Why the Individual Mandate Is Effective and Efficient (RomneyCare's Architect)

Daily Beast ^ | March 26, 2012 | Jonathan Gruber

[C19fan]

Last week marked the second anniversary of the most important piece of social policy legislation of the past 50 years: the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Yet even as the second anniversary passes, the fight over this legislation continues, whether in Congress, in public opinion, or in the Supreme Court, which will decide this week on the constitutionality of one of the centerpieces of the ACA: the individual requirement to purchase insurance or “mandate.” Much of this debate has been driven by both the complicated nature of the ACA and the deliberate misinformation from opponents of the legislation. To make this issue clearer to the general public, I have written a graphic novel that describes what is wrong with our U.S. health-care system and how the ACA will address those problems. I hope that this format “illustrates” these important issues in a way that makes them compelling to those interested in understanding the ACA—in particular in terms of critical issues like the individual mandate.

[C19fan]

Professor Gruber was Romney's main advisor when Romney created RomneyCare.

[OldNavyVet]

the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Does anyone else smell a Rat in this renaming of the worst bill ever, the "Obamacare" bill, passed by Democrats (Pelosi, Reid, and Obama) thanks to their THEN-overall control of the US Government?

[ridesthemiles]

Not only did they control Congress, they told us outright:
You get to read the bill AFTER we pass it to find out what is in it.

Running a country or a company: You do not properly make decisions which affect lots of people in a vaccuum.

The arrogance of Pelosi making her statements is abhorant.

IMO, playing a tape over & over on an ad which features Pelosi making her comments would be a very effective for the Republicans.

[ctdonath2]

We don’t care whether the individual mandate is effective and efficient.
We care that compulsory purchase of a service is anathema to fundamental American principles.

(Note: it’s a service, NOT a product - the buyer does not obtain any physical thing in the transaction. Heck, the buyer may very well not even receive a service. It’s just a promise of partial payment under limited conditions.)

[Mr. K]

"Much of this debate has been driven by both the complicated nature of the ACA and the deliberate misinformation from opponents of the legislation. "

Deliberate misinformation? Does he mean lies? NAME ONE

[Dr. Sivana]

This long article barely acknowledges the question of constitutionality, and predictably hides behind teh interstate commerce clause, followed by the argument that everyone will need health care at some point.

Everyone might need health care, not everyone will need health insurance. By that argument, Americans can be forced to buy certain types of food, as all Americans will need to eat.