By Paul Clement
If there is a modicum of hope
in Chief Justice John Roberts's inglorious one-man opinion Thursday, it is that
Americans were reminded again that they cannot count on others to protect their
liberty. Certainly judges aren't reliable. They can be turned by the pressure
of the media and the whims of vanity. If Americans want to repeal ObamaCare,
their only recourse is to demand it at the ballot box in November.
The Affordable Care Act is
more unpopular now than when it passed, yet it will grind on toward
implementation in a second Obama term. The President made that clear in his
remarks Thursday, deploying the usual half-truths he used to jam the law
through Congress. He continued to claim that no one will lose his current
health insurance, though millions are sure to do so as they are dropped from
business coverage and tossed into Medicaid or government exchanges.
The great irony is that Mr. Obama still couldn't bring himself to admit that the purchase mandate is a "tax," though that is the only logic by which the Chief Justice upheld it. (See above.) Mr. Obama referred to it instead with the euphemism that individuals must "take the responsibility to buy health insurance."
See nearby for examples of Democrats during the ObamaCare debate denying that this tax ever was or would be a tax. Had they called it a tax in 2009-2010, the bill would never have passed.
It is now
undeniable that Mr. Obama has imposed the largest tax increase in history on
the middle class. Individuals who don't buy insurance will have to pay several
hundred dollars, depending on income. The Congressional Budget Office says that
76% of those who pay the mandate tax will make less than 500% of the federal
poverty level, estimated to be $24,000 for a family of four in 2016. That means
76% of the payers will earn less than $120,000 a year.
So much for Mr. Obama's
promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $200,000. And this
initial mandate tax will only be a teaser rate when it becomes clear it isn't
nearly enough either to finance the bill or drive individuals to buy insurance.
Millions will wait to buy insurance until they need expensive treatment,
knowing they can always buy it when they show up at the hospital.
Meanwhile, the law's new rules
are already spreading through the health system—12,000 Federal Register pages
and counting—and private insurance premiums are starting to climb as a result.
Rates rose 9% last year, or by $1,200 for the average American family, and
ObamaCare will send them higher. ObamaCare also forms over 150 new boards with
power over the health markets, in particular an unaccountable bureaucracy run
by 15 solons who will eventually decide on the treatments that patients are
allowed to receive.
The great liberal gamble has
been that all of this will be forgiven or forgotten once the bill's insurance
subsidies start to flow in 2014. They are estimated to run $1.762 trillion over
10 years and grow by 8% a year, a conservative estimate that assumes costs
don't explode—which they will.
These subsidies are the heart
of the bill and the soul of its ideological project to hook the middle class on
"free" health care. The bet is that once an entitlement is in place,
it is forever—as in Europe.
This is the prize
that Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi thought was worth risking their Congressional
majorities for—worth even the risk of a weaker economic recovery that could
cost Mr. Obama the election. And as we are now learning in a variety of books,
this is the reason that Mr. Obama ignored advice from Rahm Emanuel to focus
above all on the economy and wait on health care. This is Mr. Obama's dream of
expanding government to create a permanent entitlement state.
And it is a dream that will
become reality unless the voters deny Mr. Obama another four years. Mitt Romney
seemed to grasp this point in his remarks on Thursday, noting that "If we
want to get rid of ObamaCare, we're going to have to replace President
Obama."
The presumptive GOP nominee
may have thought he could run solely on the economy, but now ObamaCare must be
central to his campaign. He is at a disadvantage on the mandate tax because he
supported a similar levy in Massachusetts—which may be why he failed to mention
it Thursday. But there is so much more to dissect and educate the public about,
if Mr. Romney and his advisers have the wit and nerve to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment