President Obama and his congressional allies want to create the perception that Obamacare is a done deal, and that Republicans need to get over it. But the events of the past week show quite clearly that that’s far from the reality. Since its passage, Obamacare has rested on shaky ground, owing to the heavy-handed tactics used to jam it through Congress against the wishes of a majority of the electorate. But now, after the Florida court decision and the vote in the Senate on repeal, Obamacare is more vulnerable than ever — politically, legally, and operationally.
At first glance, the vote last night in the Senate might look like a setback. After all, the repeal amendment failed. Senate Democrats raised a point of order against Sen. Mitch McConnell’s amendment; Republicans needed 60 votes to keep the amendment alive. All 47 Republican senators voted to do so, but no Democrats did. The repeal amendment therefore fell on a straight party-line vote, 47-51 (two senators, Mark Warner and Joe Lieberman, did not vote).
Advertisement
That outcome was predictable. The Senate is still controlled by the Democrats, most of whom supported Obamacare just ten months ago. But just because the vote was predictable doesn’t mean it was pointless, as some Democrats have suggested. Far from it. The battle lines in the Senate have now been drawn more clearly. Twenty-three of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 are currently held by senators who caucus with the Democrats, including several from moderate to conservative states, such as Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Bill Nelson from Florida, Jon Tester from Montana, Jim Webb from Virginia, Claire McCaskill from Missouri, and Joe Manchin from West Virginia. If these senators run for reelection, their opponents are certain to pin tonight’s vote on them early and often.
The Senate vote is also an indication of how close Congress is to passing a full repeal bill. Yes, it would have taken 60 votes to repeal it today in the Senate because of the point of order, and a likely Democratic filibuster if no point of order was applicable. But that need not be the case if Republicans regain control of the chamber in 2013. Recall that, in the aftermath of Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, congressional Democrats made an end run around the Senate filibuster by employing the “reconciliation” process to hammer out the final agreement between the House and the Senate. That allowed the Democrats to pass the original Senate version of Obamacare (passed when there were 60 Democratic votes in the Senate) through the House, and to pass changes to that previously approved Senate bill through both the House and the Senate with a simple majority vote. In other words, the only reason Obamacare is law today is that the Democrats used “reconciliation” to pass it through the Senate without the need for 60 votes.
Here is how to darken the skies over Obamacare even more. In addition to recording every congressman's vote on repeal and defunding it, the GOP should introduce a bill to amend Obamacare to allow state legislators & Governors to opt-out of it 100%. This would put pro-Obama factions in a bind. If it were popular, multiple states wouldn't be suing and begging to opt-out. With the state legislative gains in 2010, at least 20+ states would opt-out, which would darken the skies over Obamacare even more.
So, who is going to be the US Congressman to introduce the "opt-out" amendment to Obamacare?
Yes repeal may be possible come 2012, but that is still two years of damage this law will do that most likely can not be undone.
It really is time for the SCOTUS to hear this case. Congress has done all it can do. ObamaCare is no longer the law, yet many states, companies and governments are still proceeding with plans for implementation while others are not. This ambiguity is costing millions in dollars and eating up resources that may or may not be necessary.
Congress has made it clear where ObamaCare rests in the Legislature. The Supreme Court should quickly declare where it stands Constitutionally.
The only thing this judge did was darken the chances of it's repeal on constitutional grounds. Clear eyed analysis reveals that a district judge decided to overrule and/or ignore a raft of SCOTUS precedent to get to his decision. IF that is not a judge being an "activist" I don't know what is. It's going to get in front of Scotus, and it's going to be found constitutional. What would this magazine advocate then? open revolt? secession? Your rhetoric is leaving little other choice.
Sir:
It is well to attack Obama Care (it's certainly the season,) but the implied issue here is the need for a workable alternative.
The law of large numbers is fundamental to the success of insurance schemes. Unless a national policy limits coverage to a small percentage of losses within a large body of insured, the result is merely prepayment of medical expenses heavily larded with administrative overhead.
Opposition to the current mishmash of law should stress that routine medical expense must, as a matter of financial law, be the responsibility of the individual. This approach doesn't eliminate medical costs, but it drastically reduces clerical overhead and related governmental intrusion.
This simple return of responsibility to the individual would free government to design a plan to protect citizens from actuarially determined serious-loss. Needy individuals, or uninsurable risks would have to be assigned to a conventional social program.
