Memoirs of the Addams Administration 29.

Unable to leave well enough alone, the Republican Senate leaders made yet another attempt to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act.[1]  Without having any commonly-agreed plan, they managed to get a formal debate started.  First, the Senate voted down a broad plan to repeal and replace.  Then it voted down a plan to repeal and give Congress two year to replace it with something else.  Then it voted down a “skinny repeal” that just got rid of the mandate.[2]  Despite its flaws, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) helps—as well as vexes—many lower income Americans of both parties.  Opinion polls since the election have tended to show broad support for preservation of universal health insurance.  With a narrow 52-48 majority in the Senate, the Republican leadership cannot force through any legislation that would alienate more than two Republican senators.  Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) come from states that may have a substantial number of people who want to vote Republican, but who also live in marginal economic circumstances.  Their opposition alone isn’t enough to block “repeal and replace”: Vice President Pence can cast the tie breaker.  However, one more Republican dissident—like John McCain—and the measure loses.  In either case, Murkowski and Collins get covered for the next election for having done the right thing.  So, the question becomes: how to fix the problems with the ACA, rather than trying to roll it back?

Donald Trump campaigned against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), calling it “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere.”  Once elected, he insisted on a renegotiation of the agreement.  This immediately became engulfed in the hysteria following Trump’s surprise election.  It also drew heat from Trump’s highly public spat with the president of Mexico.  Nevertheless, Mexico and Canada agreed to engage in a re-negotiation of NAFTA.  The negotiations are scheduled to begin on 16 August 2017.  Now the government has released a statement of its objectives for the negotiations.  Contrary to the worst fears of the immediate post-election Trump hysterics, the American objectives are solidly “mainstream ideas for furthering trade liberalization.”[3]  Generally speaking, NAFTA trade benefits the American economy even though it is often seen as the source of job-loss.  Reality proved more compelling than rhetoric.  Perhaps Trump and the Senate leadership should let Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (who oversees the NAFTA negotiations) run health-care reform?

Six months into his first term, President Trump began a major churning of his staff.  Sean Spicer had the reputation for being a decent guy.  Then he took the job as White House Press Secretary.  Six months of humiliating Hell followed.  Then, President Trump concluded that his image problems sprang from poor representation.  He hired Anthony Scaramucci as communications director.[4]  Spicer promptly resigned.[5]  Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Trump’s direct connection to mainstream Republicans, then got the heave.

Donald Trump governing as a non-party mediator still has—theoretical—potential.

[1] “Senate Republicans grapple with Obamacare repeal,” The Week, 4 August 2017, p. 7.

[2] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that ending the mandate would leave 15 million more people without insurance.  This can be taken as an official measure of the number of people who buy insurance under duress.  It can be added to whatever number just don’t buy it regardless of the mandate to get a total number of people who are opposed to the mandate.  On the other hand, it can be subtracted from the numbers of those estimated by the CBO to be left without insurance issued on other versions of “repeal and replace.”

[3] “Issue of the week: A softer U.S. line on NAFTA,” The Week, 4 August 2017, p. 42.

[4] Scaramucci deleted Twitter posts in favor of gun control, action on climate change,, legal abortions, and ending use of the death penalty.  “Noted,” The Week, 4 August 2017, p. 18.

[5] “White House: Spicer’s out, “The Mooch” is in,” The Week, 4 August 2017, p. 18.

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 19.

In late March 2017, House Republicans had to pull the American Health Care Act (AHCA) because they couldn’t cobble together a majority from the disparate Freedom Caucus and moderate factions of the party.  In early May they took another stab at it.  This time the bill passed the House of Representatives by a razor-thin (as the cliché goes) margin.  The new and improved AHCA ended the mandate[1], but allowed insurance companies to charge extra for people who let coverage lapse and then applied in a hurry once they got sick; granted the states the right apply for waivers if they wanted to allow insurance companies to offer plans with fewer “essential services” than mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA)[2]; “rolled-back” the expansion of Medicaid (which observers predicted would cut 25 percent/$880 billion in health-care spending over a decade); replaced the income-based subsidies of the ACA with age-based tax credits[3]; allowed  insurance companies to charge old people much more than young people[4]; and encouraged states—through a promised $138 billion in federal subsidies–to create high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions that insurance companies wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole.[5]  The right-to-life-but-not-to-medical-care-once-born crowd insisted on defunding Planned Parenthood.[6]

