67%

[Motown_Johnny]

42. your own horribly slanted link says that

the impact on rates could be as small as 2.4%. The average of those estimates is about 12.5% (if you exclude the low and high and average the other 3).

The ACA forces insurance companies to pay out at least 80% of premiums collected to care. Your link makes no mention of this affect on costs.

My claims are not baseless. If you can remember all the way back to 2008 you will recall that (then) Sen. Obama ran on health care reform without a mandate. Sen. Clinton disagreed and felt that a mandate was necessary. Your baseless assumption that a mandate is required is the problem.

The ACA allows for states to opt out if they can prove they have a better way to provide coverage. Vermont is already working on a single payer system. If the mandate is repealed this helps to provide economic incentive for a single payer system.

We can't move toward a single payer system by doing nothing.

The worst thing about this is that the odds of the mandate being stuck down are extremely low. This is all a hypothetical based on a long shot.

I sent you that PM after waiting for a response that seemed to not be forthcoming. It should be obvious to you by now that you have no evidence to support your views. I was trying to save you some from the embarrassment that this thread represents.

The vast majority of the ACA has nothing to do with the mandate. Most of it won't be affected by it at all. If the mandate is stuck down (and that is a long shot) then there will need to be some adjustments made but not much.

If you had bothered to read the article I linked to you would see that a "soft mandate" would increase participation and therefore lower the economic impact of the individual mandate being repealed.

The simple fact is that repealing the mandate is not the disaster you claim it is, what you speculate might happen simply can't happen. It is not necessary for the law to exist and if it were then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it as a stand alone clause. Your argument is self defeating. You just don't make any sense at all and you still have not presented any evidence that isn't defending corporate profits.