“The Alabama Legislature is trying to get ahead of the federal Affordable Care Act. The House passed a bill establishing the framework for health insurance exchanges in Alabama. But the Governor said the legislation is premature.”
“In February, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a ‘guidance bulletin’ regarding the compatibility of health savings accounts with Obamacare’s insurance regulations. According to HSA expert Roy Ramthun, the news isn’t good. ‘HSA plans will not be as affordable as they are today,’ says Ramthun.”
“Two years into the law’s implementation, conservative emissaries have contributed to impressive stats. Almost all red states are holding off on exchange legislation at least until the Supreme Court decides on the Affordable Care Act, and in most of those states, exchange-building legislation has crawled to a stop.”
“In March, the CBO released a new study on employee migration out of job-based plans and into Obamacare’s state exchanges. The effect of ObamaCare on employer-based insurance has been hotly debated ever since the law was enacted in March 2010. Several independent analysts predict that ‘dumping’ into the exchanges will occur at a much higher rate than CBO assumed in its original estimates of ObamaCare and argued that the result would be much higher federal costs than CBO estimated.”
“Absent the mandate, ObamaCare will not function as intended because the program’s coverage guarantee and expansion is financed, in part, through cross-subsidies generated by mandating that individuals purchase insurance policies that cost several times more than their expected insurance claims. Defenders of ObamaCare rationalize these compulsory transfers as inherent to “insurance,” which they erroneously present as a system where low-risk policyholders are expected to overpay for their coverage to reduce the cost of the policies for those with predictably high claims.”
“The most important front right now is to ensure that states do not create the health-insurance exchanges Obamacare needs in order to operate. Refusing to create exchanges is the most powerful thing states can do to take Obamacare down. Think of it as an insurance policy in case the Supreme Court whiffs.”
“If employers dump many of their workers onto the exchanges, as numerous independent analyses suggest is likely, taxpayers may need to spend as much as $200 billion a year extra on these exchange subsidies. Well, it turns out that the Obama Administration agrees that initial spending estimates are too low. The White House’s fiscal year 2013 budget adds $111 billion in exchange spending between 2014 and 2021, with even more spending to come in future years.”
“Sebelius basically just copped to a double-subversion of the Constitution: Congress appropriates money for X, but not Y. Sebelius says, ‘I know better than Congress. I’m going to take money away from X to fund Y.’ Sebelius has already shown contempt for the First Amendment, first by threatening insurance carriers with bankruptcy for engaging in non-fraudulent speech, and again by crafting a contraceptives mandate that violates religious freedom. Now, she has decided the whole separation of powers thing is for little people. What will Sebelius do the next time something gets in the way of her implementing ObamaCare?”
“An Obamacare exchange will offer less choice, not more. Consumers who want to buy affordable plans for catastrophic care would not be able to. Health savings accounts probably would be verboten. Like Henry Ford, who said customers could have any color car so long as it was black, Obamacare says state exchanges can offer any plan, so long as it is gold-plated.
What happens if a state allows a wide variety of plans at different prices and coverage levels? Washington would declare that it allows too much choice — and take over.”
On Tuesday, January 31st, e21 held an event exploring the implications of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which was sold to the American people with the promise that “If you like what you have, you can keep it.” New academic research is clearly disproving this claim. The health law provides strong incentives for employers to move their sick and low-wage workers out of job-based plans and into publicly subsidized coverage. The result will be soaring costs for taxpayers, and millions of people losing the coverage they have today.
The event featured a presentation by Professor Daniel Schwarcz of the University of Minnesota Law School, a speech by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), and commentary from James C. Capretta.
Read Prof. Schwarcz’s paper, “Will Employers Undermine Health Care Reform by Dumping Sick Employees?” here.