Not quite sure why Congress is trying to reform health care on the statist model of more government, more costs, and more bureaucracy. According to Peter Suderman writing in today's Wall Street Journal, most provisions of Obamacare have been tried in the states and have failed to deliver on the promise of lower costs and more coverage while restricting access to health care:
[S]tate governments have tested variants on most of the major components of the health-care reform plans currently being considered in Congress. The results have been dramatically increased premiums in the individual market, spiraling public health-care costs, and reduced access to care. In other words: The reforms have failed.
How badly have they failed?
New York is exhibit A. In 1993, the state prohibited insurers from declining to cover individuals with pre-existing health conditions ("guaranteed issue"). New York also required insurers to charge those enrolled in their plans the same premium, regardless of health status, age or sex ("community rating"). The goal was to reduce the number of uninsured by making health insurance more accessible, particularly to those who don't have employer-provided insurance.
But guess what happened. Costs soared and more people were uninsured, mainly because of those increased costs.
Washington State tried something similar and it failed, too:
In 1996, similar reforms in Washington state preceded massive premium spikes in the individual market. Some premiums increased as much as 78% in the first three years of the reforms—or 10 times medical inflation—according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Services Research in 1999. Other results included a 25% drop in enrollment in the individual market, and a reduction in services offered. Within four years, for example, none of the state's major carriers offered individual insurance plans that included maternity coverage.
And insurance companies fled the state in droves.
So guaranteed issue will only increase costs which will increase the ranks of the uninsured. But what about the mandate that you have to have insurance. It's been tried:
An individual mandate, however, would spread those premium costs across a larger, healthier population, thus keeping premium costs down.
The experience of Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate in 2007, suggests otherwise. Health-insurance premiums in the Bay State have risen significantly faster than the national average, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health foundation. At an average of $13,788, the state's family plans are now the nation's most expensive. Meanwhile, insurance companies are planning additional double-digit hikes, "prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers" according to the Boston Globe.
And even then Massachusetts didn't cover everyone.
Actually, I lied. I know why Congress is going for the statist model: because Congress is controlled by Democrats who want more control over your health care so you are more beholden to them.
Are Democrats too stupid to know it won't work? Maybe. Or maybe they don't care, as long as they can get more control over your life.
Comments