By Kathleen Parker
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Let’s recap: If you like your insurance policy, you can
keep it. No, wait. If you liked your policy, it was probably worthless anyway.
Scratch that. If your junk policy was canceled and you still want it, you can
keep it. Er, get it back.
Whatever.
So now President Obama has apologized for real. On
Thursday, he told Americans, “I hear you loud and clear” (Do I hear an echo?)
and announced that insurance companies can ignore the law for a year. The
several million Americans whose policies were canceled, or were scheduled to be
canceled, can keep them — or get them back — assuming state regulators and
insurance companies comply.
It isn’t clear whether insurers can, or will, based on
the assurances of someone whose credibility isn’t exactly soaring. Meanwhile,
the newest promise dovetails with another earlier delay granted to businesses
with at least 50 employees (just 3.6 percent of employers), which were given
another year to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
With the computer-crash rollout preventing people from
signing up, businesses temporarily exempted from compliance and policyholders
either reinstated or facing yet another broken promise (for which the insurance
companies will be blamed), is there anyone left to love Obamacare?
In the wake of Obama’s latest tweak, two salient
questions have emerged: Can the ACA survive? Can the president even do what he
just did, legally?
Though brilliant minds may differ, the president is
probably within bounds, according to a compelling argument by Simon Lazarus,
senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. The relevant
constitutional text, he writes for the Atlantic, requires that the president
“take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” a broad-enough concept to
allow for judgment in the execution.
The only prohibition is that the president not fail to
execute the law owing to his opposition to a policy. Obviously, this is not the
case here. As a political matter, it is also obvious that Obama is merely
trying to right his own sinking ship, especially after Bill Clinton’s
undoubtedly heartfelt advice (you just know), as well as to preempt a new House
bill to aid canceled policyholders that passed Friday with bipartisan support,
including 39 Democrats.
Cynics on the left insist that Republicans have no real
interest in helping Obamacare. And, of course, they are correct. Do Republicans
just want to make sure Obama fails? Yes, but not for reasons sometimes
suggested. Oprah recently intoned that many Americans disrespect Obama because
he is African American. Even if that were remotely true, it is not the reason
half the country opposes Obamacare and many more now doubt its efficacy.
Similarly, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky notoriously said that his job was to make sure Obama was a one-term
president, it wasn’t because of race, nor was it immediate to the president’s
election. McConnell made his remark in October 2010, on the eve of the midterm
elections, and after Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote.
In other words, Republicans oppose Obama’s policies, not
the man, because they believe the president will so inexorably change the
structure of our social and economic system by mandating and punishing human
behavior that nothing less than individual freedom is at stake. Under present
circumstances, this hardly seems delusional. Does anyone really believe that
subsidized policyholders with preexisting conditions won’t eventually face
other mandates and penalties related to their lifestyle choices?
Finally, Democrats incessantly seize upon their prize
trophy: The U.S. Supreme Court validated Obamacare. True-ish. The high court
didn’t endorse Obamacare as a good idea. It didn’t even find the individual
mandate constitutional. It ruled that the mandate/penalty is constitutional
only if the penalty is viewed as a “tax.” If one were to examine this gift
horse’s mouth, one would have to note that, funny, but throughout the
health-care debate and oral arguments, and even now, Democrats have insisted that
the penalty is not a tax. Paging George Orwell.
Whether the ACA survives the new timetable remains an
open question. The plan sinks or swims on the basis of young, healthy people
signing up, which, for now, they cannot do except in dribs and drabs. Further,
the ACA clearly needed the canceled policyholders to buy new, more expensive
policies to underwrite subsidies and preexisting conditions.
Given the season, the timing of these un-glad tidings
could not be worse. Soon enough, Americans will figure out whether Obamacare is
the gift Democrats promised — or if Obama is the Grinch who stole, you know,
the holiday season.
No comments:
Post a Comment