A stagnant 'pool'
ObamaCare sows the seeds of destruction for its “exchanges” through provisions that give young, healthy Americans lacking employer-based plans — whose participation is key to exchanges' success — perverse financial incentives to not participate.
In a new paper, National Center for Public Policy Research health care policy analyst David Hogberg, Ph.D., says the upcoming “Covered California” exchange needs young, healthy people to balance the higher costs of insuring older, sicker people. Yet ObamaCare discourages their participation by requiring that insurers:
• Charge everyone the same rate (with limited exceptions). That means young, healthy people will pay roughly market rates, despite costing insurers less.
• Sell anyone a policy at any time during an annual open-enrollment period. That means many young, healthy people can wait to buy policies until they're sick.
Mr. Hogberg says many young, healthy Californians will pay less in ObamaCare fines for being uninsured than premiums — even offset by Obama-Care tax credits — will cost them. He predicts a “death spiral” for California's exchange:
As its “pool” becomes ever older and sicker, premiums will rise ever higher — and insurers will drop out.
Likely to occur in other states, too, it's a scenario that belies the Affordable Care Act's name and ostensible purpose of covering the uninsured — and a major reason why ObamaCare must be scrapped.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Solyndra scandal: Government culpability
- Sunday pops
- Hogtying a terrorist: Heroes step up
- The Box
- Ford City facts: Blaming the messenger
- Saturday essay: Cusps of change
- Witnesses can help
- The markets: Easy money’s slap
- The Pa. pensions debate: Union hypocrisy
- President Carbon: Hypocrisy’s trip
- Elephants & the Pittsburgh Zoo: Who knows best?