WSJ: Poorer counties facing especially high premiums, few choices, little competition through ObamaCare

posted at 2:41 pm on February 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

“My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.”

So sayeth President Obama, but so far, his crowning legislative achievement has directly resulted in a whole lotta’ restrictions on consumer choice, while his brand of top-down government-led “competition,” well… isn’t, really.

On top of the narrower provider networks that many Americans are now facing as insurers scramble to control costs while complying with ObamaCare’s new rules, the WSJ just did an analysis of the healthcare offerings in 36 states that found that hundreds of thousands of Americans in poorer counties are discovering they have limited choices of health insurers and are looking at higher premiums through the online exchanges. For many, in fact, their ObamaCare-offered policy options are going to come from a monopoly of their local insurance market:

Consumers in 515 counties, spread across 15 states, have only one insurer selling coverage through the online marketplaces, the Journal found. In more than 80% of those counties, the sole insurer is a local Blue Cross & Blue Shield plan. Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer. …

Higher participation rates among young adults, as much as 40%, is seen as essential to balance out the higher costs of covering older people for insurers that are already limiting the counties where they offer coverage. …

The average price for a 50-year-old American to obtain the cheapest midlevel “silver plan” through HealthCare.gov—the marketplace operated by the federal government—was $406 in counties with one health insurer, the Journal found. In counties with four insurers, the average price of the cheapest comparable silver plan was $329.

The price differences reflect the strategy of insurers to pick markets where they believe they can turn a profit—and avoid areas of high unemployment and a concentration of unhealthy residents they deem more risky.

Aetna Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc., for instance, have limited their participation in the new health-insurance marketplaces, where consumers shop for coverage, to a much smaller map than their traditional business. They offer coverage in more counties outside of the marketplaces, where plans are sold directly to consumers and federal subsidies aren’t available.

Aetna’s CEO Mark Bertolini has been pretty open about the fact that his company is only participating in ObamaCare in areas with stable levels of employment and income in order to attract profitable customers, although as he mentioned again last week, they’re still considering pulling out of ObamaCare altogether if they don’t feel they can maintain profitability.

So, in many cases, the number of insurers competing in many states’ individual insurance markets via ObamaCare is actually less than the number of carriers that sold individual policies pre-ObamaCare. …Winning?


Related Posts:

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

End this clusterfcuk…

OmahaConservative on February 13, 2014 at 2:43 PM

All of this, exactly what ObamaGlitch was designed to do.

Coulter was right when she asked, if Obama was purposely trying to destroy the country, what would he be doing differently?

Left_is_Wrong on February 13, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Part of his plan to urbanize America for his Chinese overlords.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM

So, in many cases, the number of insurers competing in many states’ individual insurance markets via ObamaCare is actually less than the number of carriers that sold individual policies pre-ObamaCare. …Winning?

After all fewer and fewer competitors / service providers always leads to lower prices and better service, right?

Athos on February 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Obama bringing equality throughout all the land.

Those 85% with health insurance are being equalized with those who didn’t.

gwelf on February 13, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Who could have seen this coming. Everything government touches under delivers and cost too much.

No Time Clock on February 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Kansas has 2: Coventry and BCBS
Typical plans with $3000 deductibles and no prescription coverage until your deductible is met…unless you want birth control pills, then no charge.

bopbottle on February 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Less competition, smaller provider networks,higher costs…
What’s not to like?

pwrefugee on February 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM

A command structure reduces competition, choice, and quality?? But, Utopia!

NotCoach on February 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM

So, in many cases, the number of insurers competing in many states’ individual insurance markets via ObamaCare is actually less than the number of carriers that sold individual policies pre-ObamaCare. …Winning?

Add that into the fact that more people have lost insurance, many for the first time in their lives, under Obamacare than have benefited.

Nobody who really cares about the health of Americans supports Obamacare. They’re out there defending Obama- probably for partisan reasons than anything else. There will be a special place in hell for them all. They are watching neighbors, family, and co-workers suffer and they don’t give a flying flip about anything but Barak Hussein Obama and sluts like Sandra Fluke having to fork out thousands a year for contraception.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM

As long as the slut gets her BC pills…

OmahaConservative on February 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Kansas has 2: Coventry and BCBS
Typical plans with $3000 deductibles and no prescription coverage until your deductible is met…unless you want birth control pills, then no charge.

bopbottle on February 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Everything O’bozo knows about Kansas he learned from Thomas Frank

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 2:54 PM

In the “mind” of a dictator this is no problem.

