ObamaCare

Archive for Tag “ObamaCare”

Health Care in Headlines [#01]

Monday, May 20, 2013 by

Here is a roundup of some recent health care items making headlines, with my comments:.

  • Obamacare “scares the daylights out of” small businesses, who, through a crippling new tax, will be forced to pay the medical bills of others.
  • Last fall one compounding pharmacy made headlines when steroid injections it sold caused a meningitis outbreak. Now the FDA wants to control all compounding pharmacies. Whatever happened to being treated as innocent until proven guilty?
  • Grocery stores will have to spend $1 billion in the first year alone to meet Obamacare’s requirement of displaying calorie labels on all their foods. Says one executive at Kroger, “We might have thousands of SKUs for birthday cakes and thousands of types of prepared pizza. The problem is [Obamacare] forces us to label all of that, down to the olive bars and salad bars.” Much of the cost will go towards not signage but just figuring out how many calories are in each food item they sell.
  • Last week Obama addressed concerns over the “train wreck” that is expected from implementing Obamacare, saying, “We still have a lot of work to do in the coming months to make sure more Americans can buy affordable health coverage.” One crucial task is convincing young people to sign up for insurance (in order to fleece them to pay for the medical bills of others). Look out this summer for a mass marketing effort in this vein.

Tags: , ,

Posted in Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

The Obamacare train wreck shouldn’t be ignored

Friday, May 10, 2013 by

4515656569_19c6697c7d_bIt seems indisputable by now that Obamacare will wreak havoc on the American health care system. Even Sen. Max Baucus, an architect of the law, recently predicted that implementing Obamacare will be a “huge train wreck.”

Curiously, this news has evoked not much more than a shrug from some people. For example, New York Times columnist David Brooks dryly summarizes the disasters expected to occur (“chaos” that will unfold in “cascades”) and then chalks it up to: “When you build [a] complex [regulatory regime], it takes a while to work through the consequences.” (Brooks is more interested in the political ramifications of Obamacare’s failure than its effects on people.)

But the damage that Obamacare will inflict on American health care—and as a result, on all of us—is not something to dismiss so nonchalantly. Brooks suggests that the pain may be temporary and eventually things will “settle down to a new normal.” Even if this were true (it isn’t—the “new normal” will be a health care system permanently crippled by greater government control—read one example here), Obamacare’s consequences should not be minimized.

The law will severely alter people’s lives—and not for the better. Here are just a few recent news headlines:

These consequences, far from being shrugged off, should call into question the goal and rationale of the law itself.

Photo Credit: Free 2 Be via Compfight cc

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

Any way you slice it, Obamacare fleeces some to pay the medical bills of others

Thursday, May 9, 2013 by

3466862143_c9005b6fdd_bObamacare requires young people to pay higher health insurance premiums in order to subsidize older people’s coverage. But don’t worry, say Obamacare’s defenders: Many young people will qualify for federal subsidies to offset the higher premiums. For example, health policy analyst Austin Frakt says, “[M]ost of the cross subsidization is not flowing from younger to older individuals. It’s flowing from the treasury to everyone with low enough incomes.”

This defense doesn’t hold water.

First, only those earning below 400% of the federal poverty level are eligible for subsidies, which means if you are a young single worker who makes more than $45,960 a year, you must pay the higher premiums imposed by Obamacare entirely out of your own pocket. In my view, even one young person fleeced to pay for the older generation’s health care expenses is too many.

Second, the government obtains money for the promised subsidies by confiscating funds from its citizens—in the form of taxes, borrowing, or printing money (this last effectively depletes savings). So when Frakt says the federal government will effectively be subsidizing the coverage of those older, what he means is that everyone (including young people) whose earnings are drained by the government will pay for the coverage of those older. But it’s wrong for the government to force any group of people—be they young, of higher-income, or classified by any other category—to pay the medical bills of others.

Photo Credit: herzogbr via Compfight cc

Tags: , ,

Posted in Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

Topix.com: How Obamacare Fleeces the Young

Friday, April 26, 2013 by

I have an op-ed today on Topix.com’s Politix page about Obamacare’s age-related rate restrictions, which require younger people to pay higher insurance premiums in order to subsidize the coverage of those older. I say in the article:

No one, presumably, would be comfortable with the idea of fleecing our children and grandchildren in order to lighten our bills. But supporters of the Affordable Care Act have taken to arguing that forcing young people to subsidize older people isn’t some new consequence of the health law—all insurance, they claim, requires some people to subsidize the expenses of others. Take fire insurance. Ten thousand people might sign up to insure their homes, but only a couple of those homes may end up burning down. The premiums paid by those whose homes did not burn down go toward rebuilding the homes of those whose did.

