The Corner

The House GOP’s Post-Obamacare Plans

Politico reported last night that Republicans were making contingency plans in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare. Some conservatives were alarmed by the story, but as far as I can tell they shouldn’t have been.

Said Politico: “If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.” My own understanding, based both on talking to sources familiar with the House leadership’s thinking and just observing how they’ve handled health care for months, is that if Obamacare is upheld they will continue doing what they’ve already been doing. They’ll hold another vote on repealing the whole thing, to make it clear that neither the passage of time nor the Court’s upholding of the law has altered their opposition; they’ll hold votes on getting rid of particularly vulnerable provisions of the law; and they’ll pledge to repeal and replace the law if they get a president and Senate willing to cooperate.

More Politico: “If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.” My own understanding is closer to what Avik Roy writes at Forbes: “Republican policymakers are trying to pre-emptively address the legitimate policy issues that arise if Obamacare is overturned by the High Court. For example: those young adults who are currently on their parents’ insurance plans—if Obamacare is struck down, are those plans voided, or do they continue until the end of the contract year? The 50,000-or-so people who’ve enrolled in the law’s high-risk pools—what can be done to ensure that they maintain their coverage?”

There was widespread confusion in the press about the House Republicans’ position on pre-existing conditions when they released their “Pledge to America” in advance of the 2010 elections. They had stated that they favored the pre-Obamacare law that required insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions if they already had coverage. Some reporters confused this for the Obamacare provision that requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions regardless of their prior coverage status: a provision that would make it possible for people to wait until they’re sick to get insurance, thus requiring some additional intervention such as an individual mandate to make insurance markets feasible. I wonder if a similar confusion is at work in last night’s story.

In any case, Speaker Boehner has now reiterated that he remains committed to full repeal. Good.

P.S. I wrote a few months ago about why the Republicans haven’t unified behind a specific plan to replace Obamacare, and how they could overcome their division.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

Education

Husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein Admits to Helping Well-Connected Applicants Gain Admission to University of California: ‘No One Ever Told Me It Was Wrong’

The husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) admitted on Thursday to sending an inappropriate letter identified in a state audit that appeared to help an applicant to the University of California, Berkeley, get accepted to the school. The California State Auditor issued a scathing report on Tuesday ... Read More
Education

Husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein Admits to Helping Well-Connected Applicants Gain Admission to University of California: ‘No One Ever Told Me It Was Wrong’

The husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) admitted on Thursday to sending an inappropriate letter identified in a state audit that appeared to help an applicant to the University of California, Berkeley, get accepted to the school. The California State Auditor issued a scathing report on Tuesday ... Read More
Law & the Courts

No, the Democrats Won’t Pack the Court

For many progressive opinion-makers, the only way to save the Supreme Court is to destroy it.   They believe the best response to the Republican-held Senate confirming a Trump nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court is to pack the Court if Democrats win in November. Holding out the ... Read More
Law & the Courts

No, the Democrats Won’t Pack the Court

For many progressive opinion-makers, the only way to save the Supreme Court is to destroy it.   They believe the best response to the Republican-held Senate confirming a Trump nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court is to pack the Court if Democrats win in November. Holding out the ... Read More
Education

Bring Civics Back to the Classroom

Margaret Thatcher once said, “European nations were made by history. The United States was made by philosophy. Unique among all nations, the United States knows precisely when and exactly why it was founded.” Today, that may be changing. Survey after survey shows that Americans have a dismally poor ... Read More
Education

Bring Civics Back to the Classroom

Margaret Thatcher once said, “European nations were made by history. The United States was made by philosophy. Unique among all nations, the United States knows precisely when and exactly why it was founded.” Today, that may be changing. Survey after survey shows that Americans have a dismally poor ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Limited Judgement

On the menu today: a long look at whether the country would be better off if Supreme Court justices were limited to 18 years on the highest court, a new survey shows the public turning away from the protesters, and a tweet from the New York Times reveals some remarkable skepticism. Does the Supreme Court Need ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Limited Judgement

On the menu today: a long look at whether the country would be better off if Supreme Court justices were limited to 18 years on the highest court, a new survey shows the public turning away from the protesters, and a tweet from the New York Times reveals some remarkable skepticism. Does the Supreme Court Need ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Do You Want 51 or 52 States Next Year?

“The prospects of statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., have never been greater, but many significant obstacles loom,” The Hill declares. The Constitution declares, “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Do You Want 51 or 52 States Next Year?

“The prospects of statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., have never been greater, but many significant obstacles loom,” The Hill declares. The Constitution declares, “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction ... Read More