Will a finding of the HC mandate as unconstitutional hurt Obama's re-election?

Not at all. In fact, it would probably give him a slight bump among the loonies of the Left when he comes out and says... "See, Republicans want to deprive you of the right to medical care, to force you to pay for your own bills, and to KILL YOU!!!"

I honestly think it's going to atleast hurt him a bit. I mean then Romney can play the "you went against the American people's will" card and also the "Obama likes to pass unconstitutional law" card.

I do not believe it will hurt his re-election chances, if only because his opposition will be DOA regardless anything other issues.

MaggieD said:

Name one....

Click to expand...

Equalize the tax treatment between employers and individuals in the health insurance market.


gosh, that was easy .




Bluntly, if the Supremes strike down the Mandate, it seems to give credence to Romney's argument that mandates may be acceptable, but only at the State level. Romney's critique of Obamacare was always Constitutional in nature, and so the SCOTUS decision would seem to dovetail with and reinforce him. In addition, a SCOTUS decision striking the mandate puts Obama in a no-win situation. His base will expect him to excoriate the Court, however, doing so would require that he double down on a deeply unpopular position against an institution that most Americans generally respect. He either get's to deal with a disenheartened base which feels itself betrayed, or he get's to tell the 60-70% of Americans who think the mandate is unconstitutional that they and the Supreme Court can go get stuffed.

There is no plausible way that keeping Obamacare in the news (no matter how the ruling comes out) net helps him in November 2012.

Kal'Stang said:

Wait...Romney is the "architect of Obamacare"? He wasn't even in Congress or the Senate. He wrote absolutely nothing in that bill.

Click to expand...

Except that the whole idea of the individual mandate is what Romney care in Mass. was based on.

Used to be, that was the Republican idea to reform health care. As late as 2005, Gingrich thought it was a good one. What happened?

To answer the question, of course it hurts. Republicans waited to bring the suit until it would come to a head during the election, banking on the fact that the SC striking it down would be a death blow to Democrats.

I dont know...Im sure they will make political hay if the Mandate is tossed. The best thing the GOP could do is counter with...'and'? As in...so what? How many of you even have the first clue what exactly is in the legislation (except of course for the people who's insurance premiums have already been jacked-we kinda have a feel for that part)? Instead of mandated coverage you are still left with 'voluntary' coverage. And things have changed...how? You feel that health insurance 'love' you are getting now being stripped away do ya? Of course not. NO ONE is happy with that POS legislation and most people that voted on it never bothered to read it.

Kal'Stang said:

Wait...Romney is the "architect of Obamacare"? He wasn't even in Congress or the Senate. He wrote absolutely nothing in that bill.

Click to expand...

Right, but the senators/representatives who did borrowed almost every idea from Romneycare.

rocket88 said:

Except that the whole idea of the individual mandate is what Romney care in Mass. was based on.

Click to expand...

What can work on a Constitutional level on a state level does not mean that it can work on the national level. Also didn't Romney care in Mass. fail due to money issues? (serious question) Our congressmen and senators should have known that. Though to be honest I don't think that it should be allowed even on a state level. Making individuals buy things from private companies for simply being alive is just bad all around.

rocket88 said:

Used to be, that was the Republican idea to reform health care. As late as 2005, Gingrich thought it was a good one. What happened?

Click to expand...

Beats me. I was never a Gingrich fan to begin with.

rocket88 said:

To answer the question, of course it hurts. Republicans waited to bring the suit until it would come to a head during the election, banking on the fact that the SC striking it down would be a death blow to Democrats.

Click to expand...

Hmm...don't know about them waiting to bring the suit...I thought for sure that it was SCOTUS that set the date.

cpwill said:

Romney's critique of Obamacare was always Constitutional in nature,

Click to expand...

A better way to describe Romney's critique of the Affordable Care Act would be "opportunistic" and "inconsistent." Romney wrote an op-ed in 2009 in USA Today saying that Obama should adopt many of the ideas from Romneycare, specifically citing the individual mandate as a great idea to scale up nationally.

and so the SCOTUS decision would seem to dovetail with and reinforce him. In addition, a SCOTUS decision striking the mandate puts Obama in a no-win situation. His base will expect him to excoriate the Court, however, doing so would require that he double down on a deeply unpopular position against an institution that most Americans generally respect.

Click to expand...

Although I too am skeptical that Obama can win by declaring all-out war on the Supreme Court, he can still criticize them...especially in the immediate aftermath of the decision. As for it being "deeply unpopular," if the mandate is struck down, chances are some of the Affordable Care Act's more popular provisions will be struck down as well. I think it's highly doubtful that the Supreme Court would only remove the mandate and nothing else (although they did bring in an outside lawyer to argue that position). Therefore I don't think it will be as unpopular as you might think for Obama to double down on it: "Thanks to Republican lawyers - egged on by Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans - you can't get health insurance coverage if you have a preexisting conditions. Reelect me and I'll appoint more competent Supreme Court justices who think you should be able to get health insurance." I don't know how well that argument would actually play with the voters, but it hardly seems obvious that it would be a deeply unpopular position.

He either get's to deal with a disenheartened base which feels itself betrayed, or he get's to tell the 60-70% of Americans who think the mandate is unconstitutional that they and the Supreme Court can go get stuffed.

Click to expand...

Obama's approval rating is not particularly low among Democrats or liberals, so I don't see much evidence that the base feels betrayed. I strongly suspect he'll go with the latter option, although if he's smart he probably won't make the Supreme Court a major focus of the election, except in an oblique way by telling voters what kind of justices they can expect him (and his opponent) to appoint.

meh. Support for "the more popular provisions" of Obamacare tend to melt away when people are asked what trade-offs they would accept for them. Americans like free candy as much as anyone else .

If the SCOTUS makes an extremely popular decision, and the President attacks them for it, he is attacking the 60-70%(ish) of Americans who agree with them, and doing so in an area that seems to confirm the worst of Republican attacks on him (that he is an overzealous bureaucrat who thinks he can run your life better than you, but fails at it). Trying to reach for a political fig leaf of 26-year-olds-on-their-parents-policy isn't going to give him much cover from that.


I'd agree that Romney's opposition to the mandate at the national level is slippery - but his critique of Obamacare will remain confirmed by the SCOTUS. Net benefit, Romney, who comes off looking like the middle-road-moderate in the debate.

It would ensure his re-election.