No law is better than bad law, Obamacare proves it. But the LA TIMES doesn't know it: "Trump embraces the cool parts of Obamacare — but not the part that makes it work," 11. /11/2016 in an article with that headline by David Lazarus who mocks Donald Trump's commitment to keep coverage of those with pre-existing conditions and coverage for grown children up to age 26 on their parents' policies as unrealistic.
With the stark sound of a wakeup call, instead of talking out their rear ends, perhaps reporters like this should consider how those popular features CAN be preserved WITHOUT the dismal, brutal scam of a government partnership with the consumer financial product of health insurance which is Obamacare. But, I think we should all agree with Mr. Lazarus, get rid of the whole thing, Obamacare is bad law and the Democrats prove it.
Obamacare was a virtually unlimited, unchecked grant of power to both HHS and CMS, as well as the IRS to pretty much do whatever they wanted with the written law via "rulemaking" and so we've already seen the changes to the original law made by administrative moves, judicial moves and congressional moves, the three ways laws are changed in this country.
Conveniently, these same rulemakers decided they wouldn't have to live with it, just us. So first, whatever grand design comes in it must apply to federal employees first.
Second, and it's true, the essential way Obama got the coverage of pre-existing conditions by insurance companies was through the individual mandate, forcing everyone to purchase health insurance and then insurers wouldn't turn down those with pre-existing conditions.
But there are two ways that insurers would cover those with pre-existing conditions without Obamacare, first the old-fashioned way by charging those with pre-existing conditions more in premiums and second by restoring the pre-Obamacare PUBLIC OPTION of The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.
And, if the government deal with business is retained and the individual mandate survives then changing Obamacare's discriminatory singling out of two groups only for higher premiums, tobacco users and individuals based on age, could be changed to allow for the metrics based premium increases that insurers always used, charging higher premiums based on tobacco use, age, drug use, years of likely childbearing, obesity, and yes pre-existing conditions. After all, the non-denial of insurance is different from charging more for that coverage which Obamacare embraces but limits to only two groups, those who use tobacco and those who are older.
Mr. Lazarus insanely recites the disproven theoretical lie of Obamacare saying that to cover pre-existing conditions, "The thing to keep in mind is that guaranteed issue means an insurer has to cover more sick people, and they’re expensive. Sick people submit claims that have to be paid. To balance that out and keep coverage affordable, insurers need more young and healthy people paying premiums. That’s what Obamacare accomplished…" But that didn't happen Mr. Lazarus, did it?
As a matter of fact the anemic enrollment in Obamacare plans and the expiration of bribing insurance companies to participate (risk reinsurance and risk corridors) as well as NOT ENOUGH YOUNG HEALTHIES, were the very complaints the insurance companies used to justify their unspeakable extortive increases in prices. Or did Mr. Lazarus miss that?
His statement also proves that Obamacare CANNOT work and therefore should be repealed because by asserting the single risk pool fallacy, that young healthies would balance out sicker individuals, rates would be kept low, which DIDN'T happen, and basing his opinion on this falsehood to justify that only by perpetuating the fallacy can Obamacare work Mr. Lazarus proves that Obamacare must be repealed.
In fact the theoretical kumbaya world of Mr. Lazarus has not occurred and cannot occur under the ghastly law of Obamacare.
I've gone into this many times, but one more time: The single risk pool fallacy we know failed and Obamacare helped it fail because using young people as tools to finance insurance coverage for older and statistically more expensive people didn't consider that young people have options due to Obamacare, especially since their employment opportunities remain horrendous in Obamaland.
First, they can remain on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26, which already existed in insurance plans in over 20 states before Obamacare. That takes them out of the risk pool of Obamacare plans based on PARENTS' EMPLOYMENT.
Second, if they are poor, which thank you Democrats is still true, they can perhaps be eligible for expanded Medicaid or Medicaid coverage or, be left with no health insurance options, also the same as pre-Obamacare and also removing them based on INCOME from the single risk pool.
Third, young people were choosing the cheapest plans available not the more expensive plans, since after all, the one-year election of health insurance will extort money from them as they grow older so they might as well take advantage while they can. This met with the response that the first increases in exchange plan rates were higher for cheaper plans than more expensive plans in an effort to push young people into more expensive choices. YOUNG HEALTHIES CHOOSE LESS INSURANCE NOT MORE which takes them out of the risk pools for silver and better health insurance plans on exchanges.
Fourth, we also know that in an effort to force young people into the single risk pool that CMS took direct aim at them this summer enacting rules prohibiting uses of short-term health insurance plans in some instances. So we know that the government has taken steps to FURTHER LIMIT YOUNG PEOPLE'S OPTIONS as the only way they can address the problem of not enough young-healthies to satisfy insurance companies.
Fifth, young people in school can satisfy their forced purchase with school health insurance plans, which again, takes them OUT OF THE RISK POOL OF OBAMACARE exchange plans.
So Mr. Lazarus is not only WRONG in asserting the single risk pool as an "accomplishment," but he's wrong that it could ever be one under the current law without continued erosion of young people's options like the June CMS rule to restrict short-term health insurance or the 2015 increase in rates on exchange plans with greater increases to cheaper plans than more expensive ones.
As far as "fear-mongering," saying that there's nothing to do with the limited vision of every Obamacare fanboy and fangirl, Mr. Lazarus ignores the obvious--Insurance companies need customers, they've never provided coverage out of the goodness of their hearts. Sure, they loved partnering with government making us all forced customers, but it gravely reduced any incentive to improve our lives with better options for health insurance and in fact became merely a tax, like a highway tax, that whether you need what they're peddling or not you're forced to buy it.
Mr. Lazarus whines, "No insurer would agree to guaranteed issue without a mechanism in place to expand their coverage of the young and healthy." Yet, 20 states had just such provisions before and STATE governments that have been backwards and negligent protected in their own little bubbles could take that responsibility on.
Further, even without a law requiring the up to 26 coverage, insurers, once no longer guaranteed customers through Obamacare would be incentivized to offer FAMILY insurance for dependents up through age 26 as a way of capturing those younger people through their parents and getting them to pay for "better" insurance too, creating that single risk pool employer by employer. Under Obamacare, this very incentive was discouraged with forced purchase that left insurers scrambling to overcharge for dependent coverage where they could creating the family glitch.
There is nothing "new" that has to be done to address that grand consumer, pardon the expression cluster-f*** that is Obamacare, Mr. Lazarus, but a dissolution of the partnership of government and industry that forces the purchase of an unsatisfactory consumer financial product which is at this awful law's core makes it unworkable for consumers. Repeal.
