The View From 1776

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Is Less Affordable

Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Has Increased Non-Group Premiums In Nearly All States

The National Bureau of Economic Research, created in the 1930s to churn out statistics supporting New Deal socialism, demonstrates that the administration is yet again misleading the public.

The message is loud and clear: socialism does not cut costs or increase efficiency; it merely steals from producers and uses the proceeds to buy votes.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/24 at 04:41 PM
  1. Thomas,

    While I agree with the Forbes article’s premise non-group rates have gone up dramatically, there is another aspect which, so far, few have delved into; and that is the shifting of burdens onto patients and caregivers by insurance companies as a direct result of ACA even where premiums are flat. This has been especially pronounced in the very segment of the insurance industry which the Forbes article reports has been unaffected (or only minimally) by Obamacare; that is, employer-provided plans. I beg to differ, and can testify that: we too are significantly and economically affected by this law – and not to our gain. Besides significantly greater out-of-pocket costs, negative effects include: complete loss of coverage (to some – see ), dropped dependents, increased service delays & denials, payment delays & denials (to caregivers), elimination of ‘co-pays’, increased red-tape, providers opting-out forcing patients to find new doctors, tax hikes to pay for exchanges and additional Medicaid costs, higher premiums for youngest workers, retirement-age employees forced off company plans, far more part-time (i.e., plan ineligible) employees, lay-offs, medical-staff lay-offs (hospitals, labs and non-profits), fewer/smaller raises, &c.

    Consider just one of those effects – ‘dropped dependents’. ACA induces companies to drop spouses and other dependents of an employee given those dependents work for another company offering similar plans. It does not matter the other company’s plan is comparable or that the spouse/dependent is currently un-enrolled in it, only that it is offered. Now, let’s say you have been carrying your wife and 17 year old son on your company (best available) plan, and they are forced off. Suddenly, you are paying for not one but three insurance policies. Either that, or the wife and son are now uninsured and waiting to get slapped with fines for non-compliance. That makes the idea the costs of employer-provided plans have been relatively stable pure fiction. At least as far as family economics is concerned, your budget has taken one heck of a slap.

    The elimination of co-pays from most plans is another metric we should examine. Before, most medical services could be had for the cost of a co-pay. While I agree co-pays tended toward an over-consumption of medical services (helping drive up costs; especially among Medicaid and Medicare users, the two largest consumers of medical services), there is no denying the ‘sticker shock’ we are now feeling without them. This is actually one of the few positives I attribute to Obamacare, as it should help to drive costs down. However, there is a glitch. Obamacare actually maintains co-pay for Medicare and Medicaid plans and encourages plan recipient reliance, while encouraging all other plans to drop co-pays as a frivolous and costly feature. Therefore, I expect this dual aspect of Obamacare to, on net, drive health costs up also.

    The rest of my list of ‘evils’ is, I believe, fairly self-explanatory.

    Links: 2014/Fall2014BPEA_Kowalski.pdf

    Horror stories
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/25  at  05:33 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: What Motivates Liberal-Progressivism?

Previous entry: Racism?