How will the Supreme Court's Health Care Reform ruling ...

[old timey villain]

wow, the spin in this thread is making me dizzy.

Apparently what seems good for Obama now is actually bad in the long run (?), although I doubt many of the conservatives here would be spinning a struck down bill as ultimately bad for Romney.

You can't be talking about me, because I've been perfectly consistent.  Here's what I said -- right here, on page 2 of this thread -- before the news broke:

"If the SC strikes down DemocratCare, then the GOP loses one of its biggest voter-mobilization arguments -- that "we must elect Republicans to the WH and Congress who will repeal it".

"Meanwhile, I think the Democrats' base will be newly inspired.

"So, ironically, the GOP should hope it's upheld while the Democrats hope it's struck down."

Mine isn't spin.

who said I was specifically talking about you? If you really said that stuff then I would have to admit that you're consistent, even if I don't agree with it. But there is understandably a lot of spin from the Republicans today, on this forum and everywhere else.

[ajb]

I think Nate Silver gets it right. It's really hard to imagine how this isn't a (slight) net positive for Obama, just like it would have been a (huge) net positive for Romney if Obama's signature achievement had been declared unconstitutional.


fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/in-health-ruling-relief-for-obama-but-a-blow-to-conventional-wisdom/

[Sbane]

I think this is a small win for Obama, if at all. It's more of a win in that at least it won't lose him votes, which might have happened with swing voters abandoning him due to his primary legislative achievement being unconstitutional. It does help fire up conservatives and increase turnout there, especially in rural areas filled with olds concerned about their medicare but I think the swing voters were more important. And it's not as if the healthcare law is that unpopular. The mandate is, and is opposed by the right as well as elements of the left, but overall the people are split on the bill. Many disapprove of it because they want something grander as is evidenced in the 2010 exit polls. Democrats lost that big in 2010 due to the stimulus and deficit spending, not because of healthcare.

[WhyteRain]

How will Health Care Ruling affect this election?

Has ACA gotten any more popular since 2010?  No?  Well, then see my prediction map of 11/03/2011.

This race has gone from "Do you support Romney or Obama?" to "Do you support Romney or ObamaCare?"  Romney would have to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy at this point.

[Modify:]  To save readers the trouble, my prediction map of 11/03/2011 shows Romney winning 347 EV and Obama 191.

And, no, the 2010 election was not about "the stimulus and economic growth".  It was about ObamaCare.  Besides, has economic growth gotten any better since 2010?  

[Modify2:]  Or the deficit -- has that gotten any better?  (And no, "lower than 2010" doesn't count.  Nearly no voters know exactly what the deficit was in any given year, but they know when it's sky-high for several years in a row.)

[old timey villain]

How will Health Care Ruling affect this election?

Has ACA gotten any more popular since 2010?  No?  Well, then see my prediction map of 11/03/2011.

This race has gone from "Do you support Romney or Obama?" to "Do you support Romney or ObamaCare?"  Romney would have to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy at this point.

[Modify:]  To save readers the trouble, my prediction map of 11/03/2011 shows Romney winning 347 EV and Obama 191.

And, no, the 2010 election was not about "the stimulus and economic growth".  It was about ObamaCare.  Besides, has economic growth gotten any better since 2010?  

[Modify2:]  Or the deficit -- has that gotten any better?  (And no, "lower than 2010" doesn't count.  Nearly no voters know exactly what the deficit was in any given year, but they know when it's sky-high for several years in a row.)

If you say so...

[ajb]

Um, the latest polling evidence suggests approval for the ACA is running about 43-48 against, which comes down to almost even when you consider that a few percentage points of the opposition still comes from the left. And, of course, many of the provisions of the ACA are in fact much more popular than the act itself. Hard to see, on that basis, why the issue would be such a big vote-winner for anybody.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/18/any-court-health-care-decision-unlikely-to-please/

[Sbane]

How will Health Care Ruling affect this election?

Has ACA gotten any more popular since 2010?  No?  Well, then see my prediction map of 11/03/2011.

This race has gone from "Do you support Romney or Obama?" to "Do you support Romney or ObamaCare?"  Romney would have to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy at this point.

[Modify:]  To save readers the trouble, my prediction map of 11/03/2011 shows Romney winning 347 EV and Obama 191.

