Buzz
The American Health Care Act is up for a vote in the House today, putting Republican lawmakers in a tough position. Is this a classic Sophie’s choice, a Hobson’s choice, or just another political conundrum? Let's dive in.
Democrats have a straightforward vote ahead: most of them, along with their supporters, favor the ACA over the new bill, so they can confidently vote no. On the other hand, many Republicans, including President Trump, ran on a platform promising to repeal Obamacare, arguing that health care and insurance are too expensive, with yearly increases in premiums and prices, and suggested that undoing the law would resolve this issue.
The issue is that repealing the ACA will increase insurance costs for many people—and while some may see their premiums decrease, their other health-related expenses will rise. Consequently, Republican lawmakers are encountering frustrated constituents who stand to lose a lot if the ACA is repealed. Voting in favor of the AHCA, the repeal bill, may not bode well for these representatives come the 2018 elections.
However, the AHCA is not a complete repeal of Obamacare. It still mandates that insurers cover specific individuals and conditions, and it provides subsidies to assist people in purchasing insurance. Some Republicans, who oppose government involvement in health insurance altogether, argue that the AHCA doesn’t go far enough, calling for a total repeal instead.
In short, nobody supports this bill, but Republicans ran on repealing Obamacare, so many feel compelled to vote yes. President Trump is also applying pressure, threatening to go after anyone voting no, stating that “a loss is not acceptable,” and emphasizing that Obamacare repeal was a battle he expected to win.
So, what type of decision are they facing? Here are some possible scenarios:
A dilemma involves choosing between two unpleasant but different options. (These are the 'horns' of the dilemma.)
In a Sophie’s choice, one must make a decision that results in the permanent loss of another option. (Sophie was forced to choose which of her two children would accompany her to a labor camp, knowing the other would face execution.)
A Hobson’s choice presents only a take-it-or-leave-it option. You can either accept the horse Thomas Hobson offers you, or walk away with no horse at all.
Morton’s fork is more commonly understood as a logical fallacy, but it can also describe a situation where both available options lead to the same undesirable outcome.
A double bind occurs when someone receives contradictory messages. If one message is true, the other must be false.
If House Republicans vote yes today, they risk upsetting their constituents, potentially jeopardizing their political careers, and ultimately causing their district to suffer from worse health outcomes.
If they vote no, they fail to fulfill their campaign promises, disappointing voters who hoped the repeal would lead to cheaper insurance. They would also provoke President Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and possibly other Republican colleagues.
I’m seeing a dilemma here: two undesirable choices. Paul Ryan might be forcing the House members into a Hobson’s choice by demanding they vote on this bill without addressing its clear issues. The representatives may also feel trapped in a double bind as they hear that the bill is both too liberal and too conservative at the same time.
What do you think? What kind of difficult decision are House Republicans truly facing here?