Republican Senators, who live in a radically different political environment than do Republican Congressmen, didn’t like the handiwork.  Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell set up a baker’s-dozen of Republican Senators to save the party from an electoral disaster in 2018.  They are expected to sketch a fig-leaf with regard to things like Medicaid spending, and coverage of the Emma Lazarus people: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Your people with pre-existing conditions.”

Is there any way to make a Republican plan work?  Yes, if you aren’t a 100 percent Democrat.  The ACA expanded entitlement programs to provide health care to the poorest Americans.  It had little effect for most Americans.  It did not create health-care insurance for most Americans, nor did it seek to rein-in the rising costs of health-care.  Most people receive their health care through their employers or through Medicare.  The Republican plan poses no serious threat to these people.  Republicans are betting that health care lite for the poor will be politically acceptable to most voters.  Are they correct?

One contested issue lies in the effect on taxes.  Democrats jeer that the AHCA will lead to a $1 trillion cut for the richest Americans over a decade.  However, the ACA imposed a $1 trillion additional tax on those same richest Americans.  This casts into doubt the claim that the mandate is necessary so that poorer young people will subsidize richer older people.[7]

[1] This is an acknowledgement that many young people don’t want or need insurance, or—if they do—resent being ordered around by the government as if they’re the hired help.  There probably are about 14 million of these timid fugitives currently on the rolls of Obamacare.  Millions more have not signed up because the Internal Revenue Service does not require that taxpayers actually submit proof of coverage.

[2] This is a concession to the people who were promised by President Obama that “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” and then had the rug pulled out from under them.  Sad to say, attention to detail proved not to be Obama’s strongest quality.  See: “ roll-out.”  Lots of times “big picture” people aren’t good at this.

[3] So people in their 20s would get up to a $2,000 credits, while people in their 60s would get up to a $4,000 credit.

[4] Up to five times as much, compared to the ACA’s limit of three times as much.  However, old people consume far more health care than do young people, so the ACA appears to be a taxing of low income people to support higher income people.

[5] “Health-care reform heads to the Senate,” The Week, 19 May 2017, p. 5.

[6] Still, last time I checked, condoms were a dollar each at CVS.

[7] “American Health Care Act: The winners and the losers,” The Week, 19 May 2017, p. 6.

The ACA in September 2016.

There seem to be several major challenges facing the Affordable Care Act (ACA).[1]

First of all, the ACA sought to provide health insurance to low-income people.  On the one hand, the problem the Obama administration did not want to address directly is that American doctors make about 50 percent more than European or Japanese doctors with comparable skills.  The same goes for hospitals.  Cutting the incomes of doctors and of hospitals to reduce health care costs to manageable levels would set off a storm of opposition from the American Medical Association and whoever fronts for the hospitals.  On the other hand, there are a bunch of insurance companies—notably Blue Cross plans–that are used to dealing with low-income populations.  However, these insurers keep prices down by offering a narrow range of service providers who agree to accept low payments in return for a steady stream of customers.  Most doctors would refuse to participate in such arrangements.  Assuming that poor consumers were like richer consumers, the authors of the ACA sought to provide a greater range of choice.  The government mandate on the health services provided cuts across the desires of some consumers.  Then, the government lured a bunch of major insurers into the market in the belief that that competition would hold down costs for a broader range of services.  However, the major insurers lost a lot of money and they have begun to bail.  Basically, markets are often more rational than any government “ukase.”  Perhaps 17 percent of people who use the insurance “marketplace” will find that there is only one seller.

Second, the ACA rests on the belief that healthy, young, poor people can be compelled to buy insurance to subsidize sick, old, richer people.  In fact, less than half the 24 million people who were expected to buy insurance through the marketplace have signed up.  A lot of younger people just don’t want to join.  A lot of sick people do want to join only for  long enough to get their illnesses treated,  As a result, the insurance premiums are already so much higher than the government subsides that many people are opting out.  One solution would be to follow the path of the low cost insurers by narrowing networks and forcing down remuneration to doctors and hospitals.  Democrats favor either raising taxes on Republicans to pay for more generous subsidies to health care providers or coercing the un-insured to get insurance.

