Posts
Opiates and Pain Management: Pandora’s Box
Today is National Overdose Awareness Day and an appropriate time to discuss the terrible epidemic of opiate addiction that we are seeing, not only in our community, but nationally as well. The statistics are staggering as according to SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) there were 1.9 million prescription opiate addicts and another 600,000 or more heroin addicts in 2009 and the numbers are increasing. Accidental overdose has overtaken car accidents as the number one killer of young people 18 to 44 who are not only in their prime of life, but also the primary producers in our economy and society. It is estimated that overall, 24 million people in the US have an addiction and only about 1-2% are receiving treatment for their addiction.
I could easily write an entire paper on the staggering cost of addiction, not only in loss of human lives but also in economic costs to this country; however this paper is about the people affected by this horrible epidemic and not about statistics. There have been a number of stories and citizen comments recently in our news and newspapers about young people tragically dying of heroin overdose and doctors over-prescribing narcotic medication. This paper is written to try to bring some insight to the community of the scope of this problem, how we got there, and some possible solutions.
Sometime in the middle of the last decade, several national and international organizations, including the WHO (World Health Organization) drafted and adopted a Patient’s Bill of Rights that dealt specifically with pain management. Specifically and amongst other things, it stated that all patients “have a right to proper, respectful, informed, and non-discriminatory pain management and care”. Prior to this shift change in medicine, opiates had more or less been reserved to manage chronic pain only for patients with advanced cancers or other end-stage painful conditions. Apart from these patients, the only other use for opiates was generally for the short term treatment of severe acute pain postoperatively or for severe acute trauma. Following the lead of the national and international organizations, most state medical boards and societies adopted the Pain Patient’s Bill of Rights and Pandora’s Box was opened.
Since then, millions of patients have been treated and are being treated with opiate pain medication for a variety of conditions including headaches, chronic back pain, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and just about any other disorder that causes pain. While the overwhelming majority of these patients are being treated for legitimate pain by well-meaning, well trained, and legitimate physicians and are not abusing their medication or addicted, many of them do become addicted and/or dependent and a few obtain their medication illegitimately, by ruse or illegally. Unfortunately, there have been—and remain--more than a few unscrupulous and unethical doctors who have been more than happy to provide some of the latter “patients” with prescriptions for narcotic medication.
The opening of Pandora’s Box has produced a schizophrenic medical community with doctors under pressure to respect and adhere to the “Patient Bill of Rights” by providing legitimate patients with adequate and compassionate pain management on the one hand while feeling threatened or intimidated by the DEA and other law enforcement agencies if they chose to treat such patients. Another problem arises when all physicians know and understand that while the majority (more than 80%) of patients treated with opiate pain management will never develop an abuse problem or addiction, about 10% will ultimately develop an addiction with its attendant negative consequences—including risk of accidental overdose-- on those patient’s lives. Unfortunately for us, patients do not carry a sign with them that warn us that a particular patient will become addicted. Furthermore, since pain is a subjective and individual experience and is modified by emotional, physical, and psychological states, it is impossible for any physician to be 100% certain 100% of the time, who is legitimately seeking pain management and who is not.
By some of the reports in the news as well as some of the citizen’s comments, it would appear that there is a perception that most physicians are just “willy nilly” handing out prescriptions for opiates to just anyone who requests them without consideration of the consequences. As I have mentioned earlier and which have been documented in news stories across the country, I acknowledge that there are unethical and unscrupulous physicians who are prescribing for profit, but like the minority of legitimate patients who become addicted and cause problems to themselves and society, they are in the vast minority! In fact, statistics from SAMHSA indicate that in most communities, most “illegitimate” prescriptions are coming from only 1 or 2 doctors. Most doctors take their responsibility to their profession and society seriously and understand the risks of prescribing opiate medication. We also understand that the majority of people prescribed such medication will also be responsible and never develop a problem with it and we are constantly weighing the risks versus the benefits of prescribing such medication to each and every patient. It is inevitable that some of us will be duped by some “patients” and it is also inevitable that some legitimate patients will develop an addiction and that is the risk we take while Pandora’s Box is open.
Another common misperception is that many teenagers and young people are becoming addicted to opiates obtained from doctors. There are very few indications to treat a young person with opiate medication and most physicians are hesitant to prescribe these medications to teens and young people except in cases of moderate to severe pain from orthopedic or operative trauma. Statistics from SAMSHA and from my personal experience as an addiction specialist, most teens and young people (55%) report that they are getting their opiates right from home (friends or family), 17% report getting them from one doctor, and the rest from the street. Of those that reported obtaining their medication from friends or family, 80% of the friends or family members reported getting their medication from only one doctor.
So what can we do about Pandora’s Box? According to legend, once it was open, there was no way of closing it and I do not believe that there is any way of closing our modern day version of the box. However, the one thing that remained in the box was hope and it with hope that we can possibly change things at a variety of levels including personally, professionally, and legislatively to effect positive change in our communities and society at large to combat this insidious and horrible epidemic that is claiming the lives of our youngest and most productive individuals. Every time one of our young people dies from an overdose, it robs us all and our society of a “what if”—what if that person was going to be the next doctor to cure cancer or addiction, a great actress or actor, singer or athlete, or the next CEO of a great company, or even the next President.
