Young Adults on ObamaCare: Winning The Future?

(hhs.gov)

The number of young (i.e., mostly healthy) adults with health insurance has risen by 3.5 percentage points:

The Department of Health and Human Services is trumpeting new survey results showing a huge increase in the number of young adults with health insurance as sign that [Obamacare] has been a success.

According to a survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly one million adults under the age of 26 gained health insurance in 2011. As a result, the percentage of adults between the ages of 19 and 25 with health insurance rose from 66.1% in 2010 to 69.6 this year.

One of the major provisions of [ObamaCare] allowed young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance program until age 26. That provision went into effect last September.

On the other hand, the percentage adults over the age 26 with health insurance decreased by almost 5 percentage points over the same period. This is a fact that our liberal counterparts at Firedoglake have not missed:

...overall that improvement has not been large enough to make up for the steady loss of insurance coverage due to high unemployment and rising insurance premiums. The percentage of Americans without insurance has continued to climb since the passage of [Obamacare] and is now at 17.4 percent among all Americans.

Let's not forget that the chain reaction of Obamacare, rising insurance premiums and rising unemployment was painfully predictable.

Let's also remember that there's no such thing as a free lunch. One commenter looks at it this way:

Of course more young people are getting health insurance - people like me are paying for it. My insurance went up 17% this year because of the provision in Obama care where young adults, up to the age of 26, can be covered by their parents plan.

This is not merely an unproven anecdotal observation:

The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010...

Employees' share of the total cost is at an all-time high, having increased from 36.8% in the first year of the MMI (2005) to 39.7% in 2011.

Unfortunately, young adults who aren't covered by their parents are particularly hard-hit by Obamacare's restriction on age rating of premiums. Mandated “rate compression” forces insurers to overprice coverage for younger individuals.

To summarize, health care costs for families (including young adults) are at an all-time high. And while more young adults now have a health insurance card to carry around, health insurance coverage for adults over the age of 26 has dropped by approximately 5 percentage points.

Is this what "Winning The Future" is supposed to look like?

ADDENDA:

The annual Milliman Medical Index (MMI) measures the total cost of healthcare for a typical family of four covered by a preferred provider plan (PPO). The 2011 MMI cost is $19,393, an increase of $1,319, or 7.3% over 2010:

ANNUAL MEDICAL COSTS FOR FAMILY OF FOUR

Medical costs for employees and employers continue to rise steadily:

MEDICAL COSTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENT

x-posted

Discussion: Memeorandum

UPDATE: Linked at The Lonely Conservative. Thanks!

Obama's Death Panel: A Double Dose of Anti-Constitutional Outrages

Obamacare's death panel, a.k.a. the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), is a constitutional travesty:

The point of PPACA [Obamacare] is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending - which is 13 percent of federal spending - to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making "proposals" or "recommendations" to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments - and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system.

The PPACA repeatedly refers to any IPAB proposal as a "legislative proposal" and speaks of "the legislation introduced" by the IPAB. Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes a measure cutting medical spending as much as IPAB would.

This is a travesty of lawmaking: An executive branch agency makes laws unless Congress enacts legislation to achieve the executive agency's aim.

And it gets worse. Any resolution to abolish the IPAB must pass both houses of Congress. And no such resolution can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. And if passed, it cannot take effect until 2020. It is transparently designed to permanently entrench IPAB - never mind the principle that one Congress cannot by statute bind another Congress from altering that statute.

...the IPAB is doubly anti-constitutional. It derogates the powers of Congress. And it ignores the separation of powers: It is an executive agency, its members appointed by the president, exercising legislative powers over which neither Congress nor the judiciary can exercise proper control.

[emphasis added]

Note that the author, George Will, assumes that physicians will be leaving the system en masse. In my humble opinion, he is correct in doing so.

In all the excitement over Anthony's Weiner, this important piece by George Will has been largely overlooked. Go read the rest and share it with your friends.

Evil Health Insurance Corporations Love ObamaCare

What do health insurance executives think of ObamaCare? This will upset principled activists at both ends of the political spectrum (and about 60% of the adult population):

As Republicans push forward on repealing health reform, planning the law’s demise, a different conversation is happening among thousands of health care investors gathered in San Francisco for this week’s J.P Morgan Health Care Conference: how to capitalize on health reform’s new business opportunities.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates 32 million Americans will gain health insurance by 2019 if the law stands. For health insurers, that represents a potential boon for both their individual market business as well as in the Medicaid market, where states regularly contract with private insurers to manage care.

Happy days!

If you think the GOP, as it is currently configured, is serious about repeal, think again. Pay very close attention to what is said of the individual mandate:

Health insurers spent barely anytime discussing Republicans’ repeal efforts. Aetna’s Zubretsky touched on the subject briefly only to say that Republicans understand that a rifle shot approach to tearing out specific health reform provisions, particularly the individual mandate, would not bode well for their business.

“The unintended consequence of repealing and replacing part of the legislation is the biggest risk here,” he said. “If guaranteed issue stays but the enforceable mandate disappears, you need another mechanism to make the costs in the risk pool work.”

