Federal Judiciary

Obamacare Takes a Beating -- By: The Editors

It's been a bad week for Obamacare.

On Tuesday, Show Me State voters fired a shot across the bow of the administration, with a stunning 71 percent of those casting ballots supporting a referendum opposing the centerpiece of Obamacare -- the so-called 'individual mandate.' That's the requirement that every citizen and legal resident of the United States purchase government-approved health insurance.

The Missouri vote came on the heels of a decision by a district court judge in Virginia denying the administration's motion to dismiss a case challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate in court. The lawsuit, brought by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli and others, will therefore proceed to trial in the coming months. Moreover, the judge's statement accompanying his denial of the administration's motion made it abundantly clear that this is anything but a frivolous exercise. It seems to be dawning on more than a few people, in and out of the legal profession, that if the federal government can do this, it can do almost anything.

#ad#Obamacare's apologists have always glossed over the burden the individual mandate would impose on average Americans. To hear them tell it, Obamacare is another great government giveaway, providing health care for one and all, at no cost to anyone save for the very rich.

But the reality is far different. At the heart of the new law is an onerous and costly obligation, one that allows Democrats now in power to claim they had passed 'universal coverage' while hiding much of costs of the massively expensive exercise behind another unfunded mandate. The mandate will be especially burdensome to the low- and moderate-wage households Democrats claim they want to help. They will be forced to accept one-size-fits-all coverage that is more costly than what many of them are signed up for today. And if that coverage is coming from an employer, all of the costs will get passed on to them -- without any additional federal support.

Ironically, the Democrats were so desperate to say they had finally 'covered everyone' that they were willing to create guaranteed revenue and profits for the despised insurance industry. Private insurers acquiesced in the Democratic takeover of the health-care sector because they calculated that the individual mandate would generate enough revenue to offset the costs imposed on them. Under Obamacare, private insurers don't have to work to earn their money -- it will come to them automatically, courtesy of governmental coercion.

Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Americans will like the new health-care law once they have it explained to them. It is apparent that Missouri voters beg to differ. They were told Obamacare would cover the uninsured while miraculously cutting costs for everyone else. But when they took a closer look at what was actually in the law, what they found was costly regulations, taxes, and mandates. And, like voters in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts before them, they made it abundantly clear that they want no part of it.  Citizens in other states are sure to do the same at the first opportunity.

Opponents are right to focus their initial attacks on the individual mandate, as it is the soft underbelly of the entire Obamacare beast. If the individual mandate is nullified, either by court ruling or a political uprising, the rest of the Obamacare edifice will become increasingly shaky -- increasing Republicans' chances of knocking it down after the November elections.

Full post as published by Bench Memos - National Review Online on August 06, 2010 (boomark / email).