For the sake of debate, I’m going to assume that Republicans who are against ObamaCare are doing so out of a genuine concern that it will hurt this country.
But who will it hurt? And how much?
If the law doesn’t work as planned, what is the worst case scenario for the average american, most americans, small businesses, the overall economy of the country and the overall quality and cost of healthcare compared to a world where the status quo was still the status quo?
Now, let’s compare that to the best case scenario that comes from shutting down the government. And the best case scenario that comes from not raising the debt ceiling.
Even if ObamaCare is more negative than positive, can it be logically argued that it’s full implementation would be worse than a prolonged government shutdown and defaulting on the debt which is what many Republicans have said they are willing to do?
To have that question reflect reality, it would compare the shutdown and debt ceiling crisis with the current Republican demand - that is, delaying the individual mandate for one year.
Obviously, delaying that $95 annual fine for not buying insurance for one year has miniscule effects. The shutdown and debt ceiling crisis has a good potential to damage the economy.
One is obviously not like the other.
So - why are Democrats willing to have the economy damaged to prevent the delay in individual mandate? Because they want Republicans to be humiliated in capitulating to Democrats. Why are Republicans willing to have the economy damaged in order to delay the individual mandate? Because they don’t want to be humiliated in capitulating to Democrats.
No, because what I have seen, from Republicans also, is that the demanded delay is not just for that mandate, they want a delay on the whole, so you need cite for that.
Ok. Put the “cancelation of health-insurance subsidies for Capitol Hill lawmakers, aides and administration employees” in my response to the OP above. Does that make a substantial difference in the argument?
As there are representatives getting flack for keeping their pay during this, that would bring the torches and pitchforks out, first metaphorically, and from the Republican supporters.
A quick note here: the OP is asking about the harm that could be caused by implementation of the ACA or the individual mandate vs. the harm caused by the shutdown and debt ceiling crisis. We already have plenty of threads about what Congress is doing and who is responsible for the shutdown.
No, the president has to sign it also.
As for the OP.
I would make the point I usually do regarding costs.
The cost for the Americans will be to have their freedoms restricted. The current system without reform is still a system that only medieval feudal lords would be proud to have. From Job Lock, to less employment due to health care costs the worst is happening right now.
If I understand things correctly, come 1 January insurance companies are no longer allowed to ask about preexisting conditions, by law. Their natural compensation for this is the individual mandate, forcing even healthy people to buy insurance.
If the mandate is delayed for a year but the preexisting condition clause isn’t, then the insurance companies unfairly take a big financial hit.
I’m pretty sure I outlined what you said is happening in reality. If the thread is about comparing the harm in two different scenarios, arguing about the particulars of the scenarios makes sense. Bickering over who is to blame is another subject and that can be done in any number of other threads.
Please note that “worst” and “best” case below do not reflect the most likely, or even a probable, outcomes. They are more extreme fringe possibilities. The worst outcome for all of ACA: Costs to employers are too high, causing an economic downturn and causing unemployment to rise, while expenses to states in the form of medicaid payments rise, causing states to have to raise taxes, cut services, or go into debt, furthering the economic downturn. Meanwhile, too many people begin using their new insurance to use the medical system, causing extremely long waits and care rationing. Please note this is not what I think will happen, this is more fantasyland conjecture.
Worst outcome for only individual mandate: Healthy people that would have otherwise spent their money stimulating the economy instead spend it on insurance they don’t need, causing the economy to grow more slowly. Please note I do not think this is the outcome, and really they will probably need that insurance more than they think.
Best outcome for government shutdown: We realize we don’t need so many government workers to be successful, we lay them off, then cut taxes since we don’t have so many government programs anymore, and the economy surges with lower tax rates and regulation. Please note this is wackadoodle, laying off half a million people would send unemployment higher by a quarter of a point at least, probably higher.
Best outcome for debt default: A whole lot of nothing, the markets don’t react to the biggest default in history. Do I really need to keep including disclaimers at this point?
Here I thought the individual mandate was the worst thing ever foisted upon the American people, but Terr her has informed me that it’s so inconsequential that nobody will even give it a second thought.
Seems totally worth shutting the government down over.
Except for all practical purposes, it is the choice in reality. Which is precisely why Republicans want it delayed.
The individual mandate is necessary for ObamaCare to work. It’s a funny thing that Republicans are not skilled in: Math. (See: 2012 election polling and predictions vs. the outcome) So delaying the individual mandate could very well make the first year of ObamaCare an untenable mess whereas with it, it might very well not be.
This is, of course their point.
But even if ObamaCare managed to limp along and not be a disaster for a year, do you think it’s likely that Republicans would cheerfully let the mandate go through without yet another protracted battle using any and all means at their disposal? Really? They wouldn’t hold it hostage again? That’s likely in your view?
This is why it is disingenuous that you claim that delaying the individual mandate is not a blow that could be fatal to ObamaCare, even if the program would work just fine with it implemented.
It’s like if the Republicans were saying “We’ll let you have the car! But you cannot put any gas in it for a year.”
And there is no promise that in a year those same Republicans won’t say “See? You didn’t go anywhere!” And take the car back. Or, failing that, once again do everything within their powers to prevent it from getting any gas.
You’ve said this enough that I feel compelled to correct you.
The fine for 2014 is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child or 1% of family income, whichever is greater. So if your family makes $50K a year the fine for remaining uninsured would be $500. Still not an earth-shattering amount, but quite a bit more than the $95.
demand for just that.