The Dummies Running Our Government Flunked Math
A CEO's-eye view of ObamaCare in the WSJ from Hardees/Carl's Junior CEO Andrew Puzder, who can do rudimentary math a lot better than the clueless numpties we elect:
On average, our general managers earn $50,000 per year. Should they decline insurance coverage, they will be subject to an initial annual penalty of $500 and a maximum penalty of $1,250. We estimate that their share of paying the health-insurance premium through our company plan will range between $2,000 and $3,000 per year, well in excess of any potential penalty.The lowest-paid employees who qualify for ACA coverage (as opposed to Medicaid) earn about $11,500 per year. They would be subject to an initial penalty of $115 and a maximum penalty of $695. We currently estimate that their share of health insurance premiums will be $1,091.55 per year--again, well in excess of any potential penalty. So, in the first year, our employees' insurance costs likely will be four to 10 times more than the ACA's penalty on the uninsured.
This is why I am concerned that the ACA could actually cause the number of our covered employees to decrease, particularly in the first year. The penalty for declining coverage will be low compared with the cost of coverage; and employees will know that if they happen to get sick, they can get insurance after that. So the economically rational decision for young people, like our crew employees, is to pay the penalty and forego the insurance. Despite what the government may believe, our employees are smart enough to figure this out.
For insurers, it's simple math: Premiums collected must exceed claims paid. If too few young healthy people enroll, insurers will raise premiums on those who do. This could result in a spiral of rising premiums--causing more healthy people to drop coverage, driving premiums even higher.
The rising cost of insurance affects people whether they purchase insurance through their employers or an exchange, since both depend on private insurers. If insurance costs go up, taxpayers also may end up paying more to foot the bill for the higher cost of subsidized insurance. This is particularly concerning since the administration has announced that it will be unable to verify whether applicants for subsidies actually qualify for them. The subsidies are likely to be very popular.








The point isn't to have a system that actually works and makes sense. The point is to have a system that makes everyone dependent on the government.
Grey Ghost at July 23, 2013 6:11 AM
These are the same people that don't see a problem with a system that routinely borrows 20+% of the budget per year.
What's the word? innumerate.
And yes, Grey Ghost, we'll be dependent on the government. Fortunately, it won't be too much longer before the government is so hamstrung that it will not really be able to function, and we can get on with our lives.
See: Detroit and their government.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 23, 2013 6:46 AM
Insolvency doesn't matter to the proponents of Obamacare.
If it succeeds, great. If it fails (which it will), then we simply institute a single payer system - which they consider an upgrade to Obamacare anyway.
It's a no-lose situation for them.
Either way, we've taken grubby profit-seeking private enterprise out of healthcare and enshrined it as a right for all Americans (legal and illegal - never mind that it's legal citizenship, not ethnicity, that makes you American).
It's a lose-lose for us, but they don't see it that way.
Conan the Grammarian at July 23, 2013 8:34 AM
The death spiral of premiums will lead to de facto rationing, which will lead to single payer, which will lead to official rationing. Which was the intent all along.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2013 9:16 AM
And as far as the "dummies" running our government, allow me to remind you once again of Cousin Dave's Electric Shaver: "Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by narcissism."
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2013 9:18 AM
Leave a comment