If I were Obama, I would "compromise" on this

[Chan790]

38. I'm going to take the tactful position and not reject out of hand the notion.

I've long argued that in any political fight everything has to be on the table for negotiation, in the name of best governance and reasonable politics. What does not have to be reasonable is the respective cost that either side attaches to those chips. So, in that spirit...I won't say ACA delay is non-negotiable; nothing is non-negotiable.

That said...I place a very high value on the ACA and its implementation ASAP. If the GOP wants it delayed a year, I have to think that is in pursuit of a climate better suited to its total repeal and as such, the cost to the GOP would have to be more than one or two sacred cows and a float of several strategic positions. If they want to talk about ACA repeal qua ACA delay then they better be prepared to discuss marginal-rate tax increases, capital-gains reform in pursuit of increased revenues, inclusion of a longer-term debt ceiling increase, gun control, immigration reform and campaign finance. They better be coming to the table with their own healthcare reform proposal and it better be acceptable to the American public.

In short, if they want to talk about repealing healthcare reform now that it is the law of the land, they better be prepared to hand the president a number of unilateral wins across the board substantial enough that there is no way anybody is in the least bit confused over who lost this showdown.