Politico: 5 ways to kill Obamacare without repeal.

And they're all bad ideas. Even if it's your goal in life to stop Obamacare, repeal is a much better, if more difficult option, as I'll explain later.

First a few ideas Politico reminds us of:

2. Starve the federal exchanges

This one would take some help from Congress. But if Republicans find a way to stop funding the federal exchanges, a Romney administration would be under no obligation to come up with the funds...

5. Do nothing

If Romney’s really determined to block the law, he might not actually need to do anything too clever — he could do a lot by simply doing nothing at all.

He could stop the writing of the remaining rules to implement the law, stop Medicare from moving ahead with programs to find new ways to pay providers, stop the IRS from enforcing the individual mandate and even stop Medicaid officials from facilitating the expansion of the program in the states that want it.

Now this will stop, or at least significantly hinder the functioning of Obamacare, but one or all of these strategies would be more harmful to a Romney administration than out-right repeal.

Why? Uncertainty. It's hard for businesses to plan if they don't know what the law is or will be, and how it will be enforced. Uncertainty = less hiring.

It's messy. You can imagine the White House press secretary spinning wild tales of how things are perfect, "We have Obamacare de jure, just not de facto." And the Democrats' response would be something along the lines of, "the president is not faithfully executing the duties of office..." Most Americans tend not to like messy politics.

The five ways Politico pointed out might work in tandem with a repeal effort on the front burner, otherwise it's a recipe for electoral failure. And without repeal, any future president and congress could begin to fund and enforce it.

Romney: the mandate is a tax.

Well at least we got that all sorted out.

From Politico:

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s overtaken by the fact that the majority of the Court said it’s a tax and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that,” Romney said. “The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made — said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans.”

CBS hasn't posted the full video of Romney's interview yet, so it's not clear if Romney addressed Fehrnstrom's comments, or whether his remarks on the mandate today mean he also raised taxes in Massachusetts. Republicans have urged Romney to campaign comprehensively against the law known as Obamacare, even if that means talking around his record as governor.

You know what this means? Romney is a flip flopper:

The Obama campaign responds in a statement hitting Romney as a flip-flopper: "[Romney] contradicted himself by saying his own Massachusetts mandate wasn't a tax — but, Romney has called the individual mandate he implemented in Massachusetts a tax many times before..."

All I can say is, good timing.

Update: The NYT is a little late on this, but there's a point every non-Fox News media personality keep forgetting:

Mr. Romney appeared to be making a finer point about the absolute role the Supreme Court plays in setting American law, even if the nuance was lost on many. “Well, the Supreme Court has the final word and their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it’s a tax,” he said.  

If SCOTUS rules that the sky is green, then as far as American law is concerned, the sky is green. It's a tax.

Think Progress: Look a new study says Obamacare totally saves money!

While perusing through Memeorandum I came across this:

Republican politicians across the country claim that Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, the widely popular program which makes health insurance available for lower-income Americans, will increase costs for states...

Directly disproving Republican claims, an extensive study reveals that the Affordable Care Act significantly benefits states by reducing their uncompensated care costs.

Let's just uncritically swallow whole this study that comes from the President's very own advisers. I mean take a look at that website, you would think they were talking about an entirely different country! I want to move there it sounds so nice. 

Even if the states were going to save a bunch of money under the medicaid expanison part of Obamacare, you can't get around the fact that premiums are rising. Obamacare as is, does nothing long term to stop the rising costs of health care. And there is little reason it should.

Yeah, having everyone insured expands the insurance pool lowering premiums. But premiums aren't about being in a group, they are about enabling you to pay for catastrophic care, and increasingly routine medical services. Doctors and hospitals have little reason to be priced competitively; after all the cost of your visit won't be coming directly out of your pocket, why even look at the price tag?

But what I think is hilarious is this common claim:

This study blows a hole in Republican claims that Obamacare has ill economic effects. In reality, Obamacare saves states money while improving the overall economy. Republicans who care more about fiscal responsibility than political gamesmanship would do well to embrace it.

