GOP's ‘repeal and replace’ is a loser in 2016 election

GOP's ‘repeal and replace’ is a loser in 2016 election 

BY LEROY GOLDMANThe Charlotte Observer

Special to the ObserverJuly 1, 2015

In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court's four liberal justices and saved Obamacare's centerpiece: the compulsory individual mandate. Last week Roberts, along with sometimes conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the liberals again to pull Obamacare's fat from the judicial fire.

This time the Court preserved the crucial subsidies that most individuals enrolled in Obamacare receive. In the current case, King v. Burwell, petitionersargued that the Act precluded subsidies in 34 states where the federal government, not the state, established the Exchange. The Court upheld the subsidies in all states even though the act says in plain English that subsidies were authorized in exchanges “established by the state.”

Not surprisingly, Republicans and Conservatives have assaulted the Court's majority opinion as deeply flawed and highly political. And they have repeated their rallying cry to repeal and replace Obamacare.

But here is what those same Republicans and conservatives have not told you. They have not said that they are relieved that the Court ruled the way it did. “What?” you say. “That's impossible!” Wrong.

If the Court had struck down the subsidies in the 34 states in which the exchanges had been established by the federal government, 6.5 million Americans in those states would have found themselves between a rock and a hard place. With their subsidies terminated, most of them would no longer be able to afford their Obamacare coverage.

The fact of the matter is that the Republicans in Congress did not have an effective alternative to cope with the disruption that would have adversely affected millions of their constituents had the Supreme Court killed the subsidies.

The High Court's ruling has let the GOP off the hook, but only temporarily. It's a certainty that the GOP's standard bearer for the presidency in 2016 will campaign on driving a stake into the heart of Obamacare. It's equally certain that the Democratic nominee, presumably Hillary Clinton, will urge the nation to elect her so that Obamacare can be retained and improved.

Thus, it will be the 2016 presidential campaign where the rubber meets the road for the Republicans. Their nominee will have to put up or shut up on what their replacement for Obamacare would be. But the truth is that the GOP has no replacement. It only has fragments.

Some Republicans, the radical right wingers, will simply favor the obliteration of Obamacare. Others in the GOP will trot out a list of specific, competing fragments that will include tax credits for private health insurance, expanded use of Health Savings Accounts, a catastrophic health insurance program, medical malpractice reform and/or allowing each of the 50 states to do their own thing. Call that last one the States Rights option. It's a cop out.

It’s a virtual certainty the GOP standard bearer will be cornered without a viable alternative to Obamacare. That will be music to Hillary Clinton's ears. She will say Obamacare is working and needs to be improved. She will say the Republican Party has never supported health care reform and intends to destroy Obamacare.

The GOP loses that argument, and with it they lose the White House.

But there is a way to let the American people determine what kind of health insurance system they want. What if the GOP promised to enact an alternative to Obamacare that enables American people to freely choose between their plan and Obamacare? If the GOP built a better mousetrap, the American people would do to Obamacare what the GOP can't – reject it in favor of something vastly better.

That better mousetrap has been around more than half a century. Prior to Obamacare it was the largest health insurance program in the nation. It currently covers more than 8 million Americans. It offers its members a choice every year among a variety of fee for service and HMO plans. The fee for service plans enable one to choose their own doctor and hospital. Like Obamacare, its premiums are subsidized.

The plan is a working partnership between the nation's private health insurance companies, Blue Cross, and the federal government. Prior to Obamacare, it covered all of the members of Congress, including all the Republicans. It's name is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).

Giving the American people a choice between Obamacare and FEHBP is real, can be understood by average Americans and will enable them to choose the program that best suits their needs. It’s a winner – for everybody.

The Shadow Welcomes Comments.  Please contact me at:  EmailMe