Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 11/1/16

Obamacare's Biggest Problem is Profit, Not Government

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   2 comments
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 77715
Message Richard Eskow
Become a Fan
  (15 fans)

From Our Future

It's true: the Affordable Care Act is having problems. But Republicans who say those problems are caused by "big government" have it exactly backward. Obamacare's current difficulties are grounded in our country's political fetishization of the private sector -- a fad that began in the Republican Party, but has unfortunately spread to much of the Democratic establishment.

Government isn't the problem here. It's the solution.

When the ACA is attacked, most Democrats point to the good it has done. They should. Some of its work, particularly in extending coverage to children and economically vulnerable populations, is highly laudable

But the flaws are real. One person in five on the exchanges will have no choice of insurers next year. Premiums for "mid range" plans -- which offer fairly paltry coverage -- will increase by an average of 25 percent, according to the Administration. States like Arizona are faring even worse, with an average projected increase of 116 percen t. Many people have found insurance on the exchanges to be unaffordable and are taking a tax penalty instead.

And while lower-income people will see their premium costs offset by subsidies, those subsidies represent a shifting of wealth from the general public to for-profit insurance corporation. That, too, is a legitimate policy concern.

What went wrong, and what can be done to fix it?

The policy heart of the ACA is the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which was crafted at a right-wing think tank. A number of its other key provisions had GOP roots too, including the "marketplaces."

Sen. John Chafee's Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's 1993 health proposal resembled the future ACA in a number of key ways. Republican Governor Mitt Romney eventually implemented a similar program in Massachusetts.

The ACA differed from these Republican plans in several key ways, including its expansion of Medicaid and the small additional tax it imposed on high earners. But it has Republican DNA. If President Obama hoped that would bring in some GOP support, he miscalculated. As the president himself said, "Republicans reversed course and rejected their own ideas once they appeared in the text of a bill I supported."

The ACA's deepest problems stem from assumptions built into its design -- assumptions that its backers described at the time as "technical" and "wonkish," but which were in fact deeply ideological at their core. These assumptions were rooted in a misplaced faith in private-sector market forces -- a faith not shared by some who, like me, had actually worked in private-sector health insurance.

The developed world is filled with healthcare success stories, but they are government success stories.

How did market myths distort the ACA? First, even the most conservative economist would agree that market forces can't function without competition. And yet in 2009, before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, several studies found that 94 percent of all health insurance markets in the United States were "highly concentrated."

The ACA tried to address this lack of competition by establishing nonprofit coops to compete with private carriers. But 15 of the 23 coops established under the law have already failed (as I predicted they would in 2011).

The ACA also relied on free-market ideology to "bend the cost curve," assuming that insurers would compete to cut costs in order to gain market share. But health insurers have relied on less productive tactics like mergers and market dominance to boost their profits instead.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).


Must Read 3   Well Said 1   Supported 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Richard Eskow Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Host of 'The Breakdown,' Writer, and Senior Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

How to Fix the Fed: Dismiss Dimon, Boot the Bankers, and Can the Corporations

The Top 12 Political Fallacies of 2012

Pawn: The Real George Zimmerman Story

What America Would Look Like If Libertarians Got Their Way

"His Own Man's" Man: Jeb Bush and the Return of Wolfowitz

"F" The Bureaucracy! The White House Can Help Homeowners Right Now

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: