Mandate, myth and Ben Smith (Part 2)
[Posted by Karl]
After writing about Ben Smith’s memory of the role Big Insurance (specifically AHIP) played in both supporting and opposing Obamacare, I heard from him via email and Twitter. He made the point that these two anti-Obamacare ads financed by the Chamber of Commerce (possibly with money from AHIP) attacked the tax-and-spend aspects of the then-pending legislation. Smith misses two points.
First, while it is true the ads he identifies do not attack the “public option” or the employer mandate, it is equally true they do not attack the individual mandate, either.
Second, and more important, the ads Smith identifies ran in November and December of 2009. Unfortunately for Smith, that was near the end of Obamacare’s long journey to passage. He conveniently ignores that in June 2009, the Chamber’s ads were focused on opposing a government-run “public option” and that AHIP was on the sidelines. Smith also ignores that in July 2009, the Chamber was still focused on the “public option” (and supporting the individual mandate), while AHIP ran its first ad, which called for bipartisan legislation providing universal coverage, even to those with preexisting conditions. Watch it, especially if your name is Ben Smith.
As noted in the prior post, what happened next is that Congresspeople and Senators caught a ton of flak from their constituents over the summer recess. But when they returned from recess, Democrats did not junk the “public option.” Instead, they watered down the individual mandate, creating the risk of putting insurers into a “death spiral.” Then, in late October 2009, Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid submitted a draft healthcare bill including a “public option.” It took White House intervention in mid-December 2009 to get Senate progressives to give up the “public option” and thereby secure the necessary vote of Sen. Joe Lieberman from insurer-friendly Connecticut. BTW, does anyone wonder why the mandate wasn’t Joe Lieberman’s “line in the sand”? Does Ben Smith wonder?
In short, during November-December 2009, AHIP was being stabbed in the back by Democrats like a Quentin Tarantino staging of Julius Caesar. No one should be surprised that AHIP tired of playing Lando Calrissian to the Democrats’ Lord Vader… with the apparent exception of Ben Smith. AHIP ran more bare-knuckle ads for a few weeks that were designed to send a message to the White House and the Democratic Congress as much as the public. But they spent months beforehand supporting legislation that met their criteria (particularly reliance on the individual mandate). That support — and the time it bought Democrats — was valuable, perhaps crucial, to the ultimate passage of Obamacare. I appreciate that Ben Smith took the time to respond to my post, but the history seems to conflict with his memory.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (6f7ecd) — 4/2/2012 @ 4:54 pmKarl – Revisionist history always improves with the retelling, until the reviser is reminded of the facts.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/2/2012 @ 5:22 pmlike a Quentin Tarantino staging of Julius Caesar
That was a pretty good line.
Noodles (3681c4) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:13 pmDon’t you be messin’ with the narrative now, Karl. They’ll have to call another meeting of journolist if you keep this up.
elissa (6b21af) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:24 pmPresident Obama preemptively slammed the Supreme Court as a bunch of “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they decide to strike down his signature legislative achievement, the healthcare reform act.
Obama was speaking at a trilateral event with the Prime Minister of Canada and President of Mexico.
Obama touted the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.”
“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress,” President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.
“I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said to the White House press.
“As I said, we are confident this will be over — this will be upheld. I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this piece of legislation or my presidency,” he said.
I know Karl and Patterico have to be giggling while they writemtheir posts about how fundamentally idiotic Teh One’s comments were. Ismhe tryimg to delegitimize an anticipated ruling against his awesomeness, or does he truly think something is constitutional because it was passed by a strong majority ofmone party? Or does unprecedented mean anything over 1300 times in the history of the Court, or over 50 times since 1980? remember, he is a constitutional scholar. I think he is an idiot.
JD (318f81) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:24 pmJD–the “strong majority” part is a real guffaw maker. What was that vote count again?
elissa (6b21af) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:28 pmA strong majority makes it Constitutional. Unless it is DOMA.
JD (318f81) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:30 pmJust another reminder that Barry was in Indonesia during those grades in American schools when they teach about the three equal branches of federal government.
elissa (6b21af) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:36 pmElissa – no constitutional scholar could make the statements he made without flogging themselves immediately.
