Well of course I am only talking about this 1 midterm.  I really am not in the habit of speaking on things that have not happened yet.

A good habit to have.