Republicans and Democrats are girding for a politically explosive week as the Supreme Court prepares to rule as early as Monday on the federal health care overhaul.
The ruling, as campaign advisers are well aware, has the potential to re-shape this year’s presidential race. For weeks, each party has been positioning itself to make the best of whatever outcome emerges from the tight-lipped justices.
And the implications go far beyond the 2012 election. The outcome of the health care case, involving one of the most divisive domestic policies in modern times, will affect millions of Americans. Calling for the law’s survival, supporters trumpet the expanded consumer protections and subsidies that make insurance more available and affordable. Calling for its defeat, critics blast what they describe as an unconstitutional requirement to buy health insurance, and warn the law will pummel businesses with its mandates and fines.
In the run-up to the historic ruling, each party is crafting a game-plan.
House Speaker John Boehner this past week cautioned the GOP ranks against “spiking” the ball if the mandate is struck down. He and other Republicans say the party will remain focused on repealing whatever parts of the law remain following the upcoming ruling. And, they say, they’ll pursue “step-by-step” reforms to replace the law no matter the court’s decision.
Lawmakers will be dealing with plenty of other matters this week — notably, a likely court decision on Arizona’s immigration law and a possible House vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. On health care, they’re trying to game out all scenarios.
In a memo to colleagues, House GOP Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, urged members to prepare for three possible rulings: a full repeal, a partial repeal involving the mandate or a law left intact.
He advised members to schedule time to read the entire decision, prepare statements for all three scenarios and consider scheduling tele-town halls with constituents.
“No matter how the Supreme Court rules, this is going to be a seismic decision,” said Michael Cannon, of the Cato Institute. “If they uphold the individual mandate, if they strike down the individual mandate — either way, they will be defining the relationship between the government and the citizens for decades to come.”
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
So you don’t like the individual mandate in the health care law.
Fine.
What would you replace it with?
Why do you think Newt Gingrich back in Hillary’s days was for it — after they had looked at everything else?
There was no way around it.
“The insurance mandate is socialism, plain and simple.”
If it’s socialism, you’d have to buy it from the government, which would also tell you what doctor or hospital to go to. But you can buy health insurance from anybody, and you can get treated by the doctor and hospital you want. What’s socialist about that?
“Can’t you see, the government is making us buy insurance. We have no choice in the matter.”
Do you have a choice not to get hurt, or not to get sick? Why then do you want a choice not to have insurance to pay for it when you do?
States in fact already have an individual mandate for car insurance, and they have been putting uninsured drivers in jail for years.
“That’s different. Driving is a privilege.”
Then free health care must be a right in your book. Maybe this idea came from hospitals continuing to treat the uninsured the last half century.
The tradeoff to us living in a civilized society is that we have to follow rules we don’t agree with. In return, we get great many things, including goods and services that otherwise would be unavailable. But, we still have to pay for them. The mandate makes sure that we do.
What’s wrong with that?
If it’s socialism, you’d have to buy it from the government, which would also tell you what doctor or hospital to go to. But you can buy health insurance from anybody, and you can get treated by the doctor and hospital you want. What’s socialist about that?
Everything. 1. The terms of the insurance are dictated by the government; 2. the government will be outcompeting private insurers and drive them out of business.
Do you have a choice not to get hurt, or not to get sick? Why then do you want a choice not to have insurance to pay for it when you do?
First, who says you’ll get hurt or sick? Second, maybe you can afford to pay for it when and if it does happen. Third, you might choose not to get treated, or cheaper treatment. Fourth, you might want to buy a cheaper insurance package that covers less.
States in fact already have an individual mandate for car insurance, and they have been putting uninsured drivers in jail for years.
Liar. There is no state that requires drivers to insure their own risk. Drivers only have to be insured for the damage they might do to other people. Getting sick doesn’t create liability to anyone else, so there’s nothing to cover. Where does government get the authority to force anyone to insure their own risk?
Beside which, what have state laws got to do with this? Where in the federal constitution is Congress authorised to require anyone to buy anything? If it’s not authorised in the constitution then it has no right to do it, no matter how good an idea you might think it is.