Don't Blame Obamacare?

An editorial in today's Boston Globe makes a number of assertions regarding health care insurance as part of its efforts in support of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At the risk of employing Claude Raines - style indignation (I'm shocked. shocked to find  the Globe is going in the tank for this Progressive attempt to control one-sixth of the nation's economy),These points beg for challenge.

For example, Senator Ted Cruz is taken to task for his concerns about families having their insurance coverage cancelled. "Oh no", says the Globe, which claims that these folks had plans providing only "threadbare coverage", such plans do not provide adequate catastrophic coverage. which could lead to huge medical bills for the family, which would ultimately dribble down to the taxpayers for payment.  We are not sure what basis the Globe has for this opinion, and while its possible that such a series of events could take place, they are clearly using a broad brush to bash the health care plans of 93 million Americans. let's look at the actual choices someone might make in choosing a health plan.

The place to save money in most health insurance plans is at the front end of the treatment process. By accepting higher deductibles and co-pays, significant reductions in premiums can often be achieved. Many, if not most, consumers are much more worried about a catastrophic illness, and its associated costs, than they are about having to write a check for a co-pay, especially if the family is relatively young and healthy.  Wise consumers will generally shop around for the best balance between coverage for incidentals and catastrophic illness. It seems incredulous that someone would go to the trouble of getting health insurance and not having catastrophic coverage that protect against a disastrous and high cost illness.

Government mandates also tend to increase costs. Much is made, for example about plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions. While this may seem unfair to some, the insurance company is basing its premium on the probability of an illness occurring. Under a mandate to cover pre-existing conditions, the probability is 100%. If the insurance company is required by law to cover an existing illness, the premiums must be increased to compensate. Think about a homeowner who could buy fire insurance only after his house catches fire.

So now, instead of the individual trying to purchase only the coverage they want, here comes the government telling you what coverage you must have, and, of course, pay for.

"Cruz and some other conservatives", are criticized for bemoaning the loss of choice that individuals will experience as the government steps in to decide what plan provisions they must have, justifying the loss of freedom as needed to protect against the supposed costs of treating serious illness that would flow to the taxpayer when the consumer's "cheapo" plans fail to pay. BTW, guess who pays for the subsidies to low income (400% of the poverty level !) policyholders.

Perhaps the computer "glitches" can be fixed, but the ACA itself is an unsuccessful attempt to put the bureaucrats in charge of a profoundly personal set of decisions. This poorly-conceived, badly -drafted, and still poorly-understood  behemoth of a Bill, that was rammed through Congress and continues to be promoted with a drumbeat of lies and misinformation, some of which comes from erstwhile respected journals, now needs to be repealed before any more damage is done to one of the world's premiere health care systems. Moreover, conspiracy theorists, who see the ACA as a stalking horse for a massive single-payer plan (long the ultimate of Progressive aspirations) are beginning to accumulate credibility beyond the fringes.