A Very Hollow Victory
Chief Justice John Roberts gave his approval to the ACA. Don’t fool yourself – it may look like a victory for the Democrats and Obama but it’s a very hollow one at best.
For starters Roberts gutted the Commerce Clause. It will be far more dificult to use it for social engineering in the future.
The worse part though is it just became much less likely that the Democrats will be able to take back the House and hold the Senate. In addition Romney’s chances just got a whole lot brighter.
Share This
You may be totally correct, politically, Ron.
This one provision which goes into effect immediately — to me — makes the chances Democrats may take in November worth it.
(But that’s just me talking)
The law stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
I don’t disagree Dorian but if the Republicans take the White House and the Senate the law will be repealed.
First off Ron, unless the GOP gets 60 seats in the Senate nothing will happen, we saw that under GWB and we see it now with roles reversed.
As to the ‘gutting of the commerce clause’ I’m not sure that restoring the clause to a proper balance is bad. The idea that the Congress can do anything it wants for any reason is troubling, at least to me.
I actually agree with you on the second point, I think the commerce clause has been abused. As for the first I have thought all along that if the Republicans retake the Senate they will do away with the filibuster so all they will need is 51.
The sad thing I see is the debate will – again – make us focus on health care instead of economic recovery. That was something that irked me in 2009: health care dominating everyone’s focus while the economy stagnates.
There are links between health care & the overall economy, to be sure, but still there are bigger fish to fry.
Given the degree to which today’s GOP thrives on discord and dysfunction, I doubt it would have made any difference what the ruling was. Their shtick is to make a big stink about anything the democrats do or don’t do. Hasn’t that become obvious enough yet? This HCR isn’t particularly progressive, courageous or visionary imo, unless it’s just a foot in the door (I hope).
RB, I doubt that either party will do away with the 60 vote filibuster. It is a shame, but Pandora’s box is empty.
I thought I heard yesterday that it will only take 51 votes for repeal. Something to do with the taxing clause.
Excellent analysis of the Supreme Court decision, including Romney’s chances of repealing ACA on his (he wishes)first day in office here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/scotus-healthcare-document-annotations.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120629
Try this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78002.html
Dduck- i think all they can do is repeal the funding mechanism ( which would have the same result as we’d have had if SCOTUs had ruled the mandate as unconstitutional but then said severability allowed the rest of the law to be upheld.)
I’m not sure how the numbers work out because the mandate certainly doesn’t fully fund this anyway, but it may do more harm than good to repeal it piecemeal like that.
“Of course, a lot has to go right for Republicans between now and then.
Obama would have to lose the White House, Republicans would have to pick up three Senate seats — and hold the House — and the GOP would have to show 100 percent unity if it was serious about repealing a law that has been found constitutional by the Supreme Court.
On top of that, some budget experts believe not every part of the health care law could be repealed using the simple-majority rules of reconciliation — only the parts that have a direct budget impact. Still, major portions, including the individual mandate, could be targeted by reconciliation.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78002.html#ixzz1zC1rBGO6
“
“Their shtick is to make a big stink about anything the democrats do or don’t do.”
Testify. Sometimes about the same issue, such as action on Libya. They’ve successfully got a ton of Americans to not like the bill even though they agree with whats in it when asked about specific items. This leads me to believe that the GOP has snookered people into not actually knowing what the ACA does. Or rather they think its going to turn us into a system like Canada or Sweden or something. Once the bill actually takes effect, and people can start insuring their sick children, and themselves with pre-existing conditions, they aren’t going to want to have it taken away.
slamfu is right. It would be like trying to take candy away from a baby once the 99% actally are enjoying the benefits. And some are already receiving the benefits.
3.5 million youth under 26 are now elegible to stay on their parents’ insurance. People with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance. In August $60 million in rebates from insurance companies will be disbursed. States are receiving millions right now to renovate health facilities, get their records computerized, and give Medicare recipients more preventive care.
Try taking that away. Good luck.
Ohio is correct, taking candy from a baby would be OK with Michelle and Bloomberg, but a noisy process. We have been raised to expect candy from the government and are essentially hooked. In other words spoiled.
To bad lawmakers are also spoiled so that they produce incorrect/expeditious/vote getting laws that we then get stuck with so they can get reelected.
dd
We’re not actually taking candy from the government, but from the insurance companies – and about time, too.
Ohio, welfare in all its guises, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, SS, etc, all have spoiled us, but hey I’m hooked, who isn’t besides PJBfan.
Medicaid might be considered welfare but the others are all based on taxes the recipient and/or his employer pays; maybe not enough taxes, but taxes nontheless. We could stop Medicaid completely to stop welfare completely. You go first.
Ohio, somewhere along the line, I did not make my point clear, I apologize. I am merely saying we have become used to these programs/benefits and that makes us more inclined to expect more “candy”.
dd
Agreed.