ObamaCare falls short for millions
To hear administration officials and their supporters in the press tell it, this is a great time for ObamaCare. People who signed up for coverage are actually paying for it; more insurance companies are joining exchanges; some consumers have more choices than originally envisioned.
Not so fast. Yes, ObamaCare is a big help for those now receiving something substantial from the government — large subsidies for the lowest-income Americans who purchase coverage on the exchanges, free health care for people eligible for the expanded Medicaid program. But for millions of other Americans, it's a different story.
Of the much-discussed 8 million Americans who have signed up for ObamaCare, the “vast majority ... are receiving financial assistance,” according to a new Department of Health and Human Services report. What that means is this: Of the 8 million, about 85 percent, or 6.8 million, actually paid for coverage. Of those, about 87 percent, or 5.9 million, receive taxpayer-paid subsidies to help them pay.
“It would appear from this data that it is the lowest income people who are most often signing up for coverage,” writes insurance industry analyst Bob Laszewski.
The problem is, for those who are not eligible for subsidies, or for those eligible only for smaller subsidies, ObamaCare still presents higher premiums, higher deductibles and narrow networks of doctors and hospitals.
“The ObamaCare plans are unattractive to all but the poorest who get the biggest subsidies and the lowest deductibles,” writes Laszewski. “The working class and middle class are not getting access to attractive benefits.”
So they have not purchased coverage. The Democrats who created ObamaCare planned to pressure them into doing so by imposing an individual mandate — a penalty euphemistically called a “shared responsibility fee” — on those who go uninsured.
But now comes word that very few will pay the penalty. In a recent study, the Congressional Budget Office said that of the 30 million people estimated to be uninsured in 2016, only about 4 million will be required to pay. The rest will be exempt from the mandate under various regulations issued by the Obama administration.
So this is one vision of ObamaCare's future: Lower-income Americans purchase insurance because they receive the biggest subsidies. Others with somewhat higher incomes are priced out of the ObamaCare market. The individual mandate is meaningless. The net result is tens of millions remain without coverage. “ObamaCare looks to be on its way to creating a chronically uninsured class,” says Laszewski.
That's certainly not what Barack Obama promised when he said his plan would make health care “better for everybody.”
What happens now? After Democrats finish crowing about what a success ObamaCare is, it's likely they will argue that subsidies must be extended to more and more Americans to pay for coverage that ObamaCare has made more and more expensive. Republicans will resist, but at the same time realize ObamaCare has changed the health care system in ways that will be difficult to overturn and hard to fix.
And for those millions for whom ObamaCare is a bad deal? They're just out of luck.
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.
- Rossi: Blount brings back Steelers’ swagger
- Steelers re-sign Keisel to bolster depth on defensive line
- Steelers are hoping to mirror Eagles’ full-bore, no-huddle offense
- Run game not primary focal point for Steelers
- Pittsburgh restaurants vie for title at Taste of the Championships
- Steelers notebook: Polamalu not concerned with being old man among safeties
- Pitt notebook: Pitt offensive line coach ends controversy
- WVU football ticket sales on decline
- Pittsburghers gather to say their final goodbye to Mayor Sophie Masloff
- Grand jury that heard testimony from Ravenstahl aides ends work
- Pitt, Penn State face competition for ticket sales