Third, apparently believing that much of the high cost of American health care came from profiteering by the insurance companies, the ACA included limits on profits and inadequate guarantees against losses.  Faced with large and mounting losses, the major insurance companies have begun to abandon the market place.

So, what are the policy options?  First, President Obama and President-in-Waiting Clinton have floated the idea of going back to the “public option” that Obama once cavalierly abandoned.  The public option would—undoubtedly with the aid of subsidies from the tax payers—“compete” with the private companies in order to drive down prices.  (See: TVA.)  Second, Blue Cross plans—low cost insurers with a lot of experience—argue for further reforms like blocking customers from signing up for short-term coverage in order to deal with accumulated health problems, the drooping coverage; higher premiums for older patients who cost more; and enhancing government subsidies for th care of very sick patients.  “Experts” and “advocates” are in some disagreement about what course to pursue.  Apparently, the Obama Administration is reluctant to consult or listen to business people.

[1] Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz, “ObamaCare Obstacles, and Some Possible Solutions,” NYT, 30 August 2016.

The ACA in August 2016 2.

One means to control costs included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took the form of a mechanism for publicly reviewing requests for rate increases by insurance companies.[1]  In Summer 2016, health insurance companies began requesting large increases in premiums.[2]

A witness for one Pennsylvania health insurer observed that his company had about 250 clients who had signed up for coverage under the ACA, then received treatment worth about $100,000 each, and then had cancelled their policies immediately after receiving treatment.[3]  The cost of the care then had to be passed on to other clients.  In Montana, ten individual customers consumed more than $4 million in care in the first six months of 2016, for an average of about $70,000 a month each.  In this case, 1 percent of customers accounted for 30 percent of pharmacy bills.  Making matters worse, in the first years of the ACA, a federal program helped insurers pay the cost of some of the most expensive claims.  Now, according to a Department of Health and Human Services economist, that program is winding down.

What has been happening in Pennsylvania is not unique to the Keystone State.  In Montana in 2015, one insurer reported that it had paid out $1.26 in claims for every $1.00 in premiums.  Unable to sustain such losses, major insurance companies have had to choose between seeking much higher premiums and abandoning the health-insurance market places.  In 20 states, insurers have asked to raise their premiums by at least 25 percent.  In some other states, insurers seem to be abandoning the market places to more efficient or competitive insurers.


Who are the uninsured?[4]

More than half of the uninsured live in the 20 states that refused to expand Medicaid, many of them populous Southern states like Texas and Florida.  As a result, 39 percent of the uninsured have incomes below the federal poverty level.

In 2013, 28 percent of people between 19 and 34 years old were uninsured; today 18 percent are such “Millennials.”  Still, that 18 percent accounts for almost half of the total uninsured.

In 2013, 50 percent of the uninsured were white; now 41 percent are white.

In 2013, 36 percent of the uninsured were American citizens of Hispanic descent; today 29 percent of the uninsured are American citizens of Hispanic descent.[5]

In 2013, 13 percent of the uninsured were black; now 12 percent are black.

More than half (57 percent) of the working Americans without insurance work for small companies that were exempted from the requirement to provide insurance.

[1] It speaks volumes to the intellectual world inhabited by Democratic legislators that the NYT reporter Robert Pear can describe the process as intended to “shame” companies that requested increases.  Apparently, Democrats believe that immense profits by health insurers and exorbitant pay for executives explain high health costs.

[2] Robert Pear, “Health Insurers Use Reviews, Intended to Constrain Rate Jumps, to Justify Them,” NYT, 15 August 2016.

[3] The chief executive of the federal insurance market-place optimistically portrayed the join-spend-quit pattern as a one-time “decline in pent-up demand for services.”  In all likelihood, uninsured people will continue to pen-up their use of services, then join-spend-quit again.  Robert Pear and Reed Abelson, “As Insurers Balk, U.S. Makes New Push for Health Care Law,” NYT, 18 August 2016.

[4] Abby Goodnough, “Still Uninsured, Even With the Health Law,” NYT, 18 August 2016.

[5] However, the ineligibility of illegal immigrants for coverage means that the total Hispanic share without insurance has risen from 29 percent to 40 percent.

The ACA in August 2016.

Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), many Americans received their health insurance through their employers; many others bought individual insurance; and a relatively small percentage had no insurance at all.  As one part of the effort to extend health insurance to the uninsured, the ACA required everyone to have insurance, created a system of subsidies to make that insurance affordable for lower-income people, and encouraged the creation of market-places where individuals could purchase standard plans offered by insurance companies.[1]  (In essence, lots of younger, healthier, lower-income people would be constrained to buy insurance to pay for the care of older, sicker, and often higher-income people.)  Broad participation in the health-exchanges by the major insurance companies would create a competitive environment that would help hold down prices while providing a broad array of choices to customers.

In spite of the unfortunate early mishaps of the ACA (the botched roll-out of the web-site, the president’s terminological inexactitude about keeping one’s insurance, the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the portion of the ACA that tried to coerce states into expanding Medicaid), far more serious problems have begun to emerge.

In what seems to have come as a surprise to Democrats and the New York Times (“but I repeat myself” as Mark Twain once said), it turns out that people really are economic animals.  First, for many potential customers, the price of health insurance is too high for what it would buy.  While it had been projected that about 21 million people would be enrolled in health exchanges by 2016, only about 10 million have enrolled.  That’s a lot of premiums that never get paid to insurers.  In 2015, half of the people who did buy insurance in the market-places bought the cheapest possible plan.[2]  Those who buy the more expensive plans tend to be people with serious medical conditions.  Furthermore, many of these customers don’t care about choice of physician or the size of the network of providers. They have opted for plans offered by smaller insurance companies.  Some of these companies already had deep experience dealing with Medicaid payments.  They knew low income customers and they knew how to keep down costs.  Part of this involved limiting choice of care to doctors and hospitals that were willing to accept a low level of payment.

Second, private enterprise runs on a profit and loss basis.  Having run health insurance policies for employer-provided health insurance, the major insurance companies assumed that their new customers would want the same range of choice of physicians and hospitals.  They didn’t.  Anticipating large numbers of customers, many without serious health needs, the insurance companies priced many of their policies too low.  Getting half as many customers, many with serious health issues, the insurance companies suffered heavy early losses.  Facing continuing huge losses in this sector of their business, major insurers like United Health Group, Humana, and Aetna have either decided to pull out of the health-exchange market or limit their participation.  The insurers who remain in the health exchange market place plan to steeply raise premiums for 2017.  This may well drive even more price-sensitive customers out of the market place.  A health care expert at the Urban Institute rationalized that “you can’t lower costs without breaking some eggs.”  In this case, the “eggs” are companies owned by stock-holders as an investment of their assets.  The big insurers need to learn the market or to get out.

One solution would be to let the experienced low-cost providers take over this market.

[1] Reed Abelson, “Health Insurers Lose as Clients Focus on Costs,” NYT, 13 August 2016.

[2] “Bronze,” like coffin handles.

Campaign Issues 2016 3.

Hind-sight is 20/20; foresight is not.  The basis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lay in a plan to require many younger, healthier, and lower income people to pay premiums that would subsidize the health-care costs of older, sicker, and wealthier people.[1]  Even so, support for the ACA has grown with the passage of time.  In 2013, less than a third (32 percent) approved of the ACA, while 61 percent disapproved.    By July 2015, 47 percent approved, 44 percent disapproved, and only 9 percent “didn’t know.”  Opponents of the ACA have been the big losers here, bleeding away almost a third of their numbers to either supporters or to “don’t know.”[2]

Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect, 17.1 percent of Americans had no health insurance.  By 2013, the share without health insurance had fallen to 13.3 percent; in 2014, 10.4 percent of Americans had no health insurance.[3]  By Spring 2015, that number had fallen to 11.9 percent, a reduction of 5.2 percent.[4]  (This seems like a lot of hassle just to reduce the number of uninsured by one-third. )  In March 2015, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that 21 million people would have signed up for coverage by state exchanges under the ACA by late 2015. This would be a pretty extraordinary jump: only 9 million people were registered in late 2014.  By late October 2015, only an additional million people had enrolled.

