BARACK OBAMA AND THE SUPREMES
Apr. 3rd, 2012 11:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogWhile I was in Bangkok last week, America was dithering over Obamacare vs The Supreme Court Justicees, with the Tea Party protesting outside the Supreme Court, demanding that the Supremes strike down the law, and generally not getting arrested or pepper-sprayed in the face like some people. (And I’m not saying they should be. I’m just saying.)
Naturally, as a US citizen I am legally required to express my opinion about anything political (preferably as loudly as I possibly can), and so I get a lot of requests on every social media site I have an account for to comment on the Obamacare case.
My standard response goes like this: “Given that yr asking me to express my opinion about a complex 2,700-page bill that regulates an industry I know next to nothing about, my opinion is that it’s complex and I know next to nothing about it.”
Which of course never satisfies anyone. “But what about the protesters? What about the mandate that you must buy insurance? What about universal healthcare in general?” Etc.
Okay. Fine.
1. I think universal healthcare is a good thing, and that the pre-Obama healthcare situation was in dire need of reform even before you started factoring in things like Medicare costs. What I don’t know is whether the Obamacare bill accomplishes that aim, and whether it does so sustainably.
It might. I couldn’t tell you who is right, or whether the Supremes will rule against it, particularly regarding the individual mandate. (Liberals claim that the conservative justices will strike it down for political reasons. If they do, of course, at least people like me can tell conservatives to shut the f*** up about activist judges. Or not.)
But I do find the claim that the must-buy mandate is the glue holding the entire bill together without which the whole thing falls apart a little odd. Again, I’m not an expert, but it seems strange that a complex beast of a bill like this could fall apart that easily if that one element is found unconstitutional – that would be one badly designed reform plan (though granted, if that’s true, it wouldn’t be the first badly written bill to get passed into law).
2. Whether the individual mandate holds water or not, I think it’s important to remember one key contextual point: this isn’t about the individual mandate. The Tea Party and the GOP don’t oppose Obamacare because it requires everyone to buy health insurance. They oppose it – and have always opposed it – because they think it’s a stinking liberal Commie plot to destroy America and transform it into a Socialist dictatorship. I know this because they said so over and over again back when Obama first laid this thing on us. “OMG GOVT TAKEOVER! OMG DEATH PANELS!” Etc. If the individual mandate provision wasn’t there, those people would still be on the court steps demanding the repeal of Obamacare, if only to make Obama look bad during an election year.
Which, it has to be said, is pretty much this is all about – making Obama look like a Socialist at worst, or a political chump at best – ideally to the point of hurting his re-election chances.
Which brings us to:
3. If Obamacare falls, will it hurt Obama’s re-election chances? Somehow I doubt it.
Naturally it depends on a couple of things: (1) the actual Supreme Court ruling, and (2) who wins the nomination. Assuming the worst-case scenario for Obama (Obamacare is struck down, Mitt Romney gets the nomination), he can always blame Obamacare’s demise on vindictive Republicans and their batshit Tea Party friends. Which is more or less true, so the swing vote may even believe it.
The only potential edge for Romney is his alternative RomneyDoesn’tMediCare plan, which is an advantage only in the sense that he has an alternative to pitch at all. Unfortunately for Mitt, selling that plan involves convincing people that raising Medicare's minimum age to cover less people (savings!) is an awesome idea. Good luck with that.
Court is adjourned,
This is dF
Naturally, as a US citizen I am legally required to express my opinion about anything political (preferably as loudly as I possibly can), and so I get a lot of requests on every social media site I have an account for to comment on the Obamacare case.
My standard response goes like this: “Given that yr asking me to express my opinion about a complex 2,700-page bill that regulates an industry I know next to nothing about, my opinion is that it’s complex and I know next to nothing about it.”
Which of course never satisfies anyone. “But what about the protesters? What about the mandate that you must buy insurance? What about universal healthcare in general?” Etc.
Okay. Fine.
1. I think universal healthcare is a good thing, and that the pre-Obama healthcare situation was in dire need of reform even before you started factoring in things like Medicare costs. What I don’t know is whether the Obamacare bill accomplishes that aim, and whether it does so sustainably.
It might. I couldn’t tell you who is right, or whether the Supremes will rule against it, particularly regarding the individual mandate. (Liberals claim that the conservative justices will strike it down for political reasons. If they do, of course, at least people like me can tell conservatives to shut the f*** up about activist judges. Or not.)
But I do find the claim that the must-buy mandate is the glue holding the entire bill together without which the whole thing falls apart a little odd. Again, I’m not an expert, but it seems strange that a complex beast of a bill like this could fall apart that easily if that one element is found unconstitutional – that would be one badly designed reform plan (though granted, if that’s true, it wouldn’t be the first badly written bill to get passed into law).
2. Whether the individual mandate holds water or not, I think it’s important to remember one key contextual point: this isn’t about the individual mandate. The Tea Party and the GOP don’t oppose Obamacare because it requires everyone to buy health insurance. They oppose it – and have always opposed it – because they think it’s a stinking liberal Commie plot to destroy America and transform it into a Socialist dictatorship. I know this because they said so over and over again back when Obama first laid this thing on us. “OMG GOVT TAKEOVER! OMG DEATH PANELS!” Etc. If the individual mandate provision wasn’t there, those people would still be on the court steps demanding the repeal of Obamacare, if only to make Obama look bad during an election year.
Which, it has to be said, is pretty much this is all about – making Obama look like a Socialist at worst, or a political chump at best – ideally to the point of hurting his re-election chances.
Which brings us to:
3. If Obamacare falls, will it hurt Obama’s re-election chances? Somehow I doubt it.
Naturally it depends on a couple of things: (1) the actual Supreme Court ruling, and (2) who wins the nomination. Assuming the worst-case scenario for Obama (Obamacare is struck down, Mitt Romney gets the nomination), he can always blame Obamacare’s demise on vindictive Republicans and their batshit Tea Party friends. Which is more or less true, so the swing vote may even believe it.
The only potential edge for Romney is his alternative RomneyDoesn’tMediCare plan, which is an advantage only in the sense that he has an alternative to pitch at all. Unfortunately for Mitt, selling that plan involves convincing people that raising Medicare's minimum age to cover less people (savings!) is an awesome idea. Good luck with that.
Court is adjourned,
This is dF
