Health insurance rates going up by double digits: NYT

posted at 9:21 am on January 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Remember that Nancy Pelosi told us that we needed to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it.  Barack Obama promised to “bend the cost curve,” too.  Looks like both of them were right, at least according to the Paper of Record, which discovers to its surprise that dumping nebulous mandates on insurers causes them to bend the cost curve sharply upward (via Instapundit):

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.

In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.

Why should this surprise?  The must-issue regulation built into ObamaCare increases costs for the insurers, who cannot draw all of the needed revenues from the high-risk pool, thanks to mandates on rates.  That means those costs have to get spread out to everyone in the pool.  This is nothing more than Risk Pool 101, a course that Congress flunked repeatedly in the ObamaCare debate.

And why are rates rising higher on individual premiums than employer-based premiums?  First off, the economics of aggregation are always going to work out that way; insurers want large groups of customers, and it’s less costly in the long run to find customers that way rather than one at a time.  I’d guess that the employer-aggregate pool might generate somewhat lower costs than the general population too (especially after must-issue), but that’s just speculation.  What isn’t speculation is that ObamaCare heavily regulates the individual markets in 2014 based on a law that doesn’t have many details in how that is supposed to be accomplished, based on state exchanges that may never exist in more than half of the states.  In that kind of environment, can anyone blame the insurers for basing premiums on worst-case scenarios this year?

None of this surprises those who both understand risk pools and the dynamic reaction to regulation.  It’s amusing to see everyone else be shocked, shocked that ObamaCare ends up driving costs upward even further.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Between the rising FICA withholding and the rising health insurance costs, the Honey Boo Boo voters are getting a big shock.

It’s time for the Republican party to actually MAKE & BROADCAST the commercial showing Pelosi saying, “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it.”

The 2014 elections could break all records. But the Republicans have to play their hand intelligently.

Pythagoras on January 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Though I don’t disagree with the rest of your comment, let’s admit that it hasn’t been “insurance” for a long time – it’s now a long-term cost-averaging model for care. You pay a company a lot of money (premiums) to make sure you only pay $25 to see the doctor every time you visit, and to make sure you never see the “real” cost of a CAT-scan or a surgery. Insurance is closer to what I have with my HIGH-deductible plan: I pay for everything, unless something really bad happens that costs lots of money. The only advantage I get out of my plan (unless something really bad happens) is a negotiated price with in-plan doctors. (Which I could probably get if I could get away with simply paying my own way, anyway.)

[snip]

GWB on January 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The underwriting function must remain, or the system will collapse, which obviously is 0bama’s long-term goal.

I am an interesting case study, in that I joined my private insurance company in pretty good health – or do I thought – and then about a year later my health utterly collapsed in all directions.

Since then, my company has paid out a lot of money on my behalf… which is part of the reason for my 50% increase.

I was judged a pretty good risk by the underwriters, and then suddenly they were paying out massive amounts.

That’s the whole purpose of underwriting… to cushion the blow for people whose health collapses. Did I deceive them? No. The health issues were as much a surprise to me as to them. But the underwriters’ job was to make sure that the percentage of people like me who have unforeseen problems are factored in, so that the whole thing works..

Remove lifetime caps and preexisting conditions? The whole thing MUST collapse, axiomatically.

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

What fantasy world is this nut living in?

Liberals see the house burning down all around them yet refuse to believe it’s them that set the fire.

darwin on January 7, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Obamaworld!!!

You had to ask???

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Let us not forget the effect on job growth. The brayams of the world make me ill.

CW on January 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Paul Krugman on the Bush deficits:

And that’s way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account — as the C.B.O. cannot — the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it’s clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion.
-Paul Krugman

Brayam even Krugs knows not to trust the CBO. You’re such the idiot.

CW on January 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Yeah… but the zombie level libs will continue to believe that all that is good streams from Obama butt… and the Evil Republicans are the problem.

RalphyBoy on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

It will. In fact you will be paying nothing for healthcare insurance because it will be obsolete. As soon as it goes free healthcare provided by the government you will pay nothing for care. Sure we may get taxed up the wazoo but it will still be free healthcare.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Health Care will never ‘go free’, Dr. Epstine, as you admit in your quote above. Obamacare will continue to choke companies to the point they can no longer afford workers &/or their health care – which is already happeneind…as the GOP predicted….which is what the Progressives wanted to happen all along.

