The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the challenges to Obamacare is certainly good news for the law’s opponents. At the very least, a decision next year would put Obamacare front and center in the heart of election season when the Democrats would like nothing better than to pretend that Obama’s first two years did not exist. At most, it could also dramatically weaken and undercut the statute itself, helping to clear the way for its repeal.
But opponents of Obamacare should be careful not to let their focus be drawn away to the legal arena—as if the question at the core of the debate is whether the individual mandate is constitutional. That is an important secondary question, but it is not where the future of our health-care system will be decided. The mandate probably isn’t constitutional, and so it should be overturned, though I think it is far from given that the Supreme Court will strike it down (for reasons well articulated by Eric Claeys
here). And the mandate is also terrible policy (if you’ve designed a market which even in theory will only function if participation is mandatory, you have designed a market that will never function in practice.) But for all its faults, it is by no means the most serious problem with Obamacare. The key problem is the overall concept—which begins from the premise that our system of health-care financing will only keep costs under control if the government becomes an even greater force in the health sector than it is now and proceeds to create a system that will cause premiums to rise rapidly in the individual market and create major dislocation in the employer market, driving people into vastly overregulated exchanges that would push premiums higher still, and then initiate a program of subsidies whose only real answer to the mounting costs of coverage will be to pay them with public dollars and so inflate them further. It aims to spend a trillion dollars on subsidies to large insurance companies and the expansion of an unreformed Medicaid system, to micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely to make it even less efficient, to cut Medicare benefits without using the money to shore up the program or reduce the deficit, and to raise taxes on employment, investment, and medical research. CBO does not expect it to make a real dent in the inflation of health-care costs or to avert the fiscal implosion of Medicare. Instead, it will double down on price controls and centralized administration and make a real reform of our system much more difficult.
Maybe one part of the way it aims to do so is also unconstitutional, and maybe that opens it to a Court challenge. By all means, let’s pursue every avenue and let us make sure that our laws are in their proper relation to the Constitution. But the core case against Obamacare must be a sustained political case made on policy grounds, and the means to undo the law as a whole and pursue real reform will present themselves not next summer when the Court rules but next fall when the public does. Let us not forget it, and not lose our focus and resolve.
When all the fun is over, Romney will be the nominee and he will have to win every single conservative vote that's out there if he seeks to be competitive with Obama. In fact, he'll have to grub them up, one-by-one, like a pig rooting for truffles.
Thought exercise... how will Romney fortunes among conservatives be affected by obsessive national attention to this issue in the spring and summer before the election?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBe careful what you wish to see transpire. The consequences of the scenario you pose are almost surely negative in all outcomes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMental exercise, imagine you don't think you are superior to everyone else and have given up the idea that you are standing at a podium lecturing conservatives and using propaganda to support your argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause of suspicion to Romney over this issue, he will go to great lengths to double-down on assuring that, if elected, he will grant an immediate Obamacare waiver to every state; de-fund Obamacare; and sign a full repeal bill if it gets to his desk.
Point is that, contrary to Obama handmaiden spin, Romney will be well-positioned on this issue - including with seniors and independents. His 10th Amendment position coupled with a commitment to kill the mandate will be sufficient to capitalize on the issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou should expand your reading list. Go read more conservative blogs.
You would find that conservatives who don't care much for Romney still despise Obama (and Obama's supporters) so much that they will vote for anyone who can get Obama out of the White House. Romney included.
This is not a surprise. In past American elections, disgruntled party base voters usually return to the fold by the middle of October, when it becomes clear what the election of the opponent would mean.
I live in MA. Romney was my governor. I have no illusions about him.
But the spectacle of Obama conceding defeat to Romney--and the reaction from you Obama supporters--is so delicious that I can put aside my qualms about Romney and join him in defeating you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd those of us who declared that it would be impossible to lower health care costs by mandating higher levels of coverage while adding millions more people into the system were ridiculed by those experts who knew better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe we should start a list, all of us who are losing our health care plans in 2013 if this travesty continues.
I realize some left-wing hack like Slide will undoubtedly come in here to post nonsense, but who in their right mind would want this Frankenstein bill that was drafted by the insurance industry for their own benefit? It's the albatross hanging around this terrible President's neck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI sympathize with the argument, but I disagree: I think attacking the constitutional basis of the policy is more important than the policy itself. Winning the policy argument gets you nothing over the long-term because the other side is forced to concede only that: they had the wrong technocrats in charge; the implementation was wrong; the budget was wrong; some combination of the above; or some other concession that is merely on the margins. Even then, they are forced only to accept concessions about a narrow policy objective, and it would all be dependent on outcomes that no one can predict with precision.
If you win the constitutional argument, then you've won something strategic because you've forced a concession of the principle of self-government and rule of law, which could be leveraged toward victories for liberty in other areas of government, not to mention that the victory would not be dependent on outcomes, but would rather rest on lasting principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree. But we are so far from Constitutional government at this point, even a win will only be a baby step in a long, long struggle. Most Amercians would be surprised to learn that the federal government has no (enumerated) power behind some of its largest expenditures.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AC... "who in their right mind would want this Frankenstein bill..."
Apparently... a majority of Americans. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice propaganda. Meanwhile, in polls that actually matter, Ohio last week became the 10th state to reject the Obamacare mandate. Almost every state in the union has introduced some sort of legislation against Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
I like how they report the responses but not the actual question. It would be interesting to see exactly what people answering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr not... Kaiser just polled the ACA at 51 in against 34 in favor.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try Filistro. The poll question was whether people believe that people should provide for their own health insurance. The answer was yes. Not in favor of a government mandated purchase. The bill as passed is a disaster and most thinking folks know it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, two reputable polls both whos over 65% of people do not want Obamacare - about as strong as any issue is today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, two reputable polls both whos over 65% of people do not want Obamacare - about as strong as any issue is today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Colonel Travis
And if you notice, the voters of Ohio overwhelmingly voted against the curtailment of organized labor in government. What’s that mean?
This is a huge indication that the voters feel the government should not have this much authority.
1). The government shouldn't have the authority to stop someone from collective bargaining.
2). The government should not have the authority to dictate how citizens chose their health care or not chose their health care,
2 strikes against big government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShouldn't the core argument against the mandate be a workable alternative?
Either that or take the view there was nothing wrong with health care costs in 2007 under the Bush administration and "Let him die" should be the official GOP position towards those without coverage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope. It is sufficient to argue that the Affordable Car Act will result in an even worse system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(R)s have had alternative plans and actual bills since Obama's been in office. For some reason, the other political party hasn't been receptive to them - even locked (R)s out of committee meetings in 2009. Real upstanding crowd to work with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse