Costs & chaos of ObamaCare
Amid the other momentous events coming in 2013 — bitter fights over federal spending, debt, entitlements and immigration — the biggest story of the year, and of 2014 as well, will be the arrival of ObamaCare in the lives of every American.
ObamaCare will mean, alone or in some combination: higher insurance bills, unwanted changes in status at work, higher taxes, loss of employer-based health insurance and a bewildering bureaucracy that will make today's already complex insurance maze seem downright simple.
Start with higher insurance bills. “The big unwritten story is that for people who already have insurance through the individual market, or small companies that are buying products in the state-regulated small group market — those current policies are going to see premium increases on the order of 25 percent to 30 percent come Jan. 1, 2014,” says James Capretta, a health-care expert and student of ObamaCare at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “They are going to have a rate shock like you wouldn't believe.”
The reason is that those people are generally younger and healthier and are able to get lower rates. Under ObamaCare, they will be combined with older and less healthy people who cost more to insure. Capretta says about 30 million people will see a steep increase.
Then there is the change in work status. Under ObamaCare, companies don't have to insure, or pay fines for not insuring, employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week. So it's no surprise that many companies are going to make sure their part-time workers, and some current full-time workers, stay below the 30-hour limit.
Then there are the unexpected costs. The Department of Health & Human Services revealed it will charge employer and individual plans a $63 “fee” for every person covered. The Obama administration says the fee will be temporary, but it could touch about 190 million Americans at least for the next few years.
Then there are higher taxes. On Jan. 1, the top brackets will face higher Medicare taxes plus a substantial tax increase on their investment income.
But it's not just the higher earners. An estimated 10 million tax filers take a deduction for unusually high medical expenses. Under ObamaCare, that deduction will be limited, meaning they will pay more. Most of them fall far below the administration's definition of “wealthy.”
There are also new taxes on business. Recently, several Democrat senators — all of whom voted for ObamaCare — asked that one of its funding mechanisms, a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, be postponed. Sounding remarkably like a Republican, Sen. Al Franken, whose home state of Minnesota is headquarters of device-maker Medtronic, called it a “job-killing tax.”
Then there is the loss of employer-based insurance. ObamaCare is designed to kill employer-based insurance by making it attractive for employers to dump workers into exchanges, which may or may not be ready in time.
Finally, there is Medicaid. Much of ObamaCare is based on adding millions of Americans to that program for the poor. But the Supreme Court decision upholding the health care law also ruled that states, which pay for part of Medicaid, don't have to go along. Some states have already said they won't, which could lead to enormous controversy and expensive solutions as the administration struggles to provide coverage to those affected.
Together, all of this could equal one big mess.
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
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.
- Reversing the field: Pirates continue to raid Yankees for hidden skill
- Injuries to Penguins’ Ehrhoff, Letang force defense to pick up slack
- Former Pa. Gov. Corbett: From pension critic to collector
- Pirates notebook: Locke the choice to be 5th starter
- McKeesport man: My ex-girlfriend ‘attempted to run me over’; she says he hit her and she panicked
- Steelers’ Tomlin, Pirates’ Hurdle share similar philosophy
- Five is enough for Penguins’ defensemen
- Laurel Mountain Ski Resort discusses planned revival
- Responsibility for sinkhole near Glassport remains uncertain
- Mother of Kiski student files lawsuit against bus company, driver
- Owner of Penn Hills tombstone business pleads guilty to swindling the bereaved out of $90K