What would happen if Obamacare was actually struck down?

[Person Man]

Apparently lifting the tax penalty for going uninsured has created a court case where Obamacare is being challenged as now exceeding the commerce clause and therefore as violating federal autonomy (and as being unlawfully compensatory against property rights without due process?) and as being statutorily overly broad/vague?

Anyways, lets say the 5th circuit claims that Obamacare violates constitutional rights or local government powers and SCOTUS affirms.

What are the long term and short term effects?

It would decimate public health, send the healthcare industry into a tailspin (basically snap away 10% of the business that 17% of the economy is based of off), and chill any further efforts of "moderate reform" for the next 20 to 30 years.

I could see three things play out-

- The system never recovers and insurance is basically converted into a Health Care Savings and Loan scheme

- The old system is restored in 5 years through massive bailouts to insurers, providers, et al.

- We get "radical reform"

[Pandaguineapig]

It only gets struck down if a liberal justice retires/dies before the case is heard in late 2020/early 2021. Even then the entire law wouldn't be struck down, just the individual mandate ( what is left of it)

[GeorgiaModerate]

It only gets struck down if a liberal justice retires/dies before the case is heard in late 2020/early 2021. Even then the entire law wouldn't be struck down, just the individual mandate ( what is left of it)

Are you counting Roberts as a liberal justice?

[Pandaguineapig]

It only gets struck down if a liberal justice retires/dies before the case is heard in late 2020/early 2021. Even then the entire law wouldn't be struck down, just the individual mandate ( what is left of it)

No but he has made it clear he will use any reasoning he can find to uphold the law
Are you counting Roberts as a liberal justice?

[GP270watch]

It wouldn't be good politically for Trump and Republicans, universal government provided healthcare is
inevitable. It will either be a single payer system or a public system with "private" non-profit insurers who are so regulated that they're defacto government entities.

Republicans are actually very shortsighted undermining the ACA, it was the private health insurance system's last gasp, get rid of it and we'll have a primary socialized medical system for everybody within 10 years.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats would offer something else.

[brucejoel99]

- We get "radical reform"

This.

Let's not kid ourselves here: if Obamacare is completely thrown out, then people will be thrown off their insurance. Grannies will be killed. Many will be bankrupted. Rock bottom will be hit. People will start to really get the picture.

We'll then be left with a choice between (in all likelihood) Medicare for All or Trump's beautiful "plan" that will cover everybody & cost less money but he can't tell you any of the details.

As sad as it is to say, the price tag for Medicare for All may very well be the deaths of many people who benefit from Obamacare.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I would hope that those who lost coverage finally learn why voting for Democrats is important. Like with most things, Americans only learn the hard way.

[7,052,770]

Total disaster. Any state with a Democratic government would repass it on the state level, still millions would lose their health insurance and thousands would die directly attributable deaths.

Also, only a few pages of the 3,000+ in the law are controversial, so a whole lot of administrative things would suddenly be gone without any obvious path forward.

[Person Man]

Total disaster. Any state with a Democratic government would repass it on the state level, still millions would lose their health insurance and thousands would die directly attributable deaths.

Also, only a few pages of the 3,000+ in the law are controversial, so a whole lot of administrative things would suddenly be gone without any obvious path forward.

That, mixed with Roe v. Wade being formally or de facto ignored would massive demographic problems in the 5 to 15 years, and perhaps 20 to 30 years, after it is done. The 2020s and 2030s could be chaos. People would be seeking refuge from neglect or oppression wherever they could.

[Crumpets]

The death panels will finally be over, insha'allah.

[Person Man]

The death panels will finally be over, insha'allah.

I know you are trying to be funny but the The ultimate irony will be the speaking of the ultimate death panel.

[Skill and Chance]

Depends heavily on whether it is completely struck down with no corrective action from congress at all (short term economic disaster, basically ensures a big Dem victory in the next presidential election and some version of single payer within 5 years) or partially struck down/congress reaches an agreement to restore some of it(ranging from no economic impact if only the mandate is struck to moderate impact if several of the insurance regs are struck).  It seems likely the appeals court will sever at least some of Obamacare even if it agrees with the district court on the merits.  If preexisting conditions/lifetime limits/essential medical benefits go with the mandate, that would still be a big deal though. 

Honestly, there is no way Roberts does anything more than strike the mandate by itself, and the same is probably true of Kavanaugh given that he literally gave Roberts the template to uphold it as a tax when he was on the DC circuit.  So there would be a lot of drama, but this likely ends up 6/3 to either uphold everything or strike only the mandate and sever everything else. 

