Of all the ill-conceived elements of ObamaCare, the worst may be the individual mandate. Not only is it unconstitutional (Chief Justice Robertss inexplicable journey to the dark side notwithstanding), but it also presents a conundrum for which there is no plausible resolution: If you dont enforce the mandate, the viability of the entire health insurance market is jeopardized because you need those young healthies to pay for all that affordable care for the old sickies. But if you do enforce it, people rightfully cry foul because youve already delayed the employer mandate not one year but now two. So what to do? If youre the Obama White House, you have to come up with some sort of scheme - however warped - to split the difference. So here it is, courtsey of the intrepidly reported Wall Street Journal editorial page. You keep the mandate in place, but administratively create loopholes so broad that anyone who wants to make noise can get an exemption . . . but you dont announce that to the public because, if you did, everyone would do it. How did they pull this off? With a non-publicized adminstrative rule that expands a previously established hardship exemption for anyone who had their insurance cancelled as a result of ObamaCare. This was quietly issued last week, and most of the media were characteristically paying no attention. But the WSJ was:
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:07:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015