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.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

"We repealed, then forgot": the long shadow of Section 28 homophobia

Why are deeply conservative views about the "promotion" of homosexuality still being reiterated to Scottish school pupils? 

Grim stories of LGBTI children being bullied in school are all too common. But one which emerged over the weekend garnered particular attention - because of the echoes of the infamous Section 28, nearly two decades after it was scrapped.

A 16-year-old pupil of a West Lothian school, who does not wish to be named, told Pink News that staff asked him to remove his small rainbow pride badge because, though they had "no problem" with his sexuality, it was not appropriate to "promote it" in school. It's a blast from the past - the rules against "promoting" homosexuality were repealed in 2000 in Scotland, but the long legacy of Section 28 seems hard to shake off. 

The local authority responsible said in a statement that non-school related badges are not permitted on uniforms, and says it is "committed to equal rights for LGBT people". 

The small badge depicted a rainbow-striped heart, which the pupil said he had brought back from the Edinburgh Pride march the previous weekend. He reportedly "no longer feels comfortable going to school", and said homophobia from staff members felt "much more scar[y] than when I encountered the same from other pupils". 

At a time when four Scottish party leaders are gay, and the new Westminster parliament included a record number of LGBTQ MPs, the political world is making progress in promoting equality. But education, it seems, has not kept up. According to research from LGBT rights campaigners Stonewall, 40 per cent of LGBT pupils across the UK reported being taught nothing about LGBT issues at school. Among trans students, 44 per cent said school staff didn’t know what "trans" even means.

The need for teacher training and curriculum reform is at the top of campaigners' agendas. "We're disappointed but not surprised by this example," says Jordan Daly, the co-founder of Time for Inclusive Education [TIE]. His grassroots campaign focuses on making politicians and wider society aware of the reality LGBTI school students in Scotland face. "We're in schools on a monthly basis, so we know this is by no means an isolated incident." 

Studies have repeatedly shown a startling level of self-harm and mental illness reported by LGBTI school students. Trans students are particularly at risk. In 2015, Daly and colleagues began a tour of schools. Shocking stories included one in which a teacher singled out a trans pupils for ridicule in front of the class. More commonly, though, staff told them the same story: we just don't know what we're allowed to say about gay relationships. 

This is the point, according to Daly - retraining, or rather the lack of it. For some of those teachers trained during the 1980s and 1990s, when Section 28 prevented local authorities from "promoting homosexuality", confusion still reigns about what they can and cannot teach - or even mention in front of their pupils. 

The infamous clause was specific in its homophobia: the "acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" could not be mentioned in schools. But it's been 17 years since the clause was repealed in Scotland - indeed, it was one of the very first acts of the new Scottish Parliament (the rest of the UK followed suit three years later). Why are we still hearing this archaic language? 

"We repealed, we clapped and cheered, and then we just forgot," Daly says. After the bitter campaign in Scotland, in which an alliance of churches led by millionaire businessman Brian Souter poured money into "Keeping the Clause", the government was pleased with its victory, which seemed to establish Holyrood as a progressive political space early on in the life of the parliament. But without updating the curriculum or retraining teaching staff, Daly argues, it left a "massive vacuum" of uncertainty. 

The Stonewall research suggests a similar confusion is likely across the UK. Daly doesn't believe the situation in Scotland is notably worse than in England, and disputes the oft-cited allegation that the issue is somehow worse in Scotland's denominational schools. Homophobia may be "wrapped up in the language of religious belief" in certain schools, he says, but it's "just as much of a problem elsewhere. The TIE campaign doesn't have different strategies for different schools." 

After initial disappointments - their thousands-strong petition to change the curriculum was thrown out by parliament in 2016 - the campaign has won the support of leaders such as Nicola Sturgeon and Kezia Dugdale, and recently, the backing of a majority of MSPs. The Scottish government has set up a working group, and promised a national strategy. 

But for Daly, who himself struggled at a young age with his sexuality and society's failure to accept it, the matter remains an urgent one.  At just 21, he can reel off countless painful stories of young LGBTI students - some of which end in tragedy. One of the saddest elements of the story from St Kentigern's is that the pupil claimed his school was the safest place he had to express his identity, because he was not out at home. Perhaps for a gay pupil in ten years time, that will be a guarantee. 

0800 7318496