They are infested with republicans, tea baggers and gun toting, bible clutching rural folk.

They don’t want or need healthcare.

acyl72 on February 13, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Govermentin’ is hard!

Good Lt on February 13, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Here’s the problem with your analysis: This is primarily a result of the state insurance laws, not Obamacare.

jim56 on February 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Hopey must be thinking of the other 7 States,..out of the 57 States!!

canopfor on February 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Is Obamacare (health insurance costs) included in the inflation calculations, Erika?

Is there anyone calculating the net effect of more expensive insurance with less coverage and MUCH higher deductibles have as a DRAG on the economy, Erika?

The Fed can untaper QE … they can double QE … but there is NOTHING they can do which can REMOTELY offset the effect Obamacare will have on 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

PolAgnostic on February 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM

What’s the problem?

Ask any Obot why this is happening, and you’ll just get a snarky non-answer about how it’s ‘flyover country anyway’ and the country would be better off if everyone who lived there died so that the Obamacrats can continue their Great Work unopposed by those pesky victims of their policies and edicts.

Good Lt on February 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Everything O’bozo knows about Kansas he learned from Thomas Frank

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 2:54 PM

His racist grandmother probably taught him a thing to two about Kansas as well.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM

This whole thing was never really about healthcare.

RI_Red on February 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM

From WSJ:

HealthCare.gov Explorer

See the rates for health plans available through HealthCare.gov, the federal insurance exchange. Many consumers will also be eligible for federal subsidies to help buy coverage through the exchanges, and may pay lower rates. Plans are labeled Catastrophic, Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum depending on the level of coverage.

Interactive by: Martin Burch, Madeline Farbman, Jonathan Keegan, Adam Suharja, Christopher Weaver, Kurt Wilberding/The Wall Street Journal.
Write to the editors at WSJGraphicsEditors@WSJ.com.
===================================================

http://graphics.wsj.com/health-care-explorer/#/?age=30&fips=01001&metal_level=Silver

canopfor on February 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Two states (NH and WV) have ONE INSURER FOR THE ENTIRE STATE!!! To make things worse, the biggest hospital in NH is NOT in the barrytax network. Is this progress???

conservative hispanic on February 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM

“Be creative”

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Fraud and theft

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Two states (NH and WV) have ONE INSURER FOR THE ENTIRE STATE!!! To make things worse, the biggest hospital in NH is NOT in the barrytax network. Is this progress???

conservative hispanic on February 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM

It is if, like libfreeordie, you want to see people die.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM

But these Obamacare posts are about whistling past the graveyard, by next Novemeber Democrats will be openly running on the ACA. Mark my words.
libfreeordie on December 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2014 at 3:12 PM

conservative hispanic on February 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Never visit Copenhagen.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Latest Obamacare Delay Is Probably Illegal
The delay is probably illegal. Law professor Jonathan Adler argues in the Washington Post that this latest delay — which comes just six months after the administration delayed the employer mandate the first time — clearly violates existing legal precedent:
Whatever the stated reason for the new delay, it is illegal. The text of the PPACA is quite clear. The text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that the employer mandate provisions ‘shall apply’ after December 31, 2013. The Treasury Department claims that it has broad authority to offer ‘transition relief’ in implementing the law. That may often be true, but not here. The language of the statute is clear, and it is well established that when Congress enacts explicit deadlines into federal statutes, without also providing authority to waive or delay such deadlines, federal agencies are obligated to stay on schedule. So, for instance, federal courts routinely force the Environmental Protection Agency to act when it misses deadlines and environmentalist groups file suit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/latest-obamacare-delay-is-probably-illegal.html

DinaRehn on February 13, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Just a hunch, but dollars to donuts say Obamacare is rigged to shift medical care from rural and suburban areas into urban areas.

Megyn Kelly Interviews Stanley Kurtz: Manhattanizing America

If you don’t live in a major metro area, you might want to pack your bags…


Obama’s Plan to Depopulate the Suburbs: Agenda 21 and “Building One America”

petefrt on February 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works.

