Health care ruling poses huge risk for Republicans in election

The conventional wisdom that the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding the Affordable Care Act will provide election ammo for Republicans that will be armor piercing shells against the Obama campaign shows again the over-reading and over reaching on the part of Republican strategists.

They're not over-reading because people will embrace the act now that the Supreme Court said it's constitutional, but because they have not accurately assessed the risk of people misunderstanding the ruling. And, most importantly, they have not really assessed how well their complicated message of opposing the ruling on health care will be received.

First, let's talk about who's in play here. As always, it's the independents, who both parties desperately need. The Supreme Court ruling will hold sway with some of those people. After all, until recently, the Supreme Court was the most respected institution in the land. Political rhetoric from justices like Anton Scalia is changing that rather quickly.

Still, that the Supreme Court approved the constitutionality of ACA is pretty big. That, alone, will sway some independents to at least give it another look.

If Obama people are smart, they will capitalize on the "another look" and do a media blitz explaining the benefits of the ACA, such as people earning $50,000 a year can probably get cheaper health insurance.

Second, think about what Republicans have to sell. They have to convince independents that the benefits some are already receiving -- keeping your kids on your health insurance until they're 26 and the pre-existing conditions issue -- will be good to do away with.

Then, they have to convince those independents that they're be able to restore those benefits (many Republicans have endorsed them) by passing a new law, with some new, unknown revenue source.

Even if they have a good plan, it's a very complicated message. And complicated message will not sell in a general election. You've got to be able to explain policies to people in a few sentences.

As a media expert, here's my best shot at how you would sell the Republican idea in a few simple sentences. As a salesman, you have to answer objections before they come up.

Objection number 1: "How do you explain the Supreme Court rules this constitutional?"

Republican candidate: "The Supreme Court isn't always right."

Questioner "Isn't the majority considered conservative and mostly appointed by Republicans?"

Republican candidate; "Well yes, sort of."

It's really tough to answer that question. You could say. "The Supreme Court was right. They called the penalty a tax."

Ok, that may work

Questioner: "So how would you repeal it all, give me the good parts and pay for it?"

Republican candidate: "We'd let the private sector set prices based on all these new benefits. That's the way the world works."

Honestly, I can't figure out how else they would sell their position. And with angst between employees and employers at a record high with high unemployment, I'm guessing a lot of folks, even independents, are not really going to buy the private sector thing.

Their recent experience with the private sector is mostly negative. Even if the private sector could do this well, people, because of their RECENT experience, will be hard pressed to buy that argument. (What has the private sector done for me lately?)

A recent poll by Politico sorts of backs up my reasoning here.

Independents, and Americans in general, are split 50-50 bascially on the Supreme Court ruling. That's in very sharp contrast with general polls that say only 30- 40 percent of Americans agree with the ACA.

So how can 50 percent agree with the ruling while 60 to 70 percent oppose the act? Wouldn't those who oppose the ruling parallel the number who oppose the law?

I've always felt the poll numbers on people supporting the ACA were distorted because number one, people don't really know yet the benefits they will get, and two, it's a very complicated issue.

Republicans should look to their colleague governor in Michigan, who was one of the few who said he was going to set up health care exchanges in his state per the federal law so the feds don't do it for his citizens.

Data is starting to come out on benefits of the act -- how many young people are on their insurance and importantly, a rebate expected to be given to millions of Americans on their health premium via the provisions of ACA very soon.

Those will be difficult objections to answer for Republicans and more importantly the messages will be complicated, meaning they won't reach as many people.

When an economic system has too much "Greece"

I don't consider myself short of education with six-years of post-secondary, but I was until recently just kind of confounded and befuddled on how a small country like Greece could essentially pull down the world economy.

A very fine piece by the Associated Press that can be found here at The Free Press website is the best explanation yet that I have seen.

I will try to give you the Reader's Digest version to pique your interest and then you can read the detailed stuff that some journalist -- not blogger -- has taken time to learn, understand and report in a credible and digestible way.

Essentially, Greece's economy is a mess. They've got too much debt, and don't spend their money wisely. People work but don't get paid by the private sector, and some people don't work and still get paid by the government.

But there are a lot of bigger countries that hold a lot of that Greek debt. So if Greece doesn't or can't pay, those countries and the big banks associated with those countries don't necessarily fail, but they face a big time hurt.

And when they hurt, they lend less money. The bank examiners are on them and they generally pull in lending at a time when the economy needs money.

Secondly, this whole Euro currency issue ties the world together in ways not readily apparent. If Greece goes back to the drachma, a less stable currency than the unified Euro, people in Greece will lose confidence the currency will be worth anything (why would it) and they would begin to buy stuff, hoard stuff and pull their money as quickly as possible out of the banks.

And because most countries like Greece and the U.S. have what is called "fractional reserve systems" people can't pull their money all at once because the banks don't have it. They lent it out knowing that not everyone usually needs their money all at the same time.

Of course, a bank run in Greece could cause bank runs in other countries that hold Greek debt. It's not logical, but then we're living in a crazy world.

And another problem on the Euro front. If Greece dumps the Euro (it appears now given the recent election it WILL NOT dump the Euro), those who hold Greek debt in Euros are all of a sudden worried because they fear the drachma will not be worth as much as Euros. (They're probably right).

So they sell like crazy the Euro on the futures exchanges. Others sell other stuff including international stocks based on Euros. It's a downward spiral.

Eventually, this debt and fears of Greece debt being worthless goes back to multi-national banks that do business in America. They actually built complicated investment products called "credit default swaps" (remember 2008 crisis?), which are like insurance against something like Greek debt being worthless.

Hence, if Greek debt is worthless, the credit default swap insurance kicks in at a higher rate than anyone expected, and more people have to pay, and pay, and pay. Banks or investment houses paying out credit insurance again, have less money to lend.

There. How's that for Reader's Digest. Again, read the whole story here. It's long, but it's very informative.