So if that doesn’t happen, we can repeal it?
Sure. You can repeal it today, if you want. Just get enough votes in the House and Senate, and a president who will sign it. That’s how our country works.
You can repeal it any time you want, just get the members of congress.
Just talk to your lawmakers; that’s what they’re paid to do.
What I meant was, if it fails in its core mission, will Democrats support repeal? What if few sign up? Is the solution draconian enforcement, or just accept that the public won’t go along?
Sure. Any law that doesn’t work should be repealed. Opinions on what constitutes failure may differ.
As adaher continues to live up to his usual standards for accuracy:
From the Feb. 23, 2003 [Approx 3 weeks before the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom], PBS Newshour:
MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Pres. Bush laid out his argument that a post-Saddam Iraq could become a flourishing democracy.
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause)
MARGARET WARNER: The president further asserted that a democratic Iraq could transform the entire region in a similar way.
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: … A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
I expect something this big to be buggy and maybe new regulations will have to be passed to plug holes here and there. After a fair chance, if it fails it fails.
So the position of 42fish is that the Iraq war was sold as a crusade to bring democracy to Iraq? Anyone care to agree with that position?
I’m not going to slam the bugginess, because it’s been up for what, 3 days? But what is striking is that people who are getting all the way through aren’t actually signing up. If that holds, then the law crashes and burns. Well, not really, because candidate Obama was right the first time: you don’t need to force people to buy health insurance.
The best solution, if participation is underwhelming, is to repeal the mandate, repeal the mandates for what insurance must cover, and just let the exchanges stand as a marketplace for consumers to buy insurance, any insurance, that they want. That would likely increase participation.
How is that different from what we have now, which is not very successful? Can we repeal the current free market health care system?
The War in Iraq was of course primarily sold on the bogus WMD argument. However, as the quoted material indicates, Bush also sold it as a means of bringing democracy to Iraq. Kinda like how a commercial can sell a cereal as both tasty and part of this complete breakfast.
Once again, you are relying on Iffinitis Aguda, take some chill pills.
Sorry if I missed it but do you have a cite for this? Also, of those who do not sign up, how many are actually uninsured and need insurance, not just curious looky loos? Any numbers on those who sign up on a later visit?
What’s different is that between the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies, health care would be affordable for all without the coercion.
If I’m a young male making $20,000/yr, and my share is “merely” $80/month, you know what I’m doing? Eating, not buying health insurance.
A young male making $20,000/yr can’t afford to spend $5 on health insurance, much less $80. When I made that much, and it went further back then, I used to sweat when my electric bill was $50 instead of the expected $30.
Not and keep it revenue neutral like the CBO scored it. You plan would break the bank, because only the old and sick would sign up. Look up “adverse selection” sometime.
That seems like a really dumb idea - if there is no basic minimum standard for what needs to be covered it is as good as having no insurance.
You will see plans that only cover a flu jab and nothing else.
That is why there is a mandate.
Again, that was the toughest case, other less well to do have it easier, besides the point was that you are basing your bit on “people not signing up” and unless a cite comes you are basing your “if” on ignorance. And you already showed a lot of it regarding what happens on a big launch of a product when there is a lot of demand.
The individual mandate isn’t actually a sufficient enforcement mechanism to get the young and healthy to sign up. I understand adverse selection, but it doesn’t necessarily have to happen. Employers do just fine letting people choose whether or not to buy insurance. Enrollment periods work just fine and would be better than a mandate.