... Unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society. But what about the cost?
Put it this way: the budget office’s estimate of the cost over the next decade of Obamacare’s “coverage provisions” — basically, the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all — is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. True, Mr. Romney says that he would offset that cost, but he has failed to provide any plausible explanation of how he’d do that. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere.
So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan ...Paul Krugman
How so? Well, for a start, a single-payer plan wouldn't have gotten through. So the Obama administration turned to an old, 1993 Republican healthcare plan that was never acted on.
And how is it fiscally responsible? Wait a few years and you'll catch on.
Put it this way: the budget office’s estimate of the cost over the next decade of Obamacare’s “coverage provisions” — basically, the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all — is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. ...Krugman
Unfortunately, though, we still have a problem: the Supreme Court.
... Four justices dissented, and did so in extreme terms, proclaiming not just the much-disputed individual mandate but the whole act unconstitutional. Given prevailing legal opinion, it’s hard to see that position as anything but naked partisanship.
The point is that this isn’t over — not on health care, not on the broader shape of American society. The cruelty and ruthlessness that made this court decision such a nail-biter aren’t going away. ...Krugman
Has anyone in campaign history been -- to put it oddly -- as hoist with his own petard as is Willard Romney?
If conservatives needed any more motivation to unseat President Obama, they got it Thursday from the Supreme Court, which provided fresh political opportunities for Mitt Romney even as it handed the president a legal victory. ...WaPo
Romney was handed the tax argument. Another tax! Another damn tax!
“The most effective argument for Romney is that this is a massive tax increase that will impact hardworking Americans,” said GOP strategist Ron Bonjean, who worked for a number of Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. “By adding the health-care tax to economic hardships people are feeling, it will quickly become a rallying cry to win over independents in battleground states.” ...WaPo
Oops. Won't work.
The health-care system that he put into place as Massachusetts governor — which was a model for the federal law — included a mandate with a similar penalty for noncompliance.
At the time, Romney also denied that it was a tax, preferring instead to refer to it as a “fee” or an “incentive.”...WaPo
Does yesterday's surprise ruling mean that Justice Roberts has, effectively, changed the state of play? No. Roberts almost surely remains an ignoble high court justice who is swayed by politics. He knows that the fate of health care will be in the hands of voters, voters whose vote that has already been bought by Roberts' Citizens United ruling or removed from the ballot box by Republican governors like Rick Scott.
To put it simply, the power of Citizens United to take elections away from Democrats means that the winning party after November 6th will find it easy to kill the Affordable Care Act.
Charles Pierce has the final word: "Broccoli loses."
