Supreme Court health care ruling increases the probability of second term for Obama

The ruling is likely to make the law much more popular among dubious independent voters.

If there was news before last Thursday, no one in the United States remembers, because all we have been talking about since then is the US Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, which is the real name for "Obamacare". The high court, in a 5-4 decision, decided that the law affecting every single American citizen is constitutional, even the much-vilified individual mandate.

For those who have better things to do than keep track of our opaque and overly complicated debate over health care, "Obamacare," as it is widely known here, is our attempt at universal health care, a feature of every rich country that has been debated in the US since the Nixon era. We have known for a long time that the cost of health care could cripple the economy, and indeed, it has outpaced the rate of inflation by double digits. Other than education and housing, no other cost of living has grown so rapidly over the past decade, but no one had been willing to bear the political risk, especially after the beat-down suffered by Bill Clinton in 1993 when he tapped his wife, that wonky First Lady Hillary Clinton, to devise a way forward.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways of achieving universal care. One is to tax people and give the money back to them in the form of health care. The other is to force them to buy health care or pay a penalty. Either way, you pay. The only difference is you pay for something (that's good for you) or pay for nothing. In procedural terms, there is no difference between these, and the end is the same — everyone is put into a risk pool so that the healthy are underwriting the sick and the sick are not subject to the inhumane whims of the free market.

The means to that end, however, are laden with politics. Because Republicans are usually allergic to the idea of taxes, they hated the Clintons' proposal, and countered with a proposal of their own that avoided the appearance of a new tax. Instead they preferred a method that forced people by law to buy health insurance — and that became known under President Obama as the individual mandate.

Yes, the individual mandate that was embraced by a Democratic president, and passed by a Democratically-controlled Congress, was originally conceived by Republicans who were countering proposals made by a Democratic president. And that's not all.

Obama had wanted to put in place a "public option," which meant more or less greater access to Medicare (old-age health insurance). But that, too, was blocked by Republicans. So Obama, being the deal-maker that he is, put on the table something he thought even the Republicans couldn't turn down — their own policy idea. He was wrong, of course, and for the past two and a half years, we have seen an enormous effort on the part of Republicans and conservatives to show they never liked the individual mandate even though they were once its most vocal champions.

Since the late 1980s, the legal test of the mandate had always been assumed to be a slam dunk. Forcing people to buy health insurance was believed be lawful as it fell under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate trade. A health care market already existed, many reasoned, so Congress would be regulating a market that was already there.

But after Obama championed, and Congress passed, the individual mandate, Republicans and their libertarian allies, some of whom are billionaires and heads of health insurance corporations who spent millions fighting the law, essentially moved the goal posts, as we say here. No, they said, a health care market does not already exist (never mind that everyone needs health care), so making people buy anything is unconstitutional or un-American. In fact, that sounds like something only an Islamist-communist-fascist dictator like Barack Hussein Obama would do.

In the end, the ruling came down to Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush. It had been assumed that Roberts would side with the court's conservative wing who had determined that the Commerce Clause argument vis-à-vis the individual mandate was invalid. Even though Roberts agreed, he found that the individual mandate could stand under Congress's undisputed power to tax. If you don't buy health care, you pay a penalty. Roberts reasoned that this is a tax, whether you call a tax or not.

As I said, this was the very thing Republicans wanted to avoid: universal health care that relies on a universal tax. Republicans don't like to go on record as having voted in favor of a new tax. So the individual mandate was from the start an ingenious way to avoid the appearance of a new tax even though the money people would spend on insurance would be in effect the same money they would pay in a new tax.

This, again, is why there is no difference between these methods. So it is ironic that a conservative judge nominated by a conservative president has declared that a conservative idea meant to avoid looking like a tax says, um, it looks like a new tax.

It is doubly ironic, because Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential challenger, is now using that conservative judge's opinion against the president even though Romney, when he was the governor of Massachusetts, implemented the ingenious Republican idea of an individual mandate in that state.

If your head is swimming, hold on. It gets worse.

Romney's record on health care in Massachusetts, however admirable, is a liability among the GOP's conservatives, who already believe universal health care is code for "creeping communism". That Obama modeled his health care legislation on Romney's has always carried the unfair implication that Romney wasn't a real conservative. Obamacare, rightly or wrongly, has been very unpopular, mostly because most people don't understand it and the president has done a poor job of selling it. Romney can satisfy his base while making a legitimate bid for independent voters by vowing to repeal Obamacare.

But the Supreme Court ruling complicates matters. First, its seal of approval is likely to make the law much more popular among dubious independent voters, especially as its components become better understood, so that the more Romney vows to repeal it, the more he seems to be rehashing a settled issue.

Second, the Republican leadership is making a lot of noise over mandate as a tax, claiming that Obama has just pushed through the largest tax increase in American history (which is patently false). The more they push the tax message, the more Romney has to defend his record so that he doesn't appear to be a tax-and-and spend politician much like the president.

