A universalized high price of premiums

• Tweet
• 

Congratulations.

Due to U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak getting suckered by President Barack Obama’s executive order, which can be rescinded at any time by the president or contradictory legislation, all you “Obamacare” supporters got your law approved.

I have some questions for you supporters, though: Are you that economically illiterate that you don’t realize provisions requiring coverage for those with preexisting conditions will drive insurance companies out of business? Or is it that you’re banking on that happening so you can push for further government intrusion into our lives?

The economics of the preexisting coverage provision aren’t complex.

Requiring insurers to charge the same premiums across the board for those with and without preexisting conditions will lead to skyrocketing premiums.

No surprise there — increased expenses will require increased premiums.

Of course, insurers won’t have the ability to mitigate these increased premiums by not accepting those with preexisting conditions.

This has been (correctly) analogized to buying homeowners insurance only after your house is on fire.

So when 2014 rolls around and this provision comes into effect, don’t be surprised when insurance companies go out of business because people aren’t buying until they get sick. The “individual responsibility” mandate in this case would still be irrelevant.

Even if people paid the penalty for not carrying coverage, it would still be much cheaper than carrying it.

But, of course, this exact point has been addressed in many places, so I find it hard to believe that people wouldn’t at least be aware of what will happen even if, for some reason, they can’t competently understand the economic principles in effect.

I doubt that’s the case, though.

I would certainly imagine the Speaker of the House and the President would understand the economic impacts as I described. These people are not stupid.

This leads me to believe that these individuals, and others like them, are just plain advocates of further government intrusion.

That’s where we’ve got a problem kids; and no, I won’t respect anyone’s opinion that would advocate the amount of governmental expansion on this scale.

Yes, you’ve got multiple state attorney generals suing the federal government over the “individual responsibility” mandate but, even if somehow they win (doubtful), we’re still stuck with the rest of the trash “Obamacare” brings about.

If these increases in government intrusion — in relation to health care or otherwise — continue, I wouldn’t be surprised to see people, and possibly businesses, engaging in civil disobedience again.