How *may* we determine whether the statement “#Obamacare will work” is falsifiable, then?

I ask this because of the latest delay: this time, of the small-business portion of the employer mandate. It’s been shoved back past the 2014 elections:

The federal government Monday announced yet another delay in Obamacare’s rules by employers, and also weakened requirements for complying with the law.

The government will now exempt companies employing between 50 and 100 full-time workers from complying with the mandate to offer employees affordable health insurance by another year, until 2016.

Companies that have 100 or more full-time workers, defined as employees who work more than 30 hours per week, will have to begin complying with the mandate to offer such coverage in 2015 or face financial penalties of up to $3,000 per worker. Officials said that any business claiming they were eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption.

…anybody willing to bet that the feds are going to check those claims too closely?  Anybody? Anybody?  Yeah, me neither.

Anyway, I would like to know something.  Surely even the most fervent supporters of Obamacare must be prepared to acknowledge that the law at least could be a bad idea, and fatally flawed.  After all, this is not a matter of physics: Obamacare is not written into the very source code of the universe itself.  What man can make, man can utterly mess up.  So: what proof will Obamacare supporters accept as being sufficient evidence that the law is unworkable? What will convince even them?

I feel that this is a reasonable question to ask, but I suspect that the aforementioned fervent Obamacare supporters will not see it that way, though.  Particularly the ones with enough of a background in science to notice the implicit sneer in my question…

Moe Lane