News from the Votemaster
A new Gallup poll taken after the Supreme Court decision to uphold the ACA shows that 46% of Americans agree with the decision and 46% disagree. Democrats strongly support it 5 to 1, Republicans oppose it 6 to 1, and independents slightly favor it, 45% to 42%. What this poll does not ask, and many polls don't ask is why people oppose it. The few polls that have done that have consistently found about 15% of the people oppose it because they want Medicare for All, that is, they want a much bigger government role in health care, not a smaller one. When that question is not asked, it makes it hard to interpret the poll.
On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter at all. What Gallup also found is that only 6% of the respondents rate health care as the #1 problem facing the country. As a consequence of its low importance and even split, this seemingly intractable issue may actually not affect the election very much, unless either President Obama or Mitt Romney really focus on it. But they might, and then the question of whether Romney can simultaneous attack Obamacare and run away from Romneycare comes up. It could be hard if Obama keeps pointing out they are the same thing, in essence.
As an aside, Gallup has taken the cell-phone-only household problem seriously and kept polling until it had 600 responses from landlines and 400 responses from cell phones. Then the results were weighted for demographic characteristics, as usual.
With all the ink and pixels devoted to the Supreme Court's decision on the ACA this week, there is one criticism that is actually legitimate and Republicans almost never make: who's going to take care of those 30 million insured people? Injecting so many new people into the health care system is going to require more doctors, more nurses, more lab techs, more MRI machines, and more of everything connected with the health-care delivery system. Lots of new doctors are not going to magically appear on Jan. 1, 2014 to take care of these people. In the short term, there will be longer waits to get services. The argument "Why should I have to wait longer to get an appointment with a doctor so some poor person can get medical care?" is callous, but at least it is legitimate, unlike "death panels." (If Democrats were clever, they might respond to remarks about "death panels" by saying: "Who do you want to determine your level of medical care, some pointy-headed Washington bureaucrat who doesn't care whether you live or die or some insurance company executive who actually has a strong preference for you dying as fast as possible?).
In the short run, more doctors from India and nurses from the Philippines could be given visas to come to the United States to take up some of the load. In the longer run, the government could offer financial incentives (such as interest-free loans) to get more students to go to medical school. But that would require expanding the capacity of the nation's medical schools. All of this is doable, but takes time and money. Getting the federal government to do this seems unlikely in the current climate, but states could do some of this to alleviate possible local shortages.
The one part of the ACA the Supreme Court did overturn relates to the expansion of Medicaid. In the law, states could choose to cover everyone up to 133% of the official poverty level ($14,000 for an individual, $29,000 for a family of four), for which they would get a very large amount of federal money (the carrot) or they could opt out and lose all their Medicaid funding (the stick). The Court said no. The federal government can't cancel funds owed on the existing Medicaid program. At most it could offer take-it-or-leave-it for the new one.
Some states see this decision as an invitation to haggle with the federal government. What the states would like is federal money with no strings attached. Obama doesn't want this and it is not clear how it will play out. If a governor ultimately rejects the new federal money and doesn't expand health care that could have electoral consequences. In the next campaign, the governor is going to have to explain why he turned down billions of federal dollars. Of course the explanation is likely to be: "But then we would have had to provide health care to poor people and that would have cost more than the feds were willing to pay."
In their dissent, the four justices who voted to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional did grapple briefly with Gonzales v. Raich and why its broad interpretation of the commerce clause ("growing marijuana for personal use is interstate commerce") did not apply in the ACA case. The explanation in essence is that since there would be no way to distinguish interstate marijuana from intrastate marijuana, the only practical solution was to ban people from growing it altogether. But using that reasoning, any time any state permitted a product or service not allowed in all states it would have to be banned because some of it might leak into the states where it was forbidden or people from those states might come get it where it was allowed. Think about 19-year-olds in states where the drinking age is 21 but who live close to the border of a state where it is 18. We could also think about love-stricken 16-year-olds living in New York City and looking longingly across the Hudson River to New Jersey, where the age of consent is 16 rather than New York's 17, but we are not going there.
|Alabama||36%||51%||Jun 29||Jun 29||Capital Survey|
Email a link to a friend or share:
Previous HeadlinesJun29 Supreme Court Upholds Affordable care Act
Jun28 The Moment of Truth Has Arrived
Jun27 Wendy Long Wins New York Republican Senatorial Primary
Jun27 John Roberts' Big Moment?
Jun27 Speculation about Romney's Veep Choices
Jun27 Tipping Point Page Changed
Jun27 New Data Pages Available
Jun26 Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of the Arizona Immigration Law
Jun26 Supreme Court Says States May Not Ban Corporate Money from Campaigns
Jun26 Primaries Today in Five States
Jun25 Key Supreme Court Rulings Expected this Week
Jun25 On Social Issues, Voters Trust Obama More than Romney
Jun25 Charlie Cook Does Not Expect Another Wave Election
Jun25 A New Partisan Divide: Old vs. Young
Jun23 Bain Capital's Firms Outsourced Jobs Overseas
Jun23 Wealthy Democrats Not Donating to SuperPACs
Jun23 Obama's Latino Strategy is Working
Jun23 Only 34% of Americans Believe Obama is a Christian
Jun22 Romney Reverses Course on Immigration in Speech to Latino Officials
Jun22 Romney Sees Path to Victory Running Through the Midwest
Jun21 LeMieux Formally Ends Florida Senate Run
Jun20 Supreme Court to Rule on Whether States Can Stop Corporate Campaign Donations
Jun20 Democrats to Push DISCLOSE Act
Jun20 Interesting Analysis of the Political Effects of the ACA Ruling
Jun20 Schumer Plays Nice with Wall Street
Jun19 Obama's Decision on Immigration Popular with Likely Voters
Jun19 Immigration Issue Could Affect Other Races
Jun19 Rubio Not Being Vetted for Veep
Jun18 Crisis Averted in Greece as Center-Right Party Wins Election
Jun18 Can Any President Govern?
Jun18 Child Propaganda Takes Off
Jun18 Interactive Chart Shows Unemployment Numbers
Jun17 Greek Vote Today Could Roil Financial Markets Worldwide
Jun17 What If the Supreme Court Strikes Down Just the Mandate?
Jun17 What If the Supreme Court Strikes Down Just the Mandate?
Jun16 Obama's Action on Immigration Opens Fissure within Republican Party
Jun16 Ohio Speeches by Obama and Romney Preview the Campaign Ahead
Jun16 Ginsburg Hints at Sharp Disagreements Ahead
Jun15 Campaigns Waiting Anxiously for Supreme Court
Jun14 Improvement to the Tipping-Point state Table
Jun14 Casino Owner Bets on Former Opponent
Jun14 Autopsy on the Arizona Special Election
Jun14 Majority Blame Bush for the Bad Economy
Jun13 Allen Wins the Republican Primary in Virginia
Jun13 Gifford's Aide Wins Her Seat
Jun13 Summers (R) and Dill (D) to Face Off in Maine but it Probably Doesn't Matter
Jun13 Congress' Approval Rating Now at 17%
Jun13 Republicans Have No Plan B on Health Care
Jun12 Median Family Net Worth Plunges 40% in 3 Years
Jun12 Attacks on Bain Capital Are Working