Even though there is a very good chance the Supreme Court could rule against some or all of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration seems to have done nothing to prepare Democrats in Congress for this eventuality, according to Politico.
Congressional Democrats who wrote Barack Obama’s health care plan into law say they’re getting virtually no guidance from the White House on how to deal with the fallout if the Supreme Court overturns any part of the law.
There have been no meetings, no phone calls and no paper exchanged with the administration, according to Democratic lawmakers and staff. The top aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, David Krone and John Lawrence, did meet with the White House’s chief congressional lobbyist, Rob Nabors, last week to discuss a variety of issues.
But Nabors didn’t provide any information on how the president plans to approach the court’s ruling, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
I find this profoundly strange and very disconcerting. Even if the White House thinks it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will rule against them, which they shouldn’t at this point, there should always be a Plan B. When dealing with any issue at this high level, there should always be contingency plans to deal with even a remote possibility that has serious implications.
It is true there is little Democrats in Congress could actually do legislatively, but I would think the Obama administration would at least want the party on the same page. I would think they would want to project confidence and unity instead of appearing like the party is in disorder or chaos after a defeat.
The active refusal to have a plan B seems to have dominated the White House’s entire handling of health care reform since day one. They had no back up plan when it became clear the Gang of Six talks were failing. They seemed to have never planned for the possibility of Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts. They had no plan for dealing with the law becoming deeply unpopular. They also made no effort to change, replace or supplement the individual mandate during drafting to protect it from an expected legal challenge by Republicans.
After being caught flat footed so many times on this one issue, the continued apparent refusal to create contingency plans is just bizarre. This crosses the thin line from projecting confidence to just appearing delusional.




45 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Kennedy’s position must be known. The insurance / healthcare / pharma boys want in on some of the military / security boys action, and have the fulcrum identified. Just speculation natch, but otherwise, Obummer has visions of (book deals and speaking tour) sugar-plums dancing in his head. =)
No need for a plan B. This isn’t even being discussed in the MSM so no need for a dog and pony show. The mandate is there to help the health insurance corporations and the SCOTUS is there to help the corporations. SCOTUS will definitely rule in favor of the mandate, but I think they’ll rule against the medicaid extension. The boys in DC in the meantime will extensively cut the promised subsidies.
On something like healthcare, the players would be wise to not broadcast a Plan B until the details of the decision are known as well as the public reaction to the decision.
The obvious Plan B for progressives is to start ramping up support for Medicare for All and be ready to deal with the predictable objections from the right.
Obama’s health insurance plan is his “signature” piece of legislation and it’s awful but if it gets overturned, he has nothing. Why should he lead on this when he has lead on nothing else? He appears to be bored to death with the whole thing and should have decided not to run.
Two choices:
1. They do not care
2. They can blame the Republicans, and use it for reelection by promising to fix it this time.
They do not care and they can blame the Republicans, and use it for reelection by promising to fix it this time.
The point of the whole exercise was to subsidize the insurance companies. I don’t see that changing.
In fairness, it’s hard to have a plan b when the decision could take any of about 20 different forms. And at this point it is more usual to project unquestioning confidence rather preparing for the worst, especially when there is precious little they can do if the decision goes against them.
It does look likely that the decision will throw out at least some part of the law, given Ginsburg’s recent veiled remarks (talking about hard times ahead and the importance of minority opinions). But maybe I’m reading too much into her hints. Personally I think they’ll strike down the medicaid expansion. Its the most ideologically damaging move for the progressive cause…
Nor do I.
There’s probably a very good reason why Obama is providing no guidance on what to do if it’s overturned.
He’s got inside information that this RIGHT WING unconstitutional affront to freedom will be upheld by this right wing court.
And all progressives who chear the result deserve the fallout from the precedent it sets. When the government then mandates everyone purchase a new car from GM, Ford, or Chyrsler the next time the auto industry needs bailing out, I will merely clap and cheer, for it’s deserved.
There is simply NO WAY this is, and should be, constitutional, within the original intent of the framers. The framers intended the federal government have LIMITED powers, not unlimited ones, and if this mandate is ruled “constitutional” then the government will end up with UNLIMITED powers to mandate everything from having kids, to eating certain foods (not just purchasing them, CONSUMING THEM, because their consumption results in a 65% decrease in chance of cancer and therefore affects interstate commerce), to purchasing new cars as a way of bailing out the auto industry next time, which obviously affects interstate commerce.
Cheer on progressives, and we’ll see who’s cheering last.
Morans.
It’s just so mind numbingly unbelievable the hypocrisy.
I GUARANTEE YOU that had George W Bush and the Republican Congress passed this Heritage Foundation right wing health care mandate, progressives would’ve been united in it’s unconstitutionality (and inability to help).
But since it was passed with 100% of the votes being cast by names with a D after them and signed into law by a Pres with a D, half of the “progressives” now support it.
Just unbelievable.
That’s ok. I didn’t think much of Plan A.
Tell me about it. It boggles the mind that many Obamabots (and the four “liberal” judges on the SCOTUS) are supporting the mandate, which is a Republican goodie. If Bush passed it, the Dems would have been in opposition to it.
X2.
Obama never seems to have a Plan B for anything.
I don’t think he wants to win anyway.
Isn’t it funny how that works out. Either way – no universal health care and we get the same conservative bunk.
I think that is why he has a rather flat affect. He can’t think beyond his self imposed boundaries. He hits a wall and nothing happens.
He doesn’t fight worth a lick, does he?
Nope. Way too much effort. Much easier just to lay down and not fight at all.
