In response to Taeler De Haes’s Column ‘Repeal the Job-Killing Bill’.
President Barack Obama’s health care bill is certain to animate discussions on constitutionality and spending. Florida Federal Judge Vinson’s ruling provides a Libertarian-like rebuttal to the Democrats, stating that the decision not to buy insurance does not constitute “interstate commerce” and therefore the government lacks power to compel you to do something you do not want to do. However, it is the case that Democratic judicial appointees have sided in favor of the health care law, and Republican appointees have done the same for their side. After all, Judge Vinson was appointed by President Reagan in 1983. Judge George Steeh from Detroit who sided in favor of the new law, was appointed by President Clinton in 1998. It would also be interesting to see whether or not the new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will recuse herself from the bench if a challenge to the health care law reaches that far in the judiciary. She is under pressure from the right to recuse and she is also pressured by the left not to recuse.
To Congressional matters, if the Republicans wish to repeal the new health care law, they should better understand the possible consequences. As Mitt Romney understood in Massachusetts, as John Chafee, Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler understood, the reason for the individual mandate is that President Obama would like to achieve universal coverage through a private insurance system. Anyone who understands the insurance market knows that you cannot allow consumers to buy insurance whenever they want to, because you will end up with people who wait to get sick until they buy (mainly due to today’s high prices, the loss of jobs, and the lagging economy). The new health care law, with the individual mandate, was designed to preserve private insurance and to get universal coverage while providing security to the American citizenry in various ways (eliminating pre-existing conditions, lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, staying on parents’ insurance until age 26, etc). If the 2012 elections belong to the Democrats, and if Obamacare’s individual mandate is overturned, this issue is most likely to focus on single payer insurance, meaning the last laugh belongs to the left if passed.
If the law is fully repealed, the Republicans might lose members of a key constituency: senior citizens. Seniors would find it difficult to get the prescriptions they need. In theory, seniors would have to return the rebate check, according to the Chief Actuary for the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid services. Also, adding $230 billion, a Congressional Budget Office estimate, to the deficit as a result of repeal would hurt the Republicans’ “saving money” position. The best option for the Republicans is they should try to correct the items in Obamacare they want to see changed, rather than repeal the entire law and accuse Obamacare proponents of being “socialists”. Harsh, unfounded political rancor distracts us from the real problems. The results of full repeal: seniors and taxpayers will lose, the reputation of the Republican Party is compromised, and insurance companies would have the go-ahead to screw over patients with their fatal pre-existing condition policies.