Skip Navigation
Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave.
More

Megan was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra-dry skim-milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster-recovery firms at Ground Zero � all before the age of 30.

While working at Ground Zero, Megan started Live From the WTC, a blog focused on economics, business, and cooking. She may or may not have been the first major economics blogger, depending on whether we are allowed to throw outlying variables such as Brad Delong out of the set. From there it was but a few steps down the slippery slope to freelance journalism. She has worked in various capacities for The Economist, where she wrote about economics and oversaw the founding of Free Exchange, the magazine's economics blog. She has also maintained her own blog, Asymmetrical Information, which moved to The Atlantic, along with its owner, in August 2007.

Megan holds a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. After a lifetime as a New Yorker, she now resides in northwest Washington, D.C., where she is still trying to figure out what one does with an apartment larger than 400 square feet.

Why I Still Think Health Care Won't Pass

By Megan McArdle
Jan 25 2010, 2:56 PM ET Comment

There's something of a revival of hopes this week among the progressive commentariat.  Perhaps this isn't so bad, they are telling themselves, and me.

Here's why I think it isn't going to happen:

Health care's popularity drops any time Congress discusses it.  With respect to Nate Silver, who argues that the bill would be popular if they ever passed it and could discuss what's in it, you cannot "prove" that voters like a bill because various bits of it poll well on their own.  Do I want a sous vide machine?  Certainly!  I could take a poll that would show nine or ten wonderful things I would love about owning a sous vide machine.  Am I going to buy one?  No I am not, because it costs hundreds of dollars I need for other things.

Almost everything polls well on its own, except tax increases.  But as in my example, deciding whether you want something is not a matter of simple addition of positives and negatives.  Some negatives, like price tag, can outweigh even a stunning array of positives.  The things that poll badly:  price tag, excise tax, individual mandate.  These are crucial components that can't be gotten rid of. 

Moreover, many of the pieces that poll well, like deficit reduction, are things that voters like, but don't believe this bill will achieve.  They're not going to believe it any more after you pass the bill through a process that involves buying off every special interest group in sight. 

Legislators are not unaware of this problem, and they cannot be magicked into ignoring their constituents by saying, "These are not the polls you are looking for." 

I think Yglesias is right that this process was always more fragile than it appeared.  As I read it, majorities of both houses do not want to pass this bill--otherwise, they wouldn't have run for the exits so quick.  They were looking for an excuse that they could deploy without risking retaliation from the leadership--and what the Massachusetts election showed, is that they don't have all that much to fear from the leadership, because the leadership may not be there after November. Reid's almost certain to lose his seat, and Pelosi may lose her majority in the house.

They don't want to say they want to kill it, of course.  So instead, they're doing pretty much what I expected:  putting it on the back burner.  We want to pass health care, but we just have a few things to do first . . .

Once it goes on the back burner, it's over.  As time goes by, voters will be thinking less and less about the health care bill they hated, and more and more about other things in the news.  There is not going to be any appetite among Democrats for returning to this toxic process and refreshing those bad memories.  They're going to want to spend the time between now and the election talking about things that voters, y'know, like.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Used TV? Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Used TV?
What It Means That Computers Can Tell These Smiles Apart, But You Can't Which Smile Is Fake? (This Computer Knows)
Chris Matthews and Newt Gingrich: The Most Entertaining (and Reptile-Centric) Political Interview Ever Gingrich Meets Matthews: A Reptile-Centric Interview
Buying a Piece of America: Why Chinese Shoppers Love U.S. Brands Why Chinese Shoppers Love American Brands
The Controversial German Book Linking the Euro to Holocaust Guilt Holocaust Guilt Is to Blame for the Euro

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Where in the World? Part 3: A Google Earth Puzzle

May 25, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Megan McArdle
from the Magazine

Why You Can’t Get a Taxi

And how an upstart company may change that

Europe’s Real Crisis

The Continent’s problems are as much demographic as financial. They won’t go away soon.

Why Companies Fail

GM’s stock price has sunk by a third since its IPO. Why is corporate turnaround so difficult…