The real reason Obamacare scares people
Despite the uproar over the individual mandate, the requirement would affect only a tiny portion of the population.
Sometimes the weatherman predicts a big storm that never materializes.
Politicians do the same thing, and right now many of them are warning that President Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law is about to come slamming into the nation like a once-a-century hurricane. Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney calls the law "an unfolding disaster for the American economy." His fellow candidate Rick Santorum routinely tells audiences that Obamacare "is the beginning of the end of freedom in America." Board up the windows. Hurry to the basement.
At the eye of this gathering storm is the "individual mandate," a key part of the law that will require most Americans to buy a minimum level of health insurance by 2014, or ask the feds for an exemption. Those in violation will have to pay a penalty fee that could be as high as the annual premium on a basic insurance plan. The mandate, which some people consider highly intrusive, generated court challenges almost as soon as Obama signed the law, with the Supreme Court now due to decide whether it's constitutional. (Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday morning.) If not, the whole reform scheme could unravel.
The landmark legislation, formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is a complex monstrosity that's hard to understand, and except for a few provisions, it hasn't even gone into effect yet. So it's not surprising that many Americans fear the worst from a federal bureaucracy they don't trust. But healthcare experts who do understand the individual mandate find less to worry about than the politicians predicting disaster. If they're right, the nation might even survive.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicts that 80 percent of the 272 million Americans subject to the individual mandate requirement will have some form of health insurance in 2014, when the law goes into effect. So no government thugs will be hassling them about failing to comply. Another 48 million or so are automatically covered by Medicare, so nothing would change for them, either. Out of roughly 322 million Americans in 2014, that would leave about 54 million out of compliance with the individual mandate.
Many of those people would wriggle out from the requirement, however. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 40 percent of the uninsured would qualify for an exemption from the individual mandate, for a variety of reasons. Their income could be too low, for one thing, or the cost of insurance could exceed 8 percent of their income, or they could qualify on religious or hardship grounds. That would reduce the pool of mandate violators to about 32 million Americans.
Many of those people would qualify for subsidies set up under the law, which are meant to encourage people to buy insurance and help them pay for it. Some of them, no doubt, would do what the law says, and buy health insurance. So the number of Americans truly subject to penalties for violating the mandate would be less than 10 percent of the population--perhaps far less. Kaiser notes that in Massachusetts, which enacted a statewide law similar to Obamacare in 2006, about 70 percent of the people without insurance qualify for an exemption, and only 1 percent of the population pays a fine for going without coverage. And there's been little uproar about lost freedoms or a wrecked economy.
Changes are always more intimidating when they're poorly understood, however, and that is certainly one reason that Obamacare is so controversial and highly divisive. Polls show that Americans are about evenly split on their view of the law, with many Republicans strongly opposed to it and many Democrats strongly in favor. At the same time, only about one third of Americans say they feel they understand the law--and their self-assessments may be overly generous.
Complexity, therefore, may be the real reason Obamacare spooks people. For starters, the law could end up remaking the whole healthcare system—which accounts for about one sixth of the U.S. economy—in ways nobody can predict. The U.S. healthcare system was a mess before Obamacare, with soaring costs and millions of families that couldn't afford care. But that doesn't mean that shaking things up will automatically improve it. Changing things merely for the sake of change often makes things worse, and people are right to be skeptical.
The new rules will also force millions of Americans to navigate one more government bureaucracy, even if they want to do the right thing. People without insurance who want to apply for either an exemption or a subsidy would have to determine where they reside on a kind of income-insurance matrix that measures the relative affordability of insurance, indexed for family size, regional cost of living, and other variables that will change every year. Maybe the government will devise a snazzy website or iPad app that simply requires users to punch in a few handy figures, then generates a set of step-by-step instructions that can be carried out in half an hour. But anybody who's tangled with the healthcare bureaucracy or a government agency is justified to say, "I'll believe it when I see it."
Meanwhile, in the four-year time vacuum between the passage of the law and the date it goes into effect, we've been left to ponder a mystifying set of new rules from a government that seems disinclined to do us any favors. Santorum's rant about endangered freedoms has gotten a surprising degree of traction, but maybe it shouldn't be that surprising. These days, the government ought to first prove its worth and effectiveness and only then ask citizens to take a leap of faith and accept more complexity. It's hard to believe we need to make the system even more confusing in order to simplify it.
More from US News
- Why Rick Santorum needs big government
- How to cash in on the economic recovery
- Cartoon Gallery: US health care
Will you ever sell your house?
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it?
That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home etc.
When did this happen? It's in the health care bill. What the HELL does this have to do with Health care??? Just thought you should know.
SALES TAX TO GO INTO EFFECT 2013 (Part of HC Bill) Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections?
REAL ESTATE SALES TAX
So, this is "change you can believe in"?
Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013.
If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes.
Does this stuff make your November and 2012 vote more important?
Oh, you weren't aware, this was in the obamacare bill?
They had to pass it to see what was in it?????
Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that weren't aware of it either.
If this law was good, the people who wrote it (Congress and "senior staffers") would NOT have excluded themselves from its coverage. I want the same health care the president and Congressional leaders take for themselves, or they should be limited to the same health care as the rest of us.
The party of the people excluding the people, AGAIN!
This is the problem. The government has no right to force anyone to purchase something they don't want to purchase. And they certainly don't have a right to force them to pay a fine - which is enforced by the threat of imprisonment...or death, if you rightfully resist being taken to jail for not complying with the fine. No individual, and thus, no government has that right.
welcome to Amerikastan!
Nice explaination Rational Liberty!!
It amazes me what people are willing to give up. I would like to see changes to healthcare also, but not the way this bill was passed. For me it is nothing less than legalized coersion!!
Wrong. The real reason many Americans fear "Obamacare" is just what Pelosi said - pass it and then you will find out what is in it.
It should be against the law to have a 2500+ page bill which contains everything but the kitchen sink, and that no one bothered to read before passing it. Now THAT IS frightening.
The other reason is the reach of government into our lives and pockets. If this goes through, just what will be mandated next??
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Has anyone, anyone, actually read thru this "law" and cataloged the highlights, both good and bad?? How can something of which no one knows the contents be voted into law. Isn't that like spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a house or car without at least seeing it, inside and out?
Dumba$$ pukes in DC are very well down the road of ruining this country!!
Derbysailor, you got it.... Why do you all think a bandaid costs $12 at the hospital. Because, someone has to pay for all the people who pay ZERO for their care. So those of us with insurance OVER PAY and those without PAY ZERO. To make it worse, those who pay zero are the heaviest users of HIGH DOLLAR healthcare. Double whammy.
That's fine if you don't want to pay for healthcare but you also aren't entitled to it then either.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Milton Friedman
If the law is upheld, expect an increase in overseas outsourcing because that is a given.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Breaking up big banks is an untested solution to the too big to fail problem that attempts to isolate and dismantle large, troubled institutions while protecting the rest of the economy.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
[BRIEFING.COM] Stocks entered the weekend on a mixed note as the S&P 500 shed 0.1% while the Dow ended with a gain of 0.1%.
The major averages began the day on a lower note as nine of ten sectors saw losses of more than 0.5%.
The consumer staples sector was the lone exception as the group spent the entire day in positive territory thanks to the relative strength of Dow component Procter & Gamble (PG 81.89, +3.19). The second-largest staple stock advanced ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|