Undecided on How Supremes Will Rule: Follow the Money

About $235 million has gone to advertisements attacking  the law, which most Americans want overturned, and $69 million to ads supporting it.

Abby Goodenough,” Distaste for Health Law Reflects Spending on Ads,” New York Times, June 21, 2012

June 21, 2012 -  Here we are – the first full day of Summer. A summer heat wave swelters.  People are retreating to cooling shelters. 
But when it comes to betting on how Supreme Court will rule on health law, it’s not the heat, it’s the humility.  

No one has the foggiest on what the Court will do.  The Supreme Court, unlike the Obama administration, can keep a secret.

Oh, people have strong  opinions. Two thirds of Americans would like to see Obamacare  go down, in part or as a whole.  To naysayers, Ekekiel Emanuel, MD, former Obama advisor and now chief reform front-man, says nonsense.   The Court, Emanuel predicts, will rule 6-3 to retain it.  It's the right thing, the morally imperative thing,  to do.

But Dr. Emanuel  may be whistling past the Obamacare graveyard. The big money bettors at Intrade.com put odds of a turn-down at 74.8%.  That’s 3/1. And the big money from  PACs and other political sources goes to opponents over advocates by $235 million to $69 million – a 3.4/1 ratio.

Here’s my way of thinking about it.

Though the public, business, and doctors are against it,

Obama, Health and Human Services, and AARP are for it.

If on the merits or ideology you can’t decide,

Follow the big money flood  and rip tide.

Conservative PACs and Tea Partyers may be against it.

Progressive  PACs and Unions and 1%-ers may be for it.

But when either says it’s the principle and not the money,

Follow the money, not the Big Government  Easter Bunny .

Tweet:  The Big Money is betting the Supreme Court will declare the Health Law unconstitutional.