What if the NFL Changed Its Rules Like the White House Did with ObamaCare?
December 30, 2013 - 11:23 am
The Washington Redskins finished the 2013 NFL season a disappointing 3-13, in a year when many fans expected them to make the playoffs.
But their record could have been much better if the NFL referees had shown the same “flexibility” towards the rules as the White House has taken towards its own health care law.
For instance, the White House unilaterally delayed the mandate requiring employers of at least 50 people to provide insurance to workers (or face a fine).
The White House also delayed twice the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchanges for small businesses employing fewer than 50 people.
Similarly, after angry public outcry over cancelled insurance policies, the President declared that insurance companies could keep offering plans he had previously declared “substandard.”
And the President has also magnanimously granted some Americans a “hardship waiver” from the individual mandate if their new government-compliant plans were too expensive.
Think of how much better the Redskins’ season could have been if the refs gave them a first down after only advancing the ball a “substandard” 7 or 8 yards, rather than the standard 10 yards. Or if they were given a hardship waiver of 5 downs for each possession, rather than 4 downs like everyone else. Or if the coach had a few extra timeouts to use whenever he needed. Or if the refs moved the goalposts to give them a shorter field to score.
Arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the Washington Redskins would certainly have helped their season. But of course, it would have also made a mockery of football as a sport governed by objective rules.
Fortunately, the NFL has higher standards than the White House. It doesn’t “move the goalposts” to favor Washington’s preferred team. It’s too bad the White House doesn’t take the same approach towards its preferred law