The political and substantive case for a delay in the individual mandate

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Oct 2, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    ...

    The political and substantive case for a delay in the individual mandate is compelling. On a political level, what politician wants to defend giving a one-year break to corporate America but not to the little guy? That’s exactly the position Democrats are now in, and the GOP can swing public opinion their way by making this the central theme of their public case. In the coming days and weeks, there will be no shortage of opportunities for GOP members and Senators to go TV, and they should use every chance they get to pound the message home with voters that the Democrats are the ones protecting businesses but not workers.

    Substantively, the case is just as strong. The administration has delayed enforcement of the employer mandate for a year, which means some workers will not get an offer of coverage at their place of work. Because the individual mandate is still in place, they will have to go into the exchanges to get insurance or pay the uninsured tax. In two states, New Hampshire and West Virginia, there’s only one plan being offered in the exchanges. In other states, there are very few choices. Is it really fair to force American to buy insurance from one insurance carrier, or limit their choices to even two or three plans? The administration says it will start enforcing the employer mandate in 2015, which means many workers who were forced into the exchanges in 2014 will be forced out of them in 2015 when they get offered employer plans. Does disrupting insurance like this make any sense? The GOP should make these points to show that a delay of the employer mandate necessitates a commensurate delay of the individual requirement.


    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/win-argument-how-gop-can-get-upper-hand_759047.html?page=2
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    So what happens is that the effect of the delay of the corporate mandate is that more people are forced into the exchanges moving this country much closer to a single payer system. So who thinks this is not the plan?
     
  3. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    This is a powerful, and best argument for delaying the individual mandate. This argument has a chance to win over Dem. Senators.

    Can't speak for him, but I would guess Poncho would not agree that this is the plan. In Poncho's world the health care plan is about corporatism reaping profits off the people. If the US went to a single payer system, that would remove the profit motive.

    I can see that going down the path of insurance coverage mandates is the first step toward a single payer system, though it need not result in a single payer system. I would guess the insurance companies would oppose single payer.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    Well my thing is the delay of the corporate mandate looks now to be a sneaky underhanded means to force the exchanges on people.
     
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was it exactly. Put the private insurers out of business, force doctors out of private practice, and install substandard care that is "free" only it is not.
     

Share This Page

Loading...