Search This Blog

Monday, March 23, 2015

Obamacare hasn't aged well

Obamacare hasn't aged well

BY: Washington Examiner March 23, 2015 | 5:00 am
President Barack Obama speaks about the Affordable Care Act, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2013, at Prince George's Community College in Largo, Md. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Five years ago, President Obama signed his signature healthcare initiative into law. Despite predictions by Obama and his fellow Democrats that it would become more popular once it was implemented, the reality has been the opposite. In no small part due to Obamacare, Democrats have lost control of the House and Senate, even though they enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both chambers when they rammed the legislation through the U.S. Congress on a strict party line vote.

Democrats have pointed to signs of a recent uptick of support for Obamacare. But it's worth noting that in April 2010, just after it was signed into law, the Kaiser Family Foundation's monthly tracking pollfound that 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the law, compared with 40 percent who had an unfavorable view. This month, just 41 percent have a favorable view, compared with a larger contingent of 43 percent who viewed it unfavorably. Even more staggering is that at the time the law passed, 50 percent of the uninsured viewed the law favorably, no doubt optimistic about the promises of quality, affordable healthcare. But in this month's poll, just 31 percent of the uninsured had a favorable view. In other words, the segment of the population intended to be the primary beneficiaries of the law and who have the most reason to interact with it, have a more negative impression of the law than the broader public.

This should be no surprise. As time has gone on, more and more of the promises of the healthcare law have been proven false. When Obama pitched the legislation to lawmakers and the public in a speech to a joint session of Congress in September 2009, he said it would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." Yet that cost estimate depended on an accounting gimmick — because the major spending provisions didn't kick in until 2014, it was essentially a six-year cost estimate. According to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections, the law is going to cost $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That much spending, has, indisputably, increased the number of Americans with health insurance by millions, but that wasn't supposed to be the only purpose of the law.

Obama predicted the law would lower premiums, but the raft of regulations imposed on insurance polices have driven up the sticker price of health insurance, which is particularly painful for those who don't qualify for taxpayer subsidies. Despite promising that people who liked their health plans could keep them, millions of Americans received termination notices as insurers implemented the law's regulations. Despite Obama's promise that people would be able to keep their doctors, insurers have been forced to slash the number of medical providers included in their insurance networks to help offset the rising costs created by Obamacare.

Each month brings more news of the law's implementation problems, from the disastrous rollout of the insurance exchanges, to the problems setting up exchanges for small businesses, and now, tax season chaos. The way Obamacare works is that when individuals apply for coverage, the system estimates how much money they qualify for in government subsidies — but any subsidies they receive have to be adjusted once they report their actual income when they file taxes. Last month, H&R Block, the nation's largest tax preparer, said that 52 percent of those who received subsidies through Obamacare were finding they needed to return a portion of the subsidy money. Adding to the confusion is that the Obama administration sent incorrect tax forms to 820,000 people who purchased insurance through Obamacare — and 80,000 of the botched forms have yet to be replaced.

As bad as Obamacare has been, the only thing that's prevented it from being even more damaging is that the administration has acted unilaterally on a number of occasions to prevent it from going into effect as written. The administration, for instance, has twice delayed the full implementation of the law's mandate forcing larger employers to offer health insurance coverage that meets the government's definition of insurance. If fully implemented, the law will provide an incentive to employers to limit the size of their workforce or reduce worker hours.

If the nation is going to be spared from further negative effects of Obamacare, it will be necessary for Republicans to offer an alternative. They may have an opening opportunity if the Supreme Court this summer invalidates the subsidies that are being offered through the federal exchange. If not, their unified control of Congress as well as the 2016 presidential campaign both provide forums for the party to lay out their alternative vision for the future of American healthcare. If Republicans fail, then by the tenth anniversary of Obamacare, the detrimental consequences of this legislation will only mount.

No comments:

Post a Comment