Nine states already impose Obama-type insurance rules. Result: higher costs, fewer insured.
New York Times apologizes to Washington Times: Front page story said WT is biased against Obama Care.
Tag Archives: health mandates
It’s Even Worse Than You Think
This is James C. Capretta and Yuval Levin, writing in The Weekly Standard:
The Democrats want to spend $1.5 trillion over a decade, impose an $800 billion tax increase in the midst of the worst recession in a generation, increase federal borrowing by $239 billion (on top of the $11 trillion the Obama budget already requires us to borrow through 2019), impose costly mandates on employers that will discourage hiring as unemployment nears 10 percent, force individuals to buy one-size-fits-all government defined insurance, and insert the government in countless new ways between doctors and patients. All of that would occur whether or not the plan includes a "public option," which at this point it does include and which will exacerbate all of these problems.
Six Non-negotiable Deal-Killers for National Health Reform
In the debate over health care reform, there are six policies that should be opposed, says the Health Policy Consensus Group, a coalition of experts from market-oriented think tanks.
1. A new government-sponsored health insurance plan:
- The government would inevitably use its regulatory, pricing and taxing authority to favor its plan.
- A government plan could artificially under-price private plans, driving them out of this one-sided “marketplace” and leaving consumers with no coverage alternatives.
2. A move to force employers to provide health insurance:
- It’s a political certainty that any new health insurance tax will be set lower than the current levels at which employers now fund coverage.
- That would entice many to transfer their employees’ insurance coverage to the mercies of the new government plan.
3. A uniform, government-defined package of benefits:
- When insurance benefits are determined politically rather than by what individuals and families want in the marketplace, the benefits package expands and costs explode.
- Workers would pay for this more expensive coverage through lower wages, lost jobs, higher taxes and lower-value health care. Continue reading Six Non-negotiable Deal-Killers for National Health Reform
Large Employers in Massachusetts
The Boston Globe reports:
The state’s bill for providing healthcare to employees and their families who work for large companies increased 24.6 percent to $793.7 million in the last fiscal year.
The law requires large employers to pay 33% of the costs of 25% of their employees or pay a fine of $295 per employee. Those who meet that threshold don’t pay anything for the 75% of workers not covered. These workers are able to get subsidized care from the state.
The three employers who contribute the most workers to state-subsidized coverage are: Wal-Mart (4,796 workers), Stop & Shop (4,731 workers), and — ta-dahh! — the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (3,785 workers).
Will US Health Reform be Bad for Canada?
An article in the (Canadian) National Post worries that Obama’s health proposal will lure doctors from Canada. After Massachusetts passed its universal mandate, it found that it didn’t have enough physicians to meet the demand. Higher pay in the United States might entice Canadian physicians to travel South in search of better compensation or working conditions. The United States already relies on foreign-trained physicians for one-quarter of its residency slots.
Hat tip to the Wall Street Journal blog.