The Supreme Court case of Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida which is seeking to overturn the health care bill passed by President Obama in 2010 is creating an interesting and telling political dynamic. Efforts to repeal the bill, particularly the individual mandate which requires uninsured Americans to buy health care or else face a fine, may seem extremely polarizing at first glance, but it is not that simple.
The polarization and passion around this case is largely one-sided. Conservatives, for a number of reasons, some having to do with wanting to limit the reach of the federal government, others more due to extreme and irrational hatred for President Obama, want to repeal the bill. Progressives, on the other hand, do not feel a similar passion. Very few people on the left believe that a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is the kind of thing that is truly worth fighting for. Many progressives, and conservatives, seem happy with parts of the bill, such as requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, but there is little excitement on the left for the individual mandate, or even the bill in its entirety.
The discussion and the debate around the health care bill, even following its passage, illustrates the disconnect between the Obama White House and the activist wing of the Democratic Party. The bill itself was viewed as a tremendous, even defining, accomplishment by the White House, but many progressives saw the bill as a badly put together compromise which cost the country its best chance at a genuine single payer universal health care program for at least a generation. Similarly, while the Obama administration, and its right wing activist opponents, the two sides represented in current case, see this bill as a major piece of legislation which will meaningfully, for better or for worse, change the country, many ordinary Americans have already forgotten about the bill, partially because it has not yet had time to make an impact, but also partially because it not the major piece of legislation that the White House and its opponents seem to think it is.
It is in this context, as well as that of a presidential election, in which the court's decision will be made. The court could uphold the law, overturn the individual mandate or overturn the entire bill. Regardless of the decision, the right will be able to use the case and its outcome as a way to mobilize the base. If the bill, or any part of it is overturned, they will argue that the courts agree that Obama is trying to unlawfully expand the government and needs to be stopped. If the bill is not overturned, the right will fall back into its now familiar, and tiresome, narrative of victimhood and mobilize its base by arguing that they now have to fight even harder to defeat big government.
For Obama and the Democrats, the decision will have a very different impact. If the law is upheld, it will be a big victory for the White House, but not for the progressive movement. On balance, many on the left will be pleased by this verdict but it will fall short of being the kind of decision that will mobilize progressive activists or that is viewed as a meaningful triumph. If the law is overturned, it will be a reminder of the import of the Supreme Court for presidential elections, but in the context of the now accelerated right wing attacks on women's rights few progressives need any reminder of this.
Currently, it seems as if health care reform is one of the major accomplishments which the Obama campaign will cite in their efforts to secure a second term for the President. If the bill is overturned by the Supreme Court, it is likely that the Obama campaign will focus on other accomplishments, such as the gradual economic recovery or the killing of Osama bin Laden. These issues are more likely to resonate with voters than the health care bill which is mostly remembered by Obama swing voters as a polarizing and ugly fight.
Therefore, losing this case would be a defeat for the Obama administration, but it does not have to be a devastating one. If the bill, or part of it is overturned, the right wing will, rightfully, present this as a major accomplishment, but it is an accomplishment that does little more than excite an already mobilized base. The Obama administration must find a way to take this defeat in stride if it occurs. Passing the bill was never the huge victory the administration thought it was, so seeing it overturned does not have to be experienced as a huge defeat. The administration would be best served by minimizing not just the defeat, but the bill itself by not talking about it much and moving on to things, like the recovering economy or the extremist social policies of the Republican Party.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Extremist social policies of the Republican Party? Obamacare looked to expand Medicaid by 20 million, that is an Extremist social policy. Get your facts straight!
But most of the in-depth articles you see (like ones from Avik Roy, Rivken, Ilya Shapiro, etc.) are from people that really believe the individual mandate will permanently grant the federal government the power to require purchases of arbitrary things just as easily as they pass regulations. And we're just as scared of someone like Bush Jr. having that power as we are of someone like Obama having that power, and we're definitely scared to death of Romney getting that power since he's used it before. Considering it looks like it will be Obama v Romney in the fall, we're scared to death because either one is completely untrustworthy with such a powerful legislative weapon.
You can't be the champion of the underclass unless you have a majority of underclass people. Simply put you must make more voters by promising more of the things they want whether they can afford it or not. You're not really improving their means just making them feel better and beholding to their benefactor.
Social Democracy is like Halloween. The problem with handing our free candy is sooner or later you'll run out. When that happens you get your house TP'd or egged.
It's more like Liver than Broccoli. You either HATE it or LOVE it.
Whether you like it or not, SCOTUS decides, as a CO-EQUAL branch of the Federal Government, the CONSTITUTIONALITY of LAWS and NOT the POPULARITY of LAWS.
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." A. Lincoln
We are happy with the parts, but the parts do not make a whole; as long as anyone is not able to access the health care system, it will not be a system that we can be fully supportive of.
As for the individual mandate: the argument that it is not the task of the Federal Government to require all of us to have insurance is laughably obtuse. We are mandated to pay into Social Security retirement, and we are happy to do so. We are mandated to pay into Medicare and receive its benefits, and we are happy to do so. Obamacare is no different.
The only real solution to the broken health care system will be universal care. Alas, it will be a while before most conservatives see that the solution is right in front of them.
The fact that you are so willing to be controlled cause you feel you get goodies is very scary. Cant wait until an imaginative politician creates a mandate on a topic you disagree with. lets see you argue then.
"when you trade freedom for security, you will find you have neither".......
Through good parents or Medicaid, health care is provided. I was born in a hospital, received a Polio vaccine at 3 for day care, Multiple vaccines by 7 to attend school, yearly glasses at 12, dental treatments till 15, and treated for gym injury at 17. Now at 19 and healthy, I choose to drop out of health care system and stick society with the bills.
The IRS can send you a Tax Bill and ask you to prove Taxes are not owed. The IRS could also send you a Health Care Tax and ask you to prove one was not previously engaged in Health Care Commerce. But in America's entitlement society, it is my right to freedom that allows me to stick society with my health care costs and back stop me in case of catastrophe.
Progressives for decades have been trying to do something to correct what passes for a health-care system in the U.S.
Before Obamacare, our system was 90% corrupt. Compared to every other industrialized country, it had worse outcomes for patients and was more expensive. However, federal law and policy guaranteed it to be very profitable for companies. For example, Medicaid can not by law negotiate prescription-drug prices. Taxpayers must pay the price the pharmaceutical industry demands.
Obamacare's Initial changes improve things to perhaps 80% messed up. That percentage lowers significantly as provisions phase in. The law will need tweaks. It will need some major extensions to really reign in costs.
If upheld, Obamacare provides a workable starting point. If not upheld, then for sure we need to elect both Obama and genuinely progressive folks to Congress and go with single payer.
Remember the so-called "Democrat" Senator, who actually represented Mutual of Omaha when health-care reform was making its way through Congress? Bribing him to go along was so obvious, that bribe had to be watered down in order for the bill to be passed.
That incident is exhibit 1 for the perfect being the enemy of the possible.
- The state that keeps on giving