The problem Americans have assessing Democrats/Liberals/Progressives is the same problem Americans have assessing Muslims/Islamic Extremists ;;

Americans can not comprehend that Muslims could be so radical as to REALLY want to convert all people to the Muslim faith or else kill them all, & it is that lack of ability to comprehend the truth of the matter that continues to drive ignorant decisions & our wanting to ‘help’ them & provide them with aide.

Americans are so unable to comprehend a party hating the Constitution so much, so wanting to control every aspect of everyone’s lives here in the U.S., that they completely ignore history…that they continue to ignore the lie-after-lie, betrayal-after-betrayal (‘I won;t raise taxes on the Middle Class – Obama does; Ok I won’t raise taxes on them anymore – Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in history; Ok NOW I am serious – no more tax increases on the Middle Class — Obama’s tax deal adds $3.8 TRILLION to the deficit, increases spending, & raises taxes on 77% of all Americans – to include Middle Classp; Ok Now I am REALLY serious – no more tax increases on the Middle Class…On Face The Nation, Pelosi said they plan to raise taxes AGAIN & don;t care who has to pay it….)

WHEN ARE THEY GONNA WAKE THE H@LL UP?!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

WHEN ARE THEY GONNA WAKE THE H@LL UP?!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Probably around the same time JohnGalt gives his esteemed permission for the GOP to fight instead of surrender and bow (not that they will): after it’s too late and the only choice is “die free or die as a slave”.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

No it will never be free but we will no longer personally pay for healthcare nor will there be insurance to pay. Think of it this way. If all firearms are removed from earth nobody will even be killed with a firearm again. It doesn’t mean that nobody will ever be killed.

With “free” government healthcare the cost will be hidden in higher taxes and other things so people will believe they are getting “free” healthcare.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

C’mon – this is clearly the insurance companies being evil and profit gouging. Once we get rid of the carriers and gov’t controls health care – costs will go way, way down and quality of service will go way, way up.

Isn’t it obvious. We’ll have the world leading health care system of Great Britain, Canada or France!!

And then, drug companies and medical device manufacturers will spend even more money on research and development. Because they’ll want to. Right now, they do it for profit. but, once you take the profit out with price controls, they will see the glory in doing it for the good of the state and we’ll all profit with better health care.

It’s so obvious. We should do it with every industry as clearly, gov’t run business always works. We can have glorious 5 year plans as we march toward utopia.

Monkeytoe on January 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

No it will never be free but we will no longer personally pay for healthcare nor will there be insurance to pay. Think of it this way. If all firearms are removed from earth nobody will even be killed with a firearm again.

[snip]

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

It gets better: If everyone gives up looking for work then the unemployment rate will be 0.00%.

Who knew how easy it really would be to end unemployment in America – we all just have to stop looking for work!

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Who knew how easy it really would be to end unemployment in America – we all just have to stop looking for work!

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Or take a 29 hour a week job making 9 bucks an hour. See things are not that bad.

CW on January 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM

The ‘Affordable…” Act?

Obama’care’

Double digits is the big lie. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

May all who voted for it burn in Hell, yes Roberts too.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

cane_loader on January 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I’ll beat you two, easily:

It will be Heaven on Earth when all will be equal.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

WHEN ARE THEY GONNA WAKE THE H@LL UP?!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

When the chains/knives are upon their necks.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Somebody should talk Steven Crowder into going outside of the NYSlimes and doing on the street interviews asking people to explain how much they love the double digit increases in their health care costs.

SWalker on January 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

This is OT, but I can’t find a straight answer as to what has happened to the Bush tax cuts. Did they expire?

redlucy on January 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM

C’mon – this is clearly the insurance companies being evil and profit gouging. Once we get rid of the carriers and gov’t controls health care – costs will go way, way down and quality of service will go way, way up.

Isn’t it obvious. We’ll have the world leading health care system of Great Britain, Canada or France!!

And then, drug companies and medical device manufacturers will spend even more money on research and development. Because they’ll want to. Right now, they do it for profit. but, once you take the profit out with price controls, they will see the glory in doing it for the good of the state and we’ll all profit with better health care.

It’s so obvious. We should do it with every industry as clearly, gov’t run business always works. We can have glorious 5 year plans as we march toward utopia.

Monkeytoe on January 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Sarcasm noted, but the scary part is how many Obama Cultists actually spew similar talking points. My own sister has said the same thing as your post, almost verbatim, on numerous occasions.

