(oo)
The Superb Owl
Aetna's recent announcements that they are leaving state markets follows United Health Group's decision to leave most ObamaCare markets, Humana's decision to drop out, Blue Cross Blue Shield's announcement that it was quitting the individual market, and the failure of most of the 23 government-created insurance co-ops.
Insurance companies are putting in for double-digit rate hikes that in some cases top 60%, and the Congressional Budget Office has sharply downgraded long-term enrollment forecasts for the exchanges.
Who could have envisioned such problems?
Not ObamaCare backers. They endlessly promised that the law would create vibrant, highly competitive markets that would lower the cost of insurance.
Critics, however, were spot on.
Subsidies and mandates are not sufficient to drive high participation of younger, healthier members.
Aetna's Bertolini says that what's needed to keep ObamaCare functioning are bigger and more generous taxpayer financed insurance subsidies — i.e., bailouts.
DemocRats say what's needed is a "public option" so that consumers in states abandoned by private insurers will be able to get coverage.
How about instead policymakers listen to the original ObamaCare critics?
For decades, they've been calling for reforms that lift myriad anti-competitive government regulations, as well as fixes to the tax code so that it no longer massively distorts the insurance market.
The resulting free market competition in health care would do what it does everywhere it's allowed to function — improve quality while improving affordability. In other words, it would achieve the things ObamaCare promised but miserably failed to deliver.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...ailing-exactly-the-way-critics-said-it-would/
Insurance companies are putting in for double-digit rate hikes that in some cases top 60%, and the Congressional Budget Office has sharply downgraded long-term enrollment forecasts for the exchanges.
Who could have envisioned such problems?
Not ObamaCare backers. They endlessly promised that the law would create vibrant, highly competitive markets that would lower the cost of insurance.
Critics, however, were spot on.
- They said that, despite the individual mandate, ObamaCare wouldn't attract enough young and healthy people to keep premiums down. The Heritage Foundation, for example, said that under ObamaCare, "many under age 35 will opt out of buying insurance altogether, choosing to pay the penalty instead." That's just what has happened.
- Critics predicted sharp hikes in premiums and big increases in medical claims. That's what's happened.
- Critics said people would game the system, waiting until they got sick to buy insurance, then cancel it once the bills were paid, because of the law's "guaranteed issue" mandate. That's happened too.
- Critics said insurers would abandon ObamaCare amid substantial losses. Anyone want to dispute that this is happening?
Subsidies and mandates are not sufficient to drive high participation of younger, healthier members.
Aetna's Bertolini says that what's needed to keep ObamaCare functioning are bigger and more generous taxpayer financed insurance subsidies — i.e., bailouts.
DemocRats say what's needed is a "public option" so that consumers in states abandoned by private insurers will be able to get coverage.
How about instead policymakers listen to the original ObamaCare critics?
For decades, they've been calling for reforms that lift myriad anti-competitive government regulations, as well as fixes to the tax code so that it no longer massively distorts the insurance market.
The resulting free market competition in health care would do what it does everywhere it's allowed to function — improve quality while improving affordability. In other words, it would achieve the things ObamaCare promised but miserably failed to deliver.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...ailing-exactly-the-way-critics-said-it-would/