I should like to make a small correction/clarification to Rep. Scott Perry's comment in the Oct. 17 York Dispatch claiming that in the spirit of compromise on Obamacare and the budget, he offered to avoid a shutdown by supporting legislation that would merely "delay the mandate to buy health care for one year."
As per The Economist and The Wall Street Journal (not known as liberal bastions), such an "offer" is patently unreasonable and was never going to happen.
Quoting from The Economist on Oct. 5: "Delaying the mandate could wreck the whole reform. Obamacare sits on two pillars. Everyone is obliged to have insurance, and insurance firms are barred from charging people more because they are already ill. If only the second rule applies, the sick will rush to buy insurance but the healthy will wait until they fall ill before doing so. Insurers will have to raise premiums or go bust, making coverage unaffordable without vast subsidies. Obamacare will enter a death spiral and possibly collapse. For some Republicans, that is the goal."
So the "compromise" to just kill the mandate instead of overturning the whole act wasn't really much of a compromise.
It's funny how the concept of a "mandate to buy insurance" that was originally developed by the Heritage Foundation and adopted and implemented by Mitt Romney while governor of Massachusetts is now so vehemently opposed by the same party.
Ironically, as The Wall Street Journal noted in its Oct. 17 editorial, "... one of the ringleaders of the shutdown caucus conceded that he always knew that ObamaCare (sic) couldn't be defunded this year ... (and) we're not going to be able to repeal this law until 2017 and that we have to win the Senate ... and White House."
If Rep. Perry dislikes Obamacare, that is his right. However, as noted in the Wall Street Journal, he knows (or should know) that the process to repeal it begins with his party securing a majority in the Senate and/or the executive branch. By resorting to the tactics recently attempted, "apparently settled legislation will always be vulnerable to repeal by the minority."
Further paraphrasing The Economist, America would become ungovernable, Washington would be permanently paralyzed by uncertainty and America condemned to chronic uncertainty.
And if Perry doesn't think that situation would crush investment and the economy, perhaps he's made a poor career choice.
T. H. (Ted) Elicker