With only about 24 hours remaining before the anticipated Supreme Court ruling on the ACA (Obamacare) we can address the possible political fallout. While it is unlikely the entire law will be ruled unconstitutional there are two key provisions that could be. The "individual mandate" which requires individuals to purchase insurance or pay a penalty and the "Medicaid mandate" which greatly expands Medicaid and will cause huge financial obligations to the states starting in 2017 either forcing states to tax and spend more or drop out of Medicaid completely. Assuming one or both of these "mandates" is ruled unconsitutional then what affect will it have on the November elections? I've provided the three general outcomes but each can be discussed by members.
We are not quite a dictatorship yet. It is Congress's responsibility to consider options for healthcare and I hope they realize most of our problems were caused by the various governments.
So far I only see entrenched fools in Congress. Until that changes, it will be business as usual slowly eroding individual freedom.
I am inclined to believe that with those who have followed it somewhat modestly, it won't change a thing. They already approve or disapprove, and have factored such into their preferences. And then I suppose there's a few out there who haven't heard of it, who might hear, if over-turned, that "Obama violated the Constitution", and be swayed, but I can't see that as being much of a blip on the radar. If anything, I think the outcome will influence the motivation to vote. If Obamacare is upheld, anti-Obama folks may be even more motivated to vote. If struck down, some stay at home, as they got what they wanted. So it would be an inverse ratio in that regard. Politically, if struck down, Obama can say that he tried, and will continue to try. I think the only wrong move would be to attack the Court. If he prevails, then he is quite OK, unless it truly does get a few extra percent of his opponents to the polls.
Wouldn't the opposite be true for "liberals" that might be motivated to turn out and vote for Obama if it's struck down? Based upon a combination of the two possibilities (i.e. some conservatives staying home and some liberals turning out to vote) then the advantage would be for Obama, would it not?
I tried to imagine that scenario. That Obama's plan had just been ruled Unconstitutional, so voting him in again will do what ? That he could not get it right when he had the Legislative majorities needed does not lend itself to expecting a different outcome IMO. i.e. The ballot box is not a remedy, as it did not work the first time. Conversely, as I noted, it the SCOTUS does not overturn it, then the ballot box is the only solution for those against it. If struck down, I think the propaganda edge goes large to the GOP. I see Obama supporters, and Independents who swing, as being less enthused with him as a solution. Maybe even seeing him as inept. Less likely to vote. It makes a great case for the GOP, if that is the outcome, that Obama wasted way too much time on a flawed plan, instead of a bipartisan one, while the economy suffered. That goes to undermine such as arguments about Repubs wasting time on such as Holder ... that Repubs are not focused on the economy .... when they can then show what a massive amount of time and money Obama wasted on Obamacare. How about Pelosi with her "Are you serious .... are you serious" clip ?
The ACA was not "Obama's" plan but instead it was the Congressional Democrats plan. The President was left with either approving the legislation or vetoing it. That was the only choice he was really given related to the legislation. Many seem to forget that with our government it is the Congress that creates the laws.
Its called "Obamacare", and is seen as his landmark piece of legislation. I believe it is very associated with him politically, and do not see any prior attempt by him to do anything except take credit for and embrace it. I think in the end it may jut be a question of how much those in the middle may penalize him for not being sure to put something through that would pass muster, as I think most folks who were going to have opinions about liking it or not already have those well formed. As I said, a few may give him the label of being incompetent for having put so much into somehting that did not stand up in the end. If its enough to make a difference, I do not know. Government does not seem very good at getting the big stuff done .................. both sides. I personally do not favor the ACA, but do believe we have a health-care coverage problem that government has to be a part of to fix. Just not this government.
If the SC strikes down the individual mandate, the Dems will get a big win when single-payer, what they wanted all along, will be the only way out of the mess.
Here's an article which outlines how both sides will hit the ground running whatever the ruling. No surprises, but perhaps that's the surprise Health ruling to end campaign mystery, unleash ads http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120627/D9VLO34G1.html
If either mandates are ruled unconstitutional, millions of people are going to know who was involved in getting them ruled that way, they will be pissed off, and Obama will sweep to victory instead of winning by just nine states. That's why Romney just ain't talkin'.
