Dana Milbank, "Why Obamacare risks falling into a ‘death spiral’": Obama's Disappearing Legacy

Following Paul Krugman's inane (I'm being kind) assault upon the American judicial system, Dana Milbank today also addresses the decision of the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell, whose determination could effectively spell the end of Obamacare. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why Obamacare risks falling into a ‘death spiral’," Milbank writes:

"When the Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in March, it delivered the threat of two mortal blows to the signature achievement of the Obama presidency.

First, it raised the possibility that the justices, who narrowly spared the law in 2012, will in June come out with a new ruling that would dismantle the law on different grounds. But even if the justices make no such ruling, the very act of taking up the challenge to the law will itself undermine the law. The justices announced their decision just a week before the open-enrollment period for 2015 begins — and the looming possibility that the high court will strike down the law will probably deter those who are considering signing up for its coverage."

Or stated otherwise, Obamacare will soon be toast.

But now we get to the frightening part. If Obama understands what lies in store for his signature legislation in 2015, what other mischief might he attempt in order to leave behind anything resembling a legacy? I think the answer is clear. With the approach of the November 24 deadline to reach an agreement with Khamenei over Iran's nuclear weapons development program, the Obama administration is working overtime to demonstrate that the president's overtures to this tyrannical regime during the past six years have borne fruit.

As Jackson Diehl noted yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s bet on Iran":

"In essence, the United States faces a choice in the Middle East of trying to defend its interests and restore stability with or against Iran. A policy of marginalizing Tehran — in keeping with that of the past three decades — would mean seeking the defeat of Assad’s army, pressuring Iraq’s government to curb Iran’s proxy Shiite militias and stepping up sanctions until Iran agrees to dismantle — not just temporarily limit — its nuclear infrastructure.

Obama’s bet is that the course of 'direct diplomacy' is more likely to produce an acceptable outcome. His assumption is that there is a formula for an Iranian nuclear program and governments in Syria and Iraq that both Khamenei and U.S. allies can live with. Most likely he is wrong. But the audacity of his policy reflects a president bidding for vindication — and a legacy."

Wager on Iran holding up its side of the bargain involving any agreement purportedly limiting its nuclear weapons development program? I don't think so. Khamenei again called for the annihilation of Israel this past weekend.


Time for America's narcissistic president to get real . . . if that is possible.