So we are two days into the three day arguments before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of Obama’s signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, known far and wide as Obamacare.
I have always felt that the mandate – the requirement that every person purchase Health Insurance by way of the regulated market created by the ACA – was the most constitutionally shaky part of the law. By June we are likely to find our of 5 or more justices on the Supreme Court of The United States agree with the conservative and toss out part or even all of the law.
(I’m making absolutely no predictions on how the court will jump. That’s a mug’s game in my opinion. We shall have to wait and see.)
One of the possible paths forward is that the entire law is tossed out, what would that mean?
First off a lot of people would lose coverage that they currently have. The regulations against excluding pre-existing conditions would be gone and people who obtained policies would likely lose them, as would young adult under 26 now being carried on their parents policies and people would see lifetime maximum come roaring back into effect.
So how would this effect the election in the fall?
I can see the commercials already, shots of conservatives and tea party types jubilant and the verdict contrasted with sad black-and-white shots of people, sick and frail, while scary music and an ominous announcer informing the viewer that this is what the Republicans want.
Fair? Oh hell no, but this is a big boy game and fair ain’t got nothin’ to do with it. The problem for the Republicans is that they have made an excellent game of being against the reform without having a plan in place for their own reforms. Having the ACAS tossed out before the election takes away one of their major rallying cries and exposes that they really have no plan to help people with the looming disaster that is our Healthcare industry.
I don’t know how they would counter this sort of imagery, I assume, and it is not safe to do that, that somewhere someone has thought this through. Otherwise I could see an energized democratic base looking to take back congress, and if they succeed, blow up the filibuster in order to get something through.
Now that would leave is in a long term pickle, having shattered the machinery of our political system.
Yes it is. Let see, Single Payer?: Nope Public Option?: Nope, Created new Program like Medicare or Medicaid?: nope, Market based solution: Yup, Directed fund to private businesses?:Yup Base upon Republican couter-proposals to Clinton Healthcare reforms:? Yup And the kicker — Paul Ryan’s proposed Medicare reforms are very much the ACA without the mandate, limited to seniors, and with a public option.
And Mitch McConnel let the cat out fo the bag when he stated that the Republican number one goal was a one term Obama.
Holy crap.
Obamacare is the most Republican friendly solution to the health care problem? And Republicans opposed Obamacare just for partisan advantage?
Sure they did. And Republicans only oppose gun-control because they have been bought off by the NRA!
“Look at the history of the Clinton health care initiative. It dates from a 1991 election a Democrat won by campaigning on the issue.” It would be pretty hard for the Clinton Health Care initiative to date back before Clinton, so of course it starts about the time if his election, but Healthcare reform has been on the political table since Eisenhower.
Claims that “solving” the health care “crisis” would bring economic boons has always been more of a rationalization for the Democrats. Okay if you are putting scare quote around solving and crisis then it would seem to indicate that you do not think there is a health care crisis in the Country. I disagree utterly. Healthcare is the core crisis, it the real driver of our deficit (Medicare and medicaid are driving if far faster than SSI.) and it is the fastest growing expense for employers and employee, dragging down our economy, consuming more and more of our GDP. It is a crisis and if it is not solved it will be disastrous.
“With Obamacare the Democrats really went all out to sell the policy. Why, it was going to fix everything! No trade offs! Better care! Less cost! Tastes great! Less filling! Good grief. Having to resort to such salesmanship should have been a big clue bat that they needed to rethink the policy they were trying to push. Any hope you’ll have this sort of skepticism towards the Republicans when they sell tax cuts and increased spending? because they certain sell that with a vat load of there’s no cost to anyone and it’ll be perfect.
“In other words, the complex issue of health care is not an issue suited for partisan advantage. Unless of course you manage to screw it up, which the Democrats seem to have done with Obamacare.” Oh it can be, if you take the criticize everything and offer nothing approach that the republicans have taken. They’ve made this into an advantage for themselves, except of course that they may own the issue if the ACA is tossed out. The ACA was the most republican friendly approach to Healthcare reform of all the viable reforms and they rejected it in favor of trying to damage Obama.They, not the Democrats, have placed partisan politics and advantage above solving the problem.
“But will Obamacare suddenly become popular because the Supreme Court strikes it down? If that’s the best hope Obama has for winning the 2012 election he might as well quit now.” It’s not that the ACA will become magically popular it is that quite a few elements are ALREADY popular and in effect and when you take them away, like increasing seniors Medicare costs by taking away ACA benefits, that’s going to have blowback.