While I do not profess to have all of the answers to this complex and vexing problem, I do have some suggestions, some of which will undoubtedly bring much scorn and criticism upon me from colleagues and others. I will outline these suggestions from a personal to professional to a legislative order.
Personally, as individuals we must all become aware of this insidious epidemic and must educate ourselves—and our children-- about the risks and dangers of opiate addiction when given these medications, even for short term use. As parents, we must educate ourselves to the signs and symptoms of addiction so that we may intervene early and decisively should we suspect our children or loved ones of developing a problem or experimenting with opiates. If we are obtaining and using opiate medication we must take measures to safeguard our medication and keep them out of the reach of children and inquiring minds. We can become advocates in our schools and our communities, becoming involved in groups and organizations, such as the Heroin Action Committee, that spread the word about this problem. Lastly, we must learn and understand that addiction is a disease and should be treated like a disease without the stigmatization that surrounds it and which stands as a barrier to many of those who would otherwise seek treatment.
At a professional level, we must take our heads out of the sand and acknowledge the epidemic of opiate addiction that the opening of Pandora’s Box has caused. We must keep up to date on the standards of care for the treatment of chronic pain and we must also keep up to date on the advances that are being made in the non-opiate management of chronic pain as well as the advancements being made in addiction medicine. We too, must divest ourselves of the cloaks of superiority and ignorance and recognize addiction for the disease that it is and not the old stereotypes we might still believe. We must accept our part in this epidemic and be more diligent about truly doing risk analysis every single time we write a narcotic prescription, including opiates, benzodiazepines, and medication for ADD. We must recognize our educational and training limitations and refer those patients requiring complex psychological and concomitant pain management to appropriate specialists. It is our house where Pandora’s Box came from and we must clean our house or others will clean it for us and ultimately, the patients and society will suffer.
At a legislative level, which must occur at both the state and federal levels, there are several things that can be done. First of all, hydrocodone and tramadol should be made scheduled II narcotics and all scheduled II narcotics should be controlled and prescribed only by appropriate specialists or physicians who have demonstrated interest, experience, and proficiency through conferences, courses, and continuing medical education in pain management—as well as addiction-- to their respective state medical boards or licensing agencies. It is interesting that I must demonstrate proficiency to apply for a license to prescribe Suboxone which treats addiction, but I have no restrictions whatsoever to write for all the drugs that cause addiction! For those specialists that may often treat acute severe pain, such as surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, or ER/Urgent Care physicians, strict limits should be made with respect to amounts written for and duration of treatment for all scheduled II drugs. All states should be mandated to have a reporting mechanism through the pharmacy boards where all physicians should be mandated to access and report to before prescribing scheduled II medication. On a broader level, we must enact legislation that shifts the emphasis from punishment to prevention and treatment for those that struggle with addiction. We should encourage and expand dramatically the number of doctors and midlevel providers who wish to provide outpatient opiate addiction treatment with Suboxone. As a society, we too must understand that addiction is a neurobiological disease manifested by abnormal behavior, not abnormal people voluntarily engaging in harmful and bad behavior!
Pandora’s Box may be open, but by coming together as citizens, professionals, and policy makers, we can perhaps reopen the box and bring hope to our communities and to society.
John R. Vigil, MD
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Why Healthcare Cannot Be a Right--In a Free Society
There is a proposed constitutional amendment in our state (New Mexico) to recognize Healthcare as a basic human right. Dr. Bruce Trigg, a local physician and colleague wrote an editorial in our local newspaper titled "Make Healthcare a Right For All". The following is my response:
I have read my esteemed colleague’s (Dr. Bruce Trigg) editorial today (2/25/11), titled “Make Health Care a Right for All.” While I have the utmost respect for Dr. Trigg, I must answer with the counter argument that health care is not a right-- in a free society.
This nation was founded on the principle of “self evident truths” that each of us as individuals are born equal (not that we should share in all equally) and “endowed’” with “certain unalienable rights”, including the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Nowhere did our founding fathers mention “health care” or “good health” as a right, neither in our Declaration of Independence nor in our constitution or its Bill of Rights.
Now some would argue that in 18th and early 19th century America, “Health Care” was nothing to brag about and certainly, nothing to pursue as a fundamental right for all citizens. Others would argue that it was simply an oversight that the founding fathers did not include our health as a fundamental right. I would counter the first of those arguments by asserting that many Americans would travel back to Europe for their “health care” which had to be extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient and yet, there was no clamoring to have the fledgling American government, or rather, its citizens pay for such care. As far as the second argument goes, it is incredulous and inconceivable to consider that considering the collective wisdom of our founders who included Benjamin Rush and other physicians, they would have overlooked something as important as a basic and fundamental human right.