There are few and evanescent votes in being against; let us be for reason and the immutable rule of financial law.
Justalurker:
Your comment reveals that you have either not read or not understood Judge Vinson's opinion. It includes a detailed consideration of every important and relevant Commerce Clause case in SCOTUS history. It is tightly reasoned and persuasively argued, and it reaches its conclusion regarding severability based largely on the arguments of the laws PROPONENTS.
As for your prediction of the eventual SCOTUS finding of constitutionality, unless your real name is Anthony Kennedy, it is not worth the electrons of which it is comprised. And if Elena Kagan is forced to recuse herself, as she should be, even Kennedy cannot save Obamacare, should he be so inclined.
I haven't read Judge Vinson's ruling, and thus can have no worthwhile opinion as to the ruling's solidity. I also claim no knowledge of how SCOTUS will rule when the case comes before them.
All that being said, let's suppose that SCOTUS does overrule Judge Vinson's ruling, and uphold the bill. How does that prevent the post-2012 House, Senate, and President, should they be so inclined, from repealing it?
Remember, Obamacare, at most, is permitted under the Constitution. Nobody--not even Obama--thinks that the Constitution requires it. So, given the right outcome on election day 2012, it won't take very long to pass repeal through Congress and get the new President's signature on it.
The right only wishes to deny Obama an historic legislative victory, nothing more. The longer the law is in effect, the more it will be ingrained in society as an expected norm, hence the Virginia AD asking the SCOTUS for an expedited review. Obama just needs to run out the clock, which he will do.
The beauty of the law is that it didn't destroy the private insurance industry, it strengthened it. Most conservatives don't even know why they oppose it, after all it is a Republican plan (Bob Dole).
The larger the pool, the better the risk dispersal and the higher the underwriting efficiency. I don't see that such a pool would have to be administered by the government; management could be farmed out by regions on a competitive basis, but a central forum would be needed to act as Board of Directors, and using the government would preclude the necessity of inventing something similar.
If Obama Care is to be ousted by the Congress or the Supremes, a vacuum will result. Vacuums want to be filled, not displaced. The public debate has reached the point where a national system of healthcare is a fait accompli. Let us go about designing a comprehensive approach that will astonish western civilization by actually getting the job done.
Denying Obama an "historic legislative victory" is far from the "only" reason to throw this legislation out. Even the most biased, partisan hacks are granting there is much wrong with ObamaCare. What is a more accurate statement would be, the only reason to continue to support this legislation is to secure Obama an historic legislative victory.
BTW - you do realize that the law has been declared void and is no longer enforce?
The biggest reason against obamacare, other than its constitutionality (and the barn doors it opens), is the fact that the government has not run one entitlement program well. None have come close to the original CBO estimate and IF this goes over (which it will) it will break our economy. It needs to be repealed and replaced.
I can't speak to all of those 12, but being from Michigan I want to address Stabenow.
Unfortunately, we can not blame her election on misdirection. She campaigned as a liberal and won as such. The trouble was the population centers around Detroit,Saginaw, Flint when joined by a few out lying Counties near Lansing, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Warren were able to turn a predominately red state blue.
I'm sure there is more to the flip than just population loss, but these cities ranked among the top 60 cities Nationwide with populations over 100,000 in percentage population loss. Extrapolate this with the decline in auto industry/blue collar jobs, coupled with the failed economic policies over the past decade - and we get a true representation of a red Michigan.
Stabenow is on thin ice. Her party affiliation, her support of ObamaCare, her failure to protect the auto industry from government assistance, her support for the (perceived as failed)Stimulus and bailouts, and her inability to affect a State recovery with a Democratic President, or a Republican President who presided over a 49 state recovery in the mid-2000's does not a shining resume make!
Mr. Capretta says Obamacare "is the law for now". Since the Judge said it was void, there has been no stay or reversal, and the Feds were the Defendant...how is it still law?
Judge Vinson's decision is good news, and we all hope that it will prevail when Obamacare finally reaches the Supreme Court two years from now. However, that is not certain, and there remain substantial political powers who regard this vast extension of federal power as constitutional based upon the Supreme Court's vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause since 1937. The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare, but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has increased its power beyond the original scope of the Constitution, is to reverse those Supreme Court cases and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, this will require a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See External Link
