When it comes to modifications that have and are likely to occur in Obamacare, consumer voters must keep their eyes on what matters to them. There is a lot of rhetoric that will make little to no difference for individual consumers. Take the enrollment numbers.
While over time the number of people enrolled through health exchanges will cost taxpayers more money (I do not include that it might cost taxpayers the less or the same money since there is little support for any scenario in any government expense for this), enrollment per se matters not at all to individual consumers.
A misplaced focus takes away from focused consideration of the real financial and physical misery many of us, individual consumers, are exposed to because of changes the law has and continues to implement. For instance, I recently read an article (3/26/14) in Investors.com, (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/032614-694734-obama-delays-enrollment-deadline-hides-data-to-inflation-enrollment.htm) entitled, “The ObamaCare Numbers Racket.” The article addressed recent delays in enrollment deadlines and the failure to report how many enrollees have actually paid.
Sure, the President and Administration want to “DECLARE SUCCESS” based on the number of enrollees, but why are we allowing the Administration to redefine success based on who has or hasn’t enrolled via the exchange?
A health exchange that got lots of people to sign up using that health exchange was NEVER a purpose for healthcare reform that US citizens advocated. At best it was supposed to be a tool for people to have access to more affordable health insurance that encouraged competition by putting your choices before you in a one-stop-shop fashion.
By falling into an argument and bickering about who has or has not enrolled in Obamacare via health exchanges, we’re again off target on what needs to be done to help preserve the financial and physical health of individuals within our healthcare system.
The real point is that we were lied to in the first place about what healthcare reform was attempting to do and how it would do it and likely adopted legislation and re-elected a President based on those lies.
The second point is that from virtually every consumer-relevant measurement criteria Obamacare is a failure from the total number of uninsured (which remains virtually unchanged) in the US (which the legislation decided was THE reason for the healthcare crisis), to the increased premium payments paid by many if not the majority of Americans, to the perpetuation of millions who are unable to get health insurance because they are ineligible for Medicaid and cannot afford any other health insurance, to the continued rise in healthcare costs, and on and on.
But there is a third point. When an issue NOT relevant to individual consumers, such as total enrollment numbers and it becomes the hyper-focus of media attention, there tends to be assumptions perpetuated that work against consumers.
Such is the case in the Investors.com article stating, “The reason ObamaCare imposes a limited open enrollment period in the first place is to prevent people from gaming the system — buying insurance only after they get sick. So extending the deadline would just encourage abuse.” (Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/032614-694734-obama-delays-enrollment-deadline-hides-data-to-inflation-enrollment.htm#ixzz2xYJkWaS4 ) Not true. The assumption that we must accept open enrollment to prevent abuse is false.
As discussed in my arguments in favor of ending health insurance enrollment periods in my 3/22/14 post entitled, “Ending Enrollment Periods for Real Competition: Obamacare,” open enrollment periods actually only limit competition by preventing people from shopping around for better deals on health insurance during the year. The PPACA ALREADY REQUIRES individuals to have health insurance throughout the year (the individual mandate).
Therefore, gaming the system, “buying insurance only after they get sick,” would NOT be a logical consequence of ending enrollment periods since everyone has to have health insurance under the current law.
What COULD happen because of the shift of how Obamacare allows insurance companies to charge people is that individuals, without enrollment periods, might purchase BETTER insurance if they got sick during the year and if there were no enrollment periods. But under current law, patients who become sick can STILL purchase insurance to cover those costs, they’re just confined to a benefits enrollment period that runs for a year. This is true because of Obamacare’s treatment of pre-existing conditions.
Previously, the concept of pre-existing conditions was an opportunity for insurers to charge more in premiums or not offer coverage at all or to drop people who were sick. Efforts to get insurance companies to do what they’re paid for, cover contingencies, failed and therefore and people were ineligible or dropped merely because they became sick and therefore it was and remains significant for consumers to have the protection created by Obamacare for coverage of those with pre-existing conditions.
Whether you approve of the means Obamacare uses to make sure those with pre-existing conditions can obtain health insurance coverage, (which I do not, I believe that a higher premium ratio is OK for pre-existing conditions while preserving protection from ineligibility for insurance or being dropped because of such condition,) at LEAST, the concept is a good one for consumers.
The gaming of the system the Investors.com article identifies is essentially arguing a policy that hurts consumers by arguing FOR strict adherence to enrollment periods. I believe that on behalf of consumers enrollment periods should be removed all together rather than enforced more strictly as the Investors article seems to argue for.
The article argues justification for strict adherence to enrollment periods which only benefit insurance companies and actually are designed to prevent insurance shopping by consumers during the year as their insurance needs change based on health.
For instance, if you were diagnosed with a serious illness, you’d need better coverage and if you had enrolled in a “bronze” plan, you’d be stuck with that health insurance coverage until the next year's enrollment period when you could purchase better coverage without risking refusal or being dropped by your health insurance company (under current Obamacare).
There is no consumer benefit to limiting that ability to change your insurance coverage at any time during the year based on your health, it merely means that you’ll incur greater costs out-of-pocket until the next enrollment period when you can purchase better health insurance.
If an individual purchases and pays for better insurance coverage because of his or her pre-existing condition, this is not gaming the system, this is exactly what Obamacare incentivizes in all areas, knowing your medical needs whether it’s particular drugs or treatments or doctors, and buying insurance that covers those needs in partnership with paying a penalty to the US government during any period of time that you don’t have health insurance.
The Investors.com article is against President Obama for legitimate issues involved in truth-telling and procedure in enacting and implementing Obamacare. But that issue is better addressed by arguing in favor of the real areas of disappointment and risk for consumers because of those lies and procedure, not in arguing against provisions and actions that benefit consumers, such as increased flexibility of enrollment periods, simply because you don’t like the President.