I don't know how anyone can say that last sentence with a straight face. It's as if they keep telling themselves this, and maybe it will increase the odds of Obamacare being a success. Well don't kid yourselves.

Where is all this magic money coming from? If it's not coming from state governments it's coming from the federal government. That means you and me. Tell me now, how does taking money out of your pocket, and putting it in someone else's create wealth? If you can figure that out, let me know. And please don't say the printing press.

Think Progress also buys into (or hackishly spreads) the lie that Obamacare is revenue neutral. Back during the congressional debates this was a very controversial position. It was all over the news, and plenty of researchers dived into it. But it doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics or political science to figure out that health care subsidies for millions of people isn't gonna be "revenue neutral".

MSNBC's Touré straight up authoritarian

Via the Blaze, MSNBC's 12 year old host (I kid, I kid, he's actually 14) goes on a rant urging Americans to accept Obama's new role as dictator:

“Perhaps if there’s a second term for Obama after health care is enacted and people see it working well and get used to it, he’ll float to a new level of power.

“Maybe he’ll go even further trying to bolster his legacy by enacting new paternalistic mandates meant to make the nation better. Saying all Americans must vote, because government works better when all participate in selecting leaders.

Eat your vegetables!

Yeah it's a "self parody" or something but pay attention to the end of the clip; he believes "the government should lead sometimes... sometimes the people need to be driven further". Allow me to translate: The government should coerce often, in directions against their will.

SCOTUSblog: CBS story challenges Roberts' ability to lead

A very interesting read from SCOTUSblog on the likely affects of the Sebelius decision, the CBS report, the leaks that lead to it, and who wrote what:

[T]here is the discussion of the composition of the dissent... the story says that the Chief Justice had no part in that document.  It was the joint collaboration of the four Justices who ultimately dissented, according to the account.

The story also implies that the writing of that opinion came after Roberts’s purported switch.  But there is one telltale contradiction of that possibility.  On page 25, the dissenters say that, if the ruling in favor of the mandate were based upon the Tax Clause, that ”would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question,” but it then added that “we have no need to address the point.”   The point is whether the tax was, in constitutional terms, a “Direct Tax.”  But, unaccountably from the language in the dissent, Roberts’s opinion does directly confront that difficult question, and decides that the penalty associated with the mandate is not a Direct Tax, but is a tax nonetheless.  That conflict makes the supposed sequencing of the dissent and the Roberts opinion somewhat doubtful...

[T]he prospect of lingering impact of the CBS story is not due only to the fact of the leaks.   The content itself is a public rebuke of Roberts, from inside the Court, and amounts to a direct challenge to his ability to lead the Court and to take steps — if that was what his position on the health care law was intended to do — to insulate the Court from the partisan polarization that so dominates the rest of Washington.

Read the whole thing.

Crazy stuff. But no worries Mr. Chief Justice, half the people are oblivious. Just go on writing both opinions and dissents. I hear it's good mental exercise.

It's a tax, it's a penalty, it's both. Romney campaign confused.

First we have Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom going on MSNBC and saying the Obamacare mandate penalty/Obamatax is, contrary to the Supreme Court decision, not a tax but a penalty.

And right on cue every partisan enveloped in the tit-for-tat horse-race collectively climaxed in joy or anger depending on their persuasion.

So apparently these semantics are a BFD, as the President would say.

Enter Chris Christie:

I don't think it's exclusively a tax or a penalty, it's both.

Wait, wait. So it goes both ways? Does this have something to do with bipartisanship where both sides win? I r confused.

But Romney isn't. He's had enough of the rhetorical kama sutra required for the Obamatax:

For an issue that's supposedly potent against Democrats, Romney's campaign is declaring a cease fire. This, even as the law polls unfavorably and it proved to be a motivating force for Republicans and disaffected independents in the 2010 midterms.

It's becoming clear that Romney has decided to focus on the economy at the expense of everything else... He's avoided criticizing the administration's handling of the botched Fast and Furious operation, even as it threatens to become a serious vulnerability for the president.