JD (318f81) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:38 pmKarl – I have to refresh my memory on some of this public option stuff, especially the permutations with delayed triggers. As I recall, a major objection to a government option was that it represented unfair competition to private insurers, not a level playing field, so a basic decision needed to be made whether to include private market solutions to health care reform or allow a full on government takeover. Including a public option was viewed by most honest folks as tantamount to a full on government takeover and as unsaleable as government-sponsored universal healthcare.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/2/2012 @ 7:48 pmdaleyrocks,
Most of the ways the public option would constitute unfair competition are linked here:
https://patterico.com/2009/07/16/obamacare-the-mask-is-off/
Karl (6f7ecd) — 4/2/2012 @ 9:34 pmJD,
I dunno if I’ll write on Obama’s comments today. Although there’s no real evidence that he got a leak about the Court’s initial vote, I do wonder whether Kagan or Sotomayor (or those associated with them) could resist getting a message out somehow.
Karl (6f7ecd) — 4/2/2012 @ 9:38 pmNo, this is his default setting ‘the Court acted stupidly’ re Citizens United, but it does illuminate his thinking or lack thereof on the matter.
narciso (56cc9c) — 4/2/2012 @ 9:47 pmKarl – Thanks. Seems like my memory did not fail me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/2/2012 @ 10:10 pmKarl, JD, et al. — What is mind-boggling is that Dear Leader would fire the shot across the SCOTUS bow so early. Wasn’t the whole point of Elena Kagan’s nomination that — in the words of her benefactor, Larry Tribe — she would be able to pull Anthony Kennedy over to the Dark Side (just in keeping with Karl’s Star Wars theme)? Why would the President say something that is bound to antagonize Justice Kennedy right at the moment that he would theoretically be open to persuasion? Oh yeah, ’cause it’s Obama we are talking about.
JVW (4d72aa) — 4/3/2012 @ 8:23 amDoes he want vigorous defenses of the court so he can point to them if the decision is as he wishes?
I can’t see any other strategy that makes any sense.
Not that he’s sensible. Remarks like this don’t really work to his advantage if he means them to be taken at face value.
Not only is a “strong majority” not a proof of constitutionality, there wasn’t any strong majority, but a skin of teeth majority.
How can this work for him? He’s stupid so I guess that’s one explanation, but what’s his point? What does he expect to happen?
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/3/2012 @ 8:46 amRuth Marcus in the WaPo isn’t too fond of his intemperate comments about the supreme court either, SarahW. Especially the “unelected” part. It will be interesting to see if any other left leaning pundits from the (alleged) Eastern intelligentsia are moved to mention this in an effort to save their own reputations.
elissa (974993) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:10 amThis comment made me smile. It also reminds me of the disrespect shown to the Court in that SOTU address.
Obama is an amazingly successful politician for someone so bad at common sense politics. Just be nice to those you might need favor from. Or even just everybody until you’re given good cause not to be.
Instead, it’s President “I won!”
And this may very well be a reason his signature accomplishment will be undone. Though the real reason will probably just be that it’s unconstitutional.
Dustin (330eed) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:17 am17. I listened to mushmouth utter those words several times as Laura came back from commercials.
‘Unintellected’, ‘democratically re-elected’, whatever, I trust I got “uh” correctly most every time.
gary gulrud (5fe741) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:17 am18. Jugears is running against BOOSH, Congress, SCOTUS, white pipple, the Pope, Limbaugh, BYU, Halitosis and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Let’s take 80% of the electorate as the unreachable upper limit in turnout. Dog will not make 30%.
gary gulrud (5fe741) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:26 amObama is probably planning on eliminating the Supreme Court by executive decree since he views the Constitution as just a racist charter of negative liberties which can’t help solve the structural injustice deeply embedded in the fabric and institutions of this country.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:37 amElissa, there will be a blackout on mentioning things to save reputations until after the election. I don’t know any left-leaning pundit who would admit anything until its all over.
Should we all be so fortunate as to be rid of O, then the mentioning will begin.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:38 am“Why would the President say something that is bound to antagonize Justice Kennedy [?]”
Obama probably also wasn’t thinking about antagonizing all the Catholic Supreme Court Justices when he ginned up the faux war on women by trampling on established conscience exemption practices in the law with ObamaCare either.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:44 amHave a new post up on the Obama comments.
By popular demand!
Karl (f07e38) — 4/3/2012 @ 9:56 am___________________________________________
That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
A comment from a person who really is the type elected by and in charge of Banana-republic nations.
The voters of this country forever lowered the bar — way down — back in November 2008. They will have forever altered, if only symbolically, the sense that the US cannot stoop too low in who it allows into its top political office. As with Clinton and Monica — again, if only from a purely symbolic standpoint — Obama has contributed to a greater desensitization of the public. To the concept of “you can never go home again.”
Mark (31bbb6) — 4/3/2012 @ 10:38 am