Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Economic Issues, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Individual Market, Insurance subsidies, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Costs, News From Washington, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Reforming Medicaid, Subsidies, Uncategorized

Options Will Increase, Sky Will Not Fall, If ACA Ends

For example, the AMA complains that hundreds of millions would be at risk of losing “coverage.” In fact, only a net 1.7 million people gained private coverageunder ACA, after subtracting the nearly 6 million who lost it, at a shocking cost of $341 billion or $200,000 per newly insured person. Most of the claimed increased coverage came from expanding Medicaid to childless, able-bodied adults. This reduced access to services by the sickest patients, and at least 21,904 patients died on Medicaid waiting lists according to a 2018 report.

Without ACA and its unaffordable requirements, Americans would have many more options to buy affordable insurance. Instead of paying as much as a mortgage payment for “coverage” they are unlikely to use, they might join a DPC (direct primary care) practice and get preventive care and routine medical treatment for at as little as $50/month. They might buy catastrophes-only major medical insurance that ACA outlaws for persons over 30 years of age. Congress might enact Health Freedom Accounts as proposed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) and liberalize Health Reimbursement Accounts.

https://mailchi.mp/aapsonline/aca-standing-639035?e=f50410ece3

Posted in Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Employer Mandate, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Health Insurance, Individual Mandate, Large group insurance market, Medical Costs, Small group market, Subsidies, Uncategorized

The Current Status of the ACA Employer Mandate: 2019 – Integrity Data

Caution Employers!

With all the focus on Transparency mandates and HRA executive orders, much of the ACA remains in force (unfortunately). Even though the individual mandate penalty (uh…tax) will not be enforced beyond 2018, the employer mandate is still in effect, with all the coverage provisions!

https://www.integrity-data.com/current-status-of-aca-employer-mandate-2019/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Accountable Care Organizations, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, Canadian Health System, Direct-Pay Medicine, Economic Issues, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medicaid, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, News From Washington, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Quality, Reforming Medicare, Uncategorized

What You Need To Know About Medicare For All, Part I

A study by Charles Blahousat the Mercatus Center estimates that Medicare for all would cost $32.6 trillion over the next ten years. Other studies have been in the same ballpark and they imply that we would need a 25% payroll tax. And that assumes that doctors and hospitals provide the same amount of care they provide today, even though they would be paid Medicare rates, which are about 40% below what private insurance has been paying. Without those cuts in provider payments, the needed payroll tax would be closer to 30%.

Of course, there would be savings on the other side of the ledger. People would no longer have to pay private insurance premiums and out-of-pocket fees. In fact, for the country as a whole this would largely be a financial wash – a huge substitution of public payment for private payment.

But remember, in today’s world how much you and your employer spend on health care is up to you and your employer. If the cost is too high, you can choose to jettison benefits of marginal value and be more choosey about the doctors and hospitals in your plan’s network. You could also take advantage of medical tourism (traveling to other cities where the costs are lower and the quality is higher) and phone, email and other telemedical innovations described above. The premiums you pay today are voluntary and (absent Obamacare mandates) what you buy with those premiums is a choice you and your employer are free to make.

With Medicare for all, you would have virtually no say in how costs are controlled other than the fact that you would be one of several hundred million potential voters.

Remember also that there is a reason why Obamacare is such a mess. The Democrats in Congress convened special interests around a figurative table – the drug companies, the insurance companies, the doctors, the hospitals, the device manufacturers, big business, big labor, etc. – and gave each a piece of the Obamacare pie in order to buy their political support.

As we show below, every single issue Obamacare had to contend with would be front and center in any plan to replace Obamacare with Medicare for all. So, the Democrats who gave us the last health care reform would be dealing with the same issues and the same special interests the second time around.

It takes a great deal of faith to believe there would be much improvement.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2018/09/07/what-you-need-to-know-about-medicare-for-all-part-i/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, Defined Contribution Benefit Plans, Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Employer Mandate, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), Healthcare financing, Individual Market, Individual ObamaCare Market, Individual Underwriting Standards, Medical Costs, News From Washington, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Portable Insurance, Pre-existing Conditions, The Triple Aim, Uncategorized

Donald Trump Takes A Big Step Toward Personal And Portable Health Insurance

READ THIS ARTICLE below if you want to understand the degree to which this ruling is an important step for healthcare reform.

But as John C. Goodman points out, administrative ruling can only go so far without being codified by legislative action.

Some believe the Individual Market is too weak to revive, given the hit it took as as result of the ACA.

I am optimistic that this ruling to utilize HRA is this manner will be a “shot in the arm” and revitalize the market again.

This hopefully highlights the benefits, and spurs popularity, of a defined contribution approach as a means to purchase health insurance.

Anything that makes us less dependent on ESI and gives more portability & options, freeing the labor market from job-lock is a good thing. -Forum for Healthcare Freedom

John C. Goodman

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2019/06/18/donald-trump-takes-a-big-step-toward-personal-and-portable-health-insurance/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Essential Benefits under the ACA, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Individual Market, Individual ObamaCare Market, Individual Underwriting Standards, Insurance subsidies, Medical Costs, News From Washington, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Pre-existing Conditions, Uncategorized, Uninsured

Obamacare is now optional

Michael F. Cannon
Michael F. Cannon

“Wednesday’s rule reinstates and even expands the consumer protections Obama curtailed. It allows short-term plans to last 12 months, and allows insurers to offer them with renewal guarantees.

You read that right. Democrats curtailed consumer protections; Republicans are expanding them.

