Premiums Under the Senate Bill

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.

Advertisements

One Response to Premiums Under the Senate Bill

  1. […] The main problems seem to be the individual mandate, requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, and rules seeking to decrease the disparity between premiums for older adults and those for younger adults. I have noted problems with the individual mandate and attempts to decrease the premium disparity in previous posts. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: