universal coverage


Itís Not ďUniversal CoverageĒ

Securing universal health insurance enrollment has been a major goal of American liberals for decades, and Obamacare aims to use the individual mandate to ensure that all Americans obtain health insurance. But as I explain in a column at National Review Online, even with the individual mandate Obamacare will fail to provide “universal coverage” for Americans, and will end up becoming just another expensive entitlement program.

In its latest assessment of the law, released in conjunction with new budget projections, the CBO indicates that the number of uninsured residents in the United States will never fall below 31 million — three million more uninsured people than was estimated for the non-mandate plan President Obama rejected — and that the insured will never be as much as 90 percent of the population.

And even that estimate is highly optimistic. It assumes that 70 percent of the population eligible for the Medicaid expansion will eventually enroll in the program. As of today, however, only 24 states have governors and legislatures that would likely agree to move ahead with expansion, and that number could easily fall as more state policymakers come to the realization that Medicaid is far too often failing its current enrollees. It makes little sense in that context to dramatically expand a program that credible independent observers believe needs significant reform.

You can read the rest of the column here.

posted by James C. Capretta | 3:09 pm
Tags: Obamacare, universal coverage
File As: Health Care

The Baucus Planís Regressive Employer Mandate

Let’s give the bipartisan “group of six” senators — Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and five of his committee colleagues — their due. More than any others, they are responsible for the likely derailment of the House’s massive health care overreach.

Rank-and-file House Democrats — and not just the Blue Dogs — are loathe to vote for a $1.5 trillion spending increase, $800 billion in tax increases, costly mandates on businesses and individuals, and an increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the first decade (and much more in the years following) if Senate Democrats are going to go in an entirely different direction. Especially not after the “cap and tax” vote, which is going to haunt House Democrats all the way until November 2010. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as much as admitted that many in her caucus are not going to stick their necks out again when she said Monday night, “We’re waiting to see what the Senate will do.”

While putting up a major roadblock to further proceedings in the House is certainly a praiseworthy accomplishment, that’s about the only good thing that’s likely to come out of what is being worked on by the bipartisan group behind closed doors in the Senate, at least as understood from press accounts of the emerging “Baucus plan.”

On the surface, there is a sense that Sen. Baucus and his colleagues are pursuing a more sensible approach, sensitive to economic concerns and more aggressive on “bending the cost-curve.” But that’s really a false impression. At its core, the Baucus plan contains the same elements that make the House bill flawed and the first step toward a full governmental takeover of American health care.

It all starts with the Democratic insistence on “universal coverage.” With that as the non-negotiable goal, the Baucus plan goes down the very same road as the House bill, with costly and regressive employer and individual mandates which essentially force tens of millions of people to sign up with a plan offered at the workplace, whether they want to or not.

Today’s news coverage is filled with stories indicating that the group of six has apparently agreed not to impose a mandate on employers, opting instead to impose a “free rider tax” on firms whose workers end up getting subsidized coverage in the so-called “exchanges.”

But this is a distinction without a difference. Businesses not offering insurance today would still be forced to pay a hefty fine for all of their workers who got newly subsidized insurance through the so-called “exchanges.” That’s the exact same concept behind the House’s “pay or play” employer mandate. Employers either get their workers into job-based plans — or else. How is that not a mandate? Yes, there may be more flexibility for firms regarding what they actually have to provide in the Baucus plan. And because workers above 300 percent of the poverty line won’t be eligible for subsidization, their employers may not have to pay a fine for not offering insurance to them. But the reality is that just about every firm has some low wage workers on their payroll, which means the vast majority of employers will have to organize and pay for insurance for all of their employees to avoid getting fined for those who might end up in the federal subsidy program.

