THE HILL
 

High price of Obamacare

By Dick Morris - 10/13/09 04:15 PM ET

Will a young, healthy, childless individual or couple buy health insurance costing 7.5 percent of their income, as required by Obama’s health legislation? Not until they get sick. Then they can always buy the insurance, and the Obama bill requires the insurance companies to give it to them. And if the premiums come to more than 7.5 percent of their income because they are now sick, no problem. Obama will subsidize it.


Instead, young, healthy, childless people will likely opt to pay the $1,000 fine (aka slap on the wrist) mandated in the bill. After all, even if they make as little as $50,000 a year, the fine is a lot cheaper than 7.5 percent of their income (or $3,500 a year)!

So … these young households will not contribute to the coffers of any health insurance company until they are sick and need the coverage. By then, their costs will come to vastly more than their premiums.

Who will subsidize the difference? We will.

The insurance industry estimates that the bill will drive up premiums for the average family by $1,700 a year. By the time the bill takes effect in 2013, it estimates that the average annual family health insurance premiums (now $12,300) will rise to $17,200 if the Obama bill is passed, but only to $15,500 if it is defeated.

And who do you think the voters will blame for the hike in their premiums? The Democrats who passed the bill.

Supporters of the bill are quick to counter that greater efficiency, etc., will hold down premiums. But they have little to answer the argument that, without higher fines, the young and healthy will not consent to pay an arm and a leg for insurance they don’t need.

Any lingering motivation to pay the premiums will disappear once the Obama bill requires insurance companies to cover them when they do, finally, limp in the door, desperately in need of insurance. Why pay now when you can always pay later? And, with a government subsidy, you gain nothing by paying for all those years when you don’t need insurance.

So Obama’s program turns out not to be one to spread insurance and thus spread the risk of costly illness, but one to make people pay 7.5 percent of their incomes once they get sick, with the government picking up their remaining premium and the health insurance customers paying for the medical expenses. Some deal!

So tote up the cost of this bill on the middle class:

• $1,700 more in insurance premiums for the average family
•Medical devices like wheelchairs and hearing aids get taxed
• Those who are sick must pay an average of about $600 more a year in income taxes because the bill raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent
• A $404 billion cut in Medicare
• Ending the subsidized Medicare Advantage insurance for costs over and above Medicare. Without Medicare Advantage, the elderly can only augment Medicare by buying Medigap coverage, for which no subsidy is available and whose premiums are higher (offered, conveniently enough, by Obama’s buddies at the AARP)
•No importation of Canadian medicines and no competitive bidding to hold down prescription drug costs (Obama’s deal to get Pharma’s support and advertising dollars)
•A shortage of medical personnel and equipment as 30 million new patients are added without any expansion of the population of doctors and nurses. This shortage will make rationing inevitable, even if it shortens life expectancies among the elderly.

And all of this assumes that the House bill, which imposes a 4.5 percent payroll tax (which will discourage new employment), does not pass.

... And that the cost estimates of this program prove realistic. Despite the Congressional Budget Office’s concurrence, one can’t help noticing that Massachusetts’s program was estimated to cost $200 million in 2005 and now costs $700 million!

This healthcare bill is, indeed, Obama’s first tax on the middle class.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage and Fleeced. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Catastrophe, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president’s healthcare reforms.

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/62893-high-price-of-obamacare

Comments (11)

