Maybe this is obvious! Here’s my crude, relatively unwonky framework for thinking about the ongoing troubles of Obamacare (specifically, of the Obamacare exchanges): It’s a class problem. The exchanges are attractive to lots of heavily subsidized near-poor Americans, but distinctly less attractive to middle class Americans with incomes above 4-times-poverty, about $48,000 for a single person. (That’s the point at which subsidies disappear and the exchanges become a much-less-good deal). Most of the middle class doesn’t have to use Obamacare, of course, to their immense relief — they get coverage from their employers. (Some, like freelance writers, have no choice. They have been known to complain.)
Why is this lack of a middle class participants a problem? Not because “programs for the poor are poor programs.” (Some are, some aren’t). Two other reasons:
1) We’re all human beings with the same health problems — but poorer Americans tend to be less healthy, so premiums that cover a poor-heavy risk pool will be higher than the “one true price” that would cover a risk pool made up of everybody. Middle class people thrown into this unhealthy risk pool wind up paying higher prices than they should have to pay. **
2) Different tastes. If you haven’t had health insurance because you can’t afford it, you might rationally be happy with any access to a regular doctor at all. If you’re middle or upper class you probably want access to the best doctors and the best hospitals. Not surprisingly, with a huge near-poor presence and no big middle class presence Obamacare is evolving to serve the former group: Medicaid-like packages with low prices and short lists of maybe-not-quite-as-top-tier docs (sorry, make that “narrow … networks that are especially adapted to the needs of lower income consumers”) have driven higher-end plans off the playing field. In some places, it’s hard to get a plan with top doctors and top hospitals on the exchanges even if you are willing to pay extra for it. More reasons for the (healthy) middle class to look at Obamacare the way a traveler views a seedy hotel — something to be avoided if possible. ***
It’s not easy to see how this core problem can solved without somehow getting more middle class people off their employer plans and into the Obamacare pool, something they won’t want to do as long as — well, as long as there aren’t more middle class people like them in the Obamacare pool, which won’t happen as long as the plans are too expensive and too Medicaid-like, which won’t change unless there are more middle class people in the pool ….
— Tinkering with the subsidy structure, a la the just-defeated Ryancare, might improve the mix a bit at the cost of leaving many poor Americans insufficiently subsidized and uncovered.
— Lowering the cost of the policies (by limiting “essential benefits,” for example) would also ease but not eliminate the underlying tension.
— Making the insurance mandate really coercive– with stiff penalties — is likely to be highly unpopular (who wants to be forced to check into a seedy hotel?) while failing to solve the problem, simply because there are too few middle class people to coerce. They’re squirreled away on their employers’ plans, and they ain’t comin’ out if they can help it.
Note that Medicare does not have this problem. Americans of all classes are in the Medicare system and good doctors are still (as of this writing) available. But even extending Medicare down to age 55 (from the current 65) or offering a public option (i.e. to effectively “buy into” Medicare) wouldn’t be a cure for Obamacare’s class problem: Those moves should again make Obamacare policies much cheaper — in this case by removing the higher risk patients from the pool. That alleviates the symptoms. But the insurance offered to whatever age group is left on the exchanges will still be overpriced for higher income people.
I suppose with enough money, anything can be fixed: You could slather the exchanges with such rich subsidies that they’d be a good deal for the semi-affluent as well as the semi-poor. That sounds awfully expensive, though. Would it be any cheaper than Bernie Sanders’ famously costly Medicare-for-all?
Or you could figure out some politically palatable way to knock millions of middle class people off their employer plans. Good luck with that.
Any help with this dilemma appreciated. …
__________
** — They do get at least one benefit they may not have had before: Insurance companies can’t kick them off if they get sick. Not enough to make the exchanges appealing apparently.
***- Alternate analogy: When I was in Cleveland for the GOP convention, I needed some groceries late at night. The only open store was in a nearby, very poor neighborhood. The shelves were filled with highly suspect off brands — Count Chocula would have been a welcome, healthy choice. The stuff wasn’t even that cheap. A valued local institution, maybe — but I would never voluntarily shop there again if a more Gelson’s-like alternative was available. Let’s say Obamacare is not the Gelson’s of health insurance.
The only issue with medical care is how you ration it. No one with money or connections will allow their health care to be decided by lottery. Obamacare is simply Medicaid for the non destitute poor (those with more than $2k). So the poor will always get second rate care. But GM was able to sell Chevrolets easily even though they sold Buicks and Cadillacs. Some effective styling, a decent engine and no frills did the trick. If you wrap Medicaid, Obamacare (Medicaid for the working poor) and catastrophic coverage for the middle class in one program you can design it to be better than the components. The middle class will throw some money in to have the safety net ,even though they and everyone else can avoid it unless tragedy strikes. But if you make it like a Chevrolet some may opt in.
[…] This article first appeared here […]
I’m pretty sure I’ve read that Obamacare reimbursement to providers is a lot less than Medicare reimbursement. Most middle class Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental to cover the 20% of the bill Medicare doesn’t cover. I don’t think thats available to Obamacare participants.
If only the Democrats were serious and would put forward some calm, well behaved people, they could do a deal with Trump. Trump would go for single payer. Unfortunately they put forward Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who are crotchety, difficult people.
I truly do not understand why you are not featured on those cable television news shows more to discuss this stuff. Are you blackballed? 🙂
Seriously, though, you are on target. (And, incidentally, as a recently minted health care “expert” for Fox News Radio (a label I suppose I will accept because, well, why not?) I have mentioned you a few times for support of the notion (which I think will become a reality) of #Medicare55 coming to the table. If anyone can make that happen, it would be Donald Trump, whose whole brand (politically speaking) is “Tangible Results Over Abstract Principles.”
Keep up the good work.
Wasn’t this the purpose behind the “Cadillac tax?” To make good employer-based plans so expensive that employers start dumping their workers into the Obamacare pools, thereby improving the pools?
Indeed, I don’t understand what you talked about in this page. But I still want to leave a comment for you . hahahaahahhaha.