The great thing about a market economy is that it forces sellers of any good to find a price that is high enough for them to make a profit and low enough to attract customers.  The first years of the ACA have seen insurers searching for that sweet spot.[5]  One big problem is that many people remain outside the insurance market, regardless of the individual mandate.  The newly-insured have turned out to be sick people, rather than a broad range of the population.  Costs for insurance companies have gone up more than have income from premiums.  As a result, health insurance premiums rose by 5 percent for 2016.  Now, major insurance companies are seeking an average 10 percent increase in premiums for 2017.[6]  (The desired rates for Washington, DC and New York City are 16 percent.)  At some point, the insurance companies will find the right price.  Where is that price?  Will premiums continue to rise after 2017?  It’s difficult to say.  Why do uninsured people not enroll?  Young, healthy, and less-well-off people seem to be staging a libertarian revolt against the mandate that everyone have health insurance.

The ACA is a substantial extension of the entitlements safety-net for the benefit of poor people at the expense of not-so-poor people.  The federal government subsidizes to varying degrees many of the insurance premiums.  This means that higher premiums will increase federal spending on health care.  At some point, even in America, taxes are going to have to go up to pay for spending or spending is going to have to come down to what the country is willing to pay.[7]  However, people with higher incomes who buy insurance on the market-place lose the subsidies, so they are going to feel the sticker shock.  If it comes to higher taxes, Democrats are going to favor preserving the entitlement by taxing the one-percent, while Republicans are going to favor sending the ACA in front of a “death-panel.”

[1] This sounds like a Republican plot, but Republicans had no voice in the ACA.  This is all Democrats.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 10 July 2015, p. 17.

[3] “Noted,” The Week, misplaced the exact reference.  Sorry.

[4] “Noted,” The Week, 24 April, 2015, p. 16.

[5] Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz, “Obamacare Premiums Are Rising, Not a Little,” NYT, 16 June 2016.

[6] These sorts of developments have been predicted by Republican critics from the beginning.  Some of them have predicted that it will end in a “death spiral” as rising premiums force people out of the market.   Democrats derided this as partisan fear-mongering.

[7] I realize that this is a disturbing new way of looking at things.

Still More American Public Opinion.

What do Americans think of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? The polls have been blurry. In March 2014, 41 percent of people approved of the ACA, while 53 percent of people disapproved. There was a big partisan break-down: 72 percent of Democrats approved it, while only 8 percent of Republicans approved it. Those figures raise their own puzzles. Why are 28 percent of Democrats opposed to the law or unsure if they approve it? If 72 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of Republicans approve the law, where do Independents stand? In another poll in May 2014, 61 percent that they either wanted Congress to leave the ACA in place or—at most—tinker with any flaws. In contrast, 38 percent of people wanted the law repealed.[1] Approval of the ACA appears to have shot up from 41 percent to 61 percent, opposition to have fallen from 53 to 38 percent. Did this mark a sea-change in attitudes toward the ACA or a polling error?

What do Americans think about race relations? In 2009, after the election of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, 66 percent of people thought that race relations were good. Then came the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In August 2014, 80 percent of African-Americans thought that the shooting “raises important questions about race that need to be discussed.” Only 37 percent of whites agreed. Almost half of whites—47 percent—thought that race was “getting more attention than it deserves.” In December 2014, 85 percent of African-Americans disapproved of the decision by the grand jury to not indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown. Overall, 45 percent of Americans disapproved of the decision, while 48 percent approved it. By January 2015, 40 percent of people believed that race relations were “fairly good” or “very good.”[2] There is a rough similarity between the figures for those who had believed that race was getting too much attention, for those who approved the decision not to indict, and for those who believe that race relations are good.