So Romney is trying the successful McCain strategy of playing nice? But let me say seriously that I think the National Journal overstated the facts. Actually they just linked to the story about Fehrnstrom and decided that was enough to call it a "cease-fire". Great work guys!

In response to Mr. Fehrnstrom going off message, conservatives are upset about Romney's apparent silence:

The Obama campaign has seized on remarks made by Romney adviser Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fehrnstrom this morning on MSNBC, to the effect that the individual mandate in Obamacare (and Romneycare) is not a tax. Fehrnstrom allowed Chuck Todd to push him off message--and re-ignited the fears that conservatives have long had about Romney's will and ability to fight. In response, conservatives--who had just coalesced around opposition to what many now call "Obamatax"--exhort: Mitt, start fighting, or give up and let someone else do it.

This just won't do; McCain strategy off. I guess rhetorical kama sutra sprinkled with semantic foreplay is back on.

So is the Romney campaign, in fact, declaring a “cease-fire” on Obamacare? No, no, no, says Romney spokesman Ryan Williams. “From our perspective, Obamacare has been and will continue to be a central issue in the campaign,” says Williams. “It presents voters with a bright line that divides the two candidates. Gov. Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and President Obama is going to keep it. There is a clear choice in November.”

To make matters worse for team Romney, Mitch "squishy balls" McConnell throws in this stinkbomb:

"Odds long to undo health care law."

[Republicans] promise to efficiently manage the Leviathan with a measured hand. And maybe some tax breaks from time to time. And who better to keep that promise than the man whose team gave us state-run health care in the first place?

I'm beginning to doubt the competence of Romney's campaign. Their messaging is so confused and changes day to day, compounded by the fact Romney is known as a flip-flopper. If your guy can't stay on message, fire him on the spot. Make him walk out of the interview in shame. But if there is any truth to the "cease-fire", Susan Duclos explains why it might be a good idea:

Obamacare will be a defining issue in the November 6, 2012 presidential election as will the economy and jobs, but the individual battles fought until that day must be divided up accordingly where Romney's strength in business can be utilized by his campaign and his weakest area, health care, can be utilized by other sources.

Yes, Romney's campaign is confused, or at least incompetent at appearing otherwise. They need to get on message, stay on message, and don't be afraid of a little multitasking. There's gold in them there hills!

Eva Longoria: No way women can vote Republican

In other news, Eva Longoria is the Obama campaign's Co-Chair?

“I don’t think it’s a hard choice if you’re a woman,” said Longoria during an Obama campaign event in Colorado over the weekend, according to The Denver Post. “We have to get out there and tell (others) ‘If you’re a woman, there is no way you can vote Republican.’”

Well, as a pre-op femme fatale I believe I can discuss this issue with absolute moral authority.

First of all, Obamacare won't even cover my sex reassignment surgery, only to throw additional taxes on my cosmetic surgeries. How can she even work for this blatant misogynist?

Secondly, I won't be getting free contraception because my premiums are going up thanks to Obamacare. I mean Obama is taking away my right to promiscuity by raising my premiums!!1!

And now I have to pay an extra tax just to look beautiful! How is a girl supposed to stay tan and affluent? Maybe I'll just keep trying this whole guy thing for awhile.

New poll spells trouble for Republicans?

At least it appears so on it's face. A Kaiser health tracking poll found that

a majority of Americans (56 percent) now say they would like to see the law’s detractors stop their efforts to block its implementation and move on to other national problems.

What went unreported however, is that among those polled, support for the Supreme Court's decision is basically split: 47% approve - 44% disapprove (3% margin for error). And Republicans have a slight edge on enthusiasm:

...to the extent that the court’s decision to uphold the law does motivate people to vote, higher shares of Republicans say the result makes them more likely to turn out on election day than Democrats (31 percent compared to 18 percent).

Now let's apply a little commonsense. Elections and issues aren't decided in a vacuum. This will be largely a referendum on Obama. While incumbents typically have a significant advantage, in my opinion this decision only serves to fuel the Republican base and ease Democrats' fears.

