Though the findings of a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on projected insurance premiums under the Senate health-care “reform” legislation are mixed, it does predict some disappointing results for those purchasing insurance individually.
One important point it projects is the following:
… the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.
The reason for this particular increase is that the insurance companies would be required under the law to cover more care in their plans. Individuals without insurance would be required to purchase a plan conforming to the minimum standards set by law or face a fine. For some, those minimum standards may be more coverage than they are voluntarily willing to pay for. That’s where the government steps in essentially forcing them to do so.
One other interesting point from the report is that overall average premiums would go down because of individuals obtaining coverage who would have not done so without the coercion from the government. These individuals, the report argues, generally have lesser medical expenses. One important reason their medical expenses may be lower is because they tend to be younger. The younger, and generally healthier, pool of insurance-plan holders skews the average costs lower.
Really, this predicted overall reduction would just be a sly way of making it look like actual health-insurance costs have gone down. These individuals would have never purchased insurance had the government not coerced them through the so-called “individual mandate.” So, in reality, their costs for coverage have gone way up, because they are being coerced into purchasing coverage they may not really want.
Government paternalism has led to the point where politicians now think it is OK to force people into purchasing something they do not want. Forget the Constitution.