Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
Numbers have been ran and allegedly 75% of the new "taxes" that this thing now creates will be born by people that make $133k per year or less. H.C. costs have risen 20% last year alone (and people with private insurance will tell you its more like 300%... I have a lot of family members that are small business owners). This thing is a colossal cluster phuck.
On top of that 26 states are threatening not to expand medicade, placing the brunt of the expense right on those that can't afford it. This thing is a piece of crap bill that was hurried through Congress and now everyone is paying the consequences. Good job Democrats!!!
I'm sure those "75%" numbers are probably reasonable - because the top earners are fewer, and of course the cost is going to be spread amongst the larger proportion of the population more, like everything else that is headcount-based.
But what people don't know is, what is the amount of the tax? People can't rightfully claim that buying healthcare insurance is a new tax or a tax at all - 90% of the country already has it. So everyone who is insured will be paying no new tax at all - they'll simply be buying the insurance most of them have already been paying for. The only new "tax" will be the people who opt to no buy health insurance ... which will be illogical for them to do because the question of having health insurance or paying a penalty & getting nothing is a no-brainer. The law is intended to incent people to do the right thing (will anybody really argue that getting insurance isn't a good idea?), and minimize any tax/penalty.
The same applies to the states and Medicaid expansion. I don't pay attention to the blowhard election-year politicians on the subject, or (what I consider to be absurd) claims that half the states won't sign on ... I can see no way a state would opt out of the expansion, refuse
full federal underwriting of the cost for the first few years & 90% of it afterwards. I strongly believe the state politicians will be forced into it by the people, who really don't mind the government trying to preserve their lives nearly as much as they mind the government controling their lives. That's the distinction I make.
The HIX (exchanges) are intended to bring or keep costs down, and create more apples-to-apples competition amongst insurance companies. Insurance companies are going to be fined for administrative costs/overhead that exceeds 80-85% - so there's no question efficiencies will be driven into that area. That doesn't mean reduction in services - because they'll also be held accountable for network adequacy, and people will have opportunity to switch carriers (this is not single payer!). So there is no hard evididence they will cause costs to go up. There is legitimate concern, of course - because of the adverse selection of forcing currently uninsurable people into the pool. But that's the whole point of the mandate - to off-set the higher risk wtih the other currently uninsured who are the most attractive risk to the insurance companies - young males who often dont have insurance because they don't think they need it (until they do, and go to the emergency room anyway).
The HIX are also going to have a small business construct, and the intent is not to monkeyhammer small businesses with new taxes & costs. Since the exchanges aren't out there & the products are not developed yet ... I'd take things that people say on this front with a grain of salt. I can't speak to this right now - but would love to discuss in the near future.
That "good job" you said could actually go either way (good or bad), depending on what actually happens. Right now nobody knows exactly what the rules are and how it is going to play out - so if somebody says they do, they're full of it.