Delaying the individual mandate is a bad idea

Washington Post ^ | October 25, 2013 | Editorial Board

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Done, great job!

[TADSLOS]

That’s a keeper.

[catnipman]

“buyers will probably have plenty of time to obtain coverage before running afoul of the penalty”

PROBABLY?????

Great. Let’s base policy, taxes and penalties on unwarranted optimism. After all, practically every technically knowledgeable person who’s been invited on any media outlet to comment on the fixability of oBamKare.gov have declared the whole thing a disaster of near biblical proportions and very likely simply unfixable, as least for several months and maybe years.

After all, CNN and others have been citing an article that says 96% of all government IT projects with bid prices over $10,000,000 fail, while ESP solutions says it’s 70%: http://www.espsolutionsgroup.com/espweb/assets/files/ESP_QPM_ORG_revised.pdf

Only die-hard Obammunist supporters (like WaPo) are pretending like all is well in oBamaKare land, so let’s just keep plunging the rest of the train over the cliff too. And for anyone who believes that, I’ve got a sweet solid gold bridge in Brooklyn for sale cheap. It’s lit at night with rainbows, and Skittles-pooping Unicorns direct the traffic. Hey, pretty much like oBamaKare itself now that I think about it.

[DuncanWaring]

Good Lord, how do you dream this stuff up?

I “Like” it.

[Spartan79]

If Congress wants to help, it could make sure the necessary funds are appropriated to complete the Affordable Care Act’s implementation.

Oh, how I would love to see the looks on the face of Boehner and the rest of the House Republicans if Obama and Reid come to them requesting more money for ACA implementation. I don't know, if I was in their shoes, that I would be able to resist breaking out in uncontrollable, hilarious laughter. Followed, of course, by a loud, emphatic GET STUFFED!.

[FAA]

Then, by all means, let’s not delay it. Implement fully 100% now. Good and hard.

Let’s also continue to have Medicaid enrollments piling up at an alarmingly high rate while also having the young and healthy enroll in Exchange plans at an alarmingly low rate. Please, more.

[willk]

Loved your comment!

[BunnySlippers]

It’s not $95. It’s 1% of your income, whichever is higher. Then it triples every year. They will squeeze you until you join.

1% of my income is not something I am willing to pay!

[tanknetter]

The Post is pointing out the fragility of the ACA house of cards. Any delay of the mandate will reduce enrollments of young healthy people while the chronically ill continue to sign up. The insurers’ business formula is based on the timetable in the law and on the penalties. Once Congress starts tinkering it will be at the expense of the insurers who would then be justified in raising rates or pulling out of the program. The White House most likely has a single payer amendment, already written, to replace the private insurance component of the law. Maybe it’s hidden in the 20,000 pages of regulations.

Everyone's already seen the CBS News story from this morning on there already being an unsustainable number Medicaid enrollees in states where the exchanges are working, right?

[Brad from Tennessee]

Thanks for link. I saw another story tonight saying all of Oregon's enrollments—which were held up this week as an ObamaCare success story—turn out to be Medicaid clients. The Medicaid expansion is being funded by looting $760 billion from Medicare.

[trebb]

... insurance buyers will probably have plenty of time to obtain coverage before running afoul of the penalty.

I wonder how they deduced the word "probably" in the above...sounds more like whistling past the graveyard.