And, no, the 2010 election was not about "the stimulus and economic growth".  It was about ObamaCare.  Besides, has economic growth gotten any better since 2010? 

[Modify2:]  Or the deficit -- has that gotten any better?  (And no, "lower than 2010" doesn't count.  Nearly no voters know exactly what the deficit was in any given year, but they know when it's sky-high for several years in a row.)

You have no evidence the 2010 election was about Obamacare. Indeed the people were split on Obamacare in the 2010 exit polls. While support for Obamacare would have led to the loss of many Democrats in 2010 on it's own, it was not the reason why the gain for Republicans extended beyond 40-50 seats and up to 63 or whatever it is.

[milhouse24]

wow, the spin in this thread is making me dizzy.

Apparently what seems good for Obama now is actually bad in the long run (?), although I doubt many of the conservatives here would be spinning a struck down bill as ultimately bad for Romney.

Republicans who hated Obamacare still hate it and will vote against the president and his healthcare plan in November. But the SCOTUS is the only branch of Government in this country that has any amount of credibility these days, and today's ruling puts Obama on moral high ground. The idea that Obamacare is unconstitutional has been one of the most frequently used arguments against the bill. Today, the highest court in the land said that it IS constitutional. This sucks a lot of the wind out of the GOP's main argument, at least for moderates and swing voters.

Overall, the Health Care law is a negative issue for Obama as shown in the 2010 elections, which was very anti-Health Care.  In terms of re-election, he will have accomplished a big milestone, but some liberal voters will view it as him accomplishing all his goals and being a one and done president with nothing left to get done.  In essence, liberals may see obama as having won the war with nothing left to prove, and the likelihood of getting very little done in his second term.  

But there is a very real and strong threat of anti-Health Care activists.  If 60% of the country disapprove of the Mandate Tax, then those 60% of voters will now have no reason to vote for Obama in November.  Obama has raised taxes on the middle class (those who are not poor enough to get medicare) but now have to pay the tax to get health insurance.  Now small businesses will not hire (because having more than 20 people on payroll forces you to pay healthcare for all the employees).  We are socialist France, which caps small businesses at 49 people, otherwise they force unionization.  So guess, what nobody in France hires more than 49 people for their companies.  France has also had 10% unemployment for 20 years.  

This is a tax that the middle class will pay.  The upper class can afford the tax.  The poor will get medicare.  The middle class get screwed, again, by Obama.

[cavalcade]

Obama currently has a small lead and my guess is that won't change in the near term.  Romney gets to talk about Obama's tax increase which could play out well for him- yes this means he kind of raised taxes in Massachusetts himself but who knows who will win that one.

But there is understandably a lot of spin from the Republicans today, on this forum and everywhere else.

The Republicans are just trying to catch up to all the Democrats' "the Supreme Court is being POLITICAL and launching a COUP" spin over the past few weeks/months in one day.

[ajb]

wow, the spin in this thread is making me dizzy.

Apparently what seems good for Obama now is actually bad in the long run (?), although I doubt many of the conservatives here would be spinning a struck down bill as ultimately bad for Romney.

Republicans who hated Obamacare still hate it and will vote against the president and his healthcare plan in November. But the SCOTUS is the only branch of Government in this country that has any amount of credibility these days, and today's ruling puts Obama on moral high ground. The idea that Obamacare is unconstitutional has been one of the most frequently used arguments against the bill. Today, the highest court in the land said that it IS constitutional. This sucks a lot of the wind out of the GOP's main argument, at least for moderates and swing voters.

But there is a very real and strong threat of anti-Health Care activists.  If 60% of the country disapprove of the Mandate Tax, then those 60% of voters will now have no reason to vote for Obama in November.  Obama has raised taxes on the middle class (those who are not poor enough to get medicare) but now have to pay the tax to get health insurance.  if they want to exercise their right not to have health insurance.

This is a tax that the middle class will pay.  The upper class can afford the tax.  The poor will get medicare.  The middle class get screwed, again, by Obama.

Fixed that for you.

[milhouse24]

wow, the spin in this thread is making me dizzy.

Apparently what seems good for Obama now is actually bad in the long run (?), although I doubt many of the conservatives here would be spinning a struck down bill as ultimately bad for Romney.

