My column this weekend is about why Mitt Romney, however inevitable he may seem to some, has not closed the deal for me. Hint: I couldn’t care less about Bain Capital.
The issues in the election are Obamacare and debt. Focusing on them massively favors the GOP … except that Romneycare is the building block for Obamacare and, far from admitting error, Mitt has doubled down. As readers will see, I believe his federalism defense of Romneycare is fatuous. The Massachusetts program is indefensible. By nominating someone who vigorously defends it, I am very worried that we are giving away our best rationale for deposing the president and dispiriting the base whose enthusiasm is vital.
Moreover, the Republican establishment’s rallying around Mitt despite his continued championing of Obamacare’s precursor is of a piece with the GOP’s abdication of the Obamacare fight which, as I pointed out in a November column, has been delegated to the lawyers fighting the constitutional issues in court. This has counterproductively made these issues center-stage. Important as they may be, they are a sideshow in the greater scheme of things.
I happen to think the Supremes are going to uphold Obamacare — not that they should, but that they will (for the reasons outlined in the aforementioned column). That won’t mean Obamacare is good policy; it is disastrous policy. It will just mean that Obamacare is one of the many suicidal things our Constitution allows a free people to do to itself. But when the Court’s ruling comes down, the GOP will have done nothing to lay the groundwork for what should be the far more consequential political battle to repeal Obamacare — indeed, by doing nothing and nominating Mitt, the GOP will be saying, implicitly, that it is fine with most of Obamacare, perhaps with a few Washington-style modifications. The Supreme Court decision will thus hit in July — the campaign stretch-run — and, if it comes out the way I think it will come out, it will be a crackling political victory for the Obama campaign.
I appreciate the great work Hans and others have done on keeping us abreast of the 8 zillion reasons why Justice Kagan should recuse herself. But guess what? She’s not going to recuse herself. If the best we can do to make an argument for deep-sixing Obamacare is that one of the nine justices who will hear the case should be disqualified, the battle is already lost.
I loved Mona’s column yesterday. As she powerfully demonstrates, the individual mandate — which has gotten almost all the attention as the political debate morphed into a legal debate — is not the worst thing about Obamacare. Her summation cannot be repeated often enough: “[W]hatever the outcome of these legal cases may be, the effort to get this poisonous hydra repealed — by the elected branches of government — cannot flag.
I fear it is flagging.
With Romney as the GOP nominee, the only election theme will be "Wall Street vs. the little guy".
The GOP has already ceded Obamacare, taxes, debt, foreign policy, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Obamacare focus during the elections will not be whether the policy and program are bad.
The only focus will be, is Romney a laughingstock or serious for discussing Obamacare, in light of his crowning achievement of Romneycare?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[A Supreme Court ruling upholding it]won’t mean Obamacare is good policy; it is disastrous policy. It will just mean that Obamacare is one of the many suicidal things our Constitution allows a free people to do to itself."
Well said, Mr. McCarthy. The focus on the pending litigation risks obscuring the right and duty of the elected branches to enact policy choices that are good, rather than merely those that can clear the low bar of constitutionality. Constitutional litigation is a blunt instrument for dealing with something as complex as health care policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe election will be a referendum on Obama and the economy. Nothing else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho else could it possibly be? Seriously who? I love you guys moping around, but the field is the field and no one else is jumping in the race.
Paul is nuts on foreign policy. No chance.
Perry's IQ is apparently room temperature and Obama will crush him in debates. No chance.
Santorum is the new anti-Romney, but his family values, "I do not like gays", is not going to win a national election. No chance.
Gingrich is simply unelectable with all the ethical baggage and marital issues, and he is the king of DC insiders. The press will have a field day. No way!
I hate to agree with conventional wisdom, but if Republicans hold together, and Romney makes this election about Obama's destruction of our economy and the destruction of our children's future with the ridicuolous $5T in debt in 4 years, we win going away. None of the other candidates beat Obama next November, and in that light you have to say this is the worst Republican field of candiates in the history of the Party. We all have to suck it up and and support Romney. Don't lose focus on the real fight, winning the Senate big.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo questions:
1 - Romney has repeatedly said he will work to repeal Obamacare - are we saying he's a stone cold liar?
2 - The repeal of Obamacare will/must originate in Congress - are we saying that we believe Romney will veto a repeal?
Let's concede the point that Romney's defense of Romneycare is "fatuous".......so what? Answer the questions!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It will just mean that Obamacare is one of the many suicidal things our Constitution allows a free people to do to itself."
Correction, Andy: It will mean our courts, increasingly unconcerned with the actual words of our laws, will decide that Obamacare is one of the many suicidal things we can do to ourselves.
Also, the lack of enthusiasm in turning back Obamacare on the part of the establishment GOP is not at all surprising. That's what happens when you have a group that thinks government power over citizens' lives is only a bad thing when its in the Dems' hands. The difference between the GOP establishment and the Dems is typically only one of degree (if that), not philosophy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI happen to think the Supremes are going to uphold Obamacare — not that they should, but that they will . . . . That won’t mean Obamacare is good policy; it is disastrous policy. It will just mean that Obamacare is one of the many suicidal things our Constitution allows a free people to do to itself.
