Share This Page

It's 'I told you so" time for ObamaCare

| Saturday, March 9, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

“What we've learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health care system to be run.”

That was Gary Cohen, director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. He was talking about the apparently surprising need to halt enrollments in a program designed as a temporary bridge for people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't wait to be covered by ObamaCare when it fully kicks in next year. The program was allocated $5 billion but some estimate it would take $40 billion to fund the effort.

Such surprises are becoming routine. The New York Times has reported that many small and midsize firms might be opting out of ObamaCare entirely. “The new health care law created powerful incentives for smaller employers to self-insure,” Deborah J. Chollet of Mathematica Policy Research told the paper. “This trend could destabilize small-group insurance markets and erode protections provided by the Affordable Care Act.”

It turns out that ObamaCare actually makes self-insurance less of a gamble because you can always throw workers on public exchanges without penalty. Naturally, the administration's response is to look for ways to tighten the ratchet and make self-insurance harder. It's a typical response. The shortcomings of a wildly ambitious law only justify more regulatory strong-arming.

As Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes, The New York Times never paused to ask why it's OK that “a design flaw in the law somehow empowers” regulators to punish private employers. But this is typical of so much press coverage of ObamaCare; it's a given that it is the government's job to make sure the law is seen as successful, no matter what.

Although it's true that we collectively spent a lot of time shouting about ObamaCare, we spent precious little time actually debating it. Most of the media covered the discussion as if it were a spectator sport, with the Democrats the hometown favorite. And much of the remainder seemed to assume that health care reporting amounted to explaining why ObamaCare was a good idea. The facade of objectivity was often maintained by citing carefully crafted CBO projections that reflected political assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Reality is teaching the propeller-heads a lesson. Despite President Obama's promise that his plan would not add “one dime” to the deficit, the Government Accountability Office announced last week that it would more likely add 62,000,000,000,000 dimes (or $6.2 trillion) over 75 years.

Obama also promised that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Estimates for how many Americans will lose their existing plans vary. The CBO says 5 million to 20 million. The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. says about 30 percent of employers will push workers onto the public system.

And while the president rode to re-election hyping a mythical GOP “war on women,” incentives to drop spouses from employee coverage under his plan will only increase, a particular concern for mothers with small kids.

The good news is that if they keep their coverage, it will cover birth control pills.

Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review Online, is the author of “The Tyranny of Clichés.”

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.