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
JDW
June 29th, 2012
9:10 am
@LBB…”Maybe you can explain how paying the $95 fine gets someone health insurance and keeps them from being a free rider.”
Well first off someone needs to give you some basic reading and comprehension skills, as I told you yesterday the $95 number is wrong. Second off you must have missed the standard 5-year old selfish training…if a person is working in this country they deserve wages that can support a basic lifestyle including healthcare. Thats what this bill does give those people a chance.
If you choose to waste your life being upset that someone might get something you don’t think they deserve then that is a small life indeed.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:15 am
The Eight Stages of Conservative Grief
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/06/republican_response_to_obamacare_decision_the_eight_stages_of_conservative_grief.html
md
June 29th, 2012
9:15 am
“If you choose to waste your life being upset that someone might get something you don’t think they deserve then that is a small life indeed.”
Some of us have been around awhile to understand that some actually choose to never rise above a certain station in life leaving it to others to carry the load…….which is part of the distinction between a ‘can’t” and a “won’t”.
We’ve also seen the outcome of enabling after many years and understand that enabling is the disease, not the cure.
You ever seen an alcoholic cured by giving him more alcohol??
md
June 29th, 2012
9:17 am
Forgot to mention above that the other gift Roberts gave to the non-supporters of this particular bill was the ability to overturn it with a simple majority…..he took the filibuster out of play.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:25 am
some actually choose to never rise above a certain station in life leaving it to others to carry the load
get a life…or at least a hobby. Your hatred of the poor and those who don’t value the same exact things you do (work, providing, etc) is truly scary.
We can’t let you mean, angry, desperate people get control of anything else. Control women’s parts, control who we pray to, control which parts of history get put into our kids textbooks and which parts YOU want to leave out.
Conservatives are control freaks. FACT. Look at the way they make their politicians sign promises to toe the line as opposed to using their own judgment and values to determine how they should vote and do their jobs.
JDW
June 29th, 2012
9:28 am
@md…”Some of us have been around awhile to understand that some actually choose to never rise above a certain station in life leaving it to others to carry the load”
All the more reason not to spend any time anguishing over them and get on with YOUR life. Fact is the number of people need this sort of help is realtively low and the “load” you as an individual must carry is small. If you repurposed the time you spend worrying about it into productive activity your benefits would exceed the “load” in short order.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
9:29 am
JDW: If you choose to waste your life being upset that someone might get something you don’t think they deserve then that is a small life indeed.
———
And yet, JDW has never donated to a charity that provides health care to the “less fortunate”. He prefers to let others (taxpayers) foot the bill.
Hypocrite.
JDW
June 29th, 2012
9:36 am
@LBB…”And yet, JDW has never donated to a charity that provides health care to the “less fortunate”. He prefers to let others (taxpayers) foot the bill.”
As usual you are a lying ba$tard…you are kind of like Romney, just making stuff up now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/06/07/romney_just_making_stuff_up_now_281863.html
JDW
June 29th, 2012
9:36 am
@LBB…”And yet, JDW has never donated to a charity that provides health care to the “less fortunate”. He prefers to let others (taxpayers) foot the bill.”
As usual you are a lying ba$tard…you are kind of like Romney, just making stuff up now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/06/07/romney_just_making_stuff_up_now_281863.html
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
9:41 am
How much did you donate, Finn?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:41 am
lil Barry knows EXACTLY who and when you make donations of time or money. What a guy!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:43 am
Our family doesn’t exchange Xmas presents between adults. Only the kids get presents. We adults make donations to charities instead of giving gifts.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
9:43 am
The hit dog barks.
Your greed and selfishness are disappointing, JDW
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
9:45 am
How much to health care, Finn.
Are you a greedy hypocrite like JDW?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:47 am
I give to charity so I’m a greedy hypocrite? Such a good upstanding Christian, that Lil barry.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:48 am
I see the Cons are still reelin’ from yesterdays verdict. The foam at the mouth is still fresh.
This is how they are going to look after election day in November.
JDW
June 29th, 2012
9:58 am
@LBB…”Are you a greedy hypocrite like JDW?”
