Here's a thought: what if they gave an Exchange and nobody came?
That's the premise behind a group calling itself the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, which has rolled out a campaign to dissuade folks from buying plans on the public Exchanges. CCHF offers four rationales:
That's the premise behind a group calling itself the Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, which has rolled out a campaign to dissuade folks from buying plans on the public Exchanges. CCHF offers four rationales:
1.No private insurance – Obamacare is “Medicaid for the middle class” – or as CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin calls exchange coverage: “a second Medicaid program.”
2.No privacy – Data enters federal database accessible by IRS.
3.Limited choice – Coverage is “narrow network” policies.
4.High-cost premiums – Income redistribution to pay for exchange operations and subsidizing high-cost individuals.
While we certainly applaud their efforts, someone really needs to debunk some of their premises.
That would be me:
1. While the ObamaTax certainly encourages (and subsidizes) the expansion of Medicaid, the Exchanges themselves are a separate initiative. Conflating the two seems, well, confusing.
2. Anyone who's been paying attention to the news the past few months and still believes they have any privacy left is fooling themselves. The Data Hub doesn't care whether or not you've enrolled via an Exchange: all of that info is shared across agencies [ed: well, supposed to be shared might be more accurate].
3. Agreed: there is little doubt left that Exchange-based plans will employ "skinny" networks in an effort to rein in costs. A futile effort, of course, but an effort nonetheless.
4. This one's a maybe, and based on how one perceives the role of the government in what should be private transactions. On its face, I'd have to agree that the subsidies are simply robbing Peter to pay for Paul's insurance. Others might take a more charitable view.
CCHF also claims that "people still will be able to buy coverage outside the public exchange system, and that PPACA does not impose penalties on individuals simply because they buy coverage outside the public exchanges."
This is simply not true: only folks buying coverage on the public Exchange will be eligible for subsidies; I'd call that a pretty steep penalty for taking a pass.
In any case, it'll be interesting to watch this play out.
ADDENDUM: Bob has a slightly different take on privacy, the Exchanges and the Data Hub.
That would be me:
1. While the ObamaTax certainly encourages (and subsidizes) the expansion of Medicaid, the Exchanges themselves are a separate initiative. Conflating the two seems, well, confusing.
2. Anyone who's been paying attention to the news the past few months and still believes they have any privacy left is fooling themselves. The Data Hub doesn't care whether or not you've enrolled via an Exchange: all of that info is shared across agencies [ed: well, supposed to be shared might be more accurate].
3. Agreed: there is little doubt left that Exchange-based plans will employ "skinny" networks in an effort to rein in costs. A futile effort, of course, but an effort nonetheless.
4. This one's a maybe, and based on how one perceives the role of the government in what should be private transactions. On its face, I'd have to agree that the subsidies are simply robbing Peter to pay for Paul's insurance. Others might take a more charitable view.
CCHF also claims that "people still will be able to buy coverage outside the public exchange system, and that PPACA does not impose penalties on individuals simply because they buy coverage outside the public exchanges."
This is simply not true: only folks buying coverage on the public Exchange will be eligible for subsidies; I'd call that a pretty steep penalty for taking a pass.
In any case, it'll be interesting to watch this play out.
ADDENDUM: Bob has a slightly different take on privacy, the Exchanges and the Data Hub.
Posts
