ObamaCare (PPACA)
A simple summary of where we are with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or ObamaCare. The Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2012 that the law was not unconstitutional, but offered confusing explanations within its decision. “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote. First, The Court upheld the federal takeover of 1/6th of the US economy and ObamaCare implementations will continue. On August 1, 2012 the controversial HHS contraceptive mandate took effect. Second, the Court said that it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” But, “the individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.” Third, as for the Medicaid expansion, "that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding," Roberts wrote. "Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. ... The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction." So there you have it; ObamaCare continues as a tax, the mandate is unconstitutional (but because the program continues as a tax that item is irrelevant), and the Medicaid expansion cannot be forced on the states. Open enrollment for the new federally run health-care exchanges are scheduled to start Oct. 1, 2013, with all Americans having access to affordable health insurance options effective January 1, 2014. See timeline here. Find your state's Health Exchange here. State-by-State Insurance Information is available at this site.

The Health-Care Conspiracy of Silence

2/8/18
By Clark Havighurst,
from The Wall Street Journal,
2/7/18:

If Bezos, Buffett and Dimon want to reduce costs, they should focus on the tax exclusion.

Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and J.P. Morgan have announced a nonprofit initiative to address excessive spending on health care, starting with their own million or so employees. They can expect many suggestions. Here’s one: The three CEOs— Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, whom I’ll call “BB&D”—could do a huge service by describing the depth and nature of the cost problem, something politicians have long failed to do. American health-care markets have many problems. The worst are those that cause consumers to act in ignorance of, and thus against, their own economic interest, making health care inexcusably expensive. International comparisons suggest that questionable health-care spending in the U.S. exceeds 6% of the economy, roughly $1 trillion in 2017. BB&D should tell their employees, plus the more than 150 million other Americans with employer-sponsored health coverage, the unvarnished truth about the heavy costs that insured workers personally—though mostly indirectly—bear. Although politicians deplore high health-care costs, they rarely speak of the staggering, unfair and unnecessary burden on working people, preferring instead to talk earnestly about the need to slow cost increases. Focusing on costs only at the margin, however, reinforces the industry’s deceptive narrative that health care is almost infinitely valuable, is always improving, and costs what it costs.

Politicians have never felt pressed to take the cost problem seriously for the remarkable reason that the health-care industry picks consumers’ pockets mostly without the victims realizing it. Because employees don’t pay taxes on employer-paid insurance premiums, most workers assume that—and behave as if—their health-care costs are borne by employers.

Employers and labor unions have mostly opposed any changes in the tax treatment for employee coverage. They apparently find it advantageous to cultivate workers’ goodwill by conferring increasingly generous health benefits paid for largely and unwittingly by the workers themselves.

Because so many interest groups and most insured consumers are happy with the current arrangement, both political parties have generally left what they see as well enough alone. To be sure, progressive Democrats hope that international cost comparisons will lead Congress to adopt a national single-payer plan. Republicans seem glad to feel no pressure from voters for radical reforms needed to fix health care’s many market failures.

It would greatly benefit American workers if BB&D—as employers and opinion leaders—kicked off their companies’ joint venture by publicly stating that working-class Americans may be paying $1 trillion a year too much for health care and could benefit from major changes in the way they purchase it. Such a statement could counteract Democratic and Republican complicity with special interests in keeping voters ignorant about their stake in health policy.

More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):



365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )
Leave a Reply
Name*
E-mail*
Comment