I’m grateful for Mr. Chait’s article as an illustration of what I call Obamacare fetishism. I’m using the definition of fetish as “a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment.” In this regard there is an element of magical thinking when it comes to Democrats and Obamacare (Dictionary.reference.com, “fetish…an object regarded…as having magical potency.”
In this third post about his article we begin with Mr. Chait's third point.He references the “incorrectness” of critiques arguing that “Insurance will be so expensive that few people will want to buy it,” in his article, “Republicans Finally Admit Why They Really Hate Obamacare,” 6/22/2014, Jonathan Chait, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html.
He goes on to insist there has been no rate shock associated with Obamacare, “We spent weeks and weeks debating ‘rate shock.’ Also, nope,” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html.
To reach his conclusion required some fancy footwork on Mr. Chait’s part. He notes that “the number of customers reporting lower premiums exceeds the number paying higher premiums,” and cites the same 6/19/2014 KFF report, "Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees," by LIz Hamel, Mira Rao, Larry Levitt, Gary Claxton, Cynthia Cox, Karen Pollitz and Mollyann Brodie, http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/. Let’s look.
In the KFF survey there is a section entitled, “Among plan switchers, as many report paying less as paying more for their new plans, but survey shows some signs of a trend toward narrower provider networks.” (emphasis added…AS MANY REPORT PAYING LESS AS PAYING MORE), http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/.
In the text of the subheading the survey goes on, “Nearly half (46 percent) say their current premium – taking into account government subsidies – is lower than it was under their previous plan, while four in ten (39 percent) say it is higher,” http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/.
Emphasis is added because to the survey takers the 46 percent paying less vs 39 percent paying more is beneath their heading that “AS MANY REPORT PAYING LESS AS PAYING MORE.”
Further, that’s WITH the Obamabucks, “government subsidies," as stated in the survey, http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/.
Under another subheading of the survey it is revealed that Obamacare purchasers, even with Obamabucks worry about affordablity. Under, “Majority gives positive ratings to their new insurance plans and says they are a good value, THOUGH FOUR in TEN FIND IT DIFFICULT TO AFFORD THEIR MONTHLY PERMIUM,” (emphasis added) http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/.
In that paragraph it also says that, “over six in ten say they are worried that their premiums will become unaffordable in the future," http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/.
Meanwhile back to the original subheading, “Among plan switchers, as many report paying less as paying more for their new plans, but survey shows some signs of a trend toward narrower provider networks," the worry about coverage is expressed and explained further, “There is…some evidence of a trend toward plans with narrower provider networks," http://kff.org/private-insurance/report/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees/.
OK, so rate hikes and less coverage are both issues even according to the survey upon which Mr. Chait relies.
Moving onto his fourth point, Mr. Chait argues against critics who assert that “premiums will shoot up next year,” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html. Mr. Chait asserts, “Another nope.” Unfortunately, it’s another yep, rates are likely to go up next year.
Even Kathleen Sebelius the former head of HHS confirmed that health insurance premiums were likely to rise in 2015, (see post, “Marketing can’t fix Obamacare, 3/17/2014, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/03/marketing-cant-fix-obamacare.html.
The insurance company INDUSTRY, the ones who create the plans, on 6/17/2014, through AHIP, a national association representing insurance companies started explaining 2015 costs to consumers./
If you read their timeforaffordabiity.org informational site, http://www.timeforaffordability.org/, in “What Factors Impact Health Insurance Premiums?” under the tab, “What You Need to Know about 2015 Premiums,” you’ll see that while they’re not predicting an OVERALL price increase (or decreases) they are emphasizing that “The focus needs to go beyond averages and take into account the unique dynamics that impact the cost of coverage,” http://www.timeforaffordability.org/2015premiums/.
They start with a section entitled, “Underlying Health Care Costs,” stating that “Research shows that premiums track directly with the cost of medical care,” http://www.timeforaffordability.org/2015premiums/. OK, no rocket science, insurance companies blame what providers charge for healthcare as a key driver of cost.
Though not saying that premiums will go up, you’d have to be pretty dense to conclude otherwise when the next sentence states, “Rising prices of care, particularly for prescription drugs and medical treatments, are leading drivers of cost and continue to make coverage more expensive for consumers," http://www.timeforaffordability.org/2015premiums/.
AHIP goes on to warn that, “The ACA includes new taxes and fees at the federal level,” and that “According to a study by Oliver Wyman, for 2015, due to the tax alone, an individual purchasing coverage on his or her own will pay in total $170 in higher premiums and small businesses will pay an additional $530 for each family they cover," http://www.timeforaffordability.org/2015premiums/. Hmm…sounds like the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is preparing us for premiums to go up, doesn’t it?
AHIP, representing insurance companies also states, “Federal requirements,” (you know the ‘free’ prevention and essential health benefits), “mandates specific categories of health care benefits be included in health insurance plans. Costs associated with these new benefits are factored into premiums," http://www.timeforaffordability.org/2015premiums/. Hmm…sounds like a premium increase, doesn’t it?
AHIP also cites a Congressional Budget Office communication from 11/30/2009 in its 2014 explanation of premiums and noted that as the Congressional Budget Office indicated in 2009, “…Insurance policies that cover more benefits or services or have a higher actuarial value (by requiring smaller copayments or deductibles) have higher premiums, while policies that cover fewer benefits or services or specify larger copayments or deductibles have lower premiums,” http://www.timeforaffordability.org/2015premiums/.
Again, not rocket science, the insurance BUSINESS has two ways of making more money, COVER LESS OR CHARGE MORE (and sometimes both).
So, what are these Democratic Obamacare fetishists so desperate to prove that they stake their credibility on twisting and writhing and manipulating reality in order to maintain their loyalty to Obamacare?
This is a topic for other posts. But what is obvious is that there is an emotional, fanciful almost religious attachment to a poorly created law that has become the poster child of the differences between Democrats and Republicans.
The reason I like Mr. Chait’s article is because we can track his thinking which really was designed to reach a conclusion by any means because of his fierce and largely fanciful allegiance to Obamacare.
His conclusion nicely reinforces political thinking in our country today, “Conservatives don’t like transfer programs because they require helping the less fortunate with other peoples’ money," http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html.
It's a political argument that is the popular argument that Republicans are just plain mean or crazy.
(Republicans have reinforced this characterization of their policies and arguably raised it to an art form.)
Yet Republican resistance to Obamacare fetishism cannot be because they don't support political fetishism. Republicans are not without their fetishism. Anything with the word “military” attached to it gets Republican support, good, bad or otherwise. No, they are no strangers to fetishism.
But Obamacare is not, as Mr. Chait observes a “philosophical” debate of those supporting one transfer program as he calls it or another. One of the things that both parties seem to neglect is WHO we’re transferring from? Regardless of the politician, any government expenditure is coming out of our pockets, that’s a pretty practical concern FOR US.
I would encourage both sides to address the analytic claims they make and feed to the American people.
Obamacare is in our midst as a new entitlement for some at the expense of all, just like other entitlement programs including those for the military.
These programs MUST be presented accurately to the American people rather than sold and must be considered as legislation, certainly not carved in stone, able to reflect changing circumstances. By raising any pet issue to a fetish, it is we who are done a disservice.
