Skip to comments.Peter Schiff: Affordable Care Act Will Backfire
Posted on 09/25/2012 7:24:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Now that the Supreme Court has given its narrow blessing to the Affordable Care Act, the big question is whether it will deliver the benefits that its proponents promise. Unfortunately, as it is now constructed, the plan will backfire causing fewer healthy people to buy insurance, raise premiums for those who do, destroy employment opportunities, cripple the health insurance industry, and weaken the economy.
In order to guarantee insurance to all, regardless of age, health or pre-existing conditions, the framers of the plan concede that it is essential that the young and healthy (who are less likely to be heavy users of health care) pay into the insurance pool. The surplus generated from their premiums compensates for the money lost to those receiving more in services than they pay in premiums (e.g. older people and those with medical conditions). But the ACA has given these healthy people a Get out of Jail Free card that many of them are sure to play.
Most healthy young people know that they are losing money to insurance providers, at least in the near term. That is the nature of insurance. You pay to prevent costly exposure to an unlikely event. And just as homeowners wisely pay for fire insurance even though they dont expect their homes to burn down, given the high cost of medical care it is also practical that healthy young people buy health insurance.
But, the ACA makes it illegal for insurance providers to deny coverage to anyone for any reason. This allows healthy people to drop insurance until they actually need it without incurring any risk. Its like allowing homeowners to buy fire insurance after their houses burn down. To counteract these new free rider incentives, the law imposes no insurance penalties (also defined as taxes by the Supreme Court). The problem is that these penaltaxes (for lack of a better word) are insufficient to the task. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled the law constitutional precisely because the burdens were not high enough to compel behavior. (In other words, he thought the law was constitutional because it will be ineffective.) The numbers support his arguments.
On average, in 2010, a typical healthy young person paid at least $2,500 per year for insurance (for a plan that would still involve significant out of pocket expenses). In some areas of the country, premiums were more than twice as high. When the program takes effect in 2014 the penaltaxes will be the greater of $95 or 1% of household income. A single person earning $40,000 per year who chooses to go uninsured would then be subject to a $400 penaltax. The decision would be an easy one: drop the insurance, incur the penaltax and pay for any routine medical services out of pocket. In the unlikely event that he gets cancer or is hit by a bus, he can always buy insurance in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Even in 2016, as the penaltax increases to the greater of $695 or 2.5% of household income, it will still not make sense for many people to buy insurance. The penaltaxes are capped at levels that equal the full cost of an average health plan. So even high income individuals are no worse off financially for not buying insurance. In addition, the IRS ability to actually collect these penaltaxes is limited to garnishing income tax refund checks. If an individual is not getting a refund, the IRS is impotent.
The law places no requirements for businesses with fewer than 50 employees to offer insurance. So when younger workers realize the benefits of dropping insurance, they will naturally gravitate to savvy businesses that offer higher pay instead of insurance. This will drain more premiums from the insurance pools.
In contrast, the burdens placed on employers with more than 50 workers are complex, onerous and unpredictable. Those that dont offer insurance would be subject to substantial (and open ended) penalties if at least one employee receives an insurance tax credit or a government subsidy to an insurance exchange. If they do offer insurance, they will also be subject to substantial (and open ended) penalties if the plan fails to cover 60% of employee health expenses, or if premiums for any employee are more than 9.5% of family income. It has been left wholly unexplained how employers are supposed to accurately determine these triggers which involve knowledge of family income, not just employee income.
Smaller employers will look to avoid these headaches by staying below the 50-employee threshold. Though it should be obvious, there is plenty of evidence to support this tendency. French law involves significant regulatory requirements for businesses that have more than 50 employees. As a result, there are currently 2.4 times more French companies that have 49 employees than there are with 50. Incentives for businesses to stay small will hurt the economy and will further shrink the numbers of people paying into the health insurance pools.
Employers will also be incentivized to avoid hiring lower paid workers who would be more likely to trigger the penalties tied to household income. As a result, many small companies will likely look to replace lower rung employees with temps, automation or outsourcing, further raising the barrier to workforce entry for lower skilled workers. The unemployable workers will then qualify for free health insurance, further draining the system.
Unless the penaltaxes are raised significantly, far too many needed premium payers will drop out. As they do, insurance companies will try to recoup the lost revenue by raising premiums for the customers who remain. As the gap between the relatively low penaltaxes and the high cost of health insurance premiums increases, so too will the incentive to drop coverage. This self-reinforcing dynamic will render the entire plan non-viable.
It is a foregone conclusion that the Obama Administration and its congressional allies are already planning to raise the penaltaxes. Although such increases would render the plan unconstitutional if they compel behavior, according to Robertss analysis, I do not expect the Supreme Court to ever rule on this case again. The Court has a history of opening small cracks in the Constitutional barn door for the bureaucratic horses to stampede.
Unless we can summon the political will to repeal the poorly conceived law, we should all brace for higher health care costs, many more layers of impenetrable federal bureaucracy, a significantly weaker economy, diminished employment opportunities, and lower living standards.
Does the VA hospital take non veterans in the ER? Just curious.
“...causing fewer healthy people to buy insurance, raise premiums for those who do, destroy employment opportunities, cripple the health insurance industry, and weaken the economy.”
In other words, it will do exactly what the muslim marxist wants it to do.
And all that leads to single payer - which is what the Progressives wanted all along.
Great analysis on the flaws of Obamacare
Exactly - ACA was designed to fail & then we Sheep are supposed to beg for Guvmint to take it all over.
Good post. Thanks for the info.
I’m sorry to hear that you waited seven hours without any treatment. Hope things work out good for you.
Thanks for the ping.
Fall in line, Comrades.
Cause and effect laws break down when voters are offered freebees for their vote and are told they deserve it.
so here is what I heard from an insurance agent: you can buy it in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. The premium for you at that time will be over $15000 a month or something like that.
That's what might happen under current law.
Today, insurers must quote a price to you for coverage, no matter what is wrong with you or when it started.
Under ObamaCare, there will be a maximum premium, which will be much less than your $15,000 quote, but I don't know the new law well enough to say how much less.
Great article! Ping for later use!
The fatal flaw of this Ponzi scheme.
Every generation will need to attract tens of millions of new younger immigrants just to pay for the older generations.
When does it fall apart? 500 million immigrants? 1 billion immigrants?
When do potential immigrants say, “We may be poor, but we aren't stupid!
In nanny state NY, Bloomberg and others are trying to remove all junk food from hospital cafeterias and waiting rooms and provide healthier food and snacks. No more late night soda and chips while waiting in the ER. Now there will be fruit, nuts, and whole grains.
Exactly. The commies want a total control, single payer deathcare system like Cuba.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.