I believe that it was with foresight from our founding fathers that “health care” as a right was purposely excluded as a basic and fundamental right. Unlike, our current politicians, our forefathers were well read and versed in history, philosophy, law, economics, and theology and understood the dangers of the government picking and choosing certain rights arbitrarily and compelling the citizenry to pay for such rights. They understood human nature and man’s natural tendency to want and desire what others have and he doesn’t have and they understood how that very human nature could be exploited by politicians and tyrants for political expediency and political power by providing those things as “rights”.
They recognized that man could conjure up an endless list of needs and desires and rationalize any one of them or all of them as being indispensable as basic human rights. Yet, they carefully selected only three basic “unalienable rights” or “natural rights”, none of which another man could provide to another nor could be compelled to pay for or provide to another. These rights are negative rights in that the right is not in the power or the purview of the government (or fellow citizens) to provide such rights, but rather places in the government the power and responsibility to protect such rights from being taken away from us. The government nor our fellow citizens cannot give us or ensure us life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness-- or good health!
Our government may only protect our rights from such things being taken from us and it is our individual responsibility to respect the rights of others and not take such rights from each other, but nowhere in our constitution is it stated or expressed that our government must provide us with anything or compels us to provide our neighbors with anything! They understood that to compel us to provide for the needs and wants of our neighbors would be antithetical to the very principles this country was founded on and for which we fought a war of independence for: That no man should be in servitude to a tyrant, a tyrannical government, or to each other and that no man should be beholding to or dependent on another man or government for his life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness!
Now some would argue that the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution is where we derive our positive rights from, or those rights that by “social contract”, obligate us or our government to provide us with certain “rights” pertaining to our “general welfare”, yet the first ten amendments, or the “Bill of Rights” were added to further delineate—and limit—the power of the government with respect to both protecting our natural rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to attain and own private property as well as to define and specify certain liberties, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to keep and bear arms, and etc. Again, nothing in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments explicitly or implicitly allows for or compels the government to provide the citizenry with a minimum standard of welfare or for the citizens to provide for the general welfare of each other for to do so erodes our individual freedoms and places us in the servitude of our government and/or our fellow citizens.
Dr. Trigg in his essay asks “why can’t we guarantee that everyone has medical care on the same basis that we provide police and fire protection and universal free education”? The answer is that the provision of police and fire protection are governmental institutions specifically created and empowered solely to protect our natural and property rights. They cannot provide us with any material needs or desires nor can they deny us or take away from us our property, our lives, or our freedom. With respect to providing “universal free education”, nowhere in the Constitution is it mandated that we all be provided free education. Education from K to 12 is compulsory by state statutes and certainly is not “free” in that we all pay taxes to fund our public education. Access to higher education is protected by law, again, as a negative right only, in that no one, including the government can prevent us access to education—as long as we have the means and money to pay for it!
So far, I have made the argument that our Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitution purposely excluded “health care” and an endless list of similar human needs and wants as positive rights based solely on a moralistic philosophy that to compel the government or the citizenry to provide for such rights would create the hypocritical and antithetical situation of protecting our freedoms and pursuit of happiness while at the same time placing us into involuntary servitude to our government and/or our fellow citizens. Although I believe that such moralistic and enlightened thinking was behind the decisions of our Founders as they framed and penned our Constitution, I also believe there were more practical considerations as well that influenced their thinking.
Besides being great moral thinkers and products of “the enlightenment”, our Founders were also businessmen and pragmatists and understood that the provision of most goods, needs, wants, and services—including health care—to the citizenry was best, most fairly, and most efficiently accomplished through the time-honored system of free markets. They understood from Adam Smith that free markets are the engines that drive democratic economies and the most efficient way to provide scarce resources to the greatest number. They also understood (unlike modern politicians) that the “invisible hand” of the free markets worked best unfettered and unrestrained by the “heavy hand” of oppressive government, burdensome bureaucratic regulations, onerous taxes, or union extortion.
Dr. Trigg is correct in asserting that a substantial number of our population already receives “[free] medical care either provided directly by the government (VA, Military, Indian Health Service, etc) or paid for by the government (UNM, Medicaid, Medicare, etc)”; however, he fails to mention that, for the most part, care in those systems, is grossly inefficient, very costly, and burdened by layers and layers of costly and onerous government bureaucracy and would best be provided by independent and competing practices in a free market system!
Dr. Trigg states that the proposed state amendment making health care a human right “paraphrases the words of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin” who has called since the 1990s for our government to recognize healthcare as a human right which government must “take responsibility” for. That is an interesting proposition from a religious spokesman from a religion that from medieval times has assumed the responsibility of providing access to healthcare and healthcare directly, through charity and charitable hospitals to millions and millions of sick souls! The Catholic Church and other religions have plenty of assets and money, if they believe healthcare is a right, then let them bear the burden of responsibility of providing it! I’m sure that religious leaders would no more appreciate government fiat compelling them to assume the responsibility of providing healthcare to each and every citizen anymore than any free man or woman wishes to be compelled to assume such responsibility!
I am not arguing that access to healthcare is not a right and I do not believe that our Founders believed that access was not a right; they correctly believed that “healthcare” in and of itself is a service and best provided through the marketplace. Every American has access to healthcare right now and our government has enacted statutes to prevent anyone or any government entity from barring us from such access to healthcare and that is the extent of government involvement that our sage Founders purposely wrote into the Constitution. Unfortunately, from Roosevelt, to Obama, modern day politicians have completely disregarded the thought and intent of our great Founders and have transformed an “age of enlightenment” to an “age of entitlement”.
Now before, I am accused and nailed to the cross as an uncaring and self-serving capitalist or hate-monger, it should be known that I have started a free-clinic for migrant workers in Ohio in 1995 that still operates today and I open my clinic as a free clinic in the South Valley to uninsured and underinsured people every 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month. I also have never turned a patient away from any of my clinics because of their inability to pay and every day I provide free or discounted care. As a physician, I took an oath of voluntary servitude to my fellow man, but, as an American, I must resist any call from my government or otherwise well-meaning citizens for my indentured servitude to them, for I am a free man in a free and democratic society!
John R. Vigil, MD
I have read my esteemed colleague’s (Dr. Bruce Trigg) editorial today (2/25/11), titled “Make Health Care a Right for All.” While I have the utmost respect for Dr. Trigg, I must answer with the counter argument that health care is not a right-- in a free society.
This nation was founded on the principle of “self evident truths” that each of us as individuals are born equal (not that we should share in all equally) and “endowed’” with “certain unalienable rights”, including the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Nowhere did our founding fathers mention “health care” or “good health” as a right, neither in our Declaration of Independence nor in our constitution or its Bill of Rights.
Now some would argue that in 18th and early 19th century America, “Health Care” was nothing to brag about and certainly, nothing to pursue as a fundamental right for all citizens. Others would argue that it was simply an oversight that the founding fathers did not include our health as a fundamental right. I would counter the first of those arguments by asserting that many Americans would travel back to Europe for their “health care” which had to be extraordinarily expensive and inconvenient and yet, there was no clamoring to have the fledgling American government, or rather, its citizens pay for such care. As far as the second argument goes, it is incredulous and inconceivable to consider that considering the collective wisdom of our founders who included Benjamin Rush and other physicians, they would have overlooked something as important as a basic and fundamental human right.
I believe that it was with foresight from our founding fathers that “health care” as a right was purposely excluded as a basic and fundamental right. Unlike, our current politicians, our forefathers were well read and versed in history, philosophy, law, economics, and theology and understood the dangers of the government picking and choosing certain rights arbitrarily and compelling the citizenry to pay for such rights. They understood human nature and man’s natural tendency to want and desire what others have and he doesn’t have and they understood how that very human nature could be exploited by politicians and tyrants for political expediency and political power by providing those things as “rights”.
They recognized that man could conjure up an endless list of needs and desires and rationalize any one of them or all of them as being indispensable as basic human rights. Yet, they carefully selected only three basic “unalienable rights” or “natural rights”, none of which another man could provide to another nor could be compelled to pay for or provide to another. These rights are negative rights in that the right is not in the power or the purview of the government (or fellow citizens) to provide such rights, but rather places in the government the power and responsibility to protect such rights from being taken away from us. The government nor our fellow citizens cannot give us or ensure us life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness-- or good health!
Our government may only protect our rights from such things being taken from us and it is our individual responsibility to respect the rights of others and not take such rights from each other, but nowhere in our constitution is it stated or expressed that our government must provide us with anything or compels us to provide our neighbors with anything! They understood that to compel us to provide for the needs and wants of our neighbors would be antithetical to the very principles this country was founded on and for which we fought a war of independence for: That no man should be in servitude to a tyrant, a tyrannical government, or to each other and that no man should be beholding to or dependent on another man or government for his life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness!
Now some would argue that the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution is where we derive our positive rights from, or those rights that by “social contract”, obligate us or our government to provide us with certain “rights” pertaining to our “general welfare”, yet the first ten amendments, or the “Bill of Rights” were added to further delineate—and limit—the power of the government with respect to both protecting our natural rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to attain and own private property as well as to define and specify certain liberties, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to keep and bear arms, and etc. Again, nothing in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments explicitly or implicitly allows for or compels the government to provide the citizenry with a minimum standard of welfare or for the citizens to provide for the general welfare of each other for to do so erodes our individual freedoms and places us in the servitude of our government and/or our fellow citizens.
Dr. Trigg in his essay asks “why can’t we guarantee that everyone has medical care on the same basis that we provide police and fire protection and universal free education”? The answer is that the provision of police and fire protection are governmental institutions specifically created and empowered solely to protect our natural and property rights. They cannot provide us with any material needs or desires nor can they deny us or take away from us our property, our lives, or our freedom. With respect to providing “universal free education”, nowhere in the Constitution is it mandated that we all be provided free education. Education from K to 12 is compulsory by state statutes and certainly is not “free” in that we all pay taxes to fund our public education. Access to higher education is protected by law, again, as a negative right only, in that no one, including the government can prevent us access to education—as long as we have the means and money to pay for it!
