Mediaboss Marketing

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made an emotional plea to lawmakers to fund health-care spending for preexisting conditions on May 1. Kimmel teared up while discussing his newborn son Billy's heart condition on his show. (Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

Its easy to assume in the moment that moments from pop culture will bear more resonancein national politics than is warranted. But if a moment were to affect the political conversation, this seems like a good candidate:

ABCs Jimmy Kimmel has, in the past, been willing to engage in politics in a sincere way. But its exceptionally rare for a late-night host to offer the depth of emotion that Kimmel displayed Monday night, a natural function of how deeply the issue affects him. There are few more sympathetic characters in the human imagination than sick children; Kimmels personal story makes this exploration of the idea even more affecting.

That is one side of the debate over health-care reform in the United States; a side that, it seems safe to say, is meant to run at odds with the current plan offered by congressional Republicans. What, by contrast, is the rhetoric clincher on the Republican side, the side thats calling to overhaul the Affordable Care Act? Heres the GOPs explanation of how their legislation, the American Health Care Act, will improve health care.

What were proposing will decrease premiums and expand and enhance health care options so Americans can find a plan thats right for them.

We also make sure Americans can save and spend their health care dollars the way they want and need not the way Washington prescribes.

Its worth reiterating that one way the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office foresees premiums falling is by pricing out of the market those at higher risk of health issues, like older Americans.

President Trump promised on April 30 that new GOP health-care legislation will preserve coverage for people with preexisting medical conditions but critics say that's at odds with his promise to lower premiums. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

The Republican website promoting their plan from which thetext above wastaken hasnt been updated since the proposal of anamendment that has revived the partys hopes of passage.

Americans should never be denied coverage or charged more because of a preexisting condition, the site reads. The amendment from Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), however, would allow insures to do just that: charge more if theres a lapse in coverage.

Taken by itself, take control away from Washington is a tough sell against my kid would die if I cant afford this.

The wan outreach to the public at large hasnt spurred broad support for the bill; a Quinnipiac University poll found that only 17 percent of Americans backed the proposal and that was before preexisting conditions were put at risk. Support for mandating coverage of preexisting conditions is broad, with even more than half of Trump voters backing a requirement that such conditions be covered. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly been confronted with angry constituents at town hall meetings; before the initial vote on the American Health Care Act was postponed, calls to members of Congress ran 50-to-1 in opposition to the measure.

So whats the motivating argument being offered by Republican leaders to their members in support of their proposal? Arguments about government control are no doubt more effective on Capitol Hill than outside the Beltway, with 57 percent of the country now saying that the government should do more, versus 39 percent who say its doing too much. Arguments about reducing taxes are also resonant, though the effects of that tax reduction will heavily fall on wealthier Americans. An estimated 40 percent of the benefit will go to the 1 percent of America at the top of the income ladder.

In effect, the argument seems to come mostly down to partisanship: Do this because the party said we would. Do this because we want to show that we can govern, now that we have control over Capitol Hill and the White House. Do this because President Trump wants a win.

That last point seems to loom large. The reason the push for reform was renewed when it did was, in no small part, because Trump was nearing his 100-day-in-office mark and he was looking for a success to which he could point. Trumps arm-twisting during the first push on the bill was rarely nuanced, often coming down to you need to do this. It even going so far as to threaten Republican members with primary challenges if they balked.

They balked anyway. Why wouldnt they? Republican voters and Democratic voters are certainly motivated by partisanship at the ballot box, meaning that standing in opposition to the party might hold electoral risks. But whats the alternative? How do you ask someone to stand by a president whos repeatedly expressed indifference about or unfamiliarity with the contents of the bill and who displays loyalty to neither its focus or its proponents?

Why, if youre a Republican member of the House, would you stand behind a president who is both inconsistent and unpopular? He cant be trusted to have your back and, even if he does, its not clear it would do you much good. Trump is popular with Republicans now, but unusually unpopular with both independents and the opposition. If youre in a district thats anywhere close to competitive, youre no doubt very aware of that fact.

Theres an outside chance, floating on the distant horizon, that Trumps unpopularity and disinterest in partisan loyalty might actually break down some of the partisan unanimity thats guided Washington in recent years. A far outside chance, mind you, but Trumps political fumbling may make choices easier for a number of Republicans in the House.

Whats the better bet for a moderate Republican: Buck the party and its leader or go along with a House bill that faces huge hurdles in the Senate?

When next years campaign rolls around, which ad would you like to see run in your district: one with Jimmy Kimmel crying as a narrator explains that you voted to weaken preexisting conditions, or one that shows a frustrated Trump railing against your opposition to the bill he decided to champion?

If youre House Speaker Paul Ryan, how, without simply insisting on partisan loyalty, do you make the case that the former is the cost of doing business?

Continue reading here:
The simplified choice for moderate Republicans: Jimmy Kimmel or Donald Trump - Washington Post