Opinion Top of the Ticket

Supreme Court healthcare ruling could hurt Obama either way

When the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, who is most likely to take a political hit, President Obama or Mitt Romney?

The skeptical tone of the questioning during oral arguments before the high court on Tuesday did not bode well for fans of the new healthcare law famously nicknamed "Obamacare." Chief Justice John G. RobertsJr.and the perennial swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, are expected to cast the deciding votes between the liberal and conservative factions on the the court, and both seemed wary of ratifying the federal government's right to require every citizen's participation in a health plan.

An argument can be made that if the mandate is tossed out by the justices, the likely Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, will no longer be able to get away with talking vaguely about getting rid of "Obamacare" on his first day in office and will have to actually produce a detailed plan for salvaging the American healthcare system. On the other hand, if the mandate is upheld by the court, Romney would continue to be stuck with his tortured explanation of why the mandate-driven Massachusetts healthcare plan -- "Romneycare," as Rick Santorum derisively terms it -- is in any significant way different from the federal plan.

Handling the healthcare issue was always going to be problematic for Romney, though. It seems the court's intrusion into the issue raises tougher issues for the president. If the mandate is scuttled, Obama's chief domestic achievement will be seriously jeopardized and the court will have ruled that he tried to do something unconstitutional. If the court decides in his favor, however, Republican voters already freaked out by the fear that Obama is a raving socialist will be even more energized, seeing a Republican victory in November as the only way to keep Obamacare from turning the USA into the USSR.

Democrats have done such a miserable job explaining and defending their healthcare scheme that a more militant right wing could dominate the general election discourse with new paranoid scenarios about "death panels" and mandates to eat broccoli (the broccoli argument having already been introduced into the high court conversation by Justice Antonin Scalia).

The fact is, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the mandate debate. That is why Roberts and Kennedy may yet surprise the country with what they decide. Reasonable people could go either way. The court is the only place healthcare can be discussed reasonably, however. When the issue gets addressed on the campaign trail, do not expect reason to hold sway. Instead, look for a lot of red-faced people pointing fingers and shouting at each other like misfit couples on Jerry Springer.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Potty mouth Rick Santorum shows GOP race is in a rut
    Potty mouth Rick Santorum shows GOP race is in a rut

    On Sunday, Rick Santorum spat out the B and S word at New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny, who had asked him an annoying question. The testy exchange demonstrated how candidates, reporters and, very likely, the public, have grown weary of the unending Republican primary campaign.

  • Immigrant driver's license policy makes sense
    Immigrant driver's license policy makes sense

    Beginning Jan. 1, immigrants who are here illegally will be able to take another small step out of the shadows by applying for California driver's licenses. It took years to enact this controversial policy, but ultimately granting licenses to qualified drivers, regardless of their legal status,...

  • In Haiti, only the face of power has changed
    In Haiti, only the face of power has changed

    Almost five years since the devastating earthquake that rocked Haiti, the country remains adrift, and in recent weeks, even more than usual. In town after town, as well as in the capital, Port-au-Prince, large, angry crowds have gathered regularly to express their dissatisfaction with Haiti's...

  • Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance
    Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    The terrorists who turned the World Trade Center into rubble struck a devastating blow to the U.S. economy too, and few sectors felt it as acutely as the insurance industry. Afterward, insurers balked at providing any coverage for damage caused by further acts of terrorism, making it harder...

  • Breaking news in 1881: L.A. Daily Times endorses Christmas
    Breaking news in 1881: L.A. Daily Times endorses Christmas

    The very first issue of the Los Angeles Times — then the Los Angeles Daily Times — came off the presses three weeks before Christmas, 1881. It was a different world then. And a much different Los Angeles.

  • Who's been naughty and nice in 2014
    Who's been naughty and nice in 2014

    It's not only Santa who makes lists and checks them twice. Editorial writers do too. Here's who's getting coal and who's getting candy from us in 2014.

  • Two turtle doves and a pi-i-i-int of pig's blood
    Two turtle doves and a pi-i-i-int of pig's blood

    For many years, when my children were young, we made our home in countries around the Mediterranean, following the children's journalist father wherever his assignments took him, from Spain to France to Lebanon and Cyprus, and then to a farm in the mountains between Tuscany and Umbria....

  • The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks
    The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    As we embark on the seventh year since the historic collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, it's clear we haven't fixed what broke the economy in 2008. Big banks still control Congress. Workers remain acutely vulnerable to another financial crisis. But we can't blame only Wall Street...

Comments
Loading