So far, I have made the argument that our Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitution purposely excluded “health care” and an endless list of similar human needs and wants as positive rights based solely on a moralistic philosophy that to compel the government or the citizenry to provide for such rights would create the hypocritical and antithetical situation of protecting our freedoms and pursuit of happiness while at the same time placing us into involuntary servitude to our government and/or our fellow citizens. Although I believe that such moralistic and enlightened thinking was behind the decisions of our Founders as they framed and penned our Constitution, I also believe there were more practical considerations as well that influenced their thinking.
Besides being great moral thinkers and products of “the enlightenment”, our Founders were also businessmen and pragmatists and understood that the provision of most goods, needs, wants, and services—including health care—to the citizenry was best, most fairly, and most efficiently accomplished through the time-honored system of free markets. They understood from Adam Smith that free markets are the engines that drive democratic economies and the most efficient way to provide scarce resources to the greatest number. They also understood (unlike modern politicians) that the “invisible hand” of the free markets worked best unfettered and unrestrained by the “heavy hand” of oppressive government, burdensome bureaucratic regulations, onerous taxes, or union extortion.
Dr. Trigg is correct in asserting that a substantial number of our population already receives “[free] medical care either provided directly by the government (VA, Military, Indian Health Service, etc) or paid for by the government (UNM, Medicaid, Medicare, etc)”; however, he fails to mention that, for the most part, care in those systems, is grossly inefficient, very costly, and burdened by layers and layers of costly and onerous government bureaucracy and would best be provided by independent and competing practices in a free market system!
Dr. Trigg states that the proposed state amendment making health care a human right “paraphrases the words of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin” who has called since the 1990s for our government to recognize healthcare as a human right which government must “take responsibility” for. That is an interesting proposition from a religious spokesman from a religion that from medieval times has assumed the responsibility of providing access to healthcare and healthcare directly, through charity and charitable hospitals to millions and millions of sick souls! The Catholic Church and other religions have plenty of assets and money, if they believe healthcare is a right, then let them bear the burden of responsibility of providing it! I’m sure that religious leaders would no more appreciate government fiat compelling them to assume the responsibility of providing healthcare to each and every citizen anymore than any free man or woman wishes to be compelled to assume such responsibility!
I am not arguing that access to healthcare is not a right and I do not believe that our Founders believed that access was not a right; they correctly believed that “healthcare” in and of itself is a service and best provided through the marketplace. Every American has access to healthcare right now and our government has enacted statutes to prevent anyone or any government entity from barring us from such access to healthcare and that is the extent of government involvement that our sage Founders purposely wrote into the Constitution. Unfortunately, from Roosevelt, to Obama, modern day politicians have completely disregarded the thought and intent of our great Founders and have transformed an “age of enlightenment” to an “age of entitlement”.
Now before, I am accused and nailed to the cross as an uncaring and self-serving capitalist or hate-monger, it should be known that I have started a free-clinic for migrant workers in Ohio in 1995 that still operates today and I open my clinic as a free clinic in the South Valley to uninsured and underinsured people every 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month. I also have never turned a patient away from any of my clinics because of their inability to pay and every day I provide free or discounted care. As a physician, I took an oath of voluntary servitude to my fellow man, but, as an American, I must resist any call from my government or otherwise well-meaning citizens for my indentured servitude to them, for I am a free man in a free and democratic society!
John R. Vigil, MD
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Nearly 4M to pay health insurance penalty by 2016
Nearly 4M to pay health insurance penalty by 2016
Stephen Ohlemacher
From Real Clear Politics
Nearly 4 million Americans will have to pay a penalty if they fail to get health insurance when that element of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional projections released Thursday.
The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.
The vast majority of people paying the fine will be middle class, which would violate Obama's 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
Republicans have criticized the penalties, even though the idea for a mandate was originally proposed by Republicans in the 1990s and is part of the Massachusetts health care plan signed into law by then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, in 2006. Attorneys general in more than a dozen states are working to challenge the mandate in federal court as unconstitutional.
Democrats argue the mandate and the penalties are a necessary part of a massive overhaul designed to expand coverage to millions who now lack it. They point out that getting young, healthy Americans in the insurance pool will reduce costs for others.
Americans who don't get qualified health insurance will be required to pay penalties starting in 2014, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalties will be fully phased in by 2016.
About 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, according to projections by the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Most of those people will be exempt from the penalties.
Under the new law, the penalties will be phased in starting in 2014. By 2016, those who must get insurance but don't will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.
After 2016, the penalties will be increased by annual cost-of-living adjustments. People will not be required to get coverage if the cheapest plan available costs more than 8 percent of their income.
The penalties will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service through tax returns. However, the IRS will not have the authority to bring criminal charges or file liens against those who don't pay.
About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections. The other 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.
The government will collect about $4 billion a year in fines from 2017 through 2019, according to the report.
Stephen Ohlemacher
From Real Clear Politics
Nearly 4 million Americans will have to pay a penalty if they fail to get health insurance when that element of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional projections released Thursday.
The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.
The vast majority of people paying the fine will be middle class, which would violate Obama's 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.
