Read @nicholas_bagley's piece on the judicial activism behind the latest – but certainly not last -- ACA ruling.
Below is a thread with my views on the politics.
1/N
Below is a thread with my views on the politics.
1/N
Rs seem to be finally acknowledging that a broad set of the electorate wants affordable health insurance, coverage for pre-existing conditions, low drug prices, etc.
The ACA is the most credible market-based approach to expanding health insurance. The basic structure has its origins in right-wing think tanks and was first implemented by R governer @MittRomney. Obama adopted the approach in a (perhaps naïve) attempt to find common ground w Rs
Going after Obamacare was good politics during the Obama presidency, but the continued efforts to uproot the ACA seem suicidal. With each effort, Rs stoke voter anxiety over health care, which increases demand for Medicare for All.
Now perhaps Rs are playing 3-dimension chess. They are baiting Ds into a push for M4A, which they will spin as socialist, helping them in the 2020 elections. But I don’t think they have that much self-control.
What seems to be happening is that Rs have stoked up so much hysteria over Obamacare that they can’t control themselves. They have created an environment where a Bush nominated district court judge thinks that blowing up Obamacare is good for his party and the country.
As someone who thinks that the battle of ideas between parties is hugely important for policy, I find this deeply saddening. Rs could try to steer the ACA in a more market-friendly directly. I’d welcome a real debate about the merits of such proposals.
Instead, Rs seem to be trying to blow up the most serious market-based approach out there. This eliminates their credibility in health policy debates, generates a D monopoly in the market for health policy ideas, and paves the way for M4A.