There is also the possibility that the people will realize that we have an activist right-wing court trying to undo everything that gives the middle class a chance to survive and will vote for the man they think will appoint a couple of SCOTUS members who are not out to sell the whole country to the investor class. That sure isn't Mittens the Vulture Capitalist.
We're not a dictatorship yet? The NDAA gives Obama the authority to kill whoever he wants. I can't think of a single thing a dictator could do that he could not do with this power. A single man with the power to kill whoever he wants definately does not sound like a republic to me.
But I think such "realization" will go hand-in-hand with whether one favors Obamacare or not, i.e. those that think Obamacare was wrong will naturally side with the Court. As it stands right now, polls show that 57-60% of Americans see some or all of it as an overreach by Government. Been pretty consistent that way for a year. However, there are parts of it, such as kids staying on parent's policy, added drug benefits, and not making it easy to drop folks, that a majority favor keeping. That may become the biggest political issue remaining from Obamacare moving forward, between now and the election, if parts are struck down.
The real ironic thing about this is if the one part the right hates the most, the individual mandate, is struck down it will be just one more failed conservative idea! Remember the republicans invented, pushed for, rallied for, and praised the individual mandate! Why would anyone be a conservative?
There is a general misuse of terms when addressing the Supreme Court if one refers to members as being "right-wing" or "left-wing" justices. In reality there are generally two exptremes that are either strict interpretation of the Constitution or progressive interpretation of the Constitution. Strict intepreters address the Constitution as a social contract and intepret it as such. Contracts are limited expressly by what they state as far as authorization and when using this criteria the US government's powers are expressly limited by the US Constitution. In short powers had to be expressly granted by the US Constitution. Progressive interpretations originated with the "progressive movement" of the 19th Century where the political belief was that anything the federal government wasn't expressly prohibited from doing by the US Constitution can be assumed to be a power of the federal government. In short powers could simply be assumed by the US government. From a historical standpoint the Federalists or anti-Federalists both supported a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Federalists believed in strict interpretation and originally argued that the federal government would exercise no powers which weren't expressly granted by the Constitution. The anti-Federalists also believed in strict interpretation but argued that if expressed limitations were not included then the government would assume powers that were not granted to it. Eventually the anti-Federalists actually won the political debate but both opposed the expansion of government beyond the expressed powers delegated to it. Generally speaking all Supreme Court justices lean towards the strict interpretation but there has been "progressive creep" in some Supreme Court decisions. One thing that all of us should agree upon is that our government should not be violating the US Constitution. Assuming that the ACA is declared unconstitutional in any of it's provisions then all Americans should support that decision. If parts are unconstitutional then regardless of what those provisions are they shouldn't exist. The Supreme Court will make that determination based upon the Constitution and Constitutional precedent which has been established. If we were to assume that any unconstitutional law should remain in existance then we abandon the Constitution completely. There is a Constitutional means for addressing any situation and that is what the American People should support.
Today baby! They could actually decide the case is premature since there is a law that says they cannot repeal a tax law before it comes into effect but the Administration did not argue the mandate as a tax but a penalty so ?????
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html So the "Constitutionality" has been determined related to the individual mandate. I haven't read anything on the Medicaid mandate or the employer mandate but would assume those portions were also upheld. This leaves us to wonder if some States are going to dropout of the Medicaid program in 2017 when federal funding begins to run out to finances the new mandates for coverage. The States will either have to raise taxes to pay for the program while already dealing with major deficits or drop out losing about 40% of the funding they need to provide a health care safety net.
The exact details of the Medicaid issue has not yet been completely resolved, but it is being upheld for the most part. I'll give a better analysis in a day or so.
I still haven't figured out how the government can force us to buy anything. Were that the case, we would have War Bonds and we would be forced to buy them to support the war. I see no difference.
Per Roberts, "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."
