What happens to ObamaCare if the individual mandate is delayed further?
Persistent problems with the health-care exchange website could pose a threat to the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act
ObamaCare's health-exchange website face-planted out of the gate this month, with problems so extensive they could take weeks, if not longer, to fix. With the website effectively inoperable, millions of uninsured Americans are finding it hard to obtain coverage.
Last night, the White House announced that it would waive penalties for those who apply for coverage all the way up to the March 31, 2014, cutoff date for enrollment. Previously, the uninsured had to enroll by about February 15 to avoid the penalty. It was a relatively small "tweak" that many Democrats had been urging the administration to make.
Republicans — with the aid of squishy swing-state Democrats — have suggested far more aggressive changes, however, including punting the penalty for one year to give people more time to enroll.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Such a move would be the biggest in a string of embarrassments for the Obama administration, which has already delayed other pieces of the controversial law. Yet how it would impact the law's underlying goal — to extend affordable coverage to millions of Americans — is far less certain.
To be sure, people can still enroll in insurance plans through the health-care exchanges — just not through the federally operated website. And in states that opted to build their own portals, the process has gone much more smoothly. These state-run marketplaces "are proof that the online system can work and, for the many people living in those states, are working already," wrote The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn.
"That's a whole lot of people for whom ObamaCare is doing what it's supposed to do," he added.
While people in those states should have little trouble meeting the individual mandate deadline, people in the states without their own exchanges — where GOP-run governments refused to facilitate the law's rollout — don't have such a luxury. It's those states where the administration could consider unilaterally delaying the individual mandate while it irons out the wrinkles in the federal exchange website.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
However, doing so could undercut the health-care law's main objective.
The individual mandate is supposed to flood the insurance market with millions of new customers and thus drive down premiums for everyone, with healthier adults offsetting the costs of covering sicker, older enrollees. Removing the prodding stick of the mandate could have the effect of convincing healthy individuals to stay uninsured.
If that indeed did happen, "more sick people would flood the system," wrote The Washington Post's Sarah Kliff, which "in turn, would likely lead to higher premiums next year in those states." In that way, "delaying the individual mandate only in states with glitchy Web sites could, in a weird way, make the federal health-care coverage there a whole lot worse."
A CBO report in September estimated that a one-year delay of the individual mandate would result in 11 million fewer Americans gaining coverage next year. While that alone would probably not be enough to trigger a "death spiral" in the insurance market, it would at least serve to reinforce Republicans' warnings that ObamaCare will result in higher health-care costs.
That strikes at another problem for the administration in delaying the mandate: It would be terrible optics.
Democrats refused to consider a Republican proposal to delay the mandate in exchange for funding the government in the recent shutdown fiasco. If they were to suddenly reverse course, they would "end up enacting a policy they vehemently fought and opposed during the shutdown," wrote National Review's Jim Geraghty, one that arose "as a result of their own incompetence."
Support for ObamaCare is actually on the rise and could continue to go up as the law takes hold.
And all of this could become moot if the administration simply gets the ObamaCare website up and running smoothly. A failure to do so, however, could cripple the health-care law in the immediate future, keeping millions from obtaining coverage — and handing the GOP a new weapon to continue hacking at the law's foundation.
[Update: This article was updated at 7:45 a.m. on October 24 to reflect the administration's confirmation that it has delayed the start of penalties.]
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Jon Terbush is an associate editor at TheWeek.com covering politics, sports, and other things he finds interesting. He has previously written for Talking Points Memo, Raw Story, and Business Insider.
-
Is the Gaza war tearing U.S. campuses apart?
Today's Big Question Protests at Columbia University, other institutions, pit free speech against student safety
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
DOJ settles with Nassar victims for $138M
Speed Read The settlement includes 139 sexual abuse victims of the former USA Gymnastics doctor
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
14 recent scientific breakthroughs
In Depth From photos of the infant universe to an energy advancement that could save the planet
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published