I guess I already answered that question with the last post.  But a few days ago the Washington Post came out with an editorial taking their usual approach of declaring the views of all those who disagree with them to be outside the realm of legitimate debate.  The editorial is titled "Everyone Should Hope Obamacare Works."  If you're wondering why everyone should hope Obamacare works, you'll be hard pressed to find an answer in this editorial.  Here's the best reason they give that I can find:

As with any big rollout, there will no doubt be problems, many of them mundane. Computer systems will not work perfectly. Some people might have to sign up over the phone or on paper. But everyone should hope that those sorts of problems — and the overheated rhetoric of critics — do not deter too many people from buying insurance. Many Americans’ health depends on it.

"Many Americans' health depends on it."  Wrong.  There isn't any evidence I know of that health insurance status improves actual health outcomes.  See "Medical Insurance Is About Asset Protection Not Health," March 6, 2013.   

I don't even know what it means for Obamacare to "work."  Even if a lot of people sign up, it just means that we've gotten ourselves into a big unsustainable mess.  The basic idea is a massive wealth transfer to be brought about by some combination of coercion, fear mongering, and lies.  The young and healthy are to be systematically pillaged.  Bringing the United States to a utopia of perfectly fair health outcomes is not one of the possible outcomes.  The real alternatives are that Obamacare falls apart quickly, or it falls apart slowly.  Of those two, quickly is far preferable.   James Taranto of Best of the Web is onto the issue:

We hope [Obamacare] fails quickly . . .  to minimize the damage.  Imagine if the Post had written a similar editorial in 1917, after the Russian Revolution, titled "Everyone Should Hope Communism Works." That would have seemed equally high-minded: If communism didn't work, tens of millions of people would be made miserable.  Which, of course, is precisely what happened over the next 70-plus years. . . .  The communist revolution would not have succeeded absent a critical mass of people hopeful communism would work. Nor would it have endured as long as it did if no one had an emotional interest in its perpetuation.

The Post's unstated goal is a world where the large majority of the people perceive themselves as dependent on government handouts.  It believes, and probably correctly, that even as the handouts sap initiative and bring about economic and population decline, such dependent people will never vote to go back to a world of self-reliance and freedom.  Detroit!  In the 2012 election, the people of Detroit voted 98% to 2% for Obama.     

The way out is for the Ponzi scheme to crash, and the sooner the better.