Economic illiteracy is the foundation of the Left. Everything they advocate or desire stems from a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of basic economic principles. This is why everything they dominate slowly turns to crap.

visions on January 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Really, Ed? The most appropriate picture you can pick for this topic is a guy ogling a woman’s vagina? Really?

Time Lord on January 7, 2013 at 9:33 AM

If you knew what the screen cap was from, you’d know it is a supremely appropriate picture for this topic.

Shepherd Lover on January 7, 2013 at 1:09 PM

If anyone is shocked by this, then they’re too stupid to be able to vote. In fact, probably too stupid to know how to balance their checkbook as well.

ButterflyDragon on January 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Economic illiteracy is the foundation of the Left. Everything they advocate or desire stems from a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of basic economic principles. This is why everything they dominate slowly turns to crap.

visions on January 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM

What else did anyone expect from a party headed by a guy who, as a Harvard Law School graduate, did not understand the terms of his own auto insurance policy? He needed to have a claims adjuster, somebody who probably had an associate’s degree from a community college, explain it to him. And this is the same guy who, with a straight face (probably because he believed it), told audiences that once Obamacare passed, Americans would see their health insurance premiums decrease by as much as 3,000%.

But don’t dare question his intelligence. He’s obviously smarter than us, because he was President of the Harvard Law Review!

It’s truly pathetic how many people in this country still believe that an Ivy League degree (even for an aff*rmative act*on graduate) is some sort of irrefutable sign of superior intelligence — despite all the evidence to the contrary.

AZCoyote on January 7, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Health Insurance is going up about 20% in California… “despite new healthcare law”…

juanito on January 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM

This is news now? We were told at my job months ago our insurance rates would be going up at least 60% in 2013.

With a handy chart.

Well, new SS deductions surprised the free stuff crowd, so apparently it is.

Moesart on January 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Its just the beginning of cost increase.

Bmore on January 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Pres Obama said that he liked the “Obamacare” name during the debates. I was surprised. With his penchant for embracing lies, falsehoods and untruths, he should have been the most comfortable with the “Affordable Care Act” appellation.

On second thought… It’s easy to see that he would be inclined to embrace the named-after-me name.

WestTexasBirdDog on January 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

The Chicago Way at NOAA.

Seems someones thumb has been on the weights and measures.

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM

It’s also true that the parts of Obamacare that promise to lower costs will take years to make an impact but most healthcare experts agree that the savings are real.

bayam on January 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM

How to argue like bayam in 3 easy steps:

1) Type “[most / all] of [group of experts] [are liberals and/or agree with me]“.
2) Provide no evidence.
3) Stop posting.

Chuck Schick on January 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

LOLZ working as intended. The cries for single payer are growing stronger every day.

watertown on January 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

When the chains/knives are upon their necks.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Only some of us. For the rest they will still blame conservatives until they can no longer think due to death.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM

The prices will fall as soon as those death panels kick into action. There’s enough loot in those old folks pockets to extend the crazed “spending for votes”, for years to come.

Don L on January 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Pres Obama said that he liked the “Obamacare” name during the debates. I was surprised. With his penchant for embracing lies, falsehoods and untruths, he should have been the most comfortable with the “Affordable Care Act” appellation.

On second thought… It’s easy to see that he would be inclined to embrace the named-after-me name.

WestTexasBirdDog on January 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

How soon before we have the mandates to put a bronzed government approved statue of the messiah on every street corner?

Don L on January 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM

“We uhhh tried the mandate uhh and exchanges uhh and they didn’t work, uhh. Next we must, for the sake of the uhhh nation, pass my Single Payer for the Perfection of the Collective(SPPC1479) bill uhhh . A bipartisan uhhh bill co written by uhhh house speaker A.Franken and the last republican presidential nominee , AI-ORCA2.456, the AI that was programmed by the NRSC to run against me last election. I Won again! So uhh now that the bitterness of that election is uhh behind us we need to uhhh support the bipartisan SPPC Franken/AI bill. Your dear Leader and cool hip-hop comrade Barrack Husein Obama ”

——- address to the nation 2024. ****Presidential term limits over turned in 2015 by the SC with Roberts arguing that term limits is NOT a tax and thus could be eliminated.

BoxHead1 on January 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

When the government mandates a level of coverage, it is very hard to repeal. The upward spiral is inevitable, and if the left has its way, will not be pulled back until underwriting collapses.

The DEMs are betting the people will clamor for Natl Health.

