What happens when the dog catches the car?

For years Republicans have been able to advocate loudly and vehemently for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court may possibly give them their wish, as it is set to rule on the constitutionality of federal subsidies in states that have not set up federal exchanges. Such a ruling would almost certainly gut the act, by setting off a price spiral, as millions of people who could only afford health insurance through the provision of the disallowed subsidies choose to instead pay the tax penalty and forgo being insured. Greg Sargent at the Washington Post points out that this would put the Republican Party in an interesting (in the old Chinese proverb sense of the term) position. While they have been able to pander to their base by proclaiming their support for repeal of the law itself, very few have come out as against individual elements of the law, like guaranteed coverage and an end to policies like lifetime caps, which have proven popular with the electorate. In this sense, the GOP has been able to have its cake and eat it too. They have been able to rally their base and fund-raise off of the idea that they were standing up to the Obama administration, while not having to pay the price of advocating policies that would actually hurt voters.

Sargent suggests that a move by the court to disallow the subsidies will force the GOP to actually grapple with issues that they have been able to score cheap political points with thus far. In such a scenario, it seems possible that many state-level Republicans will be motivated to pursue workable policies for their constituents, while national-level Republicans would likely be interested in continuing to advocate hardline positions. Sargent points this out by noting that “only 6 states with Republican governors (out of 31 total) have signed on to the lawsuit that could badly damage Obamacare.” Of course this is only one possible outcome. Plenty of state-level Republicans have shown an aptitude for race-to-the-bottom politics, wrapped in the rhetoric of individual freedom. It also assumes that a national media that has thus far worked overtime to assign exactly 50% of the blame for our dysfunctional political culture to both political parties, does not craft a narrative that manages to affix the responsibility for millions of Americans losing health coverage to the Democrats (I wish I could place a bet on this, I’d literally put ALL of the money on this happening in the event of a court decision ending the subsidies).

So while it’s true that a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act could potentially place the GOP in a difficult spot politically, it seems to me just as likely that it could be just another exercise in both-sides-are-to-blame reporting. In this case, the only losers would be the American people.