2012 is turning out to be the year of looking-glass politics. Romney once took credit for Obama's decision to bail out the auto industry when he had nothing to do with it. Now he could legitimately lay claim to having influenced the greatest piece of domestic legislation since the Great Society of the 1960s, but he wants nothing to do with it. Such are the times for a Republican presidential hopeful and such is the rising probability of second term for Obama.

Obamacare supporters react to the US Supreme Court decision to uphold President Obama's health care law. Photograph: Getty Images

John Stoehr teaches writing at Yale. His essays and journalism have appeared in The American Prospect, Reuters Opinion, the Guardian, and Dissent, among other publications. He is a political blogger for The Washington Spectator and a frequent contributor to Al Jazeera English.


Show Hide image

How “cli-fi” novels humanise the science of climate change

The paradox is that the harder climate-fiction novels try, the less effective they are.

When the Paris UN Climate Change Conference begins at the end of November, the world’s leaders will review the climate framework agreed in Rio in 1992. For well over 20 years, the world has not just been thinking and talking about climate change, it has also been writing and reading about it, in blogs, newspapers, magazines – and in novels.

Climate change fiction is now a recognisable literary phenomenon replete with its own nickname: “cli-fi”. The term was coined in 2007 by Taiwan-based blogger Dan Bloom. Since then, its use has spread: it was even tweeted by Margaret Atwood in 2013:

It is not a genre in the accepted scholarly sense, since it lacks the plot formulas or stylistic conventions that tend to define genres (such as science fiction or the western). However, it does name a remarkable recent literary and publishing trend.

A 21st-century phenomenon?

Putting a number to this phenomenon depends, partly, on how one defines cli-fi. How much of a novel has to be devoted to climate change before it is considered cli-fi? Should we restrict the term to novels about man-made global warming? (If we don’t, we should remember that narratives about global climatic change are as old as The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Biblical story of the flood.) If we define cli-fi as fictional treatments of climate change caused by human activity in terms of setting, theme or plot – and accept there will be grey areas in the extent of this treatment – a conservative estimate would put the all-time number of cli-fi novels at 150 and growing. This is the figure put forward by Adam Trexler, who has worked with me to survey the development of cli-fi.

This definition also gives us a start date for cli-fi’s history. While planetary climatic change occurs in much 20th-century science fiction, it is only after growing scientific awareness of specifically man-made, carbon-induced climate change in the 1960s and 1970s that novels on this subject emerged. The first is Arthur Herzog’s Heat in 1976, followed by George Turner’s The Sun and the Summer (published in the US as Drowning Towers) in 1987.

At the turn of this century, Maggie Gee and TC Boyle were among the first mainstream authors to publish climate change novels. In this century, we can count Atwood, Michael Crichton, Barbara Kingsolver, Ian McEwan, Kim Stanley Robinson, Ilija Trojanow and Jeanette Winterson as major authors who have written about climate change. The past five years have given us notable examples of cli-fi by emerging authors, such as Steven Amsterdam, Edan Lepucki, Jane Rawson, Nathaniel Rich and Antti Tuomainen.

Creative challenges

Cli-fi is all the more noteworthy considering the creative challenge posed by climate change. First, there is the problem of scale – spatial and temporal. Climate change affects the entire planet and all its species – and concerns the end of this planet as we know it. Novels, by contrast, conventionally concern the actions of individual protagonists and/or, sometimes, small communities.

Added to this is the networked nature of climate change: in physical terms, the climate is a large, complex system whose effects are difficult to model. In socio-cultural terms, solutions require intergovernmental agreement – just what COP21 intends – and various top-down and bottom-up transformations. Finally, there exists the difficulty of translating scientific information, with all its predictive uncertainty, into something both accurate and interesting to the average reader.

Still, cli-fi writers have adopted a range of strategies to engage their readers. Many cli-fi novels could be classified as dystopian, post-apocalyptic or, indeed, both – depicting nightmarish societies triggered by sometimes catastrophic climate events. A future world is one effective way of narrating the planetary condition of climate change.

Some novelists are also careful to underpin their scenarios with rigorous climatic predictions and, in this way, translate science fact into a fictional setting. Kingsolver, who trained as an ecologist, is the best example of this – and Atwood and Robinson are also known for their attempts at making their speculations scientifically plausible. Also, cli-fi novels, particularly those set in the present day or very near future rather than in a dystopian future, tend to show the political or psychological dimensions of living with climate change. Readers can identify with protagonists. To some extent, the global community is represented in fictional everymen or everywomen. Or, often, it is through such characters that science is humanised and its role in combating climate change better understood.

Can cli-fi lead to change?

Could cli-fi affect how we think and act on climate change? The paradox is that the harder cli-fi tries, the less effective it is. Many writers want to inspire change, not insist on it: the line between literature and propaganda is one that most novelists respect. Literature invites us to inhabit other worlds and live other lives. Cli-fi at its best lets us travel to climate-changed worlds, to strive there alongside others and then to return armed with that experience.

In Paris, the UN will seek a global agreement on climate action for the first time in more than 20 years. There is plenty of climate change fiction out there to help provide the mental and psychological space to consider that action.

The Conversation

Adeline Johns-Putra, Reader in English Literature, University of Surrey

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.