Too Big to Read May Make ObamaCare Fail
Remember in 2009 when conservatives in Congress presented an alternative to ObamaCare that would have guaranteed bipartisan support for some of the outcomes the Obama White House and its liberal allies wanted? Had the liberals concentrated on targeted reforms instead of a gargantuan“comprehensive solution” not only would the ultimate bill have been much shorter, it would have been much easier to read and comprehend.
That’s a point worth considering since judging by the comments from the Supreme Court this week, passing health reform piecemeal would have been a far better strategy for those wanting to salvage the legislation.
Due to ObamaCare’s massive size, Byron York notes that none of the Justices actually admitted reading the entire law. “I haven’t read every word of [the law], I promise,” said Justice Stephen Breyer on Wednesday. Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments to an attorney defending the law were more pointed: “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” “You really expect the court to do that?”
The problem for ObamaCare’s defenders is that the Justices’ refusal to read the entire law means that they are much less likely to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional and keep the rest. Instead, they’ll just invalidate the whole thing and have Congress start over.
If that happens, the liberal mania for “comprehensive” solutions for everything from illegal immigration to financial transactions and health care will be dealt a much-deserved blow. You can’t interpret what you can’t define.
If the Court strikes down ObamaCare in its entirety liberals will have only themselves to blame. Had they listened to conservatives, some of the popular aspects of ObamaCare – guarantees of coverage and subsidies for premiums – would likely be in place with bipartisan support. Now, they may have nothing to show for what could ultimately end up being a massive waste of time and money.