Search This Blog


Landrieu Senate seat imperiled by coming Court decision

Given the direction of the justices’ interlocution, it almost would have to be necessarily have been an intentional fakeout for some part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare’) not to be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court this summer. It’s never over until the decision actually gets announced by the Court, so in the opinion shopping that will ensue it’s possible that it could stand. But going with the smart money that foresees, at the very least, the excising of the individual mandate, how will this forecasted result affect the political career of Sen. Mary Landrieu?

Louisiana’s only remaining statewide-elected Democrat made infamous by her “Louisiana Purchase” concerning the law, she provided the crucial Senate vote for the matter as a result of a provision slipped into it that would increase the Medicaid reimbursement Louisiana would receive over the next few years. It was a canny political move for her in a sense because she played hard-to-get on a bill she really wanted to vote for in the first place, eliciting a state benefit and a campaign point in her favor. (It also got her a jab as a “prostitute,” making her the original less stupid, less ideologically brain-dead version of a blathering idiot who didn’t get an apology for that remark.)

Since then, Landrieu has continued her liberal ways (as a quick perusal of her voting record shows), but all the while trying to inoculate herself from enough of the larger voting public realizing that her ideology runs counter to its majority’s beliefs through tactical statements and votes, such as in defending interests in increasing oil extraction. Her strategy is to accumulate enough of these non-liberal moments to publicize mostly them in a 2014 reelection campaign, throwing up enough of a fog to deflect sighting her true views.

But any Court reversal on Obamacare cripples this attempt. Tossing the whole thing makes her look idiotic, as somebody who cannot understand the Constitution and jettisons it in favor of love of big, unconstitutional government. That thereby moots any gain she got from the deal, because she can’t argue that it’s an even better deal since the state got the money anyway without having to put up with Obamacare. To this line of defense, opponents simply will observe that the point remains that the Court’s ruling reveals, in terms of constitutional knowledge, that she is a moron who thereby lacks integrity if she thinks it’s acceptable policy-maker behavior to support something unconstitutional in exchange for money.

Perhaps Landrieu has anticipated this, as she sent out a mailer extolling all of the things she defines as positive concerning outcomes of the law already implemented, such as increased coverage for various people in various ways. But the one thing she neglected, quite intentionally, to address in this is the added costs to people – which one of her colleagues, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, did recently – that demonstrates the enormous extra costs already heaped upon the public, with the promise of many more to come. Regarding these, what conservatives reminded the public from the start and what liberals denied has become more apparent as time has passed – only the most ignorant or the most ideologically-trapped can deny there are no cost savings under Obamacare but instead entails enormous additional costs attached to a system that will decrease the quality of care.

So Landrieu can try to ignore this inconvenient truth by pummeling the electorate with examples of presumed benefits blighted by complete overturning of the law with no mention of the additional taxpayer and ratepayer costs avoided, but her opponents will not let her off the hook. And it actually would be worse for her if only the mandate gets invalidated, because then it becomes a “zombie” whose costs rise even higher without the mandate to fund it forcibly.

Picture especially an effective Obamacare opponent such as Rep. Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor, pounding home again and again how Landrieu was unaware enough to vote for an unconstitutional law whose cost associated with partial implementation already has brought so many higher costs as to negate any putative benefits she tries to advance, that perhaps will do far more damage to an economy and government fiscal position already poisoned near the point of no return by debt, and who would be crass enough to claim her getting extra money for the state made all of this worthwhile. This issue will dominate completely the campaign and override any claims by her on other issues that she really is not against the Louisiana majority.

Landrieu already has enough trouble on the issues such as the debt question to make her 2014 reelection problematic. Anything but affirmation of the law will make her position untenable.

1 comment:

Mr. Harris Plutocrat said...

Such a profoundly stupid post. Of course, neocons always supported the mandate when the idea was coming from their team, but when it's from Obama suddenly he wants to murder old people and to take their guns or something. You always know when Jeff is saying something weak when he presents it as undeniable. This time it is the garbage about Obamacare's costs and decrease in the quality of care. It isn't hard to find a neocon "study" designed to make Obamacare seem tyrannical and terrible. Notice that Jeff doesn't even want to grapple with the benefits of bringing in more people among the ranks of insured (except for the swipe at "*presumed* benefits"). In fact, this bill will save lives by bringing health insurance to people. When was the last time "pro-life" "Christian" Republicans contemplated the difficult problem of lack of health care in such a wealthy country? Sure as hell not when the neocons were in power. They want to get rid of Medicaid as much as they can get away with, and a repeal of Obamacare without any substitute would add 32m to the ranks of the uninsured. Lets be clear about costs and health benefits of Obamacare.

USA Today: Seniors see savings on Rx drugs under 2010 health care law ("Almost 4 million seniors saved about $2.16 billion through discounts for their prescription medications in 2011." And in making medicine more affordable, "When Medicare recipients are able to take their medications, Blum said, they are hospitalized less often for heart attacks, low blood sugar and asthma attacks. So far, he added, available data don't reflect savings for those hospitalizations to Medicare.")

Washington Monthly: Affordable Care Act, still working ("President Obama’s health care reforms have allowed 2.5 million young adults to get medical coverage")

And of course the neocon's competing plan from Ryan is a farce that relies on downright magical thinking, as described in detail by the Urban Institute report by Robert Reischauer.

But importantly, consider how people like Jeff dishonestly cook numbers to present apocalyptic scenarios. Remember when republicans like Jeff freaked out that Obamacare would kill 800k jobs? The numbers the neocons were citing were a reduction in labor supply, not jobs, and the number was reduced only because some people who were only working to maintain health insurance would no longer have to do so and so they would retire early with the ability to buy their own insurance. That's the sort of garbage you won't find in "studies" that Jeff coughs up.