This confuses me. The Supremes "should not" uphold Obamacare? Yet "Obamacare is one of the many suicidal things our Constitution allows a free people to do to itself"?
Is it Constitutional, or isn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is Constitutional is what the Supremes say.
Why is that hard to understand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand your sarcasm, but obviously McCarthy doesn't believe that, so I remain confused by his comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. The way I read it, he seems to be conceding that it is constitutional. At the very least he's vague on the point, which is itself astounding. "Flagging" I might even say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're absolutely right, Hardcastle. McCarthy is not making sense here. He clearly says that the USSC should not uphold Obamacare, but he also says (somewhat less clearly) that Obamacare and the mandate are allowed under the Constitution. It looks as though he didn't think this through very well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I believe his federalism defense of Romneycare is fatuous. The Massachusetts program is indefensible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there is a mod awake and out there, please pull my previous post. Hit "post" instead of "preview".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo repeal Obamacare, Republicans would have to overcome the cognitive dissonance currently afflicting voters.
Despite the terrible symbolism, dubious constitutionality, and future ill effects of the individual mandate: I think the average voter shrugs and says he was planning to buy insurance anyway.
IPAB: Voters shrug, and say of course the government is going to decide what health care it is paying for, all the business about IPAB being unaccountable is inside baseball, when Congress wants to override it, they will.
The massive increase in Medicaid spending: So you hate poor people?
The voters disapprove of Obamacare (I'm guessing) because of a vague sense that it represents a vast increase in government involvement in health care, which the public accurately believes will lower the quality of care. But the public also likes the single most intrusive provision in the bill, the law against "discriminating" based on "pre-existing conditions". That law, all by itself, represents a government takeover of free-sector insurance, which is hereby prohibited from actually doing its job and insuring people based on risk. The "private" insurance market will henceforward be as "private" as "private" electric utilities, hotbeds of innovation and risk-taking that they are. Republicans would have to make a case against that to win. They gave up on that right out of the blocks. So no, I don't really think Obamacare is going to get repealed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. Romney has no desire to get it repealed; a GOP Congress won't have the will to fight for repeal. So, is it reasonable to say that the wealth redistributionists, the believers in ever bigger and more powerful government, those who value a (perceived) guaranteed cradle-to-grave security over liberty, have won the struggle? It's really all over, isn't it, and we've lost.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTerrific observations. This part....
"But the public also likes the single most intrusive provision in the bill, the law against "discriminating" based on "pre-existing conditions". "
..is particularly insightful. That provision enjoys over 80% support. I think many conservatives - not the least of which is Andy McCarthy - have forgotten the impetus that helped elect Obama and gave him his loose mandate to "reform" health care. This was the topic. People wanted two things: health insurance portability, and a prohibition on the insurer's ability to deny preexisting conditions.
As you correctly point out, this effectively ends "private insurance" as we know it. In fact, it effectively ends insurance as we know. The American people don't want an insurance system so much as they want a health care payment plan.
I have yet to any conservative politician or talking head offer an alternative to Obamacare that is any more detailed than "a free market solution" (whatever that means).
The reality is if Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional and there is no severability found in the Act, the GOP is going to have problem shortly thereafter: The "people" are going to want something that prohibits the insurers from rejecting preexisting conditions. If they don't get it, whatever gains the Republican make this year, will be gone by the midterm elections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is too bad this "comment on an article" format doesn't allow for continued threads.
I think that portability is the solution to the "pre-existing condition" business. After all a "pre-existing condition" is a condition you acquired when you weren't insured, and whose fault is that? To the extent that it's anybody's other than the person who made that epic fail, it's lack of portability.
And the question is, why doesn't the market offer that? When the market isn't offering something that people obviously want, look to government. What is the government doing that is preventing insurers from offering this? Or does the market offer that and the solution just needs to be more widely publicized? It seems as simple as insurers offering plans where, even if you lose your job with a particular employer, you can stay on the plan as long as you keep paying the premiums.
All isn't lost because the public still does disapprove of Obamacare despite the noted dilemma. Republicans have to draw out and articulate the public's accurate sentiment, not launch into irrelevant tirades at the easiest targets in the bill. Contrary to PolitiFact's blather, Obamacare is a government takeover of healthcare. Why is that, and why is it bad?
One thing I'd like to see: Chris Christie get up there, pick out some petite woman in the audience, and point out the laughable absurdity that under Obamacare an insurer has to charge them the same rate for heart attack insurance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is that coverage of pre-existing conditions creates an incentive *not* to buy insurance. Even if your insurance is "portable," you have every reason to let it lapse if you know you can get coverage as soon as you are sick. There is no way pre-existing coverage works in the absence of a mandate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed - my point is, if insurance is portable, you have even less excuse for having a "pre-existing condition" than you had before, so it should be more politically palatable to get rid of it.
Nobody thinks you should be able to buy home insurance for a "pre-existing fire".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse