Scott Rasmussen

Heading into the 2014 elections, some Democrats think they have found a way to minimize the political fallout from the president's health care law. They have convinced themselves that voters are more interested in fixing the law rather than repealing it. A few even believe that Obamacare may someday be popular with voters.

Rhetorically, they may be right (if a bit overoptimistic) in the narrow setting of midterm elections.

It is certainly true that a Democrat calling for mending the health care law rather than ending it will fare better than one who enthusiastically supports the status quo. In some states and districts, the mend-don't-end approach will be more appealing than the repeal-and-replace rhetoric coming from the Republican Party.

Substantively, however, a Democratic campaign based upon fixing the health care law is a white flag of surrender acknowledging that Obamacare will never go into effect the way the president dreamed. Other than rhetoric, there is little difference between GOP calls for repeal and the kind of fix that would make the law popular and workable.

The key is the individual mandate.

It's the most unpopular part of the law mainly because most Americans instinctively feel that there's something wrong with the government forcing citizens to buy something. That's especially true when they're forced to buy from a large insurance company that helped write the rules.

Defenders of the law prefer to call it an "individual shared responsibility payment." In their framing, it's not so much a mandate as a way of treating your neighbors fairly. The thinking goes that if someone without insurance gets in an accident or is diagnosed with cancer, the rest of us get stuck with the tab.

That sounds pretty reasonable. Being responsible for paying your bills is all-American and something to be encouraged. If that were what the law actually did, it wouldn't be so hated.

Unfortunately, instead of sticking to that basic concept, the president mandated all kinds of things beyond what is necessary to protect society from irresponsible neighbors. For example, it's a bit bizarre to force people without children to pay for pediatric care insurance. Those add-ons to the mandate limit personal choice and dramatically drive up the cost of insurance.

It is on this point that the difference between mending and ending the health care law fades away.


Scott Rasmussen

Scott Rasmussen is founder and president of the Rasmussen Media Group. He is a political analyst, author, public speaker and columnist for Creators Syndicate.

Due to the overwhelming enthusiasm of our readers it has become necessary to transfer our commenting system to a more scalable system in order handle the content.