Of course, what has not been mentioned enough is how regressive this all is. Employers don’t “pay for” health insurance. In competitive labor markets, they reduce what they pay out in cash by the premiums they must pay for health insurance. In other words, it’s always the workers who pay for a job-based health plan. In both the House bill and the Baucus plan, tens of millions of low- and middle-income workers will be forced to sign up for employer-organized insurance, with no additional help from the government. That will mean large pay cuts as uninsured families are forced to pay expensive premiums they don’t today. That’s the way the authors of these bills are able to say they are “covering everybody” for “only” $1 trillion. Indeed, the health care bills under consideration in Congress — including the Baucus plan — would cost much, much more if the Democratic sponsors of them weren’t so willing to make the very workers they say they represent pay massive and regressive hidden taxes.

posted by James C. Capretta | 10:37 am
Tags: Max Baucus, Blue Dogs, mandate, deficit, cap and tax, Nancy Pelosi, House bill, universal coverage, mandate, free rider tax, pay or play
File As: Health Care

Senate Democrats Opt for Regressive Mandates

President Obama and his congressional allies greeted the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimates of the Kennedy-Dodd legislation with great enthusiasm. The cost had come down, we were told, even as more people would get covered.

But, as others have already noted, there was an awful lot of spin in the media coverage of what CBO actually said. For starters, it’s clear the Kennedy-Dodd bill, even as amended, would still cost a fortune. CBO’s new estimate shows a ten-year cost of about $600 billion for the bill, but that estimate excludes the cost of covering Americans with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line under Medicaid, which is not yet part of the Kennedy-Dodd draft but is central to the overall Democratic reform framework. That addition alone would add at least $500 billion to $600 billion to the tab, and perhaps much more, putting the total cost of Kennedy-Dodd, even as revised, at well over $1 trillion for the decade.

Still, CBO did say Kennedy-Dodd 2.0 would cost less than the original version. In mid-June, CBO projected that the health-insurance subsidies provided in the original bill would cost $1.279 trillion over a decade. But, in the new version of the legislation, those subsidies would cost $723 billion over ten years — or $556 billion less.

So how does the new, apparently leaner Kennedy-Dodd bill cut the subsidy costs?

Part of the answer is a scaling-back from an outlandishly expansive starting point. The original version of Kennedy-Dodd contemplated subsidizing households with incomes all the way up to 500 percent of the poverty line. Even House Democrats found that to be too much. So Kennedy-Dodd 2.0 now sets the income limit at 400 percent of poverty.

But, beyond the lower income threshold, Senate Democrats, including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, have also discovered the budgetary virtues of heavy-handed government decrees. If you want to expand insurance coverage, you can simply make people sign up for a plan — whether they want to or not. And to keep costs down for the government, you subsidize only those who get insurance outside of the workplace — and then write rules that make it nearly impossible for anyone to fall into that category. Presto! Government-run health-care paid for with the hidden taxes of government mandates.

According to the Census Bureau, there are about 102 million Americans under age 65 living in households with incomes between 150 and 400 percent of the poverty line — the presumed target population for subsidized insurance in the Kennedy-Dodd bill. But CBO said only about 20 million people in 2014 would get the subsidies under the revised version of the legislation. That’s because the authors sought to create a so-called “firewall” to prevent most workers from getting insurance outside the workplace if their employer offered a plan. And, of course, the bill would also impose severe, per-worker penalties on any employer that didn’t offer approved coverage. Only workers who would have to pay more than 12.5 percent of their income for a job-based plan could opt to get their insurance through the subsidized insurance arrangements, which CBO apparently assumes will be a relatively small number of people.

What’s ironic is that mandating enrollment in job-based insurance is about the most regressive way possible to expand coverage. Despite the perceptions, employment-based health insurance is financed by workers, not firms. The premiums for coverage implicitly reduce the cash compensation workers take home. In most companies, workers pay the same implicit premium for health insurance regardless of their age or health status or salary. That means the cost of enrolling in job-based coverage falls more heavily on low-wage workers than higher-salaried employees, which is why such a large percentage of the uninsured are in households that have access to a plan but choose not to enroll.