Zubretsky said Aetna has been in touch with the GOP on the issue and “believe the Republican leaders we’ve been talking to understand the consequences of decoupling the mandate from the guaranteed issue.”

Without an extreme makeover, the GOP won't get serious about repealing ObamaCare in 2012, whether they control the White House or not.

GLOOM.

As I've noted in previous posts, conservatives need to push for an up-or-down vote on a clean and simple repeal of the individual mandate. That will help clarify the intentions of folks on both sides of the aisle.

By a 60% to 38% margin, Americans oppose the individual mandate. Will the new GOP-controlled House take action in accordance with the wishes of the American people? Will conservatives push the GOP hard enough? Are we ready to "primary" more Republicans in 2012?

Get ready:

You have often heard those who favor reform complain about the power of the health insurance industry. I think those who favor repeal are about to feel it.

Hat Tip

Memeorandum thread

X-posted

Repeal the Mandate, Stupid!

Americans who are unhappy with Obamacare should push for repeal of the "individual mandate." Conservatives don't like the individual mandate because it's an unnecessary power grab that tramples the constitution. Liberals don't like it because it forces people to do business with private insurance companies:

An individual mandate to buy private health insurance has never been progressive. It is less cost effective, less consumer friendly, less egalitarian, less universal, and more prone to corruption...

Barack Obama ran for president in opposition to the individual mandate. Here's what candidate Obama said about the individual mandate back in 2008:

Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?

Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it... and you pay a penalty if you don't.

The way Hillary Clinton's health care plan covers everyone is to have the government force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it.

"...forcing those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it through mandates...punishing those who don't fall in line with fines."

Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense.

Even PolitiFact, no fan of conservatives (Politifact credited Sarah Palin with the "Lie of the Year"), has rated Barack Obama with a "full flop" for his flip on the individual mandate:

Obama was vigorous in his attacks on Clinton for including an indvidual mandate in her plan. Now that the Democrats in the House have included a mandate in health reform legislation, he's fine with it. He admitted he changed position in the interview with CBS. Full Flop!

Obama can still redeem himself by supporting a repeal of the individual mandate. Obama has already issued hundreds of Obamacare exemptions by administrative fiat. Why not cooperate with Congress to repeal the most unpopular provision of the Democrats' health care law?

The individual mandate is wildly unpopular with the general public, so a repeal of this provision of the Democrats' health care law is entirely plausible.

There is one big problem, however. Repealing the individual mandate could bring down the rest of the Obamacare house of cards. If the individual mandate is repealed while leaving the rest of the health care legislation intact, the private health insurance industry would fold. This may be a satisfactory endpoint for some supporters of Obamacare, but without the revenues generated by the individual mandate, and without the reluctant cooperation of private insurers, Obamacare could quickly become politically unsustainable.

America is overwhelmingly opposed to the individual mandate. So let's repeal it. If the repeal succeeds, Obamacare fails. If repeal fails, supporters of the individual mandate will have to go on record and tell the voters why they're forcing this down America's throat. Either way, an up-or-down vote on a clean and simple repeal of the individual mandate could do a world of good.

The new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives could get the ball rolling. Will they take action on behalf of the wishes of the American people? Will conservatives push the GOP hard enough?

Update: Robert "We're Going to Let You Die" Reich says we should let the individual mandate live. But with caveats, he grudgingly admits, "this is a smart strategy for the GOP."

Update II: Democratic support for repealing the individual mandate and other parts of Obamacare...

Hat tip: Conservative Home

X-posted

Update III:

Via Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: "...videotape of Obama hammering Hillary not only over the mandate but also over the use of fines to enforce the mandate:"

Glorious Socialist Medicine: Penis Amputated Following Misdiagnosis and Delay

Uninsured Americans get better care than this:

A Swedish man was forced to have his penis amputated after waiting more than a year to learn he had cancer.

When he returned in March 2010 complaining of foreskin irritation, the doctor on duty at the time diagnosed the problem as a simple case of inflammation.

After three weeks passed without the prescribed treatment alleviating the man’s condition, he was instructed to seek further treatment at Blekinge Hospital.

But it took five months before he was able to schedule an appointment at the hospital.

When he finally met with doctors at the hospital, the man was informed he had cancer and his penis would have to be removed.

In the United States, a penniless homeless man could have presented to the Emergency Department to be seen by a urologist the same day.

Take home lesson: Socialism leads to shortages. In health care, shortages manifest as long wait times. Long wait times result in morbidity and mortality.

But at least socialism is fair, just and equitable!

Think this won't happen in the U.S.? Look what ObamaCare RomneyCare hath wrought:

Doctor shortages and growing wait times...

X-posted

Discussion: Memeorandum

Dan Mitchell: Government-Run Healthcare Can Be Emasculating…Literally

FYI: Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations...

For much of the last fifty years Sweden has had a heavily socialized health care system. Almost all of the funding comes from government revenue, and most aspects of the health care system, such as hospitals, primary care centers and prescription drugs, are controlled by the government. Doctors could still have a private practice, although by the 1960s about 80 percent of doctors worked in government-run hospitals...

Read the rest.