“That’s how insurance works,” insists health policy analyst Aaron Carroll, who concludes that the health law’s age-related rate restriction is “really not much different than how insurance is supposed to function, by transferring money from the more-healthy to the more-ill.”

But by equating traditional insurance with the health law’s age-related rate restriction, commentators like Carroll ignore a key component of insurance in a market absent government intrusion: the freedom to buy a policy that is priced according to your own risk—a policy that subsidizes no one.

Check out the whole article here. I previously addressed another argument made by proponents of this restriction, here.

Tags: , ,

Posted in Business & Economics, Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

To cope with Affordable Care Act, Regal Entertainment cuts hours of thousands

Wednesday, April 24, 2013 by

RegalFor those who may have missed this recent story:

The nation’s largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of  employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to  blame.

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states,  last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week,  putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide  health insurance.

…

One Regal theater manager told FoxNews.com the move has sparked a wave of  resignations from full-time managers who have seen their hours cut by 25 percent  or more.

“In the last couple weeks, managers have been quitting on a daily basis from  various locations to try and find full-time work,” said the manager, who asked  not to be named. “Regal up until now has never restricted anyone to anything  below 40 hours.”

The manager told FoxNews.com ObamaCare has had the unintended consequence of  taking food off his table.

“Mandating businesses to offer health care under threat  of debilitating fines does not fix a problem, it creates one,” he  said. “It fosters a new business culture where 30 hours is now  considered the maximum in order to avoid paying the high costs associated  with this law.

“In a time where 40 hours is just getting us by, putting these kind of  financial pressures on employers is a big step in a direction far beyond the  reach of feasibility for not only the businesses, but for the employees who  rely on their success,” he said.

The Affordable Care Act makes it illegal for most employers to hire a full-time employee without also providing him with health insurance (or paying a hefty fine.) Commanding employers to provide health insurance does not change the fact that it does not make business sense to provide it in some cases. So it should not be surprising that some employers are instead choosing to scale back employee hours.

Image: Anthony22 at Wikimedia Commons

Tags: ,

Posted in Business & Economics, Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

The Obama Administration thinks more expensive premiums are good for you

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 by

Health_insurance_reform_bill_signature_20100323Recently the Obama administration finally acknowledged what everybody else already knew—Obamacare is going to send premiums through the roof.

How do you defend a reality (e.g., 27-year-old males will see premiums rise by 189%) that you not so long ago insisted was fiction (“My health care bill will cut the typical family’s insurance premiums by up to $2,500”)? One way is by playing the “Yeah, but this is better for you” card.

That was basically the approach taken by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, when she addressed reporters the other day. Sebelius insisted that people “are going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

In other words, if you’re a 27-year-old who is forced to shell out three times as much for premiums next year in order to, as Obamacare requires, foot the medical bills of 55-year-olds, according to Sebelius you’re better off. If you’re a male who must now, as Obamacare mandates, buy coverage for services you’ll never use, such as contraception, breast pumps and in vitro fertilization, according to Sebelius you’re better off. If you prefer a low-deductible policy that offers only catastrophic coverage, yet Obamacare makes such a policy illegal to sell, according to Sebelius you’re better off.

This paternalistic attitude makes my blood boil. By what right does the government presume to decide what’s best for me in the realm of health insurance and then outlaw all the policies I might choose? Only the individual can determine his or her needs when it comes to health care—and if those needs can be met by health insurance, every individual should be free to select and purchase an appropriate policy from among those offered on a free, private market.

Tags: ,

Posted in Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

Business and Regulation Roundup

Friday, March 15, 2013 by

Another week, another wave of stories of businesses being held back by regulations. Here are some recent examples of this as well as other business-related articles that I found worth reading:

  • Ethanol Mandate. The Wall Street Journal recently published two good pieces (article and editorial) describing how the federal mandate to mix an increasing amount of ethanol into gasoline is surely causing gasoline prices to rise. The articles also mention how vehicle engines could be damaged by gasoline that contains more than 10 percent ethanol, but that these regulations will soon require gasoline to contain more than this.
  • Employer Mandate. A report released by the Federal Reserve on Wednesday indicated that “employers in several districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.” These are the expected consequences of forcing  employers to provide health insurance.
  • Sugar Bailout. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering purchasing 400,000 tons of sugar at taxpayer expense as a way to give the sugar industry a huge bailout.  This action is intended to bid up declining sugar prices. It is worth knowing that as of mid-2012 U.S. sugar prices were almost double those of the world due to a combination of government-imposed restrictions on imported sugar and  other protections for domestic sugar.
  • Soda Ban. A state judge recently ruled against New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s impending ban on large sugary drinks. The Wall Street Journal had another article describing how this ban required costly adjustments for many establishments.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Business & Economics, Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

A Conversation on Health Insurance with John C. Goodman [podcast episode #02]

Thursday, March 7, 2013 by

On this episode of Eye to Eye, I had the opportunity to interview John C. Goodman, an economist and a leading proponent for greater freedom in health care. We discussed a variety of issues surrounding health insurance.

One point he made that I found particularly illuminating was his attitude towards the possibility, on a free market, of being charged higher premiums when you have higher expected medical costs. Most people would consider this a flaw of the free market (charging higher risk individuals higher premiums is severely restricted under Obamacare), but according to Dr. Goodman, we should view this as a good thing. Listen to the podcast to hear his reason why.

Another subject we discussed is why health insurance is so controlled when other types of insurance, such as life insurance, are left relatively free. Dr. Goodman mentioned the role of pressure groups such as the American Medical Association in suppressing market forces.

I suspect an additional factor was at play, which the AMA surely cashed in on: people’s underlying moral views. A common view is that it’s immoral to pursue profit in the field of medicine and that health care is not a good to be earned but a right. These kinds of views are incompatible with a free market and have surely contributed to the growth of government in medicine.

Some of the other topics Dr. Goodman discusses in the podcast include:

  • His view of the most problematic government interventions in health insurance
  • How Obamacare will impact the health insurance market
  • If we’ve ever had a free market in health insurance
  • Why health insurance looks nothing like other types of insurance (e.g., auto, homeowners, life), which work relatively well
  • How our health care system compares to those of other countries

Dr. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis and a research fellow at the Independent Institute. He is most recently the author of Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. He provides daily commentary on his blog.

Podcast: Play in new window

Tags: , ,

Posted in Government & Policy, Podcast

Send a comment to the author

Business and Regulation Roundup

Monday, March 4, 2013 by

Here are some recent business-economic related articles that I found worth reading:

  • Regulatory State. A man in New Orleans who spent his life repairing houses was prevented from fixing his flood-damaged home for years because he did not have the right paperwork and permits.
  • Mandatory Health Insurance. This WSJ Review & Outlook piece describes how the employer mandate from the Affordable Care Act is encouraging many employers to reduce the number of full-time employees. As a way to circumvent this regulation, businesses are now sharing employees—e.g., by hiring individuals to work part-time for 20 hours per week, who are also already working 20 hours per week for another franchise.
  • Airline Deregulation. This article in The Atlantic describes how airline prices have fallen by over 50 percent in the past 30 years and briefly sketches how the removal of several airline regulations in the late 1970s was responsible for this.
  • Airline Innovation. This story describes how Alaska Airlines was the first to develop a satellite-guided navigation system, which is basically a GPS for airline pilots. By providing real-time traffic and weather information, this system has reduced delays from snow and darkness, and has helped Alaskan Airlines to have the best on-time performance for the third year in a row, according to FlightStats.

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Business & Economics, Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author

Subway Founder: Subway “Wouldn’t Exist” if Started in Today’s Regulatory Environment

Friday, March 1, 2013 by

When asked on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” about whether today’s environment for aspiring entrepreneurs has been getting better or worse, Fred Deluca, the founder of Subway Restaurants, said

“It has continuously gotten worse because there are more and more regulations, and it is tougher for people to get into business—especially small business. I’ll tell you, if I started Subway today, Subway would not exist because I had an easy time with it in the sixties when I started, and I just see a continuous increase in regulations.”

Subway is the largest fast food chain in the world based on the number of locations. The fact that such a successful businessman would even consider making such a statement is quite alarming.

The appearance is brief, but some of the regulations that he mentions are the federally-mandated minimum wage and the employer mandate from the Affordable Care Act, which requires employers of 50 or more full-time employees provide health insurance. He also speaks to how many smaller brand restaurants are having trouble securing loans, which speaks to how the new waves of banking regulations could be impacting entrepreneurs.

You can watch the whole appearance here.

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Business & Economics, Government & Policy

Send a comment to the author