HIT, the Health Insurance Tax, which taxes health insurers who promise to pass those costs onto consumers, is the latest Obamacare development to prove that there is no honor among thieves, as the health insurers turn on their partner in gouging Americans--the government--Obamacare.
After all, more than anything else, Obamacare was a political tradeoff--show the American people that the "problem" of people not having health insurance could be solved by making a deal with insurance companies to cover all those who could pay (and the government would pay for the rest) so that the President could show that he could solve the "problem of the uninsured" in America.
Now, while the government licks its wounds and tries to spin the "good news" about its dirty deal, it faces more pressure from its accomplice in the gouging of the American public for the financial consumer product of health insurance. Insurance companies are pressuring the government for the next installment of ransom that must be paid or they will jeopardize the very thing the government bargained for--enrollment--by further raising their prices.
Enter the HIT, the health insurance tax that was already postponed for 2017 that insurers are lobbying to have postponed "2018 and beyond," or else these costs will be passed on to us as communicated by AHIP, the insurance lobby, the HIT "adds to the cost of coverage for individuals, small businesses, and public program beneficiaries with private insurance," "How Does the Health Insurance Tax Impact You?" AHIP.
In acting against consumers, the government crippled our strongest free-market influence, the power to vote with our dollars and our feet. Most directly, because of the individual mandate, consumers found themselves forbidden and facing a fine from the government if they made the purchasing market decision to opt out of a health insurance product that had over decades become increasingly useless in terms of helping to pay for the cost of needed medical services and care without placing them in financial peril.
Sure, the government as insurance company accomplice claimed that the tradeoff was necessary to protect the millions upon millions who were denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. Unfortunately, that was a lie put forth by Obama. On February 4, 2011, Lori Robertson for Factcheck answered the question: "Is it true — as the Obama administration claims — that '129 million Americans with a pre-existing condition could be denied coverage without new health reform law'?" Answer: "No." http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/millions-with-preexisting-conditions/.
As it turns out, the individual mandate was the worst ransom that the President agreed to have consumers pay to health insurers and it's proven to be a mistake for the government too, as insurers impose their next ransom and their ransom after that with consumers neatly hamstrung by the government's betrayal and the government unable to negotiate a new deal with its accomplice insurance companies without spending more and more money.
This is a big, bad deal, because Obama paid the ransom for his egotistical checklist's sake ("Look I've done something for health care") by giving in to insurance companies--Not negotiation, submission, typical Obama, betraying allies to claim victory with opposition.
The individual mandate must go. Obamacare has proven that the government will keep paying insurance company ransom in the name of enrollment EVEN THOUGH the uninsured population remains high.
According to the CDC, EVEN WITH Obamacare's FORCED ENROLLMENT POLICY and giveaway of expanded Medicaid, using what we now know were inflated numbers of uninsured (not 47 million but something less, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2015/03/turns-out-number-of-uninsured-was.html, "…CBO and JCT estimate that fewer people would be uninsured in the absence of the ACA…” (Pub. 49973 page 22)," we still have 35.7 million uninsured according to the government, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm.
And the insurance plans people are getting are worse--covering less and requiring more consumer payment in the form of deductible, coinsurance and copayments. As a matter of government fact, any cheaper costs of health insurance policies on exchanges has been because of a worse product for consumers as they explained, "…mostly because nongroup coverage is less extensive and thus requires enrollees to make higher out-of-pocket payments when they receive care," https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51130."
Instead of marketplace pressure on insurers to create a better product if they want to increase sales, Obamacare de-incentivize any improvement impetus by guaranteeing customers with the individual mandate. And the government just keeps paying ransom--more and more to prevent insurers from reverting to their same old practice--cover less, charge more. No honor among thieves.
Our position, as consumers, has never been weaker and it shows in healthcare changes, we're paying more for worse coverage (underinsured is a fact not a notion), we're facing obstacles to getting even covered care (forced wellness including defensive medicine practices) and we're facing higher prices for NEEDED medical services and care with ever-increasing out-of-pocket maximums.
And as far as Obamacare influencing premium increases, that too is not in the cards, as in February, the Congressional Budget Office noted that the grotesque rise in insurance premiums over the past decade, up to 55 percent higher for families, "CBO and JCT expect them to grow at similar rates over the next decade," https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51130.
Hillary Clinton intends to implement Obamacare+, to, "Defend the Affordable Care Act and build on it…" https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/ with additional government money allotted for Obamacare exchange users in the form of a $5,000 credit, in order to disguise what the CBO has stated is fact, that the insurers are demanding more money for their product by having the government pay these increased amounts for those getting exchange plans. Unfortunately, the rest of the population doesn't have the government sugar-daddy and Clinton doesn't intend to extend the $5,000 exchange credit gift to everyone else, so we're left with the government's math that says we're on track for ANOTHER 55 percent increase in premiums.
Clinton's also doubling up on the original ransom of offering mandatory purchasing by individuals to insurers (which they already have) by sweetening the pot and offering up noncitizen illegal immigrant customers as a new pool of customers.
Clinton's plan is bad business for consumers and can do nothing but accelerate the government's current prediction that we're on track for a repeat of the 55 percent increases in premiums paid by families over the past decade for the next decade, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51130.
