We’re just about a month away from the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.
David Hogberg has a column at Investors Business Daily on the political fallout if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare:
A Supreme Court ruling next month striking down Obama-Care would immediately shift the battle to Congress and the campaign trail.
President Obama and Democrats would suffer a demoralizing policy defeat that would hurt him in the general election, say some observers.
“Obama will look much weaker because this is his signature domestic achievement,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “It will also neutralize one of Romney’s biggest liabilities.”
But GOP lawmakers may come under pressure to keep popular parts of the unpopular law.
“Seniors who are getting rebates on their prescription drugs, small businesses that get tax credits, young adults able to get coverage and no pre-existing condition denials for kids — throwing those out would be unpopular,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of the liberal Families USA. “I believe that constituencies that have been helped by those things will express their discontent.”
Medicare’s prescription drug “doughnut hole” might get the most attention on Capitol Hill. ObamaCare has been closing this gap requiring out-of-pocket spending by seniors. The doughnut hole would open back up if the court tosses the entire law.
Both Republicans and Democrats could feel pressure to close the doughnut hole again. The provision is looked on very or somewhat favorably by 78% of respondents in a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Seniors vote at some
“We’ll be looking to see what their plan is for health care reform and to lower costs,” he said.
He said Democrats might try to advance some of the more popular provisions in ObamaCare prior to the election.
It’s hard to say what striking down Obamacare means. Does the entire law get thrown out? That may be a distinction without a difference because so long as the mandate is stricken, the rest of the law is gutted and politically it will be viewed as striking down Obamacare.
So let’s take a vote, assuming the Supreme Court at least strikes the mandate, is it better for Obama or Romney in terms of the November election? (Poll open until 5 p.m. Eastern, Sunday, May 27)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I have in the past voted almost exclusively for democrats, I was one until 2009.
I agree with the post that there are certain parts of the law I agree with, and I know some of my conservative friends I’ve spoken with they agree with them as well, like kids being able to be kept on their parents insurance until 26, and no one with preconditions being not able to get health insurance. And I am also well aware that when mandates like this are put on a company, their cost increase and they pass these costs on to the consumer.
and this is where I completely agree with conservatives, open up the system so people can buy across state lines, more legal reforms to curtain frivilous lawsuits.
The main thing is more access, less cost, and that only happens with more competition, which was never part of this awful awful bill, you are basically mandating people to buy a private product, and the govt dicates the product specification, so of course prices the consumer pays will skyrocket up.
I want this entire thing to be struck down and start over, reform is needed, but not a one size fits all, because one size will never fit all americans.
The mandate I have the most issues with — not sure how you can force people to buy something? you can regulate a product but you cannot force people to buy that product first. The entire law is based on that though, so I hope the supreme ct throws out the mandate and chucks the entire thing back to congress, is the supreme ct really going to read a bill that congress itself never bothered to read??
As always, what may very well matter more than the decision itself is who will control the narrative after the decision. Are conservatives prepared for a Supreme Court ruling in their favor? Is Romney?
Has anyone heard a single prominent republican jawboning the need for patient-centered, individual-empowering reform, and how to see this moment as an OPPORTUNITY? My guess is that at least half the republicans in Washington are themselves wringing their hands over a Supreme Court strikedown.
Get rid of all notions of Federal control of health care.
All. Any.
Start, as with the tax code, with a clean sheet of paper.
A few…and I mean DAMNED few…basic TRUE principles should guide the reformation.
My feelings are child like,but just imagine the ridicule if the court overturns this! It will be like Christmas!
Its better for Romney for 3 reasons (2 per-election ones, one continual reason)
1 ~ Embarrassing for Obama. No matter how hard the Left whines and cries activism, it wont work. Forcing people to buy stuff is not constitutional, and people know it.
2 ~ it means the “I will repeal Romn… err, Obamacare” issue goes away. He looks like an ass trying to excuse why its right for him to pass what is wrong for Obama to pass. The topic being removed is beneficial to him, and he can instead continue to answer those questions with the states can, and should, come up with their own solutions looking for what works
3 ~ it wont hang over Romney’s head forever more, as Romney having to repeal it would. If Romney is forced to repeal, then Democrats will forever call him “the man that ensured people dont have insurance” or some nonsense.
…but most importantly, WE win. Obamacare will be gone and we wont have to cross our fingers hoping Romney does what so many of us feel he probably wont.
Sure, if its not struck down Mitt would probably act like he tried to remove it, but would also likely come back with some nonsense “the Dems wont allow full repeal” line to keep in effect so many of the things he has already forced on people when he was Governor. I dont trust the a*hole much more then Obama really.
But if it is gone without Romney, and things start getting back to normal, the issue will ideally go away for 4 years until Dems again bring it up in 2016 elections.
If Obamacare goes down, Barack Obama could always use his innovative leadership in the Choom Gang as a reason to vote for him.