I love the hypocrisy of the guy who doesn’t believe in free markets and does everything he can to destroy and yet tells LIVs that he’s all about free markets.

BuckeyeSam on February 13, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Are poor counties now the ones that will get a delay?

freedomfirst on February 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Just a hunch, but dollars to donuts say Obamacare is rigged to shift medical care from rural and suburban areas into urban areas.

petefrt on February 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Given the demographics of the stupid parasites that support Obama, it wouldn’t shock me in the least. Sure you can live on the family farm but don’t expect to have any healthcare within 100 miles.

And why should Obama care? You don’t have events where your spouse needs a $12,000 gown out in flyover country.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM

When is the MSM going to discover that Barry Obama is full of crap 99.9999999999999999999999% of the time?

GarandFan on February 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I love the hypocrisy of the guy who doesn’t believe in free markets and does everything he can to destroy and yet tells LIVs that he’s all about free markets.

BuckeyeSam on February 13, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Yeah, a guy who lectures us all on income inequality on the same day the First Moose shows up in a $12,000 ballgown for a taxpayer-funded dinner that cost at least half a million dollars.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM

As long as the slut gets her BC Abortion pills…

OmahaConservative on February 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Modified

kcewa on February 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Darn, if this doesn’t provide fodder for Republican commercials for the next 100 years…….

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Are poor counties now the ones that will get a delay?

freedomfirst on February 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Of course not, having people in poor rural counties die is part of the Obamacare plan. He meant it when he declared war on bitter clingers.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Are these people living in states that expanded medicaid?

libfreeordie on February 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Are these people living in states that expanded medicaid?

libfreeordie on February 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

You expect a healthcare system to survive on what medicare pays?

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

medicaid

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Progressive mission accomplished!

Murphy9 on February 13, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Well, on the plus side, Farmland will get cheaper, so we can pay the Chinese back a la Ukraine.

Barry’s friends will get in on it too.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer. …

So let’s replace it all with a government monopoly!!

Seriously though, residents of more-populated counties have more choices because with higher population comes more doctors and hospitals. Duh!

The perversity of the piece-of-crap Obamacare is that it reduces competition by locking customers into the county of their residence, when a doctor or hospital in the next county might be one block away. Allow access to the networks in all adjoining counties and competition will be quadrupled.

But then we all know that the piece-of-crap Obamacare is not about increasing competition.

slickwillie2001 on February 13, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Of course not, having people in poor rural counties die is part of the Obamacare plan. He meant it when he declared war on bitter clingers.

Happy Nomad on February 13, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Good point, Happy. This will make the actuarial numbers look better, too. You know, fewer poor, sick, subsidized people in the system. This makes me ill.

It feels like I’m on the receiving end of a war. I haven’t yet reached the point where I feel no alternative but to respond to it.

I’d like to see stats on how people in the poorest counties vote/lean politically.

freedomfirst on February 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Are these people living in states that expanded medicaid?

libfreeordie on February 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

While you’re busy researching communitarian founders I suggest you also read this:

Take Medicaid, a policy issue I touched on recently in these pages. The vast majority of Democratic policymakers and sympathetic journalists take it on faith that the good intentions that inspire the program and the vast sums we invest in it add up to something that improves poor people’s lives. When progressives discuss red states’ reluctance to volunteer for the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, they almost describe a clear trade-off: Conservatives’ contempt for social assistance and the GOP’s austerity fetish are on one side, and the medical destinies of needy Americans are on the other. Shame on the heartless Scrooge who could possibly prioritize the former!

But leftists rarely pause to interrogate the premise, to actually verify that signing humans up for a complex and convoluted financial product is in fact synonymous with boosting their well-being. It’s hard to fault laypeople for leaning on this commonsensical assumption. But in 2014, every serious student of policy should be aware of the growing evidence that calls it into question.

For decades, a series of studies have raised red flags. Surgery patients, cancer victims, and transplant recipients who were enrolled in the program were all found to fare worse—not merely than privately-insured patients with presumably easier lives, but worse than equally poor people who lacked any insurance at all. This literature was capped off by the landmark “Oregon study,” a brand-new analysis that marshals gold-standard methodology to compare Medicaid recipients with uninsured people.

