We begin today's roundup with
Ryan Cooper at The Week who analyzes what may happen if the Supreme Court rules to gut the Affordable Care Act:
What happens if the Obama administration loses? Millions may lose their insurance — of those, many thousands may die of preventable medical conditions. But it all depends on how the government reacts. With some silly workarounds, ObamaCare may survive after all.
One thing we know for sure: if subsides are yanked off Healthcare.gov, an immediate catastrophe would ensue in the private health insurance market. The whole insurance industry has been upended to adapt to ObamaCare, and knee-capping the law will lead to some very ugly outcomes. [...]
Shanking ObamaCare on grounds of pure partisan hackery would obliterate any reluctance for the administration to fight fire with fire. If the court is going to attack ObamaCare with uncut legal argle-bargle, then there's no reason not to respond with the same.
Jeffrey Young and Jonathan Cohn at The Huffington Post take apart the proposed Obamacare "replacement":
Congressional Republicans want Americans -- especially the nine on the Supreme Court -- to think the GOP can do in less than five months what it took Democrats decades to achieve: enact comprehensive health care reform legislation. But given that Republicans have been unable to reach consensus on much beyond repealing Obamacare in the last five years, that’s an ambitious timeline.
This pattern has been repeating itself since 2009. Just this week, House Republicans approved yet another bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and this one included language charging three House committee chairmen with devising a replacement plan. [...] Republicans promote these changes as increasing “choice” and “flexibility” in insurance, claiming that they will result in less federal spending and that younger adults will pay lower prices.
But each of these proposed changes would carry other consequences as well. Policies without full benefits, including “junk” plans and mini-med policies, would return to the market. The same pricing practices that reduced premiums for 25-year-olds would jack them up for 60-year-olds, putting insurance out of reach for many older Americans.
Head below the fold for more on the day's top stories.
Zoe Carpenter at The Nation gives us more details on the Affordable Care Act lawsuit:
It’s tempting to dismiss the lawsuit as a deeply silly partisan attack, akin to the House GOP’s repeated votes for repeal. Its basis may indeed be fluff. And yet it’s entirely possible that it will be this absurd case—not sabotage by Republicans at the state level; not lawsuits challenging the law on its constitutional merits—that dooms the signature achievement of the Obama years, at an immense human cost.
On the topic of vaccines,
Maria Liasson at NPR runs down what the GOP debacle not he issue tells us about the Republican 2016 field:
Today, the debate about whether or not to vaccinate is just not the burning political issue among the Democratic Party's grass roots that it is for Republicans. The GOP is where skepticism about climate science is strongest. So is support for teaching alternatives to evolution. Republicans are more likely to see issues like mandatory vaccines as a question of individual liberty. And that's why you saw so many potential 2016 GOP candidates flailing about this week as they tried to reach out to the conservative base of their party and appeal to the mainstream at the same time.
Eugene Robinson looks at the "juvenile GOP":
Bang. Bang. Crash. That was the sound of the Republican majority in Congress shooting itself in both feet, then tripping over them.
At a moment of heightened concern that terrorists in the Middle East might stage or inspire attacks on U.S. soil, the GOP-controlled House and Senate are unable to agree on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. If the party’s aim is to show Americans it is ready to govern, we are witnessing an epic fail.
Rather than ensure the smooth operation of the agency charged with keeping the nation safe, Republicans would rather argue about a separate issue — immigration — and struggle over tactics for tilting at windmills. Meanwhile, a Feb. 27 deadline for passing an appropriations bill draws near. “I don’t believe we should shut down the Department of Homeland Security, given the threats that are obviously out there and the attacks on America,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday. But too few in his party are listening.
On a final note, The New York times writes again in favor of net neutrality:
The Federal Communications Commission will soon put in place regulations designed to prevent cable and phone companies from blocking or slowing down information on the Internet. The companies and their congressional allies are using scare tactics to stop this from happening. [...] The telecommunications industry and Republicans like Senator John Thune of South Dakota are accusing Mr. Wheeler and President Obama, who called for strong rules in November, of imposing “public utility” regulations on the Internet. This, they say, will stifle the incentive to invest in high-speed networks. Those arguments are preposterous. The commission is not trying to regulate the price of broadband service. Nor is it forcing cable and phone companies to lease access to their networks to competitors, which it could do under a 1996 telecommunications law.
The truth is the F.C.C. is taking a measured approach, justified by the growing importance of Internet access, which has become the most important communications service for most individuals and businesses. An executive at Google recently said the commission’s proposals would not deter the company from building broadband networks known as Google Fiber in cities like Atlanta and Nashville. Even Verizon’s chief financial officer told investors in December that Mr. Wheeler’s plans would “not influence the way we invest.” [...]
The F.C.C. almost always faces stiff resistance when it tries to do something bold. Given the importance of the Internet, Mr. Wheeler should press forward with his rules.