ObamaCare: Oregon's horror story
Oregon's upcoming ObamaCare “exchange” for people lacking employer-based health insurance will fall victim to the same sort of “death spiral” as California's — and for the same reasons inherent in the deceptively named Affordable Care Act.
The National Center for Public Policy Research's David Hogberg, a Ph.D. who previously analyzed California's exchange, says 2014's average “Cover Oregon” monthly premium will cost 66 percent more than individual plans do now — and even the average monthly premium for a cheaper “Bronze” plan will cost 42 percent more.
As in California, buyers ages 20 to 39 are key to exchange success. But 30-year-old Oregonians earning just under $30,000 annually won't qualify for premium subsidies, and ObamaCare's “guaranteed issue” provision will let such “young invincibles” wait until they're sick to buy insurance.
And with even the cheapest “Cover Oregon” plans costing them far more than ObamaCare's $95 fine in 2014 for being uninsured — and far more even than the $695 fine in 2016 — “they'll have substantial incentives to forgo insurance until they actually need it.”
That means an ever older, sicker and costlier insured “pool” that drives premiums ever higher and young people — and eventually, insurers — out of the exchange.
These state exchanges' inability to deliver what ObamaCare's backers promised is emblematic of how fundamentally flawed the Affordable Care Act is — and 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 Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Sunday pops
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Radar searches: Get a warrant
- U.N. Watch: Somalia aid sieve