Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could continue to subsidize health-insurance coverage through Healthcare.gov, the federal exchanges. An ecstatic President Obama declared that Obamacare is â€œhere to stay.â€
No, itâ€™s not.
Hereâ€™s why. The driving force behind health reform has been the desire to control rising health-care costs. From 2008 onwards, President Obama promised that his reform agenda would reduce the annual cost for the typical American family by no less than $2,500. After a while, it became a rather tiresome talking point. But it was pure nonsense from the start.
Health-care spending increases were slowing down well before Congress enacted Obamacare. But with the onset of Obamacare, health-insurance premiums in the exchanges jumped by double digits, while deductibles increased dramatically. If you liked your doctor, you would be able to keep you doctor, the president insisted, but maybe not, in reality, depending upon whether or not your physician networks narrowed. Looking toward 2016, health insurers say premium costs will soar.Under Obamacare, millions of Americans are forced to pay more for their government standardized coverage,
regardless of whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not, or whether or not it forces them to pay for medical procedures that violate their ethical, moral or religious convictions.
So, the debate will intensify over the primary issue: costs.
In every state, the fundamental components of state health-care costsâ€”the demographics, the underlying costs of care delivery and the competitiveness of the marketsâ€”are juiced up by expensive federal benefit mandates and individual and group insurance rules and regulations. These all drive costs skyward.
As my Heritage colleagues have demonstrated, this regulatory regime forces young people to pay up to 44 percent more in premiums.
Washingtonâ€™s subsidies simply try to hide the true costs of the law; they donâ€™t control them.The law remains unworkable.
The complicated insurance subsidy program itself has been a mess. H&R Block reported that about two thirds of subsidy recipients had to repay money back to the government because they got bigger than allowable subsidies.
As for the employer mandateâ€”another fractured cornerstone of Obamacareâ€”the administration has delayed it for one year. Even liberal supporters now want to repeal it, fearing damage to the labor markets.
And what about those big â€œsavingsâ€ from the Medicare payment reductions? They were earmarked to help cover the costs of the insurance subsidies. Yet the Medicare Actuary and the CBO have both routinely dismissed the massive Medicare payment cuts as either unrealistic or unsustainable.
Meanwhile, other problems mount. The state exchanges are financially troubled. Coverage is still insecure
, especially when loss of employment is tantamount to a loss of a health plan. Bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork plague the system, increasing costs and frustrating doctors and patients alike. All of those problems are getting worse, not better.http://nationalinterest.org/feature...g-13191?ref=yfpObama would have been better off if the SCOTUS had stopped Obamacare. He could have said: "I tried." The costs won't away and won't go down. Obamacare is owned by Obama and the Democrats
90% of life is "showing up"