<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2
face=Arial>"But weren't we told that Obamacare provides "universal coverage,"
and that it will be an enormously popular bill? Didn't a series of Democratic
luminaries, including Hillary Clinton, tell us that the individual mandate was a
wonderful idea? Weren't we told that Massachusetts residents love their version
of Obamacare (aka "Romneycare")?</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2
face=Arial>They were, however, a great boon to the health insurance industry.
That's why we looked to <A href="" rel=nofollow>see how well health
insurance stocks did</A> the day after Obamacare's
passage."</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=2
face=Arial>"It looks like the bats have come home to
roost."<BR></DIV></FONT></FONT></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">Politico </FONT><A href="" rel=nofollow><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">reports</FONT></A><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> that Congressional leaders from both parties are
trying to find a way to exempt themselves and their staff members from using the
"Obamacare" health exchanges, as mandated in the health reform law. The Politico
story says that Hill leaders are afraid that their lower-paid staffers would
leave their Congressional jobs in large numbers if they were hit with
significant out-of-pocket Obamacare costs. <BR><BR>The story also says that
representatives and senators are concerned that "older, more senior staffers
could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial
penalty," and were "also concerned about the hit to their own wallets."<BR>If
the story is true -- and so far there have been no denials from Democrats --
then this highlights a potential landmine for the Democrats. It suggests that
Obamacare's requirement for premium costs will be too onerous for lower-income
and middle-class working Americans to bear. Those out-of-pocket costs rise to
9.5 percent, after subsidies, which end once income exceeds four times the
Federal poverty level, which comes to roughly $43,000. Payment provisions below
that level will also have a significant impact on household budgets.<BR>(UPDATE:
Ezra Klein has a </FONT><A href="" rel=nofollow target=_hplink><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">clarification</FONT></A><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman"> from Dems which says they're objecting because, for
technical reasons, staffers would have to pay 100 percent of their premium
share. Unfortunately that doesn't contradict the argument that out-of-pocket
premium requirements are burdensome, and may in fact reinforce it.)<BR>The
"individual mandate" provision takes effect next year, and it appears to be the
source of Congressional fear. It now appears as if Democratic leaders in the
House and Senate are afraid that these provisions will be so onerous that
they'll lose many of their top staffers.<BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV class=adsplat></DIV>
<DIV>But weren't we told that Obamacare provides "universal coverage," and that
it will be an enormously popular bill? Didn't a series of Democratic luminaries,
including Hillary Clinton, tell us that the individual mandate was a wonderful
idea? Weren't we told that Massachusetts residents love their version of
Obamacare (aka "Romneycare")? Weren't we told that similar plans worked very
well in nations like Switzerland? Didn't <A href="" rel=nofollow>Nate
Silver</A> tell progressives that they would be "batsh*t crazy" not to
enthusiastically support a bill that could drain a household income by nearly 10
percent -- for mediocre private-sector health insurance coverage?<BR>Now, it
seems, the second thoughts have begun. But, to be fair, who could have seen this
coming?<BR>Ahem.<BR>We were among the first (possibly the first) to argue
against John Edwards' and Hillary Clinton's individual-mandate proposals in the
2008 primaries. (In 2007 we called them "<A href="" rel=nofollow>a bug, not a
feature</A>," in health reform.) We pointed out that Massachusetts residents
who <I>were personally affected by the law</I> <A href=""
rel=nofollow>liked it far less</A> than other people did, with only a slim
majority supporting it even in that liberal state. (Their lack of enthusiasm
appears to be shared by Hill staffers.)<BR>It's also worth noting that a
significant number of Massachusetts residents who disapproved of the law <A
href="" rel=nofollow>two years later</A> felt that way because <I>it
didn't go far enough</I> in reforming the healthcare system.<BR>We <A
href="" rel=nofollow>explained</A> that Switzerland's lower-cost,
nonprofit-driven health system can't be compared to our system of overpriced
health insurance, where most people who become bankrupt for medical reasons did
so despite <A href=""
rel=nofollow>actually <I>having</I> insurance coverage</A>. And we
advised progressives that, <I>pace</I> Silver, they would be "<A
href="" rel=nofollow>batsh*t crazy</A>" to embrace a health plan that forced
people to buy a lousy private-sector product -- or pay higher taxes if they
couldn't afford it.<BR>It looks like the bats have come home to roost.<BR>Rep.
Henry Waxman may have been correct when he told <I>Politico</I> that
Congressional fears were unfounded, and that Hill politicians and staffers would
be exempted from the onerous out-of-pocket provisions of Obamacare. But the
point has still been made, however inadvertently, by Democrats in Washington:
These mandates are too much for working Americans to bear.<BR>They were,
however, a great boon to the health insurance industry. That's why we looked
to <A href="" rel=nofollow>see how well health insurance stocks
did</A> the day after Obamacare's passage. They did quite well, thank you
very much. It was a red-letter day for health insurance executives, if not for
working Americans.<BR>There are plausible economic arguments for requiring all
Americans to purchase health insurance (although they're not as conclusive as
their proponents usually claim). But they certainly don't outweigh the dire
economic effect healthcare costs have on most Americans. (See "<A href=""
rel=nofollow>A Healthcare Bailout for the Middle Class</A>.")<BR><BR>I still
feel the way I did in 2009 when I wrote that "progressive groupthink hindered
health reform." The reflexive instinct to support a Democratic-proposed policy
led to the mind-bending spectacle of liberals from Rachel Maddow to Paul Krugman
cheering for an "individual mandate" policy which was designed in a conservative
think tank as a boon to private corporations.<BR><BR>It's also worth noting
that, whatever you think of Obamacare's merits, this story reinforces the
perception that today's Democratic leaders are pretty terrible at messaging.
John Boehner's spokesperson was understandably gleeful when he said "The
speaker's objective is to spare the entire country from the ravages of the
president's health care law. He is approached daily by American citizens,
including members of Congress and staff, who want to be freed from its mandates.
If the speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he
will."<BR><BR>It should've been pretty easy to see that coming, too.<BR><BR>We
argued then that it was ethically unacceptable and economically unwise to force
people to buy a lousy private-sector insurance product. The only way to mitigate
that would be by offering them membership in a publicly-managed Medicare plan.
But the combination of high-pressure lobbying and presidential indifference made
sure that didn't happen.<BR><BR>This doesn't mean that "Obamacare" should be
repealed, although it now seems that nothing short of Medicare-For-All (or, at a
minimum, all-payer) can save our broken healthcare system. But it does mean that
the battle for decent health care in this <BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>