If-You-Like-The-Plan-You-Are-In-You-Can-Keep-It Fact of the Day
A report analyzing the impact of Obamacare on the state of Wisconsin by ObamaCare supporter & MIT economist Jonathan Gruber concludes that:
- “Very few” Wisconsin residents will be able to keep their current individual market coverage and 150,000 individuals will lose access to employer-sponsored coverage.
- Nearly two in five (38%) participants in Wisconsin’s individual market will be forced to buy richer coverage than they have now, due to the new mandates and insurance restrictions included in Obamacare.
- Government mandates will raise individual market premiums for more than four in five participants and more than 41% of participants face premium increases of more than 50% before federal insurance subsidies are applied.
- Even AFTER federal insurance subsidies are applied, 59% of individual market participants will pay more — an average of nearly 31% more — for their coverage.
Not just in Wisconsin, this sort of thing is set to happen all over the nation. What happened to the change I can believe in?
And the hits just keep on coming! While news of these repeated failures continue, it’s at least comforting to hear that an educated dunderhead who sold out to that “change you can believe in” will let the facts lead him back to reason.
I just cannot fathom why the proponents of the Affordable Care Act thought it necessary to force people to buy coverage more comprehensive than they already have or would be willing to buy if given the choice.
How is it that the politicians can promise one thing, totally fail in every aspect, actually make a lousy situation WORSE and then claim victory on their way to re-election campaigns?
@ Devon
The answer to your question is because the proponents of the ACA want massive cross-subsidies from young to old; and from healthy to unhealthy. If people were allowed to buy what they wanted, the young and healthy would opt for low-cost, high-deductible plans. The old and sick would then complain about the cost of their comprehensive plan being too expensive without young people being forced to help subsidize them.
I’m opposed to the individual mandate. However, I would be less inclined to oppose it had it merely required some type of proof of financial responsibility. For instance, a $5,000 high-deductible plan with a benefit that maxes out at $500,000 would be sufficient to protect 99.99% of the population. For the sake of argument, you might require everyone with a high-deductible plan to also have an HSA with $1,000 or at least require cash in an account equal to 20% or 40% of the deductible unless a credit card is available.
This sounds too simple, however. The proponents of the Affordable Care Act were not really concerned about protecting people in the event of a catastrophic ailment. They wanted inefficient cross-subsidies where everyone paid for lavish policies so the few who might use them had first-dollar coverage for a low price.
Devon and others are correct to challenge the individual mandate. Given what happened in every state which adopted guaranteed issue and community rating, the mandate is like a fifth marriage — the triumph of hope over experience. And a very wasteful and expensive ‘triumph’ at that.
But Devon is not quite right about the motivations behind the Affordable Care Act. Its proponents honestly believe that high-deductible plans are crappy coverage, and that low-deductible plans are better for public health. They think it is fine if people who today have high deductibles and exclusions are forced into plans with no exclusions and low deductibles.
In some cases they have a point.
The individual and small-group markets have an unwieldy combination — some persons who are young enough to have low premiums, and who can apply savings to supplement a high-deductible plan.
But there are others like me. I am 63 years old. My coverage costs $7200 a year with a $4,000 deductible. Thus I will pay $11,400 before insurance kicks in a dime. Even then there will be co-payments and some exclusions.
My problem with the ACA is that it uses a fiscal nuclear bomb to solve a street fight. The taxes and regulations are gargantuan, and will leave us with more uninsureds than ever.
There are cheaper solutions for the crappy end of the individual market, that do not ruin the rest of the market.
A Medicare buy-in plan for those over 60 would have been a good starting place.
All forms of private insurance– life, auto, fire coverage, disablity — have some pockets of society where they do not work. Even where private insurance could work, some people refuse to buy it or fail to keep up the premiums. There is nothing wrong with a federal safety net.
In other words, keep up the fight against the ACA. But avoid the llibertarian position that free markets are perfect.
Yes, this is just what happened in Switzerland. 20 years ago you could get great local care in a regional hospital, for reasonable rates, and you could get insurance for a family for $100 a month. The Swiss forced the system to provide insurance for the 5% who were not insured and now it cost $800 a month for lousy coverage while fees in hospitals have rocketed upwards. This, in a country with almost no inflation elsewhere.
Enjoy!!
Agreed, we are going to be seeing this problem everywhere.