What do Americans think about opportunity in America? In November 2014, 24 percent of people believed that the economy is “fair to most Americans,” while 71 percent think that it “generally favors the rich.” A majority—57 percent–of those who earn more than $100,000 a year agree. However, 43 percent of those who did not vote in November 2014 were African-American or Hispanic-Americans, and 46 percent earned less than $30,000 a year.[3]

What do people think about getting anything accomplished in government? In January 2015, 60 percent of Americans believed that the Congress elected in November 2014 will not accomplish any more than the previous bums. Even more, 72 percent, doubted that the Republican majority in the Senate would accomplish anything more than did the Democratic majority. Some people seem frustrated with this situation, while others are satisfied. Thus, 46 percent of people believed that President Obama should wait on action by Congress to solve the immigration issue. According to the first poll, however, most people expect that such action will not come. In contrast, 42 percent of people favored the president issuing an executive order to deal with immigration. Finally, 59 percent of people favored building the Keystone XL pipeline. This included not only 83 percent of Republicans, but also 43 percent of Democrats.[4] The president vetoed that bill.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 4 April 2015, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 23 May 2014, p. 15.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 29 August 2014, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 12 December 2014, p. 19; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 16 January 2015, p. 17.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 14 November 2014, p. 19.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 23 January 2015, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 28 November 2014, p. 15.

Getting a fat lady into a girdle.

It is way too early to tell how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going to shake-out. Neither Republican doom-saying nor Democrat triumphalism seems warranted at this moment. There are signs of gains that need to be consolidated and issues that may need to be addressed.

During the first year of the ACA the uninsured rate fell by thirty percent/10 million people.[1] That means that seventy percent/20 million people of the previously un-insured are still un-insured. Between 2002 and 2012 a rising number of Americans told Commonwealth Fund pollsters that medical bills caused them financial troubles.[2] Medical debt became one of the leading causes of people filing for bankruptcy. Many people (43 percent in 2012) decided against seeking some sort of medical care because of the cost. The Affordable Care Act intended to address this problem as one part of its effort to make health care more broadly available. The number of Americans reporting trouble with medical debt peaked at 41 percent in 2012. Then the number began to fall, hitting 35 percent in 2014. The number of those who did not seek medical care because of cost also fell to 36 percent. So, is the glass full, half-full, or empty?

The big problem is health-care costs and, thus, health-insurance costs.

Between 2003 and 2013, insurance premiums rose faster than did median incomes.[3] Between 2003 and 2010 insurance premiums rose by an average of 5.1 percent per year. In thirty-seven states the total employer + employees contributions equaled at least 20 percent of median income. Thus employers’ labor costs also rose. From 2011 to 2013, the pace of increases slowed, but continued to rise at a rate of 4.1 percent. By 2013 the average insurance premium had reached a national average of $16,000. Employers started looking for a way to limit the rise in their labor costs.

What they have hit on, in many cases, is shifting the cost to employees. In 2003, 52 percent of workers had employment-provided insurance with a deductible. By 2013 the number had risen to 81 percent. Furthermore, the deductibles have also risen by an average of 146 percent. They now average $1,000 per person in most states. According to a Commonwealth Fund study, the out-of-pocket costs for employees (insurance premiums + deductibles) rose from 5.3 percent of median household income in 2003 to 9.6 percent in 2013.

On the one hand, according to one report, 58 percent of Americans polled want ObamaCare repealed.[4] Why? Job-creation and wage increases have both been lagging for several years. This has left people feeling like the Great Recession never ended. Perhaps the shifting of medical costs to their consumers makes people feel like ObamaCare never happened.[5]

On the other hand, although health-care costs have risen more slowly since passage of the ACA, most economists—as opposed to political spokesmen—attribute this to the recession. They are likely to start back upward as the economy recovers. This will increase the pressure on employees for out-of-pocket expenses and premiums.

In short, we’re not yet done with health insurance reform. Maybe we’ll get it all the way right the next time.

[1] “Obamacare: Why, in Year Two, it’s still so unpopular,” The Week, 16 January 2015, p. 6.

[2] Margot Sanger-Katz, “Distress Appears to Ease Over Cost of Health Care,” NYT, 15 January 2015.