This requires the US population be kept destitute. If our economy rebounded, Americans aren’t Greeks. They like their Blue cards and hate the post office.

Because we are not Greece, our economy could still rebound. It will require a conservative in DC.

I hate to say this, but war would change everything. A major war, unlike the mini games of the past decades, would re set the country. The Lib games would evaporate. Nations are certainly working hard towards that goal. Maybe in my lifetime

entagor on January 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

BoxHead1 on January 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Followed shortly thereafter (when just enough votes balk in Congress to cause some “obstructio”) by an EO doing the same thing… executed under the authority of the IPAB.

GWB on January 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Hey, this is what the bulk of village idiots wanted when they went to the polls last November and decided that the previous four years of this horse manure was just not enough pain for them. They pretty much dropped their drawers, bent over and said “Thank you Sir! May we have another please?”!

pilamaye on January 7, 2013 at 9:33 AM

But wait, no, they were voting for unlimited marijuana usage, homos to get married, and the freedom to abort their children until just before their head pops out. Man, that stuff sure is expensive.

yhxqqsn on January 7, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Unexpectedly.

It’s also true that the parts of Obamacare that promise to lower costs will take years to make an impact but most healthcare experts agree that the savings are real.

bayam on January 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Um, no. No independent, objective healthcare expert that actually read the bill would predict that it would result in savings unless the rationing boards really ration care-such as no hospitalization if you’re over 80 or something like that.

Remember, the Unaffordable Healthcare Act was outsourced. It was written by insurance companies for insurance companies. Anyone that says differently is uninformed or dishonest (or both, like Obama and his media minions)

talkingpoints on January 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM

I’m still using a photo of Supreme Court justice Roberts for the center of my dart board.

Chessplayer on January 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM

With “free” government healthcare the cost will be hidden in higher taxes and other things so people will believe they are getting “free” healthcare.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Of course the other part of the equation that everyone seems to miss is that even if healthcare coverage is “free”, and taxes are sky high to pay for it, the reality will be that very few people will ever be able to get much of any actual healthcare – as is currently seen in Canada, England, and other nationalized healthcare countries.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Hey, this is what the bulk of village idiots wanted when they went to the polls last November and decided that the previous four years of this horse manure was just not enough pain for them. They pretty much dropped their drawers, bent over and said “Thank you Sir! May we have another please?”!

pilamaye on January 7, 2013 at 9:33 AM

It’s also true that the parts of Obamacare that promise to lower costs will take years to make an impact but most healthcare experts agree that the savings are real.

bayam on January 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM

See the movie Idiocracy – the scene where “Not Sure” goes to the hospital – to see what kind of healthcare we’re going to get for “free” – or as a result of those “real savings”.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Drove by Claude Rains’ grave the other day. Heard a faint “Bonne Chance.”

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2013 at 9:26 PM

I’d guess that the employer-aggregate pool might generate somewhat lower costs than the general population too

First, if you can work, you are generally healthy. The people who are unhealthy tend not to have jobs.

Second, with “must issue” those who are young and healthy and need nothing but catastrophic care can save merely by paying the “tax” — and if the catastrophy happens, they quickly get the health insurance they need — perhaps by borrowing a bit from mom and dad.

None of this looks good for insurers, who will be looking to recoup their losses — and it’s the reliable customers who will bear the brunt.

unclesmrgol on January 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM

When the government took control of healthcare, they destroyed the basic concept underlying “insurance” called “risk management”.

ROCnPhilly on January 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Though I don’t disagree with the rest of your comment, let’s admit that it hasn’t been “insurance” for a long time – it’s now a long-term cost-averaging model for care. You pay a company a lot of money (premiums) to make sure you only pay $25 to see the doctor every time you visit, and to make sure you never see the “real” cost of a CAT-scan or a surgery. Insurance is closer to what I have with my HIGH-deductible plan: I pay for everything, unless something really bad happens that costs lots of money. The only advantage I get out of my plan (unless something really bad happens) is a negotiated price with in-plan doctors. (Which I could probably get if I could get away with simply paying my own way, anyway.)