Republicans who hated Obamacare still hate it and will vote against the president and his healthcare plan in November. But the SCOTUS is the only branch of Government in this country that has any amount of credibility these days, and today's ruling puts Obama on moral high ground. The idea that Obamacare is unconstitutional has been one of the most frequently used arguments against the bill. Today, the highest court in the land said that it IS constitutional. This sucks a lot of the wind out of the GOP's main argument, at least for moderates and swing voters.

But there is a very real and strong threat of anti-Health Care activists.  If 60% of the country disapprove of the Mandate Tax, then those 60% of voters will now have no reason to vote for Obama in November.  Obama has raised taxes on the middle class (those who are not poor enough to get medicare) but now have to pay the tax to get health insurance.  if they want to exercise their right not to have health insurance.

This is a tax that the middle class will pay.  The upper class can afford the tax.  The poor will get medicare.  The middle class get screwed, again, by Obama.

Fixed that for you.

If your job does not provide health insurance, you will be forced to pay for it yourself out of pocket.  The monthly premiums will still be high.  If you think the health care corporations have now forced a mandatory purchase of their products, then you are correct.  The corporations have won again.  Now they get more customers.  It is a good day to buy stock in HMO conglomerites. 

Also, think about a poor person in Alabama without health insurance being forced to pay the same rates as someone in NYC.  The rural hicks get screwed again by the fed.

[ajb]

wow, the spin in this thread is making me dizzy.

Apparently what seems good for Obama now is actually bad in the long run (?), although I doubt many of the conservatives here would be spinning a struck down bill as ultimately bad for Romney.

Republicans who hated Obamacare still hate it and will vote against the president and his healthcare plan in November. But the SCOTUS is the only branch of Government in this country that has any amount of credibility these days, and today's ruling puts Obama on moral high ground. The idea that Obamacare is unconstitutional has been one of the most frequently used arguments against the bill. Today, the highest court in the land said that it IS constitutional. This sucks a lot of the wind out of the GOP's main argument, at least for moderates and swing voters.

But there is a very real and strong threat of anti-Health Care activists.  If 60% of the country disapprove of the Mandate Tax, then those 60% of voters will now have no reason to vote for Obama in November.  Obama has raised taxes on the middle class (those who are not poor enough to get medicare) but now have to pay the tax to get health insurance.  if they want to exercise their right not to have health insurance.

This is a tax that the middle class will pay.  The upper class can afford the tax.  The poor will get medicare.  The middle class get screwed, again, by Obama.

Fixed that for you.

If your job does not provide health insurance, you will be forced to pay for it yourself out of pocket.  The monthly premiums will still be high.  If you think the health care corporations have now forced a mandatory purchase of their products, then you are correct.  The corporations have won again.  Now they get more customers.  It is a good day to buy stock in HMO conglomerites. 

Also, think about a poor person in Alabama without health insurance being forced to pay the same rates as someone in NYC.  The rural hicks get screwed again by the fed.

All of that is why the ACA brings in the exchanges, co-op plans, tax incentives to small businesses to offer health insurance, the Pre-Existing Condition insurance plan, the option to keep kids on parents' plans till they're 25...

I'll agree that it's not an ideal system. My own preference would have been for lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 0, rather than all of these bits and pieces, which together will cover almost, but not quite, everybody. But Republicans and conservative Democrats kept insisting they wanted more expensive plans covering fewer people, so that's what we've got.

[ajb]

The Supreme Court does leave Romney in a bit of a bind, too. Up till now, he's argued that the reason a mandate was great in Massachusetts, but terrible nation-wide, was that it was unconstitutional at the federal level. Now that the constitutionality of the measure has been reinforced, he's just left saying it's bad policy (which he said today). Which brings us back to the question of how, on a policy level, something could possibly be so awful federally that it needs to be repealed, when at the state level it was actually kinda good.

[ajb]

The other point, about the "poor person in Alabama." The ACA also provides for money to encourage states to expand the coverage offered by Medicaid for people up to 133% of the poverty line. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the ACA which would have penalized states for not expanding medicaid, but left standing the part of the law providing generous subsidies to states for Medicaid expansion (100% of costs now, eventually coming down to 90%).
In other words, after 2014, if that "poor person in Alabama" isn't covered by Medicaid, it won't be because of Obama, but rather because the state of Alabama has decided to refuse the federal money that would have given her Medicaid.
Now, I suspect Alabama just might be dumb enough to turn down that money, but if they do, we'll know who to blame, right?

