How can the Obamacare Individual Mandate possibly work?

I've wondered this for awhile and James Capretta wonders too.

ObamaCare’s architects were always ambivalent about the mandate. They knew compulsion was necessary to make their system work — but, fearing a backlash, opted for a fairly weak penalty for those who didn’t obey. Oops: They wound up with a mandate that still provokes resentment, yet probably won’t work.

The US Supreme Court weakened the mandate even as it was saving ObamaCare. The law’s authors hoped that the mandate would create the perception that insurance enrollment is now obligatory, but the high court made it clear that Congress has no authority to institute such a requirement. The justices ruled that the mandate could stand only as an optional tax, not as a fine for noncompliance.

So you’re not breaking the law by not buying (overpriced) ObamaCare-compliant insurance; you’re just making the legal choice to pay the tax instead.

I normally love the idea of an "optional tax". But my guess is that the money collected from this "tax" will be a fraction of what it will cost to pay those administering the tax. The regular non-optional tax payers—you and I—will pick up the tab as usual.

So, for instance, a 31-year-old single man making $30,000 in Columbus, Ohio faces a tax of $198.50, more than $2,000 less than the cheapest option in Ohio’s ObamaCare exchange, even including his taxpayer-funded subsidy. For a 36-year-old San Diego woman making $40,000, the tax is $298.50, or nearly $2,400 less than the cheapest policy on the California exchange. She’s not eligible for a subsidy.

ObamaCare can’t work if the young and healthy don’t sign up in large numbers — yet the law creates a clear incentive for them to opt out.

There’s more: The law also guarantees that you can always choose to buy during the next annual enrollment period — so if you fall seriously ill and find that ObamaCare has become a better investment, you can buy it then.

Which leads to my favorite pull-quote:

The ObamaCare law thus made insurance a less valuable product for most people, even as it pushed up the cost of buying it.

Classic. He has another good article about what Republicans can and should be doing about Obamacare which I hope the good guys in congress will take to heart.

Obamacare Rationing Begins

Brian Darling from RedState details the beginning of rationing based on the brave new world of Obamacare. Excerpt:

This past August, an advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration recommended that the late stage cancer drug Avastin be “de-labeled” because of cost considerations. It is critical to note, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not propose denying cancer victims the right to the drug because of the safety of the drug, but because of a formula containing cost as factor.

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has taken a leadership position on the issue and has written letters to the FDA and expressing concern about “cost rationing.” Senator Vitter is worried that the Avastin case will be the beginning of ObamaCare rationing for drugs that may extend life. Rationing for seriously ill patients based on cost.

Should the FDA agree with the advisory panel’s recommendation, private insurers and Medicare will drop coverage for the drug for breast cancer patients, despite the fact that the drug extends life for an average of six months. This is a classic example of why many conservatives are concerned about government run health care.

Well, there's always bribery. Of course that's only for the well-to-do. So where does that leave us?

Union Re-fluffers

Scott Ott is too funny. Loved this part:

Due to the anticipated public reception of the Obama roads stimulus, the White House will reportedly announce next week a plan to increase taxes on airline tickets to fund a massive project to ‘re-fluff the clouds’, employing tens of thousands of unionized fluffers.