This paper examines the collapse of President Clinton's 1993 health care security plan and contrasts it with the successful passage of the Affordable Care Act under President Obama. Drawing on Starr (1995) and Skocpol (1996), the paper identifies key factors behind Clinton's failure: the disbanding of the health policy task force, a loss of administrative momentum, declining presidential credibility, the erosion of soft Republican and interest-group support, and effective opposition messaging about rising middle-class insurance costs. The paper then argues that Obama avoided each of these pitfalls by maintaining personal credibility, sustaining legislative focus, and never depending on soft support from groups that could abandon the effort.
The success of the Obama health care reform has been studied extensively, but one question remains worth examining in depth: why did Obama succeed when the Clinton health care reform plan failed? This paper analyzes that question and draws conclusions about the political, administrative, and strategic factors that determined such different outcomes for two reform efforts with broadly similar goals.
In 1993, President Clinton announced his health care security plan. A large health policy task force had assembled the plan, and it represented substantial compromise and hard work. At the time of the announcement, it seemed a near certainty that the plan would become law, but this would not come to pass (Starr, 1995). The plan initially received a two-thirds positive rating in polling of the American public, yet it still managed to fail.
The proposal centered on an individual mandate, which at the time had been broadly supported by many Republicans and almost every interest group involved in the negotiations (Starr, 1995). Major interest groups that had traditionally opposed health care reform had lent their support, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which even approved the employer mandate.
Starr (1995) argues that Clinton's health care reform collapsed not because of public opposition but because of the health care task force, which was comprised of over 500 working groups. These groups were disbanded in May of 1993, leaving the health reform effort without real direction or administrative momentum. Clinton himself was simultaneously distracted by an ongoing budget crisis. The lag between the initial proposal and getting the bill to a vote was sufficient to allow groups opposed to the reform to organize and mount an effective opposition. Their efforts were further aided by a decline in Clinton's personal credibility.
Skocpol (1996) noted that another critical problem was that adversaries of Clinton's plan successfully pushed the idea that middle-class Americans would see their health care insurance costs rise. This notion gained traction with the public, and the reforms declined in popularity. Falling support gave further incentive for soft supporters to back away from the plan, even from components that they themselves had originally sponsored.
"Soft supporters defect as opposition and credibility problems mount"
"Obama's strategy, credibility, and handling of opposition messaging"
Obama managed to avoid many of the issues that scuttled Clinton. He retained his personal credibility through the passage of the law, maintained legislative focus, and built a strategy that did not depend on the goodwill of groups historically opposed to reform. Clinton's plan, by contrast, was undone by a combination of administrative collapse, a loss of presidential credibility, the defection of soft supporters, and an opposition that successfully reframed the debate around middle-class cost fears. Taken together, these factors explain why two broadly similar reform ambitions produced such markedly different results.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.