Repealing Obamacare on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

75% of Obamacare costs fall on middle class

According to the Wall Street Journal's senior economist, Stephen Moore, 75% of Obamacare's costs "will fall on the backs of the families" making less than $120,000 a year.

Great, it's as if the economy needed another shot of industrial strength horse tranquilizer.



Wait a sec... Just got an email from Friedrich Engels telling me not to worry, it's actually better this way. Well now, looks like we have a surefire way to finally nail down that elusive "recovery".

Confirmed: Roberts switched his vote

It's unsettling to know a Chief Justice changes his position on such important constitutional issues. Apparently CJ Roberts originally sided with the conservatives in May, but as we all know changed his mind and joined the liberals.

Jan Crawford at CBS got the scoop:

[Roberts] changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

Naturally a lot of people are talking about this and I'm still skimming through all the commentary. But on page 2 of Crawford's article we're led to believe it is likely Roberts' vote was influenced by media coverage.

Rdbrewer at Ace's favorably compares French judges to Roberts, regarding potential outside influence. Roberts apparently absorbs news like a sponge. I tend to agree, at the very least, a Supreme Court Justice should avoid media coverage on the specific issue under consideration.

Randy Barnett at Volokh has more including video of Crawford on Face the Nation.

My main worry about the Obamacare ruling

I have been largely ambivalent about the Supreme Court decision. Like Krauthammer, Barnett, and Erickson, I liked the fact that this was largely a conservative/libertarian opinion in all respects save upholding the ACA. And given the public's opposition to it, I tend to think it only increased the odds of kicking Obama out this November.

However, stare decisis isn't sacrosanct. Far from it. I fear what John Yoo articulated so well:

[A]n Obama second term may see the appointment of up to three new Supreme Court members. A new, solidified liberal majority will easily discard Sebelius's limits on the Commerce Clause and expand the taxing power even further. After the Hughes court switch, FDR replaced retiring Justices with a pro-New Deal majority, and the court upheld any and all expansions of federal power over the economy and society. The court did not overturn a piece of legislation under the Commerce Clause for 60 years. [emphasis added]

I don't know why Roberts did what he did, perhaps even switching his vote at the last minute. Although I can understand rationalizing a wrong decision to save an institution, I couldn't condone it.

If it isn't the high court's "job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices" then it is surely not your job to protect a political climate from the duty of the court.

White House: The Obamacare tax is a penalty

It's pretty obvious they would avoid using the word "tax", especially given it is the one piece of legislation so central to the administration, so close to an election.

But to me frankly, "penalty" doesn't sound much better. Here's what Press Secretary Carney said:

“You can call it what you want... If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax. It affects one percent, by CBO estimates, of the population.”  Pressed on whether that 1 percent will be paying a tax or a penalty, he responded, “It’s a penalty because you have a choice. You don’t a have a choice to pay your taxes. You have a choice. If you can afford health insurance, if you don’t buy it.”

So if you decide not to pay the "penalty" you go to unicorn and rainbow prison, instead of that other kind? Penalty or tax, it still sucks being coerced into buying something. Second look at Freeganism (no income, no taxes)?

And only 1% paying a new tax? Really? I'm not so sure. It's not like health care costs are going up either.

The same way penalties are not taxes, the Affordable Care Act is not costly.

Obamacare ruling in meme form

From ErikLundegarrd.com:

From Never Yet Melted:

And one of my own:

Update: Here's an original:

Another update: Business Insider has more.

Feel free to link your own or put out some ideas.

Obama 2007: I will not use reconciliation for health care. Obama 2010: Lol wut?

Great find by AHFF Geoff at CentristNet. During the run up to grab the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Obama promised to move past the partisanship, to not be a 50+1 president:

...there are a lot of nice perks to being president, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy...

The interviewer then asked, “So is your answer to ‘Why I will be a better president than Hillary Clinton,’ is your answer that she’ll be a 50-plus-one president and you won’t?”

