Why are we against the Affordable Care Act (ACA)?

By Armstrong Williams

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

There are three basic arguments against Obamacare.

Obamacare shows us that adding a right to health care has already taken away the most basic First Amendment right of Catholics to exercise their religion. A right to abortion handed down by a court takes away the citizens’ right to vote their conscience. Any new, or unnecessary right, always takes away an old necessary one. I wish it were not so. I wish that we could make everything good into a right, but we just can’t.

Healthcare cannot be a privilege either, if we look at the true definition of privilege. Privilege is a special favor granted by another entity, whether it is government, the private sector, or within a household. It is also not something that we only obtain from the government. Healthcare is a service that is provided through both public and private means. If we want to live out the liberties granted to us by our founders, we should reserve our right to purchase healthcare in the free market, allowing opportunities for those to purchase at affordable rates, not by allowing healthcare controlled by bureaucrats.

Of course there is, and can never be, a right to health care. But there is, and will always be, the duty for us to take care of our brothers and sisters.

First, the insurance premium benefits are not and will not be as attractive as they were originally advertised. In order for ACA insurance programs to reduce premiums, it requires the participation of all healthy young Americans. The community ratings provision of Obamacare means that young people will be forced to pay significantly higher premiums under the ACA than they would under an actuarial based insurance system. This is especially true considering most healthy young adults need only carry catastrophic insurance, whereas the ACA demands that have more comprehensive (and more expensive) coverage. Early empirical evidence supports the logic that the premiums for young people are significantly higher under Obamacare.

However the Achilles Heel of the act requires insurance companies to insure all applicants of the same age cohort the same premium regardless of preexisting medical conditions. Consequently, an economically rational young person will not pay the high premiums unless and until they become sick. At that point, it is rational for them to purchase the policy. This means that only older and sicker Americans will buy ACA policies. If only older and sick people are participating the cost of the premiums will sky rocket. The premiums for healthy older people will then increase, thereby creating an incentive for them also not to buy the policy until they become sick. Thus, there is a built in death spiral that will lead to fewer healthy participants, higher premiums, and the eventual bankruptcy of the insurance companies who must insure all applicants.

The second major problem is that Obamacare imposes price controls on the medical system in order to reduce costs. The act seeks to control the compensation of medical personnel, medical procedures, and hospital costs. The history of price controls is full of failure. In the United States, Americans over the past generation have seen the failure of price controls imposed on housing, food, and energy. Communist and socialist societies using price controls collapsed under the weight of the regulatory controls being overwhelming by the black market and corruption. There is no reason to believe price controls will be more successful in the American medical industry.

The third major problem is the negative impact on jobs and the economy. Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees have a disincentive to expand beyond 49 employees, because they will incur health insurance cost on 50 people once they hire their 50th employee. This will act not only as a ceiling on employment for small businesses, but also put a brake on successful business expansion and resulting economic growth. It will make no financial sense for companies to hire more than 49 full-time employees unless they can hire another 50 plus at once.

In addition, employers have an incentive to hire part time workers rather than full time workers. Employers are not required to provide health insurance for part time workers. Since the employer’s share of insurance premiums on a low wage full-time worker is 15-20% of the total compensation, the employer can save a lot of money hiring part-time workers. Part-time workers seeking full time jobs must work at two part time jobs to make up the hours needed for full time employment. They still will not have employer provided insurance.

Businesses currently employing more than 50 uninsured employees will see their per employee costs increase $5,000 to $10,000. A business with 51 employees could have an insurance bill of $500,000! For all but the largest corporation, it will be cheaper and make more financial sense to pay the fine and not insure any of its employees.

Whether they offer insurance or pay the fine, the higher balance will be financed out of profits, necessitating higher prices to customers or a reduction in employment. If it comes out of profits, there is less money for the business owner to invest in business expansion assuming he has the profitability to pay the additional costs. Higher prices to consumers result in less money spent on other goods. Reduction in employment means higher unemployment. None of this is good for an anemic economy that can barely grow 2% annually after the 2008 recession.