The House votes to eliminate individual mandate

A little misleading in the title of the thread. The House did not vote to eliminate the Individual Mandate and people are still required to purchase the health insurance if they don't have coverage. What it removed was the tax penality if they don't comply with the law requiring them to have health insurance.

I support this to a very limited degree because employers (with over 50 full time employees), while still being required to furnish health insurance or pay a tax are not complying with the law and they are not being required to pay the tax.

Of course the executive order by President Obama to postpone the "tax" on businesses and this measure by the "House" are both encouraging lawlessness by both the People and Businesses that are still both required under the law to have or provide health insurance but will face no penalty if they violate the law. In truth though the President should not have postponed the penalties for business and the House should not postpone the penalities for individual insurance because it remove the "enforcement" mechanism of the law.

By analogy it's like having speed limit laws but not allowing any fines to be imposed if a person breaks the speed limit.  We would still be required to drive the speed limit but nothing would happen to us if we didn't. It would encourage people to break the speed limit if there is no enforcement mechanism to require them to comply with the law.

More importantly I would ask is how the House proposes to pay for this legislation. The Federal government is still providing subsidies to those that do comply with the law so this would result in a loss of revenue to pay for those subsidies in the many billions of dollars.

Republicans keep arguing against legislation that "isn't paid for" so where is the money going to come from to replace the lost revenue to fund the subsidies for individuals that comply with the law and obtain private insurance through the exchanges?