The policy change also promises more secure coverage for the sick. It frees consumers to avoid Obamacare’s price controls, which are eroding coverage for the sick. Instead, consumers can purchase consecutive short-term plans, tied together with renewal guarantees that protect them from medical underwriting when they fall ill.

Renewal guarantees can even protect some 200 million consumers with employer-based coverage, or no health insurance, from medical underwriting — for just one-tenth the cost of Obamacare plans.

When Congress passed Obamacare, insurers had just begun selling renewal guarantees as a standalone product. These policies gave purchasers the right to enroll in a health insurance plan whenever they wanted, at healthy-person premiums, no matter how sick they got in the meantime, and cost roughly 90 percent less than the average Obamacare premium. Twenty-five states approved this marvelous innovation for sale before Obama unilaterally banned it. Wednesday’s rule makes this and further innovations possible again.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obamacare-is-now-optional

Posted in Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, big government, Crony Capitalism, DC & Related Shenanigans, Economic Issues, government incompetence, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Influence peddling, Liberty, News From Washington, News From Washington, DC & Related Shenanigans, Organizational structure, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

Protectionism, Obamacare, and Atlas Shrugged

From an economic perspective, it certainly is true that this new system is “disorganized” and “a disservice” and an “insult to our intelligence.” Those same words could be used to describe the welfare state, the EEOCfarm subsidies, the tax code, and just about everything else the government does.

But there’s one group of people who are laughing all the way to the bank, The lobbyists, consultants, fixers, and other denizens of the swamp are getting rich. Whether they’re preparing the applications, lobbying for the applications, or lobbying against the applications, they are getting big paychecks.

And the longer this sordid protectionist process continues, we will see a repeat of what happened with Obamacare as senior-level people in government move through the revolving door so they can get lucrative contracts to help clients manipulate the system (yes, Republicans can be just as sleazy as Democrats).

Washington wins and we lose.

International Liberty

I very much suspect Obama partisans and Trump partisans won’t like this column, but the sad reality is that both Obamacare and Trump’s protectionism have a lot in common.

  • In both cases, government is limiting the freedom of buyers and sellers to engage in unfettered exchange.
  • In both cases, the fiscal burden of government increases.
  • In both cases, politicians misuse statistics to expand the size and scope of government.

Today, let’s add another item to that list.

  • In both cases, the Washington swamp wins thanks to increased cronyism and corruption.

To see what I mean, let’s travel back in time to 2011. I wrote a column about Obamacare and cited some very persuasive arguments by Tim Carney that government-run healthcare (or, to be more accurate, expanded government control of healthcare) was creating a feeding frenzy for additional sleaze in Washington.

Congress imposes mandates on other entities, but gives bureaucrats the…

View original post 469 more words

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Essential Benefits under the ACA, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Individual Mandate, Individual Market, Insurance subsidies, Large group insurance market, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Costs, Policy Issues, Small group market, Subsidies, Tax Policy, Uncategorized

Who Wouldn’t Have Coverage If the Obamacare Mandate Is Repealed | The Heritage Foundation

…a recent review of the academic literature on the subject finds a mixed bag, but with the strongest link between coverage and health outcomes in cases where health insurance coverage improves access to care, “particularly among people with lower incomes and chronic conditions.”

That makes sense. Having health insurance makes less of a difference to people with higher incomes who can afford to pay for more of their medical care directly. 

That leads us to the crucial, practical question that this academic debate largely misses: Who are the people that would no longer have health insurance if the mandate penalty were repealed?

Notice what CBO is not saying. CBO is not saying that those Americans will “lose” coverage. Rather, CBO is saying is that—absent the mandate penalties—those Americans, will voluntarily forego enrolling in health coverage. CBO is explicit on this point…

That explains CBO’s somewhat counterintuitive projection that, without a mandate penalty, millions of poor people will turn down the offer of free Medicaid coverage. The reason is that they don’t think they need it (because they are healthy) and if they become ill and seek care at a hospital, they know the hospital will enroll them in Medicaid to get paid. Indeed, it is also why, long before Obamacare came along, that there was a persistent and notable gap between the number of people eligible for Medicaid and the number of people enrolled in the program.

It also explains CBO’s other counterintuitive projection: that eliminating the mandate penalty will generate higher tax revenues.  While not collecting mandate penalties brings in less revenue, CBO projects that there will be new revenues coming from the healthy people who decide to turn down tax-free employer health insurance in exchange for higher (taxable) cash wages. Presumably, CBO thinks that being healthy and very much alive are basic prerequisites for expecting those folks to generate additional tax revenues.

Repeal of the Obamacare mandate will not result in social catastrophe. Supporters of the mandate would have a more compelling argument if millions of poor and sick persons would be thrown out of their existing coverage, struggling with potentially fatal chronic illnesses and unable to get insurance to maintain continuous access to regular care. But that is not what CBO is projecting. Their argument is hardly compelling, to say the least, when the cohort of the future uninsured are healthy people who simply choose not to buy Obamacare coverage because they believe they don’t need it or want it.

http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/who-wouldnt-have-coverage-if-the-obamacare-mandate-repealed

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Community Underwriting, Economic Issues, Free-Market, government incompetence, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Individual Mandate, Individual Market, Insurance subsidies, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Costs, medical inflation, Medicare, Organizational structure, outcomes, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

Hard Truths about Health Care ‌ by Michael Tanner

Micheal Tanner
Michael Tanner

“Every health-care system in the world rations care in some way, either through bureaucratic fiat (Scandinavia, the U.K.), waiting lists (Canada), or price (that’s us). One can argue about which of these rationing mechanisms is fairest or most efficient, but let’s not pretend that it won’t occur.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446439/health-care-basic-facts-and-hard-truths