I know it is an article of faith for you and many on the right that Obama cannot possibly run on his record and his campaign can only be negative, but if you’ve seen the re-election documentary from his campaign, the opening salvo of his re-election bid, you know that’s he running a positive argument and he will run a negative one as well.
Look at the history of the Clinton health care initiative. It dates from a 1991 election a Democrat won by campaigning on the issue. Ever since then it has been a weird Democratic article of faith that health care, and in particular the uninsured, are the means to election victory.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html
The Democratic party focus on health care has always been the plight of the uninsured. Claims that “solving” the health care “crisis” would bring economic boons has always been more of a rationalization for the Democrats. More of a means to sell the policy to the public than a policy goal itself.
With Obamacare the Democrats really went all out to sell the policy. Why, it was going to fix everything! No trade offs! Better care! Less cost! Tastes great! Less filling! Good grief. Having to resort to such salesmanship should have been a big clue bat that they needed to rethink the policy they were trying to push.
From what I have seen about the issue of health care, anyone who claims they have a magic-policy silver bullet to fix the problem are trying to sell something or don’t really understand the problem. Especially when it comes to grappling with long term cost trends.
In other words, the complex issue of health care is not an issue suited for partisan advantage. Unless of course you manage to screw it up, which the Democrats seem to have done with Obamacare.
As for the election, the issue in 2012 is the economy and unemployment. If Obama harps on health care, or global warming or god knows what else instead of focusing on a positive plan for the economy he is doomed.
But will Obamacare suddenly become popular because the Supreme Court strikes it down? If that’s the best hope Obama has for winning the 2012 election he might as well quit now.
Then again, if Obama can’t give the public a positive reason to vote for him related to the economy, if negative campaigning is his only hope, then attacking over health care at least has the virtue of drawing attention away from the bad economy.
Constitutionality – unfortunately, federally mandated health care really isn’t constitutional. Darn it. It falls under the “all else shall be left up to the states” the same thing that is SUPPOSED to govern education, “No Child Left Behind” notwithstanding.
“Democrat” issue. Not exactly. Although Johnson (a Texas Democrat???? I thought he was a Republican but I was wrong), started the ball rolling with Medicare in 1969, major reform was passed under Republican President reagan – COBRA in 1985. Both sides have been talking about this for a long time. To me, in the latest incarnation, it became devisive when Hilary Clinton tried to address it in her husband’s presidency. (Republicans hate her. I’m not fond of her either but they got really nasty, as they seem to do when women are involved.) Here’s another source for more information: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7871.pdf
Both parties (and some no longer in existance) have thought this was needed for the country at various points in time. The New Yorker (admittedly rather liberal) quotes a Yale professor as saying
“At present the United States has the unenviable distinction of being the only great industrial nation without compulsory health insurance…” in 1916!!!
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/12/07/091207taco_talk_lepore#ixzz1qWt4yMjc
Costs continue to skyrocket and care is not substantially better here than elsewhere. I can cite some anectdotal evidence, but I won’t do that at present.
Brad, whether you agree or not, this has been a problem for a long, long time. Every other developed nation has national health care. It is time for us to join the civilized world.
As far as ads, I could definitely see the Dems. using this issue in Florida, accusing the Repubs. of attacking Medicare, etc. (Don’t tick off seniors if you want to win Florida.) The difficulty is that
I can’t see any way of making this constitutional without a constitutional ammendment and I can’t see this happening.
I don’t think the Democrats have been thinking of Health Care as a populist winning election trick , as much it is a required reform to help our economy. You are never going to fix our budget and our economic issues without getting into healthcare. The Republican stand of sticking your head in the sand, pretending you’re going to cut the spending when you have no option to do so, is going to bring about disaster.
So, if the ACA in its entirety is tossed you think ads showing people tossed off their health insurance will have no effect and no effect on the energy of the base? It’s all upside for the Conservatives?
Ever since 1990, the Democrats have been convinced that a establishing a new national healthcare entitlement would be a winning issue for them. History so far has been very unkind to this assumption. Have the Democrats learned their lesson? They seem to have learned about the wisdom of overtly pushing gun control, so they can be taught.
Should the Democrats wish to try for a third bite of the apple during 2012 election, I suspect the Republican response will be, bring it on. Even in the best of times, this issue is fraught with controversy and difficult trade-offs. And this election season the economic conditions are far from the best of times.