My must read of the day is "Fewer Uninsured Face Fines as Health Law's Exemptions Swell," in the Wall Street Journal:
Almost 90 percent of the nation's 30 million uninsured won't pay a penalty under the Affordable Care Act in 2016 because of a growing batch of exemptions to the health-coverage requirement.
The architects of the health law wanted most Americans to carry insurance or pay a penalty. But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation said most of the uninsured will qualify for one or more exemptions. [...]
The Obama administration has provided 14 ways people can avoid the fine based on hardships, including suffering domestic violence, experiencing substantial property damage from a fire or flood, and having a canceled insurance plan. Those come on top of exemptions carved out under the 2010 law for groups including illegal immigrants, members of Native American tribes and certain religious sects.
The individual mandate is an important part of the law. It's supposed to be a push factor to help ensure people, namely healthy people, enroll and keep the risk pool balanced. It's a mechanism intended to stop the risk pools from being comprised largely of the sick and elderly and therefore a mechanism to prevent costs from skyrocketing.
More exemptions to that mandate could be risky over time. Every additional or broad exemption also gives Republicans a stronger argument to do away with the individual mandate. If the administration doesn't think it's necessary for some 90 percent of the uninsured to pay the penalty, why are the Republicans wrong to want it delayed?