The Tricky-Wicky Of Obamacare
It takes the choice out of healthcare -- even for those who liked theirs. And that's no accident, but part of the plan. From the WSJ:
Until this month, consumers who weren't insured through their jobs were allowed to buy insurance that provides the best value based on their own needs. One of every 10 private policies is sold through the individual market, covering about 7% of the U.S. population under age 65.Some states have ruined this market through regulation and price controls, and in others costs can be high. But the individual market works well for millions of people, who can choose from many plans--from Cadillac coverage to cheaper protection against catastrophic illness.
The political problem for the White House is that these choices are a threat to ObamaCare. If too many people keep these policies instead of joining the government exchanges, ObamaCare could fail. HHS has thus reviewed the decisions of people in the individual market and found them wanting. HHS believes as a matter of political philosophy that everyone should have the same kind of insurance, and in the name of equity it wrote rules dictating the benefits that all plans must cover and how they must be financed.
In most cases these mandates are more comprehensive and thus more expensive than the status quo, but the ObamaCare refugees aren't merely facing higher costs. The plans they want and are willing to pay for have been intentionally outlawed. Ponder that one.
Liberals claim the new insurance should cost more because it's better, at least as defined by liberal paternalism. But the real reason they want policies to cost more is to drive as many people as possible out of this market and into the subsidized ObamaCare exchanges.
The exchanges need these customers to finance ObamaCare's balance sheet and stabilize its risk pools. On the exchanges, individuals earning more than $46,000 or a family of four above $94,000 don't qualify for subsidies and must buy overpriced insurance. If these middle-class ObamaCare losers can be forced into the exchanges, they become financiers of the new pay-as-you-go entitlement.
Here's a comment from the WSJ:
David Sherrill
I am self-employed and have high income/net worth. I had a high-deductible policy that met my financial risk profile--but does not meet the HHS requirements. I have to drop my current policy and buy a new one that offers coverage I don't need at 3 times the cost.
Read at the WSJ link how the regulations got rewritten in order to funnel everyone into Obamacare.
Oh, and thank you so much, Republicans, for being the pretend party of small government and for being so fixated on social conservatism that split off libertarians who might've voted for Mitt -- not my candidate but better than Obama.
it's astounding to me that all this churn, all this money, all this angst... is about the medical insurance of, IIRC, roughly 16 million people, all told. Out of 311 million. yet it's lies and poison pills all the way down.
us peons just dunno what's best for us.
BUT.
Remember this well. when gov't sets a pattern, many times unrelated things will conform to it, just to streamline things. ex. Y2K was reinforced by a DOD requirement for 2 digit date fields to interchange data with them. because they are big, it becomes a de facto standard, spreading to unrelated systems.
So, 100 million people have insurance through work (wag, only) how long until they align closely to o-care?
and what will be the next steps after that?
used to be that the tinfoil hat people seemed really far out...
with all the scandal and revelation about IRS, nsa, etc...what will it take to surprise?
swissarmyd at October 30, 2013 11:49 PM
Thank you for the gratuitous slap at the Republicans, since none, zero, not a one of them voted for Obamacare. There is plenty to dislike about them, but this isn't it.
MarkD at October 31, 2013 5:28 AM
Um, read closely, Mark D. The complaint is that they split off voters by being about social conservatism.
Also, few Republicans are small governmenters in reality. They're just for less ginormous government than the Democrats.
Amy Alkon at October 31, 2013 6:55 AM
Also, few Republicans are small governmenters in reality.
There is an awful lot of truth in that. They just want to be in charge of it, and to set slightly different goals for it.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 31, 2013 8:23 AM
Mitch Daniels took a lot of heat from fellow Republicans for suggesting that Republicans lay off the social conservative issues for a while and focus their message on the debt crisis.
If they'd taken his advice, would we have President Romney in office today?
And would he be governing like the fiscal conservative / social moderate he ran as.
Conan the Grammarian at October 31, 2013 9:45 AM
All the republican party needs to win a national election is for the media to stop their full court press covering for the socialists. The media knows this, and so does Obama. That is why the the IRS worked so hard to silence the Tea party. They were a threat to the unified democratic party main stream media message.
Isab at November 1, 2013 12:33 AM
Leave a comment