I am sure that will come a quite a shock to the charities I support with time and money. Frankly, LBB you are becoming tiresome. If you want to attempt to discuss an issue feel free. If you want to continue to act like a petulant 5 year old I will have to refrain from wasting time on you.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:59 am
From Mother Jones:
10 ways Obama’s signature health care law will impact the healthy and sick, young and old, rich and poor. Here they are:
1) Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you, “Sorry, you’ve ‘run out’ of coverage.” Almost everyone I’ve met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.
2) If you don’t know someone who has run into a lifetime cap, you probably know someone who has run into an annual cap. The use of these will be sharply limited. (They’ll be eliminated entirely in 2014.)
3) Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that they’ll insure them “except for” the preexisting condition. That’s called preexisting condition exclusion, and it’s out the window.
4) A special, temporary program will help adults with preexisting conditions get coverage. It expires in 2014, when the health insurance exchanges—basically big “pools” of businesses and individuals—come on-line. That’s when all insurers will have to cover everyone, preexisting condition or not.
5) Insurance companies can’t drop you when you get sick, either—this plan means the end of “rescissions.”
6) You can stay on your parents’ insurance until you’re 26.
7) Seniors get $250 towards closing the “doughnut hole” in their prescription drug coverage. Currently, prescription drug coverage ends once you’ve spent $2,700 on drugs and it doesn’t kick in again until you’ve spent nearly $6,200. James Ridgeway wrote about the problems with the doughnut hole for Mother Jones in the September/October 2008 issue. Eventually, the health care reform bill will close the donut hole entirely. The AARP has more on immediate health care benefits for seniors. Next year (i.e., in nine months), 50 percent of the doughnut hole will be covered.
9) This is a big one: Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.
10) Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.
UPDATE: Here’s one more big benefit we’ve found out about since the ACA passed:
11) Free birth control and other preventative services for women, unless you work for a faith-based organization that opposes birth control.
Jefferson
June 29th, 2012
10:08 am
This has been law for years so now rather than planning for funding our great state leaders are STILL somehow are just hoping it will go away.
Years and all of a sudden the chief justice give the GOP a buzz word, they need to plan the funding and stop the politics, its LAW.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
10:24 am
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
June 29th, 2012
9:59 am
———
And it’s all FREEEEEEEEE!
(well, if you’re a lazy parasite)
md
June 29th, 2012
10:26 am
“get a life…or at least a hobby. Your hatred of the poor and those who don’t value the same exact things you do (work, providing, etc) is truly scary.”
Sorry Finn……to me an enabler is much scarier…….short term help with disastrous long term effects.
You may think you are “helping”, but in reality you are actually making things much worse….the scary part is you know not what you do.
md
June 29th, 2012
10:30 am
“All the more reason not to spend any time anguishing over them and get on with YOUR life. Fact is the number of people need this sort of help is realtively low and the “load” you as an individual must carry is small. If you repurposed the time you spend worrying about it into productive activity your benefits would exceed the “load” in short order.”
All nice flowery rhetoric, but is nowhere near the reality……you are aware that the 1/3 that choocse to drop out of our taxpayer funded education system cost society up to 300 billion a year….right?
The truth of the matter is that there is selfishness all along the spectrum and only wishing to acknowledge one aspect of it is compounding the problem.
I have no problem helping anyone……but I have learned it must come with conditions or one tends to throw away good money after bad.
Scott Fresno
June 29th, 2012
10:33 am
“We got the idea from Newt,” said Romney. “And Newt got it from the Heritage Foundation.”
And the idea is a simple one: freeloaders cost the system billions and indirectly raise insurance for those who do the right thing.
Said the Mitt in 2009: “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages free riders to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass on their medical costs to others.”
tiredofIT
June 29th, 2012
10:35 am
Keep dreaming
Not sure how having the Supreme Court saying your mandate is really just the largest tax increase in the history of the world
—
The newest republican talking point.
md
June 29th, 2012
10:37 am
“All the more reason not to spend any time anguishing over them and get on with YOUR life.”
News flash……raising my taxes to cover benefits of another that chooses not to participate is part of MY life……if you prefer to help others that choose not to participate then by all means do so……but where do you get off requiring others to do the same??
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
10:38 am
The CBO says Obozocare will cost a trillion more than Obozo promised–how is he paying for that?
Cue the chirping crickets…
md
June 29th, 2012
10:39 am
“And the idea is a simple one: freeloaders cost the system billions and indirectly raise insurance for those who do the right thing. ”
And this bill changes that how exactly??
tiredofIT
June 29th, 2012
10:40 am
“You ever seen an alcoholic cured by giving him more alcohol??”
Yes, they die!
md
June 29th, 2012
10:42 am
Nice long list there Finn……..you do know that the benifits are the easy part….right?
I can make a wish list a mile long of remedies for all that ailes society……but then the hard……somebody always has to pay for them……..
In case you haven’t noticed our debt stands around 16 trillion……….
And although the left likes to poo poo comparisons to Greece, they had no problem making their lists either……….
Scott Fresno
June 29th, 2012
10:46 am
md @10:39 am “And this bill changes that how exactly??”
Hmmm. Let’s ask Mitt: “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages free riders to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass on their medical costs to others.”
md
June 29th, 2012
10:46 am
“Yes, they die!”
So your solution is to knock off all the moochers?? That would work, but good luck getting that bill through Congress.
I’m an advocate for a discussion on euthanasia, but I doubt you will see that anytime soon either…..so when the time comes, I’ll have to take matters into my own hands.
I’ll be danged if I’m going to ever just “exist” and be a burden on my loved ones and society……after all, I’m apparently quite selfish……..
md
June 29th, 2012
10:51 am
“Hmmm. Let’s ask Mitt: “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages free riders to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass on their medical costs to others.””
That might be a good answer for a side chooser, but it doesn’t float with me…….Obama and Romney are both wrong on this one……all one has to do is look at the numbers coming out of MA…..visits to emergency rooms UP, costs of healthcare UP, coverage for all uninsured NO…..
Making the 3rd party provider (insurance) is not the answer to controlling costs………for the record, I’d prefer a non-profit system without the insurance companies.
SBinF
June 29th, 2012
10:51 am
“Do not confuse this for spin”
Then proceed to spin like a dreidel at Hanukkah.
I know it’s petty, but the last 24 hours have been absolutely hilarious, watching conservatives fall over themselves to explain this away.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 29th, 2012
10:55 am
And the idea is a simple one: freeloaders…And this bill changes that how exactly?
——-
By making the freeloaders pay a fine as low as $95 per year, and then continuing to freeload.
md
June 29th, 2012
10:55 am
And to clarify my answer, Romney WAS wrong in MA about the results…..now, he favors allowing each state to formulate their own solution…….which I think is a much better approach than cramming one party’s idea of utopia down the country’s throat.
md
June 29th, 2012
10:57 am
“I know it’s petty, but the last 24 hours have been absolutely hilarious, watching conservatives fall over themselves to explain this away.”
You might want to really study what Roberts did yesterday……it isn’t just a matter of saying one side “won”……he established a set of ground rules for both sides to play with, and if you get into it, neither side is a clear victor as best I can tell.
Jefferson
June 29th, 2012
10:59 am
What I see is GA lawmakers unprepared for the reality of LAW.
St Simons - we're on Island time, mon
June 29th, 2012
11:00 am
Remember cons – Somalia is ready when you are!
Its the last place including planet kolob using your model of ’success’
SBinF
June 29th, 2012
11:02 am
“You might want to really study what Roberts did yesterday……it isn’t just a matter of saying one side “won”……he established a set of ground rules for both sides to play with, and if you get into it, neither side is a clear victor as best I can tell.”
Yeah yeah, you sound like the rest of the Republicans, looking to place this in the rosiest light possible. I doubt you would be quite so reflective on this moment had Roberts sided with the other 4 justices.
Scott Fresno
June 29th, 2012
11:05 am
I don’t think Obamacare is most Democrats idea of utopia. It was not my first choice. My preference was a single payer option. But, that is not on the table at the moment. And it certainly would not be on the table if Georgia did its own state specific solution.
md
June 29th, 2012
11:05 am
“Yeah yeah, you sound like the rest of the Republicans, looking to place this in the rosiest light possible. I doubt you would be quite so reflective on this moment had Roberts sided with the other 4 justices.”
Obviously you have no interest in understanding the intricacies of the situation…..at your own peril.
But had he just gone along with the others, he would not have set the other parameters that he did.
As I said, the decision deals with much more than just this one bill……….
md
June 29th, 2012
11:08 am
“What I see is GA lawmakers unprepared for the reality of LAW.”
And what I see is GA supporters unprepared for the reality of the law……as GA is a balanced budget state, what will they now have to cut in order to account for the added cost of running and maintaining this new bill?
That is the question………
JDW
June 29th, 2012
11:08 am
@MD…”you are aware that the 1/3 that choocse to drop out of our taxpayer funded education system cost society up to 300 billion a year….right?”
You are mixing and matching costs with lost revenue. The actual COSTS from social programs, which is what we are discussing are…
“The authors also estimate that if all welfare recipients who were high school dropouts were high school graduates, welfare costs would fall some $1.8 billion.56 Public spending on health insurance is also estimated to be higher for dropouts. Peter Muennig estimates that over a lifetime, the discounted average public health insurance spending is $35,000 for school dropouts, compared with $27,000 for high school graduates.57″
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=30&articleid=49§ionid=175
Net net your individual “cost” assuming 6.2 million dropouts and immediate funding of the insurance costs run about $150. Yeah it’s a nice dinner and it would be good to drive that down but its not worth constant worry.
It’s also worth noting that the best way to drive down the number is to keep them in school. If you abandon them once they are dropouts you end up having to spend extra to keep them in prison. So by your logic we should spend money keeping them in school and out of prison…things the Republicans don’t like to fund.
md
June 29th, 2012
11:11 am
“My preference was a single payer option. But, that is not on the table at the moment. And it certainly would not be on the table if Georgia did its own state specific solution.”
And there in lies the beauty of allowing the states to do their own……one can then make the choice of which one they prefer by simply moving to another state…..at least that option would exist.
Much like the young families that are bailing out of CA as the cost of living has gotten too high out there…….I bet they are thankful they have the option of moving as they are doing.
harry haff
June 29th, 2012
11:17 am
What’s the big snit with the Reactionary Party? This is THEIR healthcare program first put forth in the 90s to thwart a civilized system of single payer flavor. Add to that the fact that Etch-aSketch Romney put this plan in place as governor of MA. Clearly,the Reactionary Party supplied the plan. Obama just implemented it. Obama’s biggest blunder on this was in not holding out for a single payer system as in the rest of the industrialized world.
md
June 29th, 2012
11:18 am
“You are mixing and matching costs with lost revenue. The actual COSTS from social programs, which is what we are discussing are…”
One in the same actually…..not having it when one could is the same as one spending it…….
“If you abandon them once they are dropouts you end up having to spend extra to keep them in prison. So by your logic we should spend money keeping them in school and out of prison…things the Republicans don’t like to fund.”
That is where the “conditions” I referred to earlier come in…….actual help vs enabling. It makes no sense to provide an assistance program (education) that some choose to not participate in and then turn around and allow them to get in line for the next succession of assistance programs. If we want to actually help them vs enable them, there would be conditions of assistance in subsequent programs based on the choices they originally made.
If they chose to not participate and now choose to put their hand out for more assistance, then that assistance should be tied back to the first program. If they can choose to drop out of our opportunity programs, then they can certainly choose to drop back in…………..
SBinF
June 29th, 2012
11:23 am
“Obviously you have no interest in understanding the intricacies of the situation…..at your own peril.
But had he just gone along with the others, he would not have set the other parameters that he did.
As I said, the decision deals with much more than just this one bill……….”
That’s almost coherent. I must say, this is the most subdued I’ve ever seen you on the boards. Why not just admit this was a huge surprise and a pretty big unmitigated win for Obama. The Republicans are now stuck in the position of trying to dismantle a piece of legislation that has passed constitutional muster, and been supported by all three branches of government. And the congressional Republicans are operating under the premise that this will serve as a galvanizing force in the November elections. I thought it was the economy? Seems rather opportunistic, they just want to find the issue they think can beat Obama, not focus on actually solving the problems which plague this nation.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 29th, 2012
11:25 am
Freeloaders and Deadbeats.
YOU ARE ON NOTICE !!!
There is a new Sheriff in town.
Sheriff Obama !!!
Your days of milking the system and passing the costs on to others ARE OVER !!!
Imagine that… Everyone being responsible for their own healthcare.
NO MORE FREE RIDES DEADBEATS !!!!
Its time to pay up.
Uh Oh
June 29th, 2012
11:28 am
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm
…Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes…
…First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar.
Gm
June 29th, 2012
11:31 am
Kyle, 8 years under Bush please tell me what health care bill he introduced? I’m still waiting”””””