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.


Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.