Why do Republicans want a 1-yr delay of the health insurance mandate? The simple math

[ProgressiveEconomist]

On this weekend's "McLaughlin Group". embattled lone progressive Eleanor Clift explains very clearly the simple math absent from an avalanch of "reporting" about Boehner's ransom for re-opening government.

Clift pointed out that people with pre-existing conditions who've been shut out of healthcare for years will sign up ASAP. The mandate is designed to make covering sick people financially feasible by giving young and healthy people incentives to sign up too. A one-year delay of the mandate would prevent health insurance premium revenue from surging along with outflows to care for the newly-covered sick.

Then Republicans would saturate the media in the months before the 2014 elections with one message: "Obamacare is a failure" becuase it has raised premiums for everybody!

Have you seen this argument anyplace else? In big media? I have not, but I have not been listening as hard as many of my fellow DUers may have.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[truebluegreen]

1. Absolutely true.

The mandate is what makes the whole system possible. Without the mandate it would collapse. Which is of course what Repukes want, despite their obvious concern for the citizens being forced to buy insurance.

As always, they hate the government and are desperate to show it can't do anything.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. Have you seen the argument in the OP anywhere else? In big media?

A "one-year delay" sounds like such a reasonable demand, until you do the math and remember what crucial event will take place in exactly one year.

But in this case, a relatively short delay might well be tantamount to a repeal.

[truebluegreen]

4. No. But I get my news elsewhere.

I'm not concerned that the intent or eventual result of such a move has gone unnoticed where it counts--in the Democratic caucus or the oval office.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. "Not concerned"? I'm very concerned that the media are not making spouters

of Republican shutdown talking points look absolutely STUPID~

I presume you meant EXCEPT 'where it counts."

But I'm concerned that Republicans again will get away with an argument that seems to make sense but is a transparent political ruse. "All we're asking for is a slight delay" is the same kind of argument IMO as "You need picture ID to get on an airplane--why not to vote?"

[truebluegreen]

8. I'm not concerned that this has gone unnoticed where it counts.

And no matter what the spouters are saying, I see no point in getting into the weeds on this. Republicans are sniveling and whining about our side "not negotiating"; our side is saying the law is the law and we won't negotiate with terrorists (I wish they would be that clear): "Stop trying to repeal or delay this with blackmail. If you Republicans want to change it, win an election."

Why debate the effects of changes we won't be making?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. My concern: Rs don't explain "Voter ID", the "Fairness" in Obamacare Boehner just demanded on ABC's

"This Week with Stephanopoulos" (Why can't the consumer health insurance mandate be delayed a year just like the employer mandate), or any of the other "devil in the details" seemingly mild but extraoridiaarily sneaky ideas their braintrust comes up with on occasion.

I believe Progressives have to expose these subterfuges whenever they can. Because the "fairless" argument could lead to economic catastrophe, I believe exposing Boehner's "fairness" talking point offeres a rare "teachable moment" for those who blithely lap up "infotainment".

[Arkansas Granny]

3. She's right, although it's hard to hear her message since those other bozos rarely allow her to

finish a sentence before they walk all over her. That seems to be a staple in the conservative arsenal. If you don't like what the opposition is saying, drown them out with noise.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. Republicans since Reagan remind me of Bolsheviks or stormtroopers. "Any means" to

accomplish their "revolution of the haves". "The German people cannot afford to be kind".

[SoCalDem]

5. They want another big brouhaha just before the 2014 elections

They tailor EVERYTHING around elections, so they can raise money from the rich folks & bumpkins.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. Along with gay rights, gun control and abortion, they think this will take them over the top.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Already the House has voted 40 times to cancel Obamacare, for no plausible reason

Next fall, they could try again, make it a key election issue, and have ginned up a plausible "reason".

[spanone]

11. k&r...

[Coyotl]

12. It is all about the 2014 election. Those on Obamacare will tend to vote Obama's party.

By November, a lot of people will have benefited immensely from the ACA. This will change the election outcome because the Republicans will have been proven mistaken.

Watch what happens in the next year. Once people are enrolled, the Republicans are going to start calling "Obamacare" something else, removing Obama's name from the program for political reasons. It will suddenly become "socialist medicine" or some other pejorative term. (Pejorative in their minds at least--they might make 'socialist' seem like a good thing.)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. On Fox News Sunday, a GA R just repeated the STUPID argument

that "Obama delayed the employer mandate, whiy can't he delay the consumer mandate" for the same period.

Mike Wallace must be rolling over in his grave to hear his son Chris not question that STUPID assertion of equivalence by Tom Graves (R-GA 14th).

Here is a point REALLY "in the weeds" about the delay of the employer mandate: Delay of the employer mandate is partly a result of Republican House obstruction of the "family fix" to the ACA.

The ACA requires employees to get health insurance from their employers (not from the exhanges) unless that employer insurance costs more than 9.5 percent of the employee's earnings. However, a technical mistake was made in the original bill. The 9.5 percent applies only to the premium for the employee him- or herself, NOT the premium for the employee's entire family.

Because of Republican obstruction of the "fix" for this obscure technical mistake, millions of young healthy workers would be kept off the exchanges if their employers started offering insurance now. The delay in the employer mandate.is a partial "fix" for the "family fix" the Rs are obstructing.

[Travis_0004]

14. I don't know if I buy that

95.00 or 1% is not enough penalty to make a lot of people sign up. The 1% penalty is about equivalent to one months health insurance premium for a lot of people, so I'm sure some wont' sign up, but the penalty in 2014 and 2015 will increase enough to get people to sign up.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. Don't forget there are significant ACA "carrots" as well as minor "sticks"

IMO $95 would get enough of the attention of healthy people age 26-35 to get them to research the drastically reduced net price of health insurance that is certified as not just a confusing rip-off.

[joeglow3]

15. Obama played right into their hands

When he gave big business a one year extension. Without, they would never be able to make their demands. As it is now "why can't our government give the little man the same benefit it gives big business" rings true with enough people to give them the chance to pull this shit.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. You buy Boehner's phony "fairness" talking point, which dominated his Stephanopoulos

interview this morning? See post #17 above. IMO that argument is as bogus as the Rs' "Voter ID" talking point.

Also see post #13 above before you make up your mind about this. The employer mandate delay was partly a WH response to House Rs' obstruction of technical corrections to the ACA.

[joeglow3]

21. Never said I believed it

Said that the average American is ignorant, but will still form an opinion. Those people will buy this.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. Your post has inspired me to start a new thread, at URL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023794986 :

"NEW #1 Republican talking point this week: Health care "fairness"--another false equivalency

[WCLinolVir]

16. Yes. They don't want any success.