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
Please feel free to define "valuble skill" and why those people are allowed access to health care but those that work hard for their money such as fast food workers do not?
Chripst... Should I define capitalism and free market economics too comrade? Fast food workers are free to purchase insurance in the marketplace, with their paycheck, the value is which determined by the market consensus, that is earned by said worker. You remember consensus right, you love it for ahhem.. "climate change". Said worker is also free to pursue more lucrative opportunity.
The precident has already been set for folks being penalized for not taking a mandated
service through the government. The people on Social Security now were told to take a
prescription drug plan out and pay the premium and if you choose not to take out the drug
plan insurance there is a penalty of 1% per month for each month you choose not to use
any prescription drug plan. If you have any parents on Social Security ask them about not
taking out a plan to pay for prescriptions.
"Which under this law expands under the power of the federal government by how much was it again?"
And you say this like its a bad thing. What a dolt. Expanding medicaid is the right thing to do. That is socialism by the way, and you are too dumb to know it. The fact remains that you offer nothing. The status quo isn't working and never has. Health care reform was the right thing to do, much of the debt that you stinking conservatives are so worried about now that a black man is president was run up by your lily white republican presidents and even the bill that Obama has was caused mostly by the legacy of George Bush, in other words it was Bush's fault.
I don't have insurance, company doen"t offer it. I had my right kidney out in Sept. , cancer. I don't knoe total on bills they keep coming because of follow ups. I can't afford to buy insurance outside, I owe to much. Live with older mother, so what happens to me?
Those people are covered by medicaid
Which under this law expands under the power of the federal government by how much was it again?
They work you part time so they do not have to give you any benefits
So I am to believe these people working part time, likely for low wages, will be able to afford their government mandated health insurance?
Those people are covered by medicaid, the ones the AHA covers are those that work hard and but their employer doesn't offer health care. Those are facts, this law is about America and Americans and those that oppose it are probably just caught up in fox facts and do not know the truth.
Has anybody on this list given a thought to the fact that companies are doing away with medical insurance at work
For people without valuable skills yes. That's nothing new.
Do you think that those families getting 4carts of free goceries with 10kids is all of a sudden going to start paying for insurance? no its those same people who everyone complains about that will be exempt, so we still lose. It just means that there will be more of us working people supporting the entitlement minded minorities, why do you think so many libs support it because nothing changes for them, they still get it for free, and if they are paying for it its from the increased wellfare money that comes from our taxes. Think about that for a minute!!!1
So when you go and vote Obama into office again, and the Dems increase the tax base for us regular folk to 45% not to mention the extra your putting out to support the poor wellfare leaches don't B*&ch about it, take it like a man.
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] The S&P 500 ended this week with a bang, roaring to a new all-time high on the back of stronger-than-expected economic data, influential leadership, and an ongoing appreciation for the Fed's monetary policy support.
The bullish bias was evident in premarket action as the S&P futures pointed to a higher start without the benefit of any definitive news catalyst. Stocks indeed benefited from a blast of buying interest at the opening bell on this ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|