Republicans have criticized the penalties, even though the idea for a mandate was originally proposed by Republicans in the 1990s and is part of the Massachusetts health care plan signed into law by then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, in 2006. Attorneys general in more than a dozen states are working to challenge the mandate in federal court as unconstitutional.
Democrats argue the mandate and the penalties are a necessary part of a massive overhaul designed to expand coverage to millions who now lack it. They point out that getting young, healthy Americans in the insurance pool will reduce costs for others.
Americans who don't get qualified health insurance will be required to pay penalties starting in 2014, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalties will be fully phased in by 2016.
About 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, according to projections by the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Most of those people will be exempt from the penalties.
Under the new law, the penalties will be phased in starting in 2014. By 2016, those who must get insurance but don't will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.
After 2016, the penalties will be increased by annual cost-of-living adjustments. People will not be required to get coverage if the cheapest plan available costs more than 8 percent of their income.
The penalties will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service through tax returns. However, the IRS will not have the authority to bring criminal charges or file liens against those who don't pay.
About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections. The other 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.
The government will collect about $4 billion a year in fines from 2017 through 2019, according to the report.
Would the Founders Love ObamaCare?
Would the Founders Love ObamaCare?
THE RESISTANCE TO OBAMACARE IS ABOUT A LOT MORE THAN THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
The left-wing critics are right: The rage is not about health care. They are also right that similar complaints about big government were heard during the New Deal and the Great Society, and the sky didn't fall.
But what if this time the sky is falling—on them.
What if after more than a century of growth in the national government, starting with the Progressive Era, the American people are starting to push back. Not just the tea partiers or the 13 state attorneys general seeking protection under the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. But something bigger than that.
Daniel Henninger discusses the widespread anxiety over the size of government.
The Democratic left, its pundits and academics criticizing the legal challenges to ObamaCare seem to be arguing that their version of our political structure is too big to change.
That's not true. The American people can and do change the nation's collective mind on the ordering of our political system. The civil rights years of the 1960s is the most well-known modern example. (The idea that resistance to Mr. Obama's health plan is rooted in racist resentment of equal rights is beyond the pale, even by current standards of political punditry.)
Powerful political forces suddenly seem to be in motion across the U.S. What they have in common is anxiety over what government has become in the first decade of the 21st century.
The tea party movement is getting the most attention because it is the most vulnerable to the standard tool kit of mockery and ridicule. It is more difficult to mock the legitimacy of Scott Brown's overthrow of the Kennedy legacy, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, an economic discomfort that is both generalized and specific to the disintegration of state and federal fiscs, and indeed the array of state attorneys general who filed a constitutional complaint against the new health-care law. What's going on may be getting past the reach of mere mockery.
Constitutional professors quoted in the press and across the Web explain that much about the federal government's modern authority is "settled" law. Even so, many of these legal commentators are quite close to arguing that the national government's economic and political powers are now limitless and unfettered. I wonder if Justice Kennedy believes that.
Or as David Kopel asked on the Volokh Conspiracy blog: "Is the tax power infinite?"
In a country that holds elections, that question is both legal and political. The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court and the electorate is whether Washington's size and power has finally grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people. That is what lies beneath the chatter about federalism and the 10th Amendment.
Liberals will argue that government today is doing good. But government now is also unprecedentedly large and unprecedentedly expensive. Even if every challenge to ObamaCare loses in court, these anxieties will last and keep coming back to the same question: Does the Democratic left think the national government's powers are infinite?
No one in the Obama White House, asked that in public on Sunday morning, would simply say yes, no matter that the evidence of this government's actions the past year indicate they do. In his "Today Show" interview this week, Mr. Obama with his characteristic empathy acknowledged there are "folks who have legitimate concerns . . . that the federal government may be taking on too much."
My reading of the American public is that they have moved past "concerns." Somewhere inside the programmatic details of ObamaCare and the methods that the president, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid used to pass it, something went terribly wrong. Just as something has gone terribly wrong inside the governments of states like California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.
The 10th Amendment tumult does not mean anyone is going to secede. It doesn't mean "nullification" is coming back. We are not going to refight the Civil War or the Voting Rights Act. Richard Russell isn't rising from his Georgia grave.
It means that the current edition of the Democratic Party has disconnected itself from the average American's sense of political modesty. The party's members and theorists now defend expanding government authority with the same arrogance that brought Progressive Era reforms down upon untethered industrial interests.
In such times, this country has an honored tradition of changing direction. That time may be arriving.
Faced with corporate writedowns in response to the reality of Congress's new health plan, an apoplectic Congressman Henry Waxman commanded his economic vassals to appear before him in Washington.
Faced with a challenge to his vision last week, President Obama laughingly replied to these people: "Go for it."
They will.
As to the condescension and sniffing left-wing elitism this opposition seems to bring forth from Manhattan media castles, one must say it does recall another, earlier ancient regime
THE RESISTANCE TO OBAMACARE IS ABOUT A LOT MORE THAN THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
The left-wing critics are right: The rage is not about health care. They are also right that similar complaints about big government were heard during the New Deal and the Great Society, and the sky didn't fall.
But what if this time the sky is falling—on them.
