I’ve been discussing arguments about the role of the individual mandate, how its possible absence might affect participation in the individual insurance market, and whether it is needed to prevent an insurance death spiral. A related point is that the individual mandate will actually have almost no impact on what a majority of people using the new exchanges would pay for health insurance.
For most people using the new exchanges, their cost of insurance will be determined by the affordable tax credits. According to the CBO’s projections, roughly 60 percent of people getting insurance in the non-group market will qualify for affordability tax credits. Given these subsidies, what these individuals are required to pay to get health insurance will be almost exclusively based on their income and not affected by the technical cost of premiums. It doesn’t matter whether the premiums are $5,000, $15,000 or $50,000 a year; if you make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL), what it costs you to buy a “silver plan” is set at a percentage of your income.
When people point to the CBO or Lewin Group or Urban Institute projections that dropping the mandate will increase average “premiums” by 10-20%, they don’t always mention that for the majority people in the non-group market, their individual costs aren’t determined by what the premiums are.
A Rand Study found that average non-group premiums would increase by 10-20% without the mandate, but what the majority of individuals would actually pay for insurance would go up by only about 2.4%. It also found that because of the design of the affordability credits many people under 400% of FPL would see basically no change in what they pay, with or without a mandate.
If the Court strikes down just the mandate, it could result in fewer people choosing to sign up for insurance and would likely increase the average amount the government would spend per new enrollee on affordable tax cuts, but it would have relatively little impact on what average people in the group market or non-group market or on Medicaid would need to pay to buy insurance.
This mandate reduces the average cost per new enrollee for the government, but it doesn’t really do anything to make insurance much cheaper for the actual new enrollees. The presence or absence of just the individual mandate would do very little to change how affordable the law will make health insurance for the people who want to sign up.




12 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I’m waiting for someone to demonstrate how an insurance ‘death spiral’ would be a bad thing…
My question is…
What is WRONG with an insurance death spiral??!!??
I dont see the insurance industry going down as a bad thing. If there is a death spiral then we would have to create and NHS here.
Somebody read Bartow Farr’s argument to the Supreme Court besides me.
It was brilliant.
Do you have a link?
Actually, the cost of this empty calories insurance is higher than people can afford. You said,
“if you make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL), what it costs you to buy a “silver plan” is set at a percentage of your income.”……..that is still a great deal of money.
Looks like an individual making 26.5 K would pay 3,900, no?? Bringing his or her income down approx. to 22.6K.
That’s not a lot to live on. This is just more xxxx people cannot afford.
Great post, Jon. I was under the notion the mandate was huge.
That *is* an interesting observation. But. Who ends up funding the magical government paying the difference between the set percentage of a ratepayer’s income and whatever the insurance industry decides to charge for a “silver” insurance policy?
Particularly in light of the apparent prohibition upon taxing people with a large quantity of money, it seems wrong to assert that because we end up paying whatever absurd rate gets forced on a now-captive market by giving our money to these insurance guys as back-end tax revenue, this translates into meaning that exchange users (and everyone else) didn’t pay for it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of the mandates at all. The insurance industry is going to milk this situation with the most amazingly high premiums they can muster in any event. With no cost controls and a guarantee for some quantity of subsidized policies, these “silver” things are going to the moon regardless mandates. IMO, People need a way to get out from under this mess or a lot of folks are going to get creamed by a cost reality totally distorted by subsidized policies where, as noted, a rate spread of $5000 to $50000 technically “doesn’t matter*” to the end consumer.
(*unless said consumer must, by law, purchase services in the same market without a government sponsorship buffer.)
Also a question. Say for some reason rates jump … oh, maybe $10,000 in a year. Isn’t the tax refund structure set up so a consumer pays up front and then gets a deduction on their taxes? What happens to a family that can’t afford to carry an increase to the end of the year when tax refunds happen? Put differently, are the actual monthly payment requirements capped (insurance companies seek direct reimbursement or something?) or does the family just end up having to stop paying for insurance and then find themselves with a penalty at the end of the year instead of a credit?
Where’s the money for these “tax credits” going to come from?
And even more apropos:
What happens to the unemployed? Or the folks who are too sick to work?
To have an entire health care system based upon private insurance coverage is a carefully engineered scheme to defraud the citizens and the taxpayers to line the corporate coffers of the insurance companies.
Also, keeping health care tied to one’s employer gives the corporations way too much leverage over workers. That’s why it is set up that way, i.e. no public option, no single payer. Compelling crappy employment, and the loss of much job mobility is a feature, not a bug.
The politicians have sold you down the river, folks.
KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION asks: The Individual Mandate: How Sweeping is it?
Thanks. I went to the premium calculator and entered the 26.5K income and got a premium of about 1,900 a year. The difference between this result and the CBO’s chart (3,900) is explained by the cost-sharing the insured person would have to pay to receive medical services at an average rate (2,000). My error, sorry.
I still believe that this is exorbitant expense for a person earning 26.5 K. In Canada, an individual healthcare premium would be around a hundred dollars a month, and that is without cost-sharing. So why would Americans want to pay for high priced American health care and high priced American health insurance, even if it is partially government subsidized??
Sure. http://bit.ly/GYu0WW it’s a .pdf, but is searchable.
He was the last one to argue, and the only one who apparently understands the first thing about economics. He left the Justices in the dirt.
I still believe that this is exorbitant expense for a person earning 26.5 K.
I totally agree. Not only that, if they could pony up the premium, could they afford to use the insurance with the co-pays, deductibles, etc?