[Sasquatch]

This is a big win for the Heritage Foundation! The prospect of ever having single-payer in this country probably died today, but at least team Obama and Democrats will get some positive spin for a few days.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This isn't over. The states could nullify it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This isn't over. The states could nullify it.

Do we really want that to start up again?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This isn't over. The states could nullify it.

The states can't nullify federal law.

[anvi]

The Supreme Court does leave Romney in a bit of a bind, too. Up till now, he's argued that the reason a mandate was great in Massachusetts, but terrible nation-wide, was that it was unconstitutional at the federal level. Now that the constitutionality of the measure has been reinforced, he's just left saying it's bad policy (which he said today). Which brings us back to the question of how, on a policy level, something could possibly be so awful federally that it needs to be repealed, when at the state level it was actually kinda good.

That's a good point.  He could argue of course that it will cost way more than projected.  But since the Massachusetts plan has proved to be more costly than projected and he has continued to defend it, he'll have to insist that our deficit woes can't hold up the national plan.  Nonetheless, everyone who wants to rally behind him as the last best hope of repealing PPACA will donate and turn out, and for the rest of the swing vote out there, he will just pivot to the economy and jobs and hammer away at that.  It's still going to be, I think, an incredibly close election.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This whole thing is kind of entertaining. I'm a huge Romney fan, but I can at least admit that this turn of events was nowhere near ideal. I was shocked by the SCOTUS decision and instantly felt demoralized.

The only way this works to Romney's advantage is if he stresses that mandates ARE unconstitutional, but that the Obama mandate is a actually a tax hike. Unfortunately... Romney has never been very good at spinning. There's wiggle room here, but Obama has to be pretty happy.

[ajb]

This whole thing is kind of entertaining. I'm a huge Romney fan, but I can at least admit that this turn of events was nowhere near ideal. I was shocked by the SCOTUS decision and instantly felt demoralized.

The only way this works to Romney's advantage is if he stresses that mandates ARE unconstitutional, but that the Obama mandate is a actually a tax hike. Unfortunately... Romney has never been very good at spinning. There's wiggle room here, but Obama has to be pretty happy.

Except that mandates aren't unconstitutional -- if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, then it is.
And while the mandate penalty will hit some people, and have the effect of a tax increase, it won't hit very many people -- an estimated 4 million, including dependents as well as adults.

 Half of those paying will make more than three times the poverty level, and that half will pay eighty percent of the penalty (a full 55% of the penalty will come from those making more than 5x the poverty level, which means, roughly, $55 000 for an individual, or $120 000 for a family of four). It only affects those who are not eligible for Medicaid, who don't have insurance from work, and who don't buy insurance on their own, and the cost is capped at the average cost of an insurance plan. Oh, and anyone who doesn't make enough income to file a tax return is exempted, as is anyone for whom the penalty would exceed 8% of their income, or anyone who is granted a financial hardship waiver, or who can be exempted because of their religious beliefs, or are members of Indian tribes.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/individual_mandate_penalties-04-22.pdf

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Come on. These anti ACA people can't seriously expect us to believe that they would rather have Roberts do what he did rather then join 4 other justices in striking the whole thing down.

[ajb]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Certainly, the restrictions on the use of the commerce clause are significant, and do mark a potential setback for certain kinds of expansion of the welfare state -- those which involve requiring citizens to purchase private services. As a good social democrat, I'd rather the government taxed people and provided services, and that's never going to be unconstitutional.

As for the tax, I think the best analogy would be excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Don't like those taxes? Then don't buy cigarettes or booze. Don't like the health care mandate penalty? Then get health insurance.

The people who will be most adversely affected by this tax are relatively well-off people, who choose not to buy health insurance, presumably because they're healthy and would rather save a little bit of cash and gamble that they don't need it. This will nudge more of them into buying health insurance -- the penalty will always be less money than health insurance would cost, but at the margins it might persuade those people to buy. That's probably a good thing. In the process, the actuarial economics of health insurance will improve, to everyone's benefit. There are pretty elaborate provisions in place to make sure that people who can't afford to buy health insurance will either be covered under Medicare, or at least exempted from the penalty.

I really don't understand what's so scary here.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This isn't over. The states could nullify it.

The states can't nullify federal law.

Actually they can and they have done it in the past.