
When ObamaCare is under attack, its defenders retreat to several well-worn claims. Among them is a provision that compels insurance companies to allow parents to keep their "children" ages of 21 to 26 on their family policies.
Yet this part of the Affordable Care Act
was not engineered in response to any noticeable interest group.
Instead, political considerations are responsible for the
provision—which is an unnecessary and a deceptive ripoff of the "young
healthies."
The first consideration is
that young adults facing chronic unemployment—thanks to government
policies that have retarded economic growth—commonly return to their
parents' home. Understanding that this is what the economic "new normal"
looks like, the Obama administration sought to avoid a potential political storm by
providing a benefit normally connected to holding a job for one of its
most reliable support groups.
Second, government's actuaries are well
aware that this much-touted benefit basically costs nothing. Actuarial
and other research suggests that the average male sees a physician six
times between the ages of 21 and 35. The parental coverage provision
seemed like a "freebie" for the administration's universal coverage
sales pitch.
Third, ObamaCare's
financing won't work unless "young healthies" (or their parents) pay
through the nose for coverage under parental plans or via the individual
mandate. The 18-26 age group is the lowest user of care, the least
costly to cover and the most profitable of all health-insurance
coverage. Yet the group faces extraordinarily high ObamaCare rates.
(Click link below to read more) READ MORE Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment