Obamacare upheld: What it means now and in the future
Challenging Obamacare on constitutional grounds was never what anyone on the right wanted to rely on as a Plan A. “Repeal and replace,” the mantra of conservatives since Congress approved the health-insurance overhaul in 2010, is a high bar requiring the election of a president and congressional majorities dedicated to taking Obamacare off the books and passing more sensible reforms in its place. But persuading the Supreme Court to void the law by declaring it beyond Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, while sincerely believed to be correct, was always a higher bar to clear.
The irony is that we cleared the higher bar, and have nothing to show for it.
Do not confuse this for spin: Barack Obama and the Democrats won a clear policy victory today in seeing the court uphold their health law. There’s no denying that. Any other outcome would have been a debacle for them. This is the opposite of a debacle. That would be a victory.
That said, five of the court’s nine justices just agreed that compelling individuals to enter the market for a private company’s product does not fall within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. This is the very idea to which then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, when asked about it by a reporter two years ago, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” So, this is a remarkable moment given the last 80 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence and an important limit on federal power. In those terms, it looks like a legal win going forward for conservatives.
Unfortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s four liberal justices and bought the Obama administration’s tortuous argument that the consequence for failing to comply with the mandate to buy health insurance was a “tax” — even though the president himself, during the debate about the law, repeatedly denied it was a “tax”; even though, as noted in the main dissent to the ruling, Congress rejected a version of the law that called for a “tax” as a penalty; even though Congress chose to use the word “tax” elsewhere in the law but not in reference to the penalty for failure to meet the mandate; even though the court’s majority decided it wasn’t a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act; and even though, again from the dissent, there are multiple instance of the federal government’s using its taxing apparatus to collect penalties that cannot possibly be considered “taxes.”
Judge for yourself whether it was judicially modest of the Roberts court to find any avenue possible to defer to the legislative branch, or judicially immodest to ignore Congress’ contradictory words and deeds in locating that avenue somewhere down a rabbit hole. No prizes for guessing where I stand.
My initial reaction to the taxing-power argument was that it pretty much offset any gain from the newly defined limit of Congress’ Commerce Clause powers. I am still not comforted by the court’s reasoning that Congress can tax someone for not buying something. And I am dismayed that Roberts not only justified this reasoning by comparing “not buying insurance” to “buying gasoline” or “earning income,” but also suggested a new tax Democrats could constitutionally try: a $50-per-household tax for not having energy-efficient windows. (Talk about getting kicked while you’re down.)
The more I think about it, however, all that is no more dismaying than knowing Congress can also decide to tax as much of a person’s income as it wants. The only thing standing in the way is the will of the people.
Which brings us to the biggest takeaway from today’s ruling. If Obamacare is to be reversed, it will have to be done by elected officials acting on the will of the people.
And that means it may not be a political victory for Obama.
It might be, of course. The prospects of re-electing Obama and/or keeping a majority in at least one chamber of Congress, and thereby keeping the law on the books, must be less daunting than trying to enact a new, similar (or even more far-reaching) health law. And while Obamacare is unpopular, there is a chance public opinion will shift in its favor now that the court has ruled. If so, that would boost Obama.
But there are other reasons it may hurt him: The intensity of Obamacare opponents will ratchet back up — remember how fired-up people were during the townhall meetings of 2009? If they have any political acumen whatsoever, Republicans will remind voters over and over again that Democrats sold the law as one thing (not a tax) only to win in court by saying something else (it’s a tax). Expect to see clips like this one and this one in GOP ads early and often.
Of course, the big question will be whether Mitt Romney is the one to capitalize on an issue like this, given his record on health reform (”Romneycare”) as governor of Massachusetts. I see two good ways for him to do it: First, frame the issue in part as an element of tax reform, and the need to get rid of a federal tax code that seeks to compel Americans to behave certain ways in exchange for one that gets government out of private individuals’ personal decisions and taxes only as much as it needs, without prejudice.
Second, to lend credibility to his promise to lead efforts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better, Romney should choose a running mate who can speak credibly about the issue. And in my mind, no one fits that description better than Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
512 comments Add your comment
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 28th, 2012
9:22 pm
Sure wish the libtards’ “right to privacy” that protects their ability to murder the unborn could keep my health care private from Big Government.
Fred ™
June 28th, 2012
9:26 pm
HBD: Yeah I have to moderate my language at Maureens myself (been “corrected” there a time or two lol). i agree that they (we) need more laymen commenting but I also appreciate hearing what is going on from the inside as well. Loved your reply to the ‘Good Mother’ lol.
TBS: I’m kind of burnt out at Jay’s. When I got deleted on FNM for dedicating Killer Queen to josef I thought it was a bit silly. Especially since I had ‘dedicated” it to him several other times and we had both (me and josef) laughed about it.
I miss the interaction with folks, but not the vitriol.
Bruno
June 28th, 2012
9:26 pm
I haven’t read any of the posts, so I don’t know if Bruno has been here or not but he and I have had the discussion before, that as long as you have a 3rd party payer, costs will continue to go up. That leaves two options, everybody shops and pays their own bills, which is probably okay for routine health maintenance type things but not serious injury/illness situations or you go with single payer.
HD–The frustrating part about the whole affair is that the Libs think this is some kind of victory, when it’s lose-lose for all of us.
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
9:27 pm
Nice spin Barry
accept the enivatable, live with it
Live to fight another day, but know even the cons on this blog wouldn’t follow you into an ice cream shop if it was 120 outside
You are a weak walking and talking pt, you bring nothing else
Del
June 28th, 2012
9:28 pm
It seems as though Bruno may be bringing many of Jay’s bloggers to Kyle. Best wishes Bruno.
Bill Holland
June 28th, 2012
9:29 pm
Kyle, as usual I am comforted by the fact that you do not agree with the opinion of the Justices. If only we had someone with your wisdom and experience on the bench!!
Regards
getalife
June 28th, 2012
9:32 pm
Lots of melt downs today.
You still have billionaires united so you can thank roberts for that.
Unlimited legalized corruption.
You cons got to love that.
Chin up Americans.
Hillbilly D
June 28th, 2012
9:32 pm
Fred
As to my reply to the aforementioned person, normally I’m a peaceable sort but I think by now, everybody has figured out which one of my buttons will always draw a response, when pressed.
They BOTH suck
June 28th, 2012
9:32 pm
Bruno
Friends of mine I know from Columbus, but live in Harris Cty are in for the Joe B show.
Let me know. We are going to do this thing
Really?
June 28th, 2012
9:38 pm
People exempt from individual mandate: people on medicare or medicad, people eligible for VA care, illegal aliens, people whose religion prohibits medical care, American Indians, people who do not make enough to pay federal income tax, people who only have a three month lapse in insurance.
luckjoe
June 28th, 2012
9:38 pm
We hard working American taxpayers just got screwed.
Bruno
June 28th, 2012
9:40 pm
Let me know. We are going to do this thing
Alright, we’ll stay in touch through the Wingfield Blog. Don’t want to say much here, but I have a few connections here in town through my work, will see if I can get any kind of “in” for the Joe B show. Last year, we got a backstage invite for the Brad Paisley/Darius Rucker show.
Fred ™
June 28th, 2012
9:40 pm
Bruno
June 28th, 2012
9:26 pm
HD–The frustrating part about the whole affair is that the Libs think this is some kind of victory, when it’s lose-lose for all of us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The whole thing has always been a win-win, lose-lose kinda of thing. There are good parts and bad parts. The WORST part is that Nancy Pelosi had a bullet proof majority when she rammed this down our throats so the Republicans had no say so in it to weed out the lose-lose parts.
Anyway, like I said earlier, i came on to see what folks were saying about the decision and quickly lost my taste for it. Sorry about whatever it was that happened between you and Sooth. Can’t say I would tolerate too much someone calling my wife a ho so I know where you are coming from. Doubt I’ll see you much as neither of us go to Jay’s and I just don’t care that much for Kyle’s writing style.(Sorry Kyle, don’t take it personally), maybe I just liked Mr. Wooten too much lo, and have a hard time warming up to his “replacement.” Of course Wooten had about 60 years of experience on Kyle so it’s not really fair lol.
AmVet
June 28th, 2012
9:42 pm
We hard working American taxpayers just got screwed.
Hello?
That has been happening since the 1970s.
Did you miss all of that???
I cannot imagine how…
They BOTH suck
June 28th, 2012
9:46 pm
bruno
we”ll do
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 28th, 2012
9:47 pm
You are a weak walking and talking pt, you bring nothing else
——-
And yet compelling enough that you feel you must respond.
Bruno
June 28th, 2012
9:52 pm
One more Def Lep back at ya, Fred:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzGpi0NxaY&feature=related
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 28th, 2012
9:57 pm
That has been happening since the 1970s.
Did you miss all of that???
———
Apparently. All I remember is working hard, being paid a fair wage, having great health insurance through my employer, and paying my taxes (and a good part of someone else’s).
Thanks for screwing it all up for the young people, Democrats. I’ve got mine though.
Michael
June 28th, 2012
9:59 pm
“If Obamacare is to be reversed, it will have to be done by elected officials acting on the will of the people.”
This is why I respect your work, Kyle. I disagree with a lot of your points, but you pointed out this conclusion that is why I don’t understand the anger over this. If you don’t want Congress to tax you, elect someone else. Congress can literally tell you to go to war, but taxation is a problem? Millions of us voted for Obama and wanted reform. Millions of us support it. If you disagree, do it at the ballot box.
You’re not always going to agree with the government. But we can all agree to keep electing our government every election day.
AmVet
June 28th, 2012
10:03 pm
Apparently.
I’m not terribly surprised.
http://tinyurl.com/847q6aj
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 28th, 2012
10:18 pm
Poor AmVet and his persecution complex. Like most Democrat slaves, he struggles to understand his own lack of success.
@@
June 28th, 2012
10:25 pm
LmsR:
@@, Rafe, Tiberius have been attempting to hold it together but they are dumbfounded, but it is ok.
WRONG! I’ve never commented on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. I actually believed it would be upheld. When the case was being argued, the tax/penalty discussion led me to that belief.
I’d like to think that Roberts is not strategically motivated, but I’m beginning to think he may very well be. I suspect he just gave Obamacare a rope with which to hang itself.
Only time will tell.
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
10:29 pm
Enter your comments here
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 28th, 2012
10:29 pm
@@, I don’t buy it. If Roberts wanted to correct the Obozocare disaster, he had only to vote against it.
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
10:31 pm
But, but, but my fav pundits on the radio, on Breitbart, on Fox and Drudge programmed me to think it was not constitutional
I was only regurgitating the bull$hit they fed me and I willingly ate
bwhahahahahaha
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
10:33 pm
cry little barry cry
you have nothing of substance……. you have the same talking points that led you to believe the law was not constitutional
How did that work for you?
hahahahaha
It is ok baby
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
10:34 pm
md
hope you are feeling ok this evening…
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
10:40 pm
“Plus, I think it would be cool to see my posts highlighted in gray.
——————————————-”
How arrogant and childish. Guess that is why he claimed he would spike the ball then ran like a biatch when things didn;t go his way
Bullet County
June 28th, 2012
10:52 pm
Kyle, how much did this failed attempt to block a Constitutionally valid policy cost the hard-working taxpayers?
getalife
June 28th, 2012
11:03 pm
roberts is trying to save face for the institution after billionaires united.
The con activists judges showed their true colors and it needed repair.
If you get tired of this con echo chamber with no debate, Jay’s blog is ready when you are.
@@
June 28th, 2012
11:34 pm
Soothsayer:
You’ll just have to go over there yourself.
Why would I do that when jay banned me too? PERMANENTLY, no less.
I’m out.
Love me some Reagan
June 28th, 2012
11:36 pm
banned for stupidity. unable to articulate without calling names and begging for attention
picture that
The Kid
June 28th, 2012
11:39 pm
Sean Hannity has a hair out of place. Myyy woorrd..
md
June 28th, 2012
11:39 pm
The more I read about it the more I’m beginning to see where Roberts was coming from.
First, he basically told Congress the commerce clause was not going to be used as an end all be all…..
Second, he let the American public (and the rest of the world) know that Obamacare was a giant tax and spend entitlement program…….
Third, he told that same public that if they didn’t like it they best show up on voting day and make sure it gets changed by them as he wasn’t going to do it……..
Now, the ball is in our court……time to decide and we are stuck with whatever we choose……
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
11:46 pm
md, after some soul-searching I was going to post pretty much what you just said.
The win today for America is that the Congress has now been limited as to how far they can try to use the Commerce Clause. Minor win, but I’ll take it. Would have been better if Roberts just canned the whole thing due to that, but I’ll take the fact that many of us were right about the Commerce Clause making this mandate un-Constitutional.
The push today was that Roberts’ ruling makes it easier to repeal this bill in Congress. This mandate, or any other part can now be removed with a simple majority in the Senate through reconciliation, because taxes and budgets do not apply to the filibuster rule. So there is work yet to be done.
The loss is that this disaster of a bill still stands.
However, the good news is that this ruling set the Tea Party and other conservatives on fire, and that is bad, bad news for Obama’s chances in November. after today
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
11:47 pm
Notice to Soothsayer: We don’t cotton to 9/11 truthers over here.
Expect a very, very rough reception over here.
Does not matter
June 28th, 2012
11:49 pm
Does not matter what YOU cotton to
THE AJC which is Kyle’s boss will determine if Sooth gets out of hand.
Not you Criberius
Does not matter
June 28th, 2012
11:50 pm
my bad
Tiberious
type
Soothsayer
June 28th, 2012
11:55 pm
“We don’t cotton to 9/11 truthers over here.
Expect a very, very rough reception over here.”
Well, this is supposed to be hush, hush, so I’m going to ask you not to repeat it to anyone but Kyle slipped me a double-sawbuck to come over here and shake things up a little bit.
Something about his post count falling below “minimums.” I didn’t really understand it, but I said, OK!
md
June 28th, 2012
11:55 pm
I’d have to disagree about minor win……..I’d classify halting the encroachment of the commerce clause as a major victory for the american public, had he allowed precedent to stand, it is possible it would have never been stopped. He drew the line in the sand for future courts to follow……
I am curious if there may be a push now from the House to kill the bill as tax bills are by rule not allowed to originate in the Senate…..this bill did. I’m guessing their are some much more brighter than me attorneys with their heads spinning right about now………..
yuzeyurbrane
June 28th, 2012
11:59 pm
Between this and your other article today, it looks like you may have broken your record on reader comments. Did you, Kyle?
Does not matter
June 29th, 2012
12:02 am
kyle
Hope you get a bonus
You hit the jack pot today
Intown
June 29th, 2012
12:02 am
I really do not understand why Republicans so fear Congressional power — so much so that they take delight in tearing down the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. The founders expected the legislative branch to the dominant branch, the most powerful. I really hope Obama gets reelected and gets to replace the 2 aging “liberals” and at least one of these conservative activist judges. I’m tired of the Federalist society nutjobs that are taking over the judiciary. they need to be stopped.
ld
June 29th, 2012
12:05 am
“one that gets government out of private individuals personal decisions” –
except for love, marriage, sex, women’s reproduction choices, of course.
Kyle, why not admit the truth:
The GOP is filled w/hypocrites that have no problem spending tax money as long as it provides profits for the military industrial complex or the croney’s and contributors of GOP members of Congress.
The GOPwants smaller, less intrusive government ONLYwhen it comes to money i$$ues regarding taxing of the wealthier among us.
The GOP secretly believes this is the best thing that could have happened because this decision benefits their favored few both in the short term and in the long term:
This luidcrious decision gives the GOP a springboard for election 2012;
The Roberts’ “tax” will have no affect on those wealthy that already buy insurance and will only serve to impose more tax the employee class–which is precisely what the GOP has wanted all along;
Now the GOP can begin dismanteling the regulations and restrictions on employers, insurers and health industry as well as protections and assistence for the “least” among us with the objective of leaving only the requirement to purchase an insurance product from a private owned for-mega-profit industry w/penalty for not doing so being enforced by government…
…creating huge disappointments w/ the Democrats for the employee -consumer class which will eventually present at the voting booth…and…
creating huge profits for the insurance industry and its moneyed investor class of owners.
Roberts will be condemned in order to keep the Democrats apathetic long enough to get as many Republicans elected as possible before the Democarats and the employee/consumer class that support them even recognize the threat.
Roberts is a Republican and a lot of other things — stupid is not one of them.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 29th, 2012
12:06 am
Does not matter, the conservative residents of this blog have chased far tougher bloggers than Soothsayer from Kyle’s blog – without any intervention from Kyle.
It just takes brutal truth and facts, and a merciless hounding of nonsensical posts.
If he continues the crap he posts over at Bookman’s he’ll be crying for a warm hug from them within a month.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 29th, 2012
12:09 am
“The founders expected the legislative branch to the dominant branch, the most powerful.”
You must have fallen asleep during the lecture on the “three co-equal branches of government” as envisioned by the Framers, didn’t you, Intown.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 29th, 2012
12:10 am
“and will only serve to impose more tax the employee class–which is precisely what the GOP has wanted all along; ”
Really, Id? Please provide the last tax increase bill the GOP sponsored and / or passed.
Does not matter
June 29th, 2012
12:12 am
Tiberius
Isn’t your statement coming from someone who was unable to conduct themselves and debate in an adult manner to the point he was banned from Bookman’s blog?
Were you a regular here at Kyle’s before being thumped for stupidity and ignorance?
You seem to be a honest man. Lets put the cards on the table
Soothsayer
June 29th, 2012
12:13 am
Oh! Tiberius! PLEASE don’t ya’ll be tough on me here on good ol’ Wingnut’s blog. Why, I just don’t know whatever I’ll do if you do.
Heck, usually, when I make an appearance here, everybody runs off like a bunch of roaches when you turn the lights on.
Oh, by the way, Kyle gave a “fin” for lunch to go with my double-sawbuck.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 29th, 2012
12:24 am
Soothsayer, when you make an appearance here, the rest of us are usually going to bed after a long day of working (not me, I’m retired).
You might not recognize the concept of working, but many people here actually do so to pay your way in society.