cur-mud-geon: anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so; anyone with the habit of pointing out unpleasant facts in an engaging and humorous manner
High court decisions often create winners and losers; those decisions taken do not intentionally create winners and losers, but by definition there are winners and losers in any case.
This court will be remembered for many years to come no matter the outcome of the ObamaCare/PPACA decision. Some are painting this as the ‘signature’ result of Obama’s first term, and draw dire conclusions should that crowning achievement be rendered moot. Others cite this as the sole result of Obama’s first term, and see this as the end of his tenure.
The reach of Congress is actually what is on trial more so than ObamaCare which is the result of Congress’ over-reach as seen by those opposed to the law.
Latest polls show 54% of Americans in favor of ObamaCare being overturned, but those polls also show the support of various elements of ObamaCare. That probably gives Congress the roadmap to what it ought to begin considering if ObamaCare is overturned.
Certainly insurers providing health care coverage have been giving much thought to what each would do if this law were to be overturned, either in part or completely. There are already significant changes in place that have proved quite popular. Of course, Congress did that intentionally. It is always better to let the camel’s nose get itself under the tent flap before the entire smelly creature finds it way inside.
Politicians have been working to decide just what their group positions will be, and then just what their individual positions will be since they individually have to be sure they can be re-elected no matter what the decision by the Court.
From my perspective, each elected official who was in favor or opposed to ObamaCare ought to be able to see their performance in that debate on television screens throughout their districts. That would bode well for those who were on the winning side while the opposite would be true, assumedly, for those on the losing side.
Too often we permit elected officials to sidestep the results of their efforts when that proves to be problematic for them. Every elected official must be willing to be reminded when they make bad decisions as well as reminding us when they make good decisions.
So, we come down to Thursday for the Court’s decision on ObamaCare/PPACA. As I speculated in an earlier blog, this case is probably seen as the signature case of this Court, much as it is seen as the signature law from Obama’s first term. I suspect that we will see at least part of ObamaCare overturned; that would likely be the portion that requires everyone to buy health care coverage since that was the biggest ‘Constitutional’ reach that anyone could find in this 2,500 page + law, ‘that we have to pass so we can find out what is in it’ according to the Speaker of the House at the time.
The requirement for all to have health insurance was extremely important since it was that money that was going to finance much of the rest of the law’s requirements. That was the sop to health insurers and pharmaceutical companies to get them to voice support for the bill. That was the tool that would permit the Congress to require insurers to take everyone without determining what bad health might lurk in their backgrounds. The requirement for all to be insured is the linchpin of this law, and if that is tossed out, then the rest of the law probably dies of its own weight.
As to what this does to Obama’s re-election chances, I have not a clue. I will certainly hope that Congress might be a bit restrained for a year or two before it thinks it is time to assert itself again.