What if after more than a century of growth in the national government, starting with the Progressive Era, the American people are starting to push back. Not just the tea partiers or the 13 state attorneys general seeking protection under the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. But something bigger than that.
Daniel Henninger discusses the widespread anxiety over the size of government.
The Democratic left, its pundits and academics criticizing the legal challenges to ObamaCare seem to be arguing that their version of our political structure is too big to change.
That's not true. The American people can and do change the nation's collective mind on the ordering of our political system. The civil rights years of the 1960s is the most well-known modern example. (The idea that resistance to Mr. Obama's health plan is rooted in racist resentment of equal rights is beyond the pale, even by current standards of political punditry.)
Powerful political forces suddenly seem to be in motion across the U.S. What they have in common is anxiety over what government has become in the first decade of the 21st century.
The tea party movement is getting the most attention because it is the most vulnerable to the standard tool kit of mockery and ridicule. It is more difficult to mock the legitimacy of Scott Brown's overthrow of the Kennedy legacy, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, an economic discomfort that is both generalized and specific to the disintegration of state and federal fiscs, and indeed the array of state attorneys general who filed a constitutional complaint against the new health-care law. What's going on may be getting past the reach of mere mockery.
Constitutional professors quoted in the press and across the Web explain that much about the federal government's modern authority is "settled" law. Even so, many of these legal commentators are quite close to arguing that the national government's economic and political powers are now limitless and unfettered. I wonder if Justice Kennedy believes that.
Or as David Kopel asked on the Volokh Conspiracy blog: "Is the tax power infinite?"
In a country that holds elections, that question is both legal and political. The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court and the electorate is whether Washington's size and power has finally grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people. That is what lies beneath the chatter about federalism and the 10th Amendment.
Liberals will argue that government today is doing good. But government now is also unprecedentedly large and unprecedentedly expensive. Even if every challenge to ObamaCare loses in court, these anxieties will last and keep coming back to the same question: Does the Democratic left think the national government's powers are infinite?
No one in the Obama White House, asked that in public on Sunday morning, would simply say yes, no matter that the evidence of this government's actions the past year indicate they do. In his "Today Show" interview this week, Mr. Obama with his characteristic empathy acknowledged there are "folks who have legitimate concerns . . . that the federal government may be taking on too much."
My reading of the American public is that they have moved past "concerns." Somewhere inside the programmatic details of ObamaCare and the methods that the president, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid used to pass it, something went terribly wrong. Just as something has gone terribly wrong inside the governments of states like California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.
The 10th Amendment tumult does not mean anyone is going to secede. It doesn't mean "nullification" is coming back. We are not going to refight the Civil War or the Voting Rights Act. Richard Russell isn't rising from his Georgia grave.
It means that the current edition of the Democratic Party has disconnected itself from the average American's sense of political modesty. The party's members and theorists now defend expanding government authority with the same arrogance that brought Progressive Era reforms down upon untethered industrial interests.
In such times, this country has an honored tradition of changing direction. That time may be arriving.
Faced with corporate writedowns in response to the reality of Congress's new health plan, an apoplectic Congressman Henry Waxman commanded his economic vassals to appear before him in Washington.
Faced with a challenge to his vision last week, President Obama laughingly replied to these people: "Go for it."
They will.
As to the condescension and sniffing left-wing elitism this opposition seems to bring forth from Manhattan media castles, one must say it does recall another, earlier ancient regime
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Truth About the Health Care Bill
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill.Share
Today at 4:20pm
The Truth About the Health Care Bill
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill.Share
Today at 4:20pm
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret.
Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill
3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with
particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was
frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed
might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard
or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications
is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The
law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior
citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for
illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced
participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of
business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions
about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats,
and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital
admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical
devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In
fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of
providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover
for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government
that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar
one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will
effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power
between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S.
Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration
authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American
people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in
most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the
U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress
to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama
administration, of all of your personal healthcare -- a direct violation of
the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution
information, your personal financial information, and the information of
your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to
privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what
the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private
insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator
appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax
instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due
process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because
since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the
imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property
without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so
much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively
nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the
States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece
of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to
have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to
control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get
the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and
limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of
both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the
Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for
this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that
sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the
American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult
the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see
exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Today at 4:20pm
The Truth About the Health Care Bill
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill.Share
Today at 4:20pm
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret.
Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill
3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with
particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was
frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed
might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard
or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications
is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The
law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior
citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for
illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced
participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of
business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions
about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats,
and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital
admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical
devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In
fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of
providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover
for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government
that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar
one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will
effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power
between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S.
Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration
authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American
people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in
most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the
U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress
to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama
administration, of all of your personal healthcare -- a direct violation of
the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution
information, your personal financial information, and the information of
your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to
privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what
the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private
insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator
appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax
instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due
process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because
since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the
imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property
without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so
much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively
nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the
States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece
of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to
have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to
control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get
the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and
limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of
both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the
Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for
this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that
sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the
American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult
the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see
exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Monday, April 19, 2010
ObamaCare will drive up costs, burden the healthy
NYT: ObamaCare will drive up costs, burden the healthy
Posted on April 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
From the Hot Air Blog
Perhaps the New York Times needs to change its well-known motto to All the News That’s Fit to Print … Eventually. In today’s edition, buried in its Regional section, comes an analysis of the health-insurance reforms imposed by the state of New York over fifteen years ago. Like ObamaCare, the state required insurance carriers to issue policies to people with pre-existing conditions as a means of making the industry more “fair” and imposed community pricing rather than risk-based premiums.
How did that work for New Yorkers?
About the way ObamaCare critics predicted:
New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.
The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.
New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.
Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”
In fact, that death spiral has nearly wiped out the individual market insurance industry in New York. The state has the highest annual premiums for individual-market policies at over $6600 for single-beneficiary comprehensive plans and about double that for families. The employer-based market has fared better, but mainly because employers subsidize insurance and so keep healthy people in the plans.
ObamaCare supporters will argue that the federal insurance mandate will solve this problem, even though the mandate in Massachusetts hasn’t kept costs in line.
Interestingly, the New York Times also sounds skeptical:
The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.
Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
It doesn’t take much to do the math here. If one has to pay $6600 per year for a comprehensive policy one doesn’t really need or pay $2500 on a salary of $100,000, which one will healthy, younger earners take? That assumes, of course, that the government will actually enforce the mandate, which Democrats insisted the ObamaCare bill couldn’t do.
The rebuttal to this will be that most young, healthy people earn much less and will get federal subsidies, but that still depends on them deciding whether to pay anything out of pocket at all for a comprehensive policy that clearly doesn’t suit them. That argument neglects the fact that the actual costs will still skyrocket, but that taxpayers will be on the hook for the subsidies, which will have to increase to match the premium hikes to remain effective. Instead of just having premiums based on rational risk assessments, we have the young and healthy subsidizing premiums for the older and less healthy, who then subsidize the younger and healthier through federal handouts. It’s an insane feedback loop.
If nothing else, this proves a couple of points that critics have made all along. The mandates are nothing more than a way to get the young to create a proxy welfare state by forcing them into a usurious insurance model. It does nothing to reduce actual costs, and in fact makes cost increases both more likely and more amplified.
Finally, this problem has unfolded in New York for years. The premium problem in individual markets — the very kind that ObamaCare requires — were well known to the New York Times. They had almost a year to report this during the health-care debate before a vote was taken. Instead, they report it almost a month after Congress passed the bill, and stuck it in the Regional section where national readers might have missed it. Shameful.
Posted on April 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
From the Hot Air Blog
Perhaps the New York Times needs to change its well-known motto to All the News That’s Fit to Print … Eventually. In today’s edition, buried in its Regional section, comes an analysis of the health-insurance reforms imposed by the state of New York over fifteen years ago. Like ObamaCare, the state required insurance carriers to issue policies to people with pre-existing conditions as a means of making the industry more “fair” and imposed community pricing rather than risk-based premiums.
How did that work for New Yorkers?
About the way ObamaCare critics predicted:
New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.
The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.
New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.
Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”
In fact, that death spiral has nearly wiped out the individual market insurance industry in New York. The state has the highest annual premiums for individual-market policies at over $6600 for single-beneficiary comprehensive plans and about double that for families. The employer-based market has fared better, but mainly because employers subsidize insurance and so keep healthy people in the plans.
ObamaCare supporters will argue that the federal insurance mandate will solve this problem, even though the mandate in Massachusetts hasn’t kept costs in line.
Interestingly, the New York Times also sounds skeptical:
The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.
Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
It doesn’t take much to do the math here. If one has to pay $6600 per year for a comprehensive policy one doesn’t really need or pay $2500 on a salary of $100,000, which one will healthy, younger earners take? That assumes, of course, that the government will actually enforce the mandate, which Democrats insisted the ObamaCare bill couldn’t do.
The rebuttal to this will be that most young, healthy people earn much less and will get federal subsidies, but that still depends on them deciding whether to pay anything out of pocket at all for a comprehensive policy that clearly doesn’t suit them. That argument neglects the fact that the actual costs will still skyrocket, but that taxpayers will be on the hook for the subsidies, which will have to increase to match the premium hikes to remain effective. Instead of just having premiums based on rational risk assessments, we have the young and healthy subsidizing premiums for the older and less healthy, who then subsidize the younger and healthier through federal handouts. It’s an insane feedback loop.
If nothing else, this proves a couple of points that critics have made all along. The mandates are nothing more than a way to get the young to create a proxy welfare state by forcing them into a usurious insurance model. It does nothing to reduce actual costs, and in fact makes cost increases both more likely and more amplified.
Finally, this problem has unfolded in New York for years. The premium problem in individual markets — the very kind that ObamaCare requires — were well known to the New York Times. They had almost a year to report this during the health-care debate before a vote was taken. Instead, they report it almost a month after Congress passed the bill, and stuck it in the Regional section where national readers might have missed it. Shameful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