The scholars found mixed results. Medicaid does lower psychological stress and increase financial stability, results we would expect from any transfer program. But the program actually increases unnecessary trips to the emergency room. And remarkably, Medicaid coverage has no measurable impact whatsoever on clinical health.

To an intellectually honest observer, these findings compel more questions. What are reasonable expectations for health insurance? Should we be satisfied if Medicaid helps people sleep easier but makes them no healthier? Even if so, is health insurance the most effective way to convert taxpayer dollars into peace of mind for the poor?

Virtually no prominent progressives join center-right commentators in positing such questions. In a recent Intelligence Squared debate over the ACA, the liberal commentator Jonathan Chait laughed off all these studies by feigning surprise that—gasp!—disproportionately impoverished Medicaid patients might be unhealthier than average folks. The problem, of course, is that every study worth its salt controls for demographics and income. Many of the Medicaid studies even control for existing health status. But never mind the facts—favorable news is trumpeted, negative results are brushed aside, and conventional wisdom marches on.

Now back to reasearching those communitarian founders.

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

NotCoach on February 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM

$289 monthly premium
Bronze Plan Details
age 51
Ravalli, Mont.
Montana Health Co-Op
Connected Care_Bronze
Deductible$3,950
Out-of-pocket Max$6,350
Cost Of Doctor’s Visit$35

Thanks, canopfor.
I just lost my lunch………when our employer rates go up in July, I will have something to look at to compare. This is the lowest rate I could find and its almost what we pay now monthly for our entire family of 4.

Current deduct. 2500. current copay 15.
What a great deal.

MontanaMmmm on February 13, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Are these people living in states that expanded medicaid?
libfreeordie on February 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Good question professor. Although, coming from you it is likely an attempt to deflect and derail the discussion. I know you are used to assigning homework, but in this case you could research it yourself.
My first thoughts on your question are that this study included 36 states and Medicaid has been expanded in 25 +DC. At worst/best that means at least 11 states who expanded Medicaid were in the study, likely more.

The article is paywalled, perhaps as an educator you have free access to such things and can enlighten us rather than throwing out a question with a certain implication absent the facts.

airupthere on February 13, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Man, this whole place is fulla sundials.

They should call it SunDialAir.

Lanceman on February 13, 2014 at 3:47 PM

The article is paywalled, perhaps as an educator you have free access to such things and can enlighten us rather than throwing out a question with a certain implication absent the facts.

airupthere on February 13, 2014 at 3:44 PM

The implication should be that he is an ignorant fool if he embraces Medicaid as a solution to anything.

NotCoach on February 13, 2014 at 3:47 PM

The text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that the employer mandate provisions shall apply after December 31, 2013.

DinaRehn on February 13, 2014 at 3:15 PM

I have heard libs argue – seriously – that this could be interpreted as anytime after December 31, 2013… not necessarily on that date.

Another case of “It depends on your definition of..” I guess.

NiteOwl on February 13, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Simple solution – get the government out of ALL healthcare.

HughJass on February 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Uexpected

307wolverine on February 13, 2014 at 4:43 PM

And the dems had ads with Paul Ryan throwing Granny off a cliff. How bout you run a similar ad with a dumptruck full of uninsured people being tossed over a cliff?

Obama’s a Dirty Bastige

Key West Reader on February 13, 2014 at 4:58 PM

…calling all trolls!

KOOLAID2 on February 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Strong-arming private citizens into financial suicide via unaffordable premiums/deductibles = Choice

Left Coast Right Mind on February 13, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Ed –
You mean the websites aren’t working perfectly on day one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty twenty-one twenty-two twenty-three twenty-four twenty-five twenty-six twenty-seven twenty-eight twenty-nine thirty thirty-one thirty-two thirty-three thirty-four thirty-five thirty-six thirty-seven thirty-eight thirty-nine forty forty-one forty-two forty-three forty-four forty-five forty-six forty-seven forty-eight forty-nine fifty fifty-one fifty-two fifty-three fifty-four fifty-five fifty-six fifty-seven fifty-eight fifty-nine sixty sixty-one sixty-two sixty-three sixty-four sixty-five sixty-six sixty-seven sixty-eight sixty-nine seventy seventy-one seventy-two seventy-three seventy-four seventy-five seventy-six seventy-seven seventy-eight seventy-nine eighty eighty-one eighty-two eighty-three eighty-four eighty-five eighty-six eighty-seven eighty-eight eighty-nine ninety ninety-one ninety-two ninety-three ninety-four ninety-five ninety-six ninety-seven ninety-eight ninety-nine one hundred one hundred one one hundred two one hundred three one hundred four one hundred five one hundred six one hundred seven one hundred eight one hundred nine one hundred ten one hundred eleven one hundred twelve one hundred thirteen one hundred fourteen one hundred fifteen one hundred sixteen one hundred seventeen one hundred eighteen one hundred nineteen one hundred twenty one hundred twenty-one one hundred twenty-two one hundred twenty-three one hundred twenty-four one hundred twenty-five one hundred twenty-six one hundred twenty-seven one hundred twenty-eight one hundred twenty-nine one hundred thirty one hundred thirty-one one hundred thirty-two one hundred thirty-three one hundred thirty-four one hundred thirty-five one hundred thirty-six
verbaluce on October 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM

(H/T NotCoach)

Must be hard to keep up with all the Obamacare failures.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM

because obama loves the poor, he created many more

newarker on February 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM

So, the ACA is working as intended then! Keep up the good work, progs!

xNavigator on February 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM

My ex-sis-in-law has this problem in TN. Where she lives it is only BC/BS where before Obamacare they had at least three carriers offering coverage. The cost for the plans are sky-high, the deductibles extremely high and the doctor network sucks like an electrolux.

She has decided on cash only.

And is now getting price breaks from doctors who thank her for her business.

Meanwhile the one major medication she needs which has been around since the ’50s has tripled in price and she cannot take any of its replacements due to the side-effects.

All of it due to Obamacare.

ajacksonian on February 13, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Are these people living in states that expanded medicaid?

libfreeordie on February 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

You expect a healthcare system to survive on what medicare pays?

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

medicaid

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Covered California (California Obamacare) does.

Which, of course, is why so many doctors in California aren’t covered by … Covered California

The irony: The Affordable Care Act is not affordable, and Covered California doesn’t cover most of California.

But other than those details: Marketing Genius!!

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM

NO PROBLEM, CHOOM BUDDIES! WE JUST NEED ANOTHER NEW DEAL RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ACT FOR HEALTH CARE!

Marcola on February 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Marketing Genius!!

Genius and the Obama administration should NEVER be used in the same sentence or thought stream.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Are these people living in states that expanded medicaid?

libfreeordie on February 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM

There are States with constitutions that require having a balanced budget.

The Federal government cannot tell those States how many people will have to be in Medicaid due to Obamacare and as Medicaid is a huge budget item it would violate the constitution to agree to any expansion that would not allow the State to have a balanced budget. And as the Medicaid amounts are on a decreasing schedule, that leaves States with huge future budget holes that would cripple the State if they accept it.

Medicaid is not a stop-gap, not a bandaid, runs in the red, and is not a solution.

ajacksonian on February 13, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Did anyone really think that just because a marketplace was created that medical plans would appear magically out of thin air? That these plans would be “affordable”? That there would be many offerings? That there would be a wide range in provider networks, etc.?

Remember that the medical insurance market is balkanized. Only the insurers operating in a given State may issue insurance in that State and, often, newcomers to the market face high hurdles to entry.

So I am not surprised that rural and poorer counties have not much in the way of choices.

Russ808 on February 13, 2014 at 10:41 PM

Here’s the problem with your analysis: This is primarily a result of the state insurance laws, not Obamacare.

jim56 on February 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Not state laws. Federal, interstate restrictions supposedly designed as anti-trust measures, but which in practice produce state monopolies. The insurance companies themselves are not faultless, they lobby to keep those measures in place, and the top insurance firm in each area gets to stay king of their respective hill with little to no effort, nor worry about competition and pricing affordably.

That was ostensibly the victorious argument used to get ObamaCare passed, that it would force the insurers into “marketplace competition”. That was always a lie, and not one word of the ObamaCare bill addresses any objective aimed at correcting the real problems. Everything is designed to enhance government oversight, redistribute costs, and basically Communize the largest single piece of the U.S. economy.

Yes, the system was not good. But ObamaCare doubles down triples down quadruples down on every aspect of the system which wasn’t good, and will make it far worse. And enforced by the friendly folks who take your tax money.

Freelancer on February 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM