Obama healthcare proposal raises some questions
I was going to try and use a semi-witty, oversimplified example to analogize how ate up House Bill 3200 (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) is, but it just wasn’t going to work.
There are way too many things wrong with this bill to address.
Yes, there has been coverage of the bill, but I think it’s imperative for people to actually know some of the things in it and why they are wrong, economically or morally. It’s just an issue of deciding where to start.
In homage of a Wall Street experiment, I’m going to throw darts in deciding the various improprieties H.B. 3200 would give us.
One of the core things to know is that if this bill becomes a law, you will get taxed for not maintaining health insurance (http://tinyurl.com/r65674). That means that despite the fact you’re a health nut looking to save money by choosing not to have coverage, Uncle Sam is going to punish you.
Yeah, really sounds like you have choice, doesn’t it?
Another thing to note about this legislation is that it would impose additional taxes upon high income individuals and couples (http://tinyurl.com/qjmhdm). Couples filing jointly making $350k-500k get hit with an additional 1 percent, $500 thousand to $1 million dish out an additional 1.5 percent, and those really successful individuals who make more than $1 million get popped with an additional 5.4 percent!
If an individual files, the income triggers are 80 percent of joint, and couples filing separately get triggered at 50% of the joint income level.
There is, of course, the fact that the industry itself will dry out a little if this thing passes.
The bill would force insurance companies to provide certain services (even if you didn’t want or need them), and do so without allowing out of pocket costs to exceed $5 thousand for an individual or $10 thousand for a family (http://tinyurl.com/pche4f).
Of course, one would assume the logical course of action on the insurance company’s part would be to raise premiums on those who constantly require care or are higher risk.
*Bzzzt* Wrong! H.B. 3200 would prevent that! (http://tinyurl.com/r8wjzf)
And, of course, if the companies still figure out how to make a decent profit (of course we can’t have that), don’t fear! Obamacare will put the kabosh on that!
The legislation would empower “the commissioner” to set an arbitrary medical loss ratio that companies can’t fall below. If they do, they have to refund premiums.
For clarification, a medical loss ratio is determined by dividing payments by premiums.
Essentially, a lower ratio is better as it helps result in increased profits. This legislation in effect limits the profits that an insurance company may get for a given client base. (http://tinyurl.com/r6nr5v)
I suppose one last thing to make notice of is the fact that most of the legislation’s changes won’t take affect until 2013 – conveniently after the next presidential election.
After all, we can’t have Obama losing the next election, because the truth will be shown once the effects of Obamacare are in play.
