Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Top of the Ticket

Supreme Court looks eager to strangle Obamacare

It's no surprise that professional pundits are shocked that the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority appears ready to toss out the entire federal healthcare plan -- the plan Republicans delight in calling "Obamacare." Self-proclaimed experts are often wrong, though that does not slow down their relentless prognostications and chatter.

And it will be no surprise that conservatives who decry judicial activism will cheer the justices if they choose to engage in decidedly bold judicial activism by nullifying a major piece of legislation passed and approved by democratically elected members of the legislative and executive branches of government.

The only ones who might be surprised -- if they actually start paying attention -- are the many people who tell pollsters they oppose "Obamacare." A big share of these folks have no idea what the provisions are in the healthcare law, they are only responding to the effective Republican PR  campaign that has told them it is bad.

They will be surprised to learn that things they really like are being taken away by the activist justices -- things such as guaranteeing access to healthcare insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health plans and closing the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage. Those major provisions of Obama's healthcare package garner huge support in the polls, even among Republicans, and they are made possible by the most contentious part of the law: the mandate for everyone to have health insurance.

Not that long ago, Barack Obama was not in favor of the mandate, maybe because, up until that point, it had been a Republican idea. Now the sides have switched and so have the passions and paranoia. It has become nearly impossible to talk about healthcare rationally, at least in the political realm.

That will have to change if Obama's healthcare plan bites the dust. Even conservative voters might then notice a very big baby has been thrown out with the bathwater by the overly enthusiastic cleanup crew on the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Mitt Romney is no Mr. Excitement on Jay Leno's 'Tonight Show'
    Mitt Romney is no Mr. Excitement on Jay Leno's 'Tonight Show'

    Mitt Romney's appearance on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" on Tuesday night was unremarkable but revealing.

  • The USA Freedom Act: A smaller Big Brother
    The USA Freedom Act: A smaller Big Brother

    Last fall, Congress was on the verge of doing away with the most troubling invasion of privacy revealed by Edward Snowden: the National Security Agency's indiscriminate collection of the telephone records of millions of Americans. But then opponents cited the emergence of Islamic State as a reason...

  • There's no place for graffiti in America's national parks
    There's no place for graffiti in America's national parks

    City dwellers can argue over whether graffiti is vandalism or art or some strange hybrid of the two. But when it appears in national parks, there should be no question: It's desecration.

  • Britain's election: A muddle across the pond
    Britain's election: A muddle across the pond

    Americans exasperated by the gridlock in Washington sometimes look enviously at Britain, where the parliamentary system combines executive and legislative duties and the prime minister almost always gets his or her way. Unlike a president who may face a Congress controlled by the other party —...

  • Does Congress know we're at war?
    Does Congress know we're at war?

    When President Obama announced nine months ago that the United States was going to war against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Congress reached an unusual near-consensus on two big points: Entering the fight was a good idea, but it was also important that the legislative branch formally authorize...

  • Chris Christie's political 'machine' — it's not such a bad thing
    Chris Christie's political 'machine' — it's not such a bad thing

    Here's a question whose answer may seem obvious, but isn't. Which is worse, a system in which political hacks can cause a massive traffic jam as a form of political payback, or a system in which it's a federal crime for political hacks to exact such retribution?