As the bill we had to pass to see what was in it continues to unravel, another major stumbling block becomes apparent:
"If the health care law survives the current legal and political attacks, it will soon come up against the law of economics."
Come 2014 the so-called Exchanges are due to come on-line; these will (ostensibly) enable individuals to purchase health insurance regardless of whether or not they've previously been covered, and on a guaranteed issue basis. This means that even folks with pre-existing conditions will have automatic and immediate coverage. As one might imagine, and as we've long noted, this comes at a very steep price: premiums are expected to be (at least) 3 times current levels.
But no worries, ObamaCare© promises to subsidize those extra costs through the largesse of government printing presses (and fellow tax-payers).
As we've already seen, though, these new and expensive promises seem to run out of money (and steam) sooner than anticipated. And there's ample reason to believe that this will also be the fate of the Exchanges:
"But, starting in 2019, individuals would have to shoulder an ever-greater share of premiums as cost curbs kick in ... The law's shift of premium costs to individuals "may be difficult to sustain," opines Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Ya think?
Jed Graham, writing at Investor Business Daily's Capital Hill blog, makes this keen observation:
"[V]irtually no one understands what the law means or how premium subsidies will grow over time — and it’s a near certainty that the confusion extends to the members of Congress who voted for it."
Quite so, and he has a pretty devastating graphic to demonstrate what he means.
The key here is that the law does nothing to curb health care costs, which means that health insurance costs will continue to rise unabated. And they become quite substantial quite quickly, which will further exacerbate the underlying problem.
Or, as Jed succinctly notes:
"Because costs would continue to rise faster than GDP, the shifting of premium costs from the government to individuals would continue indefinitely."
So what's the good news?
Glad you asked:
"House Republicans are fighting to stop the federal government from financing state efforts to set up health insurance distribution exchanges."
The bad news, of course, is that it faces stiff (most likely insurmountable) opposition in the Senate. Still, it's a start.
"If the health care law survives the current legal and political attacks, it will soon come up against the law of economics."
Come 2014 the so-called Exchanges are due to come on-line; these will (ostensibly) enable individuals to purchase health insurance regardless of whether or not they've previously been covered, and on a guaranteed issue basis. This means that even folks with pre-existing conditions will have automatic and immediate coverage. As one might imagine, and as we've long noted, this comes at a very steep price: premiums are expected to be (at least) 3 times current levels.
But no worries, ObamaCare© promises to subsidize those extra costs through the largesse of government printing presses (and fellow tax-payers).
As we've already seen, though, these new and expensive promises seem to run out of money (and steam) sooner than anticipated. And there's ample reason to believe that this will also be the fate of the Exchanges:
"But, starting in 2019, individuals would have to shoulder an ever-greater share of premiums as cost curbs kick in ... The law's shift of premium costs to individuals "may be difficult to sustain," opines Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Ya think?
Jed Graham, writing at Investor Business Daily's Capital Hill blog, makes this keen observation:
"[V]irtually no one understands what the law means or how premium subsidies will grow over time — and it’s a near certainty that the confusion extends to the members of Congress who voted for it."
Quite so, and he has a pretty devastating graphic to demonstrate what he means.
The key here is that the law does nothing to curb health care costs, which means that health insurance costs will continue to rise unabated. And they become quite substantial quite quickly, which will further exacerbate the underlying problem.
Or, as Jed succinctly notes:
"Because costs would continue to rise faster than GDP, the shifting of premium costs from the government to individuals would continue indefinitely."
So what's the good news?
Glad you asked:
"House Republicans are fighting to stop the federal government from financing state efforts to set up health insurance distribution exchanges."
The bad news, of course, is that it faces stiff (most likely insurmountable) opposition in the Senate. Still, it's a start.
Posts