[junior chįmp]

Dem run states will probably just pass a MA style mandatory insurance style program. No state with a D state legislature majority will pass a state run universal health care system. Which is really sad considering "extemist" Earl Warren tried passing one in CA over 60 years ago and was of course soundly defeated for being an "too far left":

But the Republican governor - who ran on the Democratic and GOP tickets and served 1943-53 - was ahead of the curve in his efforts to create a state-provided health care system for virtually all workers in California; he believed such a reform would especially assist GIs returning from World War II.

Amazingly, as California's governor and legislators debate health care today, many of the same issues were "on the table in the '40s - we've been discussing them for decades," Mitchell said.

Warren's plan was to be financed by a 3 percent payroll tax, and administered by a state-run authority; the proposal was "based on the same principle as government funding of public schools," Mitchell writes.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/amp/California-Gov-Earl-Warren-had-a-challenging-2502278.php

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Obamacare were struck down, it would throw millions of 18-26 year olds not in school, but on a parent's health insurance policy, back into the uninsured pool.

For the healthy souls, it wouldn't make much difference.  For the disabled, it wouldn't make much difference.  For working young people with conditions such as asthma, diabetes, seizures, Crohn's Disease, and other conditions that require ongoing meds and ongoing visits to the doctor to prescribe these meds, it will be truly a living standard diminishment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

- We get "radical reform"

This.

Let's not kid ourselves here: if Obamacare is completely thrown out, then people will be thrown off their insurance. Grannies will be killed. Many will be bankrupted. Rock bottom will be hit. People will start to really get the picture.

We'll then be left with a choice between (in all likelihood) Medicare for All or Trump's beautiful "plan" that will cover everybody & cost less money but he can't tell you any of the details.

As sad as it is to say, the price tag for Medicare for All may very well be the deaths of many people who benefit from Obamacare.

I think this is my department in terms of understanding how dynamic politics works.

Yes, if you push people to the extremes, then they will respond by embracing the solution whatever the cost. Even if it means President Sanders with a massive Democratic Majority.

This is why Republicans have handled the health care issue stupidly and it doesn't have to be this way.

There is presumption on the right that people like freedom for the sake of freedom itself, not because of the wealth, stability and success that America has also provided. If you take that away and proverbial speaking, keep boiling people alive, they will sacrifice anything to have that problem addressed. Hence you will end getting a result and they have only themselves to blame for all of this.

The right needs to learn to understand this again and realize that they need to put aside the tax cuts for everybody solution to every problem and realize 1. You have certain very real problems that people are concerned about such as health care and climate change and 2. You can address it your way in a manner that is less disruptive and also thus deprive the extreme left of the energy on which to ride to power, or you can let the steam pressure build until the boiler explodes and you staring up at a red flag with death goons around every corner.

The requirement though for number two to work is that it has to actually work, not in some damn textbook in a DC think tank but actually work on main street.

[HisGrace]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

[brucejoel99]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

These are the same thing.

[HisGrace]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

These are the same thing.

Whoops, I thought single payer meant full nationalization.

[7,052,770]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

That's possible, but certainly no guarantee. We all thought Republicans would get wiped out electorally if they nominated Trump.

And even if it all works out in the long run, it sure sucks for the tens of thousands of people whose lives take serious turn for the worse (up to and including death).

[brucejoel99]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

These are the same thing.

Whoops, I thought single payer meant full nationalization.

No, pure nationalization of the health care supply (e.g. the UK's NHS) is something that's not even contemplated in the most ambitious current American proposals.

[7,052,770]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

That's possible, but certainly no guarantee. We all thought Republicans would get wiped out electorally if they nominated Trump.

And even if it all works out in the long run, it sure sucks for the tens of thousands of people whose lives take serious turn for the worse (up to and including death).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Republicans would get wiped out electorally and we'd probably end up with Medicare for all or single payer.

That's possible, but certainly no guarantee. We all thought Republicans would get wiped out electorally if they nominated Trump.

And even if it all works out in the long run, it sure sucks for the tens of thousands of people whose lives take serious turn for the worse (up to and including death).

Obamacare is an extension of Medicaid. The poor isnt buying private insurance, the poor is buying cheap life insurance, which is catastrophic care. The poor is reliant on medicaid and seniors medicare. Judd Gregg said this would happen. Poor reliant on Medicaid and getting catastrophic care with life insurance only 15.00. The GOP party isnt gonna get wiped out. The poor doesnt even pay the tax penalty, if one's income is under a certain amount

[Orser67]

Most likely, it would result in a huge movement against the Republican Party in the next election cycle, which in turn would give Democrats comfortable control of Congress and the presidency, which in turn would mean single payer or at least a major move towards single payer.

However, given the massive Democratic disadvantage in the Senate, there's a chance Republicans would hold onto the Senate indefinitely and thus be able to prevent any major reforms.