[3] Tara Siegel Bernard, “Health Premiums Rise More Slowly, but Workers Shoulder More of Cost,” NYT, 8 January 2015.

[4] “Obamacare: Why, in Year Two, it’s still so unpopular,” The Week, 16 January 2015, p. 6.

[5] However, it is possible that what they don’t like is Obama, rather than the Care. People often disapprove of a President in his lame-duck years.


The Affordable Courts Act (ACA).

The Affordable Care Act offered the states the opportunity to create health insurance exchanges, but then set up barriers to states actually creating such exchanges insurance. To create its’ own exchange, a state had to create a new state-paid staff to set up and operate the exchange: run a call center to explain the plans, regulate the plans offered by the private insurance companies, and set up the web-site through which people select their insurance. All this would cost money[1] and require some horse-trading in the legislature that could mess up other deals. Recognizing this, the federal government created a pool of money to subsidize the creation of state exchanges. The continuing costs would fall on the states. Moreover, many state legislatures were in the hands of Republicans who were opposed to the whole thing to begin with. It should surprise no one that thirty-four–about two thirds–of state legislatures opted to let the federal government carry the weight. Thus, most people buy their insurance through federal exchanges, rather than through state exchanges.[2]

Recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to one provision of the ACA. The case of King v. Burwell turns on the meaning of the language in the ACA regarding subsidies for people who purchase insurance through the exchanges. Do subsidies go only to people who purchase insurance on state-created exchanges or do they go to all exchanges, state and federal alike?[3] The Supreme Court will issue an opinion on the case in June 2015.

In a subtle bit of propagandizing the court, Margot Sanger-Katz recently penned a story in the New York Times that explains the likely consequences of a Court decision restricting the subsidies to state-created exchanges.[4] First, subsidies would end in the thirty-four federal government-created exchanges. This would drive up the cost for many insurance consumers beyond what they could afford. The individual mandate to purchase health insurance, a corner-stone of the ACA, could not be maintained if insurance costs rose dramatically. Second, any effort to replace the federal exchanges with state exchanges would involve an immense amount of work in a restricted period of time.

The Court will probably issue its opinion in June 2015. October is the enrollment month, so states would have from June to October (about four months) to create exchanges. Only eight states will have legislatures in session in June. This may cut down the time for legislative action to the extent that is necessary. It took three years to create the original exchanges. They turned out to be plagued with what the Obama Administration is pleased to call “glitches.” Doubtless people have learned a lot from the first round of experiences. The trouble is that one of those lessons is that it isn’t possible to create an exchange over-night. States will have to hire teams of people to create and manage the exchanges. They will have to find the additional money (see fn. 1 below) somewhere in the middle of a fiscal year. They will have to find the people somewhere. (I foresee a big money harvest for Massachusetts health insurance professionals.) Then computer programs will have to be purchased and adapted to suit the needs of each new state exchange. There is a good chance that chaos will reign for a time if the Court overturns subsidies for federal exchanges.

This leads me to believe that Chief Justice John Roberts will side with the Democratic appointees on the Court and against the four Justices who have always opposed the ACA.

Or, already existing state exchanges could start enrolling residents of other states as well. You can go to another state’s public colleges and universities if you pay out-of-state tuition. Why can’t insurance customers pay out-of-state premiums? Not a lot higher. Just enough to create a positive revenue stream.

[1] One current estimate of the cost to establish a single state exchange is about $40 to $60 million. Then the annual operating cost would be added on that. Obviously not the end of the world, but a hard sell to state legislatures in the middle of a recession.

[2] President Obama’s unilateral abandonment of the “public option” looks worse and worse all the time—in retrospect. Lots of human decisions look worse in retrospect.

[3] To an ignorant—Republican—layman like myself, the answer is clear. Congress did not pass an enormous and complicated piece of legislation with the intent that it should fail. Congress did not intend that subsidies be restricted to the state-created exchanges when it was creating the federal exchanges as a back-up system. Congress intended both forms of exchanges to receive subsidies. End of story.

[4] Margot Sanger-Katz, “Many States Unprepared to Set Up Health Exchanges,” NYT, 11 December 2014.