When one hears a title of a story like “Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law”, the rule thumb is to first panic. Should not Obamacare have ensured that that would not occur? When one further dives into the story and realize that it means seven million will lose insurance provided by their employers and not insurability, it presents an excellent segue to discuss America’s healthcare insurance payment system abyss.
It is likely more people will eventually lose their job-based insurance simply because companies may realize it is not only about the cost of the premiums they pay for their employees, but the inefficiencies of renegotiating healthcare insurance contracts yearly. They can get rid of their healthcare infrastructure (employees, space, and other overhead), pay a fixed “penalty” and have their employees all join an exchange.
While many will initially balk at this, it will become apparent over the years that when a company can concentrate on its core service, its core products, and not the health of the employee, they can become much more efficient. Better for the employee however is that once their healthcare is untethered from the employer, it gives them the freedom to move from employer to employer without the risk of the employer enslaving them in order to maintain insurance.
For those who believe that the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, was a complete sell out because there was no Public Option, no real attempt at single payer, the maintenance of the fraud that is the private health insurance system, take note that the tenets within the law ensures that we will end up close to a single payer system, with a Public Option, as the middle class centric humane regulations within the law make the profit margins of the insurance “industrial” complex untenable.
Under the current law insurance companies can no longer rescind policies, or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Under the new law many employers can do a cost analysis and realize that deterministic fixed cost penalty makes their business more efficient and predictable. Employees in an exchange now have the freedom of movement or the freedom to innovate without the worry of lack of insurability.
Many that oppose the bill under the pretext of socialism do not really fear the current bill. They fear where it will lead us. What is ironic is, had those that opposed the bill engaged, they could have codified a system, though less efficient, more to their liking. As it is, those governors not setting up exchanges or not taking certain parts of Medicaid are simply speeding up the process of a single payer system, if not in name, in virtual function.