Thursday, June 28, 2012

How the Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare Will Impact the Presidential Race

Now that I've made my prediction as to the outcome of the PPACA case before the Supreme Court, the next question to be answered is "cui bono", or "to whose benefit" will the decision redound? 

The answer is Mitt Romney.  But it not a simple path.

When the Act is invalidated later this morning, President Obama will have a meaty issue with which to approach his base of supporters.  "See?  Elections DO matter.  This conservative majority court is standing in the way of the most important and far-reaching reform of the nation's broken health care system ever attempted.  You need to give me a second term so that I can return balance to a court that is clearly out of step with the country."  Mr. Obama's fundraising will temporarily skyrocket.  There will be passion, there will be vituperation, there will be venom.  The Democratic base will be apoplectic over the ruling, and there will be great passion stirred in the Obama Camp.  Put another way, liberals will act according to form.  All of this will be very, very good for Mr. Obama.  In the short term.

But in American politics, losing is rarely good.  Losing big is never good.  And this will be a loss of epic proportion.  Mitt Romney can and will capitalize on it.

Romney's main line of attack will be--"This inexperienced man, a man who wrote two autobiographies before he was 48 years old and for whom legacy was and is the all-encompassing goal, made a strategic choice in the early days of his administration.  He could have said--like Bill Clinton did--"It's the Economy, Stupid" and focused on economic recovery and the creation of jobs.  Instead, he chose to fashion his legacy.  He chose to tackle the liberal Holy Grail, moving the country away from market based healthcare toward a single-payer, government sponsored system. Instead of focusing on persistent unemployment, he chose his legacy.  Instead of focusing on the jobs that would be sure to flow from unleashing the potential of the American energy market, he chose his legacy.  Instead of encouraging conditions that promote the competitiveness of American business, he chose his legacy.  In his effort to become the great "liberal lion" of the 21st Century, the man liberals would venerate as the father of the American healthcare system, President Obama ignored the challenges and needs of the American people when they were hurting.  This wasn't only the act of a self-possessed man; though it is surely that.  It was the act of a man without the strategic vision and wisdom to continue to be President.  It was the act of a man lacking sound judgment."

Mitt Romney will hang Obamacare around the President's neck, and he will never let him forget that the first 3.5 years of his one and only term went for naught.  No legacy.  No recovery.  No re-election.


"The Hammer" said...

Sounds right but the Republicans (Romney) must present their own health care reforms immediately! Portability, allow purchase across state lines and do away with all the state mandates and requirements (no 80 year old should have to buy a "breast argumentation" rider). This is an area where the market (and consumers) are hurt by local regulation.

Also I don't know what they're going to do with the pre-existing condition problem. Folks want that. The Dems have been talking about babies who can't get insurance because of some "pre-existing" condition from birth. But if folks are allowed to enter and leave the market only when they're sick, well obviously that can't happen. It's like buying car insurance after you get drunk and knock down the neighbor's mailbox, not that I have any experience at that. Maybe a special pool subsidized by the rest of the industry.

Plus, "free" healthcare must be reformed. No more welfare hos using the emergency room like a free clinic. Give them their free clinic and their gubment cheese, but on the cheap.

Mudge said...

It stands. While I don't care for the outcome, I like that SCOTUS reconciled it without giving the left further (and in my opinion, forever more unchecked) precedent for abuse of the Commerce Clause. By calling the individual mandate a tax, within Congressional powers to levy taxes, they completely avoided that whole mess. To me, the biggest (and most important for our future) issue of the whole case was just that. I couldn't see how they could let it stand if the IM was a Commerce Clause issue (mainly because the entirety of the Dem Nation claimed it was NOT a tax--but that only matters if you take them at their word which I no longer do).

"The Hammer" said...

We're fooked, as the Irish say. It's either get a super-majority in the Senate of learn to love cancer.

Newer Post Older Post Home