I understand and agree with Kos on the importance of not capitulating. I also think that it the opportunity and time may be fast approaching for Democrats declare victory and accept a GOP offer, so long as they accept concessions that will mean no more economic hostage-taking for the next year.
The GOP is claiming they're being reasonable and offering a compromise in just asking for a one-year delay on the individual mandate.
As compromises go, that one doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, if accompanied by other climb-downs that will ensure this is the outline of a deal that will last for the next year. If the GOP agrees to extend the CR a year (and, it seems, that would be at their funding levels, not the Democrats') and agrees to extend the debt limit out far enough to cover any additional borrowing until the next fiscal year, we can get to some level of normalcy that will allow for continued economic growth.
What would Democrats get? The certainty, continued economic growth, the preservation of Obamacare, the uninterrupted operation of government, and the victory over the GOP.
What would Democrats really be conceding? The collection of a tax penalty for those who choose not to sign up for insurance by the close of open enrollment in March. The agreement would be structured to allow the exchanges to continue to operate and offer insurance for the upcoming year at the affordable rates provided in the ACA. No doubt, some will choose not to sign up and take advantage of the insurance plans, since there would be no tax penalty. This may impact the bottom lines of some insurance companies -- but, so long as we're able to hold the lines on rates for another year, that's as far as it will go.
Democrats could still claim credit for now providing insurance to the masses, and might even get some political benefit in agreeing not to penalize individuals who don't sign up this year -- putting them on the same footing as employers. Democrats would be able to talk about how the exchanges will continue to operate, offering affordable health insurance for those Americans who would otherwise be without insurance.
Maybe I am missing something, but I think this would be the outline of an extremely sensible deal that would allow the Democrats to have a peaceful year of governing heading into elections and take credit for all the good things being provided by the ACA.
Of course, Democrats have to be careful not to get into protracted negotiations. In effect, Sen. Reid could say
"We're not going to negotiate, but we'll agree to abide by the GOP's proposed Democratic concessions, so long as they sign on to funding and debt ceiling deals that will continue through the fiscal year."
Sen. Reid could add:
"We're willing to agree to the concessions they've asked of us, so long as the Republicans agree to back off their threats to close down the government or to wreck the economy by a deliberate default on our debt obligations."
The down side is it will lock in sequestration cuts, but I suspect many Democrats and the Administration in particular are very much OK with that, especially as a way to get some cuts in the Pentagon's budget.
***Update -- I just want to respond to some of the comments below. Either I misunderstand what it means to delay the individual mandate for a year, or a number of readers here misunderstand.
To delay the individual mandate -- to my understanding -- would just mean that people could choose not to buy plans in hte exchange, without facing a tax penalty for doing so It would be a totally voluntary choice, since the exchanges would still be up and running. It would, to my mind, be a stupid choice, given the potentially disastrous personal financial impact of any unexpected illness or accident in the next year -- but it would be a personal choice.
Frankly, this is actually much closer to want candidate Sen. Obama argued for during the primaries. It was Sen. Clinton who insisted on an individual mandate, and Sen. Obama was scoring debate points for criticizing her on this point.
Moreover, there's no reason to assume that this would extend forever until the plan collapses because healthy young people are choosing to go without insurance instead of buying in. The Administration has already effectively delayed the employer mandate because they weren't ready to handle reporting requirements. The argument the GOP is making -- and Democrats would accept this -- is to put individuals on the same footing. The mandates would kick in after a year in which the exchanges were already operating. Furthermore, every other provision of the ACA would be in force, including the pre-existing condition exclusion and the ability for parents to insure children up to age 26, as well as the availability of subsidies for those who would qualify.
The only change would be the IRS could penalize individuals who declined to buy any coverage for the year before open enrollment closes in March.
At least, that's how I understand what a one-year delay in the individual mandate would mean. Not a big deal -- indeed, it would be one that would be politically popular.