An actual economist examines Obamacare and says it makes no sense
According to Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research:
Duh.
Of course, this will result in yet another crisis, which the government will have to fix by ...
A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.There are penalties in the bill to prevent just that -- individuals who don't buy government-approved insurance and employers who don't offer government-approved insurance have to cough up a stiff tariff to The Man. But the penalty is a fraction of the cost of paying for insurance.
This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)
The higher premium level would cause others who are currently insured to drop coverage, pushing premiums even higher. The result would be a spiral of rising premiums and shrinking numbers of insured.
The average cost of an insurance policy with family coverage in 2009 is $13,375. A married couple with a median family income of $75,000 who choose not to insure would be subject to a fine of 2.5 percent of that $75,000, or $1,875. So the family would save a net $11,500 by not insuring.
Duh.
Of course, this will result in yet another crisis, which the government will have to fix by ...
Labels: health care
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
7:26 PM
1 Comments:
Here is an excerpt from the 12/1/09 Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews
"The CBO found that the measure would have its most dramatic impact on the individual market. Because they are not part of a workforce or other group that can pool its risk, consumers tend to pay more for policies with fewer benefits. The Senate bill would address that by establishing insurance exchanges, effectively creating risk pools. It would limit premiums based on age and medical condition, and cut costs for insurers by adding younger, healthier people to the customer base. All those provisions would lower premiums by as much as 20 percent, on average, by 2016, the CBO said.
"For many people, those savings would be offset, however, by new standards for minimum coverage that would require newly offered policies to be significantly more generous than many are now. While people who currently have coverage would be permitted to keep it, the CBO predicts that few would choose to do so. As a result, for the 32 million people in the individual market, premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher, on average, than under current law, climbing to $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 for family coverage.
"However, six in 10 purchasers in that market would receive federal subsidies that would cover about two-thirds of the cost, the CBO said, so they would pay 60 percent less for insurance than if the legislation had not been enacted.
"The benefits would be much less dramatic for the approximately 160 million people who receive coverage in the small and large group markets, the CBO said, leaving the average premium essentially unchanged or as much as 3 percent lower.
"This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured" in the short term, agreed Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, an advocate of reform. "But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run."
Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report. "
Because of The Recession my salary is less than half what it was in previous years. It's going to be less than $20K this year.
I'm now self-employed and loving my job. At the same time, though, it's a real struggle to make ends meet.
I'm in the low income nowhereland of making too much money for Medicaid and not enough to buy my own coverage.
Still, I can pay my rent and bills and save just a little.
If the calculations I made based on the Washington Post article are right I will be without an apartment because over $200 a month will have to pay for health insurance.
I figure like this:
$5800 a year for an individual policy
The subsidy covers 2/3 at 3828
This leaves me with a horrible burden of 1972 a year, or almost $200 a month.
Right now my monthly savings, all I can spare, is approximately $50.
I'm lucky to have a job now. What if I lost it and couldn't get another one?
This is very troubling and it only confirms that this is the worst thing I've ever seen. The Administration is so out of touch I can't believe each day that passes.
I do not think Obamacare will help me at all and although it is not within my heart to be angry, I am whenever this subject comes up.
I am troubled and disturbed and do not like this "help" that's coming my way nor the enrichment of the Insurance Industry with taxpayer money.
It's like another kind of bailout.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home