Democrats used to be sympathetic to the financial strain these workers are under. But that was before CBO said their sympathy would be expensive. So now the emerging plan is to make tens of millions of Americans pay more than they do today for government-approved insurance organized by their employer. That’s really their only choice. If they don’t take it, they will face a large financial penalty. Great deal, huh?

Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,” but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts, the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill will pass before the public discovers what they are up to.

posted by James C. Capretta | 5:13 pm
Tags: ObamaCare, CBO, HELP, Medicaid, projected costs, Max Baucus, mandate, universal coverage
File As: Health Care

The Baucus Planís Penalties on Work

Late last week, Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, tried to jump-start the push for a sweeping health care bill by letting it be known that he has made progress toward a “bipartisan” deal in his committee on a health care plan.

Of course, no one knows for sure what’s in the Baucus plan except for a handful of people. There have been two Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tables provided to the committee indicating how much alternative versions of plan would cost over the coming decade, but neither estimate been released to the public by the committee. The insistence on complete secrecy just days before a planned markup of the bill would seem to contradict pronouncements of total confidence in its popularity and inevitability.

Still, despite the secrecy, some of the details are now clear enough to make some analytical judgments — thanks, in part, to a post by Ezra Klein of some slides which apparently reflect where the emerging plan now stands. And it is clear from the details provided in those slides that the draft Baucus plan would impose severe financial penalties on the earned income of low-wage workers.

The centerpiece of the Baucus plan is a new entitlement to health insurance premium subsidies. The very lowest income households (perhaps below 133 percent of the federal poverty line, or about $29,300 for a family of four in 2009) would get full subsidization of their premiums, likely worth about $12,000 per year. That subsidy would then get phased down as household income rises. In the original Baucus plan, the cut-off point was 400 percent of poverty, or $88,200 per year. But CBO said that plan would cost $1.6 trillion over a decade, a figure that stunned and appalled Democrats. Senator Baucus and his staff subsequently vowed to cut back the total governmental cost of the plan to under $1 trillion over ten years — without abandoning their goal of “universal coverage.” How to do that? Continue to make people buy the insurance — the so-called “individual mandate” — but give them less by way of subsidization when they do so. The new Baucus plan would cut subsidies off at 300 percent of poverty, or $66,150 for a family of four.

But phasing out subsidization of expensive health insurance plans in this manner imposes very high implicit tax rates. If the total premium for an average health insurance plan for a family costs $12,000 per year, under the updated Baucus plan a worker would lose $.33 in health premium subsidization for every $1 earned in the phase-out range. That implicit 33 percent tax rate would be come on top of existing federal payroll and income taxes, as well as the implicit taxes associated with phasing-out the earned income tax credit, food stamps, and housing vouchers. Quite literally, if the Baucus plan were to pass, it would not pay for millions of lower income Americans to take higher paying jobs because much of the wage gain would be lost to the government.

The problem would be compounded by Senator Baucus’s elaborate “pay or play” scheme. Several options are presented in the slide deck, but it’s clear that the most likely scenario is a penalty on employers if they don’t provide government-approved insurance for lower wage workers and their families who would be eligible for premium subsidization if they weren’t enrolled in a job-based plan. This is a transparent effort to push more costs onto employers in order to keep the overall federal costs of the Baucus plan to “just” $1 trillion.

But what will employers do if faced with such a requirement? For starters, they will avoid hiring low wage workers, as the “pay or play” mandate wouldn’t apply to workers with higher incomes. Is that what the Democrats really intend? Moreover, to avoid paying the penalty, firms would re-organize themselves so that they contract with other firms for low-wage labor instead of hiring the workers directly themselves.

After the success of welfare reform in 1996, you’d think Congress would have learned that the last thing they want to do is to penalize work among low-wage households. It’s completely counterproductive to make such households ever more dependent on government assistance. But that’s exactly what the emerging Baucus plan would do.

posted by James C. Capretta | 10:57 am
Tags: Max Baucus, CBO, entitlement, universal coverage, projected costs, mandate, pay or play
File As: Health Care