Boulder, Colorado
Dear Senators Udall and Bennet, and Congressman Polis,
As you will soon be faced with a Republican-sponsored vote
to repeal PPACA, also known as Obamacare, I’d like to offer you
real-world evidence of the impact of government policy — primarily
but not entirely federal policy — on the health insurance of a
family you represent.
In the televised “Health Care Summit” last February (you
remember, that was the meeting where Paul Ryan looked smarter, more
prepared, and more presidential than Barack Obama did), President
Obama said that the impact of his health insurance reform/assault
would be that “The costs for families for the same type of coverage
as they’re currently receiving would go down 14 to 20 percent.”
Similarly, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus seized on a
narrow aspect of a CBO report to claim that “the vast majority of
Americans will see lower premiums than they would if we don’t pass
health reform.”
These gentlemen were both wrong — Obama spectacularly
wrong — as of course they must be. After all, how could anyone
claim that premiums would drop when government was piling cost
after cost on the insurance companies and unwanted benefit after
unwanted benefit on American health insurance buyers.
Thus, it was unwelcome but not surprising news when I
learned that my health insurance premium for 2011 was jumping 17%
from its 2010 levels. My insurance company, which I’m generally
quite happy with, included a pretty color brochure trying to salve
the overheating brows of many thousands of angry
customers.
This information/propaganda included an explanation of
government-required changes to the health insurance plan which
increase the plan’s cost by adding “benefits” that I either don’t
want or don’t need.
Some of these provisions are due to PPACA, including the
ability to keep “children” on their parents’ health insurance plans
until the age of 26 and the elimination of “lifetime dollar limits
on essential health benefits.”
To be sure, it’s not only federal law which is raising my
insurance costs. Democrats in Colorado have mandated that insurance
policies cover maternity care and contraception. As you might
guess, maternity coverage is extremely expensive. Given that I’ve
already had a date with a scalpel, it’s extremely unlikely that my
wife and I will have more children, so having to pay for insurance
to cover child birth is an unnecessary burden.
As the key mental characteristic of “Progressives” is
their belief that people are too stupid to make their own economic
decisions, I expect you don’t understand that each of these
provisions — indeed every provision of any insurance policy —
should be the subject of negotiation between the insurance company
and the insurance buyer. Yes, some people might want to keep their
adult children on their policy and some people might want maternity
coverage and some people might want unlimited potential insurance
payouts, but many or most people don’t — at least not if there’s a
cost.
The mandates of federal and state government are like
requiring all Americans to buy a car with every possible option
whereas most of us are OK with the base package, or something just
above that, for much less money. As Frédéric Bastiat would pose it,
Democrats have only focused on that which is seen, namely these
“benefits” of coverage, while ignoring that which is unseen, namely
that I now have less money available to send my children to a
better school, to take a vacation, or even to pay my health
insurance deductible.
As if all this isn’t enough, another provision of
Obamacare makes it nearly impossible for me to change my family’s
health insurance plan. If I try to change, we’re suddenly not
“grandfathered” and are then funneled into the very limited and
expensive choices remaining to us after Democrats shoved Obamacare
down our throats. And even with a grandfathered plan, we only “may”
be able to keep our plan after 2014, “when the market will function
very differently and health care choices may be
limited.”
We used to receive certain preventative medicine services
without copayment (as the insurance company has determined that
doing so saves them money in the long run), but — surprise,
surprise — those provisions are somehow not grandfathered in. Of
course they’re not, because the insurance company knows that you
have made us their captive, all but unable to change policies or
companies without running into the teeth of the growling Nanny
State. We are now the insurance company’s prisoner, thanks to
PPACA.
You may protest that not all of the huge increase in my
health insurance premiums is due to Obamacare. While that’s true,
the more important point is that the factors causing the rest of
the increase are also due to government, in particular the many
ways in which government prevents the functioning of a competitive
market in health insurance.
You don’t allow interstate competition of health
insurance, a key factor in keeping other forms of insurance, such
as automobile insurance, more affordable and more responsive to
customers. You tilt the playing field toward employer coverage,
doing great disservice to the many self-employed and small
businesses in this country. At the state level, mandates to cover
everything from in vitro fertilization to hair transplants
boost the cost of coverage for millions.
Soon, Obamacare will prevent insurance companies from
denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. A brief
conversation I had with my bank teller, who used to work for a
large insurance company, might be instructive. When I asked her if
someone who just found out he has cancer should be able to then
apply for and receive health insurance coverage, she said “Of
course! Everyone has the right to access health care.” After
pointing out to her that everyone already does have that right and
that it’s not dependent on insurance, I asked her whether someone
who just wrecked his car should then be able to apply for and
receive auto insurance coverage and use that to get a new car. Her
response: “That’s illegal!” — followed by a clear explanation of
why that wouldn’t be fair to existing policy holders. In short,
sirs, forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions is not
“insurance,” it’s welfare.
What binds together all these problems — the majority of
the factors behind health insurance price spikes — is actions of
government, primarily the federal government, and particularly
Obamacare’s intolerable intrusion on the rights of Americans to
make and agree to contracts. I strongly urge you to recognize that
your allegiance must be to the people you represent and not to the
temporary resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With that in mind,
I trust you will support the economically wise and liberty-boosting
efforts to repeal this most damaging legislation of my
lifetime.
Most Sincerely,
Ross G Kaminsky
