Mandate “Flexibility” is Regime’s Sleight of Hand on Obamacare
The New York Times — let’s see, I guess it was yesterday — had a story: “Obama Supports Easing Health Law Mandates for States.” Now, we’re being set up all over the place here. The purpose of this story, it says here: “Seeking to appease disgruntled governors…” Seeking to appease disgruntled governors! You don’t really need to read any more after this. The mandate is where this bill has been found to be unconstitutional. So here’s “Obama Supports Easing Health Law Mandates for States,” and then the Politico has a companion story. Folks, I gotta tell you: Politico, you guys, why don’t you start running last week’s weather forecasts, because that’s about how relevant the stuff that you’re talking about is.
Here’s the point. Guess what The Politico just figured out? The purpose of the mandate, if you take this at face value, is to get 32 million uninsured Americans to buy health insurance. This creates an even larger “pool,” and this is supposed to make premiums go down. However, however, there is another provision. If you don’t buy a policy, you pay a fine. Guess what The Politico just discovered? The fine is barely 10% of the cost of a policy. Guess what else The Politico just learned? They learned that people would probably pay the fine rather than buy the policy. We pointed this out for over a year. I know.