The man has absolutely no imagination or willingness to try new things. Obama is a dullard.
Yes, he’s an excellent subordinate.
To whom?
And they won’t ,they are a bunch of panzies,however they don’t worry,Scotus
will declare the whole law constitucional,is a perfect law for insurers.
Indeed,that’s it,crystal clear.
To say they have no plan B is probably wrong. Why on earth would you put it out there to be picked apart by Mitt and the media in advance of the ruling.
I think it’s more likely they have several plan b’s out there, I just hope they don’t live down to its initials (bs).
Well, no matter how hard we try, we can never be cynical enough. First, why would anyone in the White House discuss strategy with Hoyer or Nelson before they absolutely had to? Presumably the Obama team has learned that their enemies are not limited to people with an R after their name. Second, the immediate result of adverse decisions by the Supreme Court will be to use the five conservative activists for campaign fodder. Any legislative proposal will be crafted exclusively to make headway in the campaign. There just isn’t going to be any significant legislative progress on anything between now and November. So, of course there are no discussions, public or otherwise. Pundits wondering about that are simply telling us they’re out of ideas.
There are no liberal justices on the SCOTUS. The centrists are the left-est wing of a very right wing court.
Callow. Sample Adolph Reed’s scorn: http://coreyrobin.com/2011/08/01/572/
Hope you have your pith helmet ready.
Based on numerous exchanges with supporters of the mandate over the past few years I’ve concluded that it simply appeals to an authoritarian streak that exists in many progressives (not as much as in conservatives but it’s there). They are just chomping at the bit to FORCE those “deadbeat free riders” to buy health insurance. Also they almost invariably imagine the uninsured to be mostly “invincible” young people who could easily afford insurance but who are selfishly withholding their considerable disposable income from the health care system and constantly showing up at the ER to get the broken leg from ski accident they had while on a coke binge fixed. So you have resentment of young people too. And, oh yes, I’ve gotten the “if they can buy bling and cell phones they can buy insurance” line from so-called progressives more than once. IMHO the worst thing that has come out of this health care debate has been the vilification and Welfare Queen-ing of uninsured Americans by Democrats. It’s disgusting, really.
How true.
It was a monumental sellout to the health insurance industry from before Obama even took office. I only hope that the “mandate” is voided so I don’t wind up in debtor’s prison.
There really is no alternative other than universal Medicare. Since the GOP hates that, announcing that as the Plan B would be sort of working the refs— the conservative justices would get the word from their corporate allies that the mandate isn’t such a bad thing after all.
As I mentioned before, Congress doesn’t actually have to raise taxes to expand Medicare’s eligibility and coverage, just stick the tab on the Federal Reserve (net budgetary cost, $0). :o)
http://monetaryrealism.com/mmt-jg-medicare-mmt/
It was interesting that your use of the phrase “D after”, without a space, would read “Dafter”. That’s an appropriate description of these corporate puppets and their supporters. It would be funnier if it wasn’t so tragic. Just another form of debt slavery courtesy of our Corporatocracy.
Apparently the “Democrats” in Congress don’t support single-payer or Medicare for all either. This bill was supposedly written by an aide to Max Baucus(D), who is a former WellCare (I think) executive. It has bipartisan support, which means they are united in their effort to screw us.
Don’t worry about Obama. By following the dictates of his corporate puppeteers, he wins either way. He’ll walk away from all of this a very wealthy man with the ability to continue to enrich himself. If the 99% gets subjected to anal rape by his policies, it has no discernible affect on him or his family.
“…they would want to project confidence and unity instead of appearing like the party is in disorder or chaos after a defeat.”
I thought “disorder and chaos” were in the party platform.
Unity certainly isn’t.
Its like Winston Churchill said, “The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.”
The wheels are coming off the axles of the healthcare system. The federal govt really has no choice but to jump in with both feet to take over healthcare financing. Once you accept the point that its unethical to underwrite tithe chronically ill out of the healthcare system, private insurers provide absolutely no value added. Medicare is basically the only way out of the woods. The only question is how long it will take Congress to acknowledge that we’ve exhausted every other alternative.
3. They do care, and are actively working toward failure.
Anyone truly wanting reform would not have taken single-payer, the public option and negotiated prescription drug prices off the table, let alone do so in back-room deals.
Damn straight.
One of the best critiques I have ever read. Thank you so much for perfectly articulating most of the concerns I’ve had for the past 2 1/2 years.
Maybe there are too many possible permutations of an outcome for WH and Dems to have a plan B on the shelf, except in the broadest of terms. And then, it’s not just WH and Dems anymore.
They’ll punt somehow.
Add the reconfirmed ban on reimporting medicines to your list as well. Big Pharma wants patients in the US to subsidize their sales everywhere else. Slugs.
80 lost seats in Congress for nothng
I agree. Obama preserved Too Big to Fail. That was his main goal and it was wildly successful. If he is defeated that will be right in line with his sullen miserly demeanor. he’s a mean one Mr. Grinch
@Jon Walker, I don’t know if you’ve addressed this or not but there’s a lot of good research out there about uninsured Americans and what their health care currently costs us. This article is a good synopsis of it:
This is taking into account all current expenditures, compensated and uncompensated.
And:
Explain this to me like I’m 5 years old: If uninsured people are currently receiving HALF as much health care (in total dollars) as the insured, how can they possibly be to blame for high health care costs? And the article explains how most of the costs of the uncompensated care are borne by the government and other entities and very little by costs shifted to premiums. Not the 8% we keep hearing about.