“Yes,” Obama said.

And then there's today's Obama, where polls show support for his health care reform doesn't even come close to 50%.

Stupak: You know, I'm pretty optimistic we can work this whole abortion thing out

"I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago" he says. How much so is anybody's guess. But it's not looking good.

It's all over if Pelosi manages to persuade him.

Or is it?

If the GOP wanted to play hardball here, McConnell and Boehner could issue a statement saying that Republicans will not vote for any abortion fix later on but will instead vote “present” as a way of protesting the passage of ObamaCare. That would leave Stupak in a bind because, without Republican votes, there’s likely no way an abortion bill to his liking would pass the House or Senate. The risk is, if the GOP makes that move, then the pro-choice Democratic congressional majority could pass a law providing for abortions to be fully funded under ObamaCare, which would leave Republicans who voted “present” with some ’splaining to do to pro-life groups.

Since Porkulus, the Republicans have been extremely well disciplined, but as Allahpundit says, this isn't without risk. A very scary and probably unnecessary risk I might add, for a lot of Republicans who think November is already in the bag.

I'm not that optimistic.

Question of the Day

"If increasing the government's role in healthcare is supposed to cut costs, why has Medicare and Medicaid spending grown faster than private insurance premiums?"

-Carl @ NOfP

Another Dem Congressman wants to stay on just to vote against Obamacare

This slow-motion trainwreck is getting more explodier by the minute:

"Congressman Davis will be present for the HC vote and he is a no," Davis's communications director, Addie Whisenant, wrote in an email...

Davis is one of 23 House Democrats to vote against healthcare reform and climate change.

In announcing his no vote last year on healthcare, Davis said, "We risk a disaster if we get this wrong."

via Ace.

Lipinski flips to "no" vote on Obamacare

The Stupak gang keeps growing. From John McCormack at the Weekly Standard:

Add Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois to the coalition of pro-life Democrats standing firmly with Bart Stupak in the fight over taxpayer-funding of abortion in the health care bill. Asked if the congressman is "open to voting for a health care bill that lacks the Stupak amendment," Lipinski's spokesman Nathaniel Zimmer replied in an email to THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "No. Congressman Lipinski will not vote for a health care bill that provides federal funding for abortion."

If it were as easy as a promise from Pelosi to strip out abortion funding, this bill would have been signed already. The trouble for Pelosi is that it's transparently obvious she cannot enforce such a promise, so she really can't make one without looking stupid. It would take promises from quite a few Senators and progressive House members to do that, which just isn't happening.

Increasingly it looks like the only way to save Obamacare is to kill it and start over.

via Ed @ Hot Air

Whoa: Massa claims Democrats forced him out for opposing Obamacare. Update: Massa to appear on the Glenn Beck show

As if things couldn't get any worse for the Democrats, now the scandal-tainted congressman claims that his own party isn't playing fair:

.Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) suggested on a New York radio station Sunday that he could rescind his resignation — scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday — after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed one of his aides may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote...

“I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”

During the hour-and-a-half show, Massa said that Democratic leaders are using the House ethics committee to get him out of office before the vote on health care because he voted against the House health care bill last fall.

A Hail Mary move, even if true

via NRO, which has video lending credence to Massa's claim.

Update: Rep. Massa to go on the Glenn Beck show for the whole hour. This just keeps getting better.

Update: Here's the key audio of Massa making his claim:

The Stupak game

Related to my last one, but I need to get my post count up. According to Marc Thiessen at the WaPo, about the only thing Pelosi can do to assuage Stupak and his gang is to promise them exactly what they want. But then there's still no guarantee, for the Senate still may change its mind and the bill.

This is where it all leads:

Stupak and the blue dog Democrats in the House have no leverage if they go along with Pelosi in a reconciliation strategy. The only way they can ensure that the abortion language and other provisions they oppose are eliminated is to reject reconciliation entirely -- and demand that the House and Senate start over with clean legislation.