AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (9 comments)

  1. “…is working”

    …let’s wait for a few billing cycles to see how much of a hassle it is to get the bills paid before we call it “working”

  2. Michael P. Stein

    The “my doctor’s no longer in the network” problem cropped up long before Obama’s first term due to workers changing employers, employers changing plans, or doctors leaving the network (voluntarily or not). Therefore I don’t see that it’s fair to include that particular knock as if it were a special failing of Obamacare. Against the issue of people paying more than they used to, fairness requires acknowledging that others are paying less. I know a self-employed person, not eligible for subsidy, whose health care costs dropped by thousands because his family was formerly in a high-risk pool due to a pre-existing condition. (Let’s admit it: we all want to buy health insurance out of a pool where our family is the sickest one in the pool.)

    The two big questions in my mind are a) how many formerly uninsured people became insured, and b) did enough young people sign up to keep the plans both actuarially sound and affordable.

    1. Gilgamesh

      You will never know the answers until a new administration and congress is in place. Hopefully electronic records can’t be deleted as easily as the shredding machines in Little Rock.

    2. To Michael P. Stein,

      OK then. I may be unhappy that OCare is taking more money from me, but that unhappiness is supposed to disappear when I am informed that most of the money is being given to others.

      To others with preexisting conditions. That is, others who were uninsured at the time they acquired their condition, but who want their medical bills paid anyway, while contributing only what they would have paid if they had been insured all along. Neat.

      1. Michael P. Stein

        @Andrew_M_Garland – “OK then. I may be unhappy that OCare is taking more money from me, but that unhappiness is supposed to disappear when I am informed that most of the money is being given to others.”

        That’s how insurance always works. It takes money from a large number of people, and gives it to a smaller number of people.

        Your unhappiness will not, of course, disappear when you are told that the extra 5 or 10% you pay goes to allow others into your insurance pool. But I suspect a great deal of unhappiness would appear if you or someone in your family got cancer, and you were told that you were therefore being reassigned to the deep (high-risk) end of the pool and your premiums and out-of-pocket maximum were going up by 500% or so.

      2. To Stein,

        You don’t understand how insurance works.

        Insurance collects together people with the same risk and charges them according to the payouts to those who suffer the risk events.

        People are not reassigned to higher premium pools because they incur the risk event.

        High-risk pools are socialism imposed by state legislatures, and now by our federal government. The govt wants healthy people to pay more than their risk would determine, to subsidize less healthy people, people who didn’t insure their risk until they became sick.

        OCare is a huge wealth transfer under the monopoly requirement that everyone buy a government defined and mandated plan. The political scheme was that people would blame their insurance company, not the government. Fortunately, many people see through this.

        Insurance companies aren’t angels. They have happily climbed in bed with government to make more money. Who should we blame? The insurance companies who are in business, or the government which is supposed to be fair to all groups, even the healthy groups?

        1. Michael P. Stein

          @Andrew_M_Garland –

          “You don’t understand how insurance works. Insurance collects together people with the same risk and charges them according to the payouts to those who suffer the risk events. People are not reassigned to higher premium pools because they incur the risk event.”

          I really wish you had been around to explain that to my home insurance company about twelve years ago. Clearly they didn’t have your expertise in how insurance works. A tree in the yard came down and damaged the house and a car parked in the street. They first cancelled my policy, but then agreed to continue it – at a significantly higher premium. The tree was gone; it certainly wasn’t going to pose any further risk. If anything, our risk was lower going forward, not higher.

          Health insurance works even less like your theory (and I’m talking about pre-Obamacare). One problem is the definition of “same risk”. I work for a very large company. Our insurance is based on the average risk for the company, which is large enough to be a good match for the general working-age population. The only health question a new employee is asked is about smoking. I could take up skydiving or dressage (the sport that paralyzed Christopher Reeve). It wouldn’t affect my health insurance premium, even though I’m clearly at higher risk.

          Many years ago I worked for a very small company. One of the employees had lymphoma. She was forced out of the company; although it couldn’t be proved, she felt it was because of the effect she had on the company’s ability to get affordable insurance.

          When a person has an accident, it’s an event. When a person is diagnosed with metastasized cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, kidney disease, etc., it’s not an event – it’s a condition. Until and unless a cure is found, it is no longer a risk but a certainty that the person will need significant ongoing treatment, often for years.

          So next year, the insurance company is pretty well guaranteed to raise the premiums, as the expected cost of the sick person has risen. If the person works for a small company, not only does it suck to be them, but it also sucks to be a healthy employee of the same company – the group rate is probably going up.

  3. Nonsenseyousay

    ‘The “my doctor’s no longer in the network” problem cropped up long before Obama’s first term due to workers changing employers, employers changing plans, or doctors leaving the network (voluntarily or not). Therefore I don’t see that it’s fair to include that particular knock as if it were a special failing of Obamacare. ‘

    It certainly is fair when the President and countless other Democrats repeatedly stated “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” and “If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period.”

  4. Go ahead and believe the liar at your own risk.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content