GWB on January 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

My insurance, up to this point was based on pooled risk. There is certainly a spread the cost aspect to it, but my costs were based on my biology and that of a group of like individuals. Now my costs are whatever the government dictates. Not directly, but in fact nonetheless. Everyone is in my group and since I am employed, I pay. And those who pay little or none will increase their use of services because any service perceived as free or low cost is always overutilized. My costs will only go up and my service will suffer.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 12:19 AM

If any of the bench warming Romney supporters are still posting here at Hot Air perhaps they could now explain to me how Willard’s being the creator of 0bamacare didn’t matter in the last election. Honestly, I do so enjoy a stupid post…

This is what Americans too lazy to get out of their lazy chairs to fight for their rights deserve, and this proves their excuses weren’t worth squat.

TEAnami 2014: When REAL Americans take the fight to the communist regime.

DannoJyd on January 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM

Got an initial quote for my small business health insurance policy–up over 20% for 2013. We may go out for other quotes, but they require an understanding of the health risks of our employee pool before quoting.

Thanks Obama!

phillypolitics on January 8, 2013 at 10:47 AM

This makes me sick!

Oh… wait!!!

Shy Guy on January 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM

If any of the bench warming Romney supporters are still posting here at Hot Air perhaps they could now explain to me how Willard’s being the creator of 0bamacare didn’t matter in the last election. Honestly, I do so enjoy a stupid post…

This is what Americans too lazy to get out of their lazy chairs to fight for their rights deserve, and this proves their excuses weren’t worth squat.

TEAnami 2014: When REAL Americans take the fight to the communist regime.

DannoJyd on January 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM

Tell me how it did .Me thinks you’re just guessing and supposing.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Loved this so much, just had to repeat it.

A friend I spoke to today, liberal friend, doesn’t care for his taxes, his healthcare, going up in cost. He doesn’t mind the slide towards gun banning. All I could say on the $ front was, you voted for Big Gov, you must pay the bill for it. I asked. “What did you think was going to happen?” To which his response was, “Freaking Republicans, Damned Insurance Company’s.” On the gun front, I advised him tread lightly. Silence.

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Yes, because you have made such a huge difference all on your own. Lol!

Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Tell me how it did .Me thinks you’re just guessing and supposing.

CW on January 8, 2013 at 10:59 AM

TRANSLATOR!!! Methinks you replied to the wrong post since yours makes no sense at all.

If you would like we could play comparisons. The name of the game is for you to wax eloguently about your efforts in the last election cycle while I provide FIVE instances of accomplishments for every one of yours.

Care to play? [EG]

DannoJyd on January 8, 2013 at 6:45 PM

why are rates rising higher on individual premiums than employer-based premiums? First off, the economics of aggregation are always going to work out that way; insurers want large groups of customers, and it’s less costly in the long run to find customers that way rather than one at a time.

No, there’s a different reason. Employer-provided insurance has a built-in benefit to the insurance companies. Because of the way it is structured, with the employer quietly paying the bulk of the premium behind the scenes, when an employee leaves their job, they are practically forced to drop their insurance. Either they become unemployed and can’t afford the enormous full payments, or they take another job and are going to take the employer-subsidized insurance from their new employer rather than pay the enormous full payments.

What this does is allows the insurance companies to get rid of people who can’t hold a job. If you are too sick to hold a job, physically or mentally, then you are probably going to be much more expensive to the insurance company than if you are holding a job. This way they don’t have to kick sick people off the rolls, it simply automatically becomes too expensive for the person to afford. This allows the insurance companies to cherry-pick those individuals who are well enough to be employed. It has nothing to do with acquiring clients in bulk. It has to do with eliminating unhealthy clients. That is why they are able to offer lower rates on employer-subsidized insurance policies.

The solution to this problem is to end employer-provided insurance. Health insurance is the only insurance that is tied to your job. If you lose your job, your homeowners insurance doesn’t double. Your auto insurance doesn’t double. Your flood insurance or property insurance doesn’t double. But your health insurance does. Break the connection between employment and health insurance and people will be forced to consider the full price of health insurance and will be more inclined to choose policies that they can really afford, as opposed to policies that they cannot afford without an employer subsidy.

Ironically, Obamacare could well be the tipping point that breaks the employer-provided healthcare connection. Obamacare has made providing insurance so onerous to employers that they are dropping insurance in droves, even slashing hours and their workforces to avoid being forced to provide Obamacare. Once people are used to buying insurance from the Obamacare exchanges, it will be easy to make the argument that the exchanges are nothing but useless expensive overhead and people should buy insurance directly from the insurance companies instead. Eliminate the exchanges and specific requirements (abortion drugs, etc) and health insurance becomes just like any other insurance that you buy and maintain on your own and keep (or change as you like) when you change jobs.

jms on January 8, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2