It will hurt Obama. In the August doldrums, during the lead-up to the democratic convention, the Democratic Party will be in complete chaos if a SC decision scrubs all or a large part of Obamacare.
Better for everyone, including Obama, he’s just not smart enough to know it.
If the whole thing is struck down, it will be better for Obama, he will then have an issue to run on. A failure, but it’s better then the rest of his record (which is a failure also). If only the mandate is struck down, Obama will claim that he need to be re-elected to fix this law, only with his leadership will that happen.
Romney’s repeal and replace argument doesn’t fly. Replace with what.
And it the SC strikes down Wicker (?) it’s a whole new ballgame.
You’re partially right and partially wrong. A loss for Obamacare does give Obama an issue. He can run against the Supreme Court. The trouble is, that argument only helps him with his base.
You’re right that the repeal/replace argument then fails for Romney as well. On the other hand, even Romney is smart enough to see that he has a better one: “Don’t give Obama the chance to try to ‘fix’ what he screwed up the first time. He doesn’t understand health care, he doesn’t understand the Constitution and he doesn’t understand freedom. Fire him and let someone else do the job.”
It’s very hard to see how ANYTHING the supreme court might do with this law helps Obama. The best he can hope for is that it doesn’t hurt too much.
If Obamacare goes down, it will most certainly hurt Obama. He put more than a year of his presidency on hold to pass the legislation. It it’s overturned, that will put his failure to boost the economy in a brighter light.
Romney benefits from that through the damage done to Obama.
More importantly, the American people benefit enormously.
If Obamacare is wholly struck down, Obama can kiss any chance of reelection goodbye. His natural arrogance will lead him to claim the court is in the wrong. He will look like a child and he will lose.
If it is only partially struck down, then Obama and Romney will spend months quibbling over the details and both will be diminished by it. This will be a closer call but it still works to Romney’s advantage because Obama will be playing defense.
If it is upheld, everyone loses. There will be a surge of anger and Conservatives, especially, will be galvanized to work to defeat the forces behind Obamacare in November. This is the best electoral scenario for Romney and the Republican party but it produces a potentially dangerous uproar around the country.
You seem to be assuming that Romney will work to repeal Romn…er, Obamacare.
I wish I shared your confidence.
While being able to keep their 25 year-old “children” on their health insurance policies may be popular with their parents, the 25 year-olds I know would rather have their own jobs that came with their own benefits.
The kids are older than 26 now, so I don’t have to worry, but when they were younger I would have much preferred that they have jobs than that I foot the bill for their insurance. How else are they going to learn?
I am not a lawyer, much less a legal scholar. So my opinion needs to be judged in that light
I do not think the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law. Instead, I think there will be a Bakke-style decision (with Justice Kennedy playing the role of Lewis Powell). By that I mean a 5-4 decision that alleges to be a compromise, but in reality leaves the law basically intact, just as Bakke upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action while imposing largely cosmetic restrictions that college administrators mostly ignored.
I also think that regardless of the decision Obama plans to run against the Supreme Court. So the decision (whatever it is) will probably end up being a plus, since Romney is pretty weak on the issue of government-run healthcare and can’t credibly oppose Obama’s law.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I used to think along your lines of reasoning, but I’ve changed since. I think the indiv mandate will be struck down, once that’s done, the rest of it really cannot stand, there is no funding mechanism for it.
Items like 26 olds being on their parent’s policy, etc, those things of course can stand, but the the bill itself is so convoluted (I tried to read it several times), so I’m not sure how the court picks and chooses what to keep and what not to keep, because its all intermingled together.
And that’s why I changed my mind, it will most likely kicked back to congress. Congress of course has the abolity to regulate the insurance companies themselves, what they cannot do is push people into commerce just so they can be regulated, and that was the entire premise of this awful crap of a bill.
The federal government has no business at all mandating that insurance companies provide coverage to grown men and women on their parents’ policies. If the free market determines that for a higher premium some families will opt for such coverage, then since the GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY has been struck down, it will be available to them. The idea that the federal government has to “fix” things is tyrannical and NOT fair to anyone.
The free market has ALWAYS been a better allocator of resources, more efficient, and more FAIR.
As a retired senior, I’d like to toss in a couple of thoughts regarding the so called “doughnut hole” in Medicare Part D.
Only politicians/bureaucrats could even conceive such absurdity. Imagine if your auto insurance paid for the first $1K of damages then you were responsible for the next $5K before the payment for damages picked up again.
Not one bit of logic was employed for this not to mention most other government programs.
So simple that even the average fifth grader could have done better…
If the “doughnut” hole has been closed even somewhat – why does it cost me so much when my wife falls into it?
Yeah – with this kind of thing that is so important – we can’t view this as being better for a party. It is just good for the country to have this struck down.
As for politics, there has only been on party that warned about it’s unconstitutionality but there has also been one party that has said the constitution doesn’t matter – so politically it’s a draw.
obamas strength is the ability to seperate people. this would be blood in the water for him.
still, given the polling, i say let him try and divide.