The Near Future

Just last evening some people were talking about the healthcare issue.  There was a comment about what would happen in 2014 which implicitly assumed that the Affordable Healthcare Act would still be in place.  The opinion expressed was that it didn't go far enough and that we should implement a single payer program instead.

Whether this is so or not, I don't have much of an opinion.  I suspect that other single payer systems are quite a bit simpler.  The law is said to be a few thousand pages in length.  While the briefs that discuss the law have a longer total, this is not a valid argument against the contention that the bill is excessive in length.  The principle here is that the law should be published, or made known, to the people who are expected to follow it.  If the law is longer than what people can reasonably be expected to read, then this creates a problem.  The supreme court can be expected to read quite a bit on a law which they are expected to rule on.

The length of laws in the U.S., compared with comparable laws in other countries should give us some idea about how single payer healthcare would be different if enacted in the U.S.  It is likely to be longer and more complicated.  It will be more difficult to judge the effects of the laws in advance.  For this reason I would prefer legislation that contained criteria for failure.  If the law fails, then it should automatically repeal itself.

In any case I don't think the law will survive.  The Supreme Court has heard arguments and are likely to rule that it is unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision.  The Democrats won't be able to replace it with anything they like even as well as the AHA.  Their strength in congress has diminished since the legislation was passed and is more likely to weaken than strengthen in the upcoming election.  Barack Obama will likely win, but he is likely to face a House and Senate controlled by the GOP.

The Democrats are complaining that the tax code is regressive, which it is not.  It is actually quite progressive compared to taxes in other countries and at earlier times in the U.S.  The difference is that tax rates are lower here.  The Democrats are unlikely to be able to pass legislation specifically aimed at raising taxes on the rich, given the strength of the Republicans in both houses of congress.

However, the Democrats can accomplish some things.  They are particularly strong in areas that don't require cooperation.  They could easily allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.  They could cut defense expenditure as much as they like, since that is considered discretionary spending.  It would take legislation to continue it.  A number of states are legalizing gay marriage.  They might be able to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Barack Obama is likely to have the opportunity to change the composition of the Supreme Court.  Either Anthony Kennedy or a justice politically right of him might retire or die, leaving a vacancy for Barack Obama to fill.  Provided he chooses a judge who serves at the District or Appellate level, congress is likely to confirm his nominee.  Anyone with an academic record is out.

The academy tends to try to publish interesting opinions that reflect a certain school of legal philosophy.  District Judges are in the habit of making rulings that are unlikely to be overturned by higher courts.  Their approach tends to respect precedent much more, even when they are promoted to the Supreme Court.  Academic papers are likely to be controversial in congress.  No legal philosophy will survive a filibuster in the Senate.

But congress is unlikely to discriminate on the basis of gender.  Note that Barack Obama has had no trouble appointing women in their fifties.  My guess is this is about as young as a justice can be and still have time to gain the requisite experience.  Appointing a younger justice enables the president to influence the composition of the court for a longer period of time.