This is making me sick.BY Klattu on 10/13/2009 at 21:52
The U.S. Government, in particular the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama cannot manage Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or much of anything else… Take for example ACORN—-need I write anymore?. Look at the Cash For Clunkers Program!! Most car dealers HAVE NOT received their incentives and payments for participating in a program aimed at rescuing the automobile industry!! Take a look at the H1N1 Flu-Shot Program which is riddled with problems!! Did the OBAMA Family get their shots yet? How about Nancy Pelosi's folks? Harry Reid and family? Do you actually place ANY TRUST WHATSOEVER with the Government Managing Your HealthCare? Or dictating policy on who gets treated, and what kind of treatment, as well as who is rejected, and I presume left to fend for themselves as best they can? The ONLY REFORM needed in America, is THE REFORM OF CONGRESS!! Remember what they have done, and vote wisely in 2010, and 2012. Let's send Congress and OBAMA a BIll; Something we True Americans Believe In!!BY FRANK COLLATT on 10/14/2009 at 00:23
Reform? Not really.The problem is that health care costs so much that folks without insurance cannot afford routine service. The reason costs are so high is that the insured pay for their health care all at once in a take-it-or-leave-it all-or-nothing deal. There's almost no incentive to shop around, and no incentive not to go to the doctor for every little issue.The current "reform" just makes the problem worse. More emphasis on insurance, more on seeing a doctor for any medical need, more on covering up prices and disguising costs. More on, More on, More on…Radical reform would be to forget the insurance for most medical care. Let's pay as we go, and pay the actual costs. There's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to buy pharmaceuticals like we buy groceries, or deal with doctors like we deal with auto mechanics. Why should a doctor keep our medical records? Why should we need a doctor's written permission to get an effective pain reliever, antibiotic, or antacid? Why not go to the medical equivalent of jiffy-lube for the annual flu shot or blood-pressure screening?Real reform should be about making insurance and doctors less compulsory, not more. Cheap insurance for rare catastrophic care requirements makes sense. Nobody smart carries insurance to pay for groceries.Know what I mean?BY Brian in Philly on 10/14/2009 at 09:10
Included in the Baucus HC bill is the option that insurance companies can charge Senior Citizens 4x as much for premiums as non-Seniors. I guess all Seniors should be grateful…original ly Seniors would have been charged 5x higher amount than non-Seniors. What kind of REFORM is this? Is this the CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN????? Info along w/several articles on HC included at thsi site:http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/tag/baucus/Look for title:Baucus Accepts Numerous Republican And Democratic Amendments, Brings Cost Of Bill To $900 BillionBY BARB BF on 10/15/2009 at 11:42
Everything that is happening in our country today is not by chance. The taking down of the United States has been a diabolical plan for a long time. Our present whitehouse knows this. Why do you think they are trying to pass the healthcare bill by the end of the year? Now like never before Americans need to stand together and revolt against the dangers that are taking place in our country today scripted by this machine behind Obama.BY Susan on 10/15/2009 at 15:12
Is present system working?Is next step better then the VA?Does the public option take the insurance company's profits?BY Trillion on 10/15/2009 at 15:43
Oh Mr Morris…I heard your story about your dad needing a colonscopy at 95, yesterday was his birthday, at 99…If this plan goes through, you are saying that he would not qualify for that procedure. Here is my take, how many people do you know get that surgery at age 95? You seem to think this plan is all about killing seniors. I dont think so. Be thankful your dad is still alive and healthy. I lost my dad at age 62.BY Always_sicker on 10/15/2009 at 16:32
The things government control always are: over-budget, overly bureaucratic, always unionized, poorly conceived and even more poorly executed. Amazing how stupid we have become as a nation that we would get ourselves in this situation. It did not happen without being screwed by both parties over and over this point.BY Pal on 10/15/2009 at 16:43
And since Im on my bandwagon, if this plan would have been in effect 4 years ago, my husband might still be alive. The deductibles were so high, we could not get the best of cancer drugs and nearly left us bankrcupt and on the street, and to Pal, yes, you are right, It is both sides that are at fault and George Bush and his gang had plenty of time, 8 years, to correct a system that was broke for many many years.BY Always_sicker on 10/15/2009 at 17:44
The Senate and House bills currently getting out of committees are pathetic. They all will protect the profits of the private health insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies along with other "vested" interests buddies of our dual party congressional and White House elected officials. these Dem controlled bills will not save our system or our lives. The inclusion of a public option to add one more level of bureaucracy to our already wasteful non-system would not help prevent the ultimate collapse of our system.Repub counters preaching their ideas of reform are lame. the market is not a place for medical care. 80% of medical care episodes are urgent or emergent related care which does not allow you any time to determine which cardiologist or cardiac surgeon is more likely to save your life. We don't choose when to have appendicitis and how severe we want it to be. It's not like picking the right SUV for you.Health care is a public service, not a commodity to be used as a profit center. We don't die if we choose the wrong car. We do die if we choose the cheaper health insurance and avoid the cost of the ER visit when we're having chest pain. we certainly don't have the perfect public systems but if our gov't fails us with our fire dept, police dept, roads, Medicare, etc. we let them know with the next election. When Aetna or Wellpoint screw us we have no recourse.Improve Medicare and expand it to cover everyone. Increase the risk pool to the nation by using taxes to make everyone pay in, even the young who think they'll never be seriously ill or injured. that way no one can cheat the financing of the system. We then use the money saved by getting rid of the middleman profit model of health insurance and then start instituting more research on the best and most cost effective medical care and apply that research to our coordinated/integrated health care delivery systems similar to what Mayo and Cleveland Clinics do.HR 676 is the House bill that spells out how this works. It's social insurance that pays out to the largely private health care delivery system of doctors and hospitals and the like. It's just the same way we fund Medicare. We would get more care for the dollars we spend because the gov't goal is not to profit off the assurance for the medical care. Just like the lack of profit motive for our fire departments and education system. Again, there is no perfect system but if we put such an important public service in the hands of the American people who use it then we will be able to demand improvements in the system. If congress and the rich have what the poor and middle class have then we won't suffer the inequities rampant in our current fragmented non-system.Improved and expanded Medicare for All, Single Payer Assurance, HR 676. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Check out www.pnhp.org.Lou Schlickman, MDInternal Medicine50% Medicare patients in my practice.BY Schlicklou on 10/17/2009 at 20:53

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.