The baked-in failure of Freedom-Hater-care: the cattle-masses of post-America were sold a blatant lie

The Most Equal Comrade thought he could put one past you, that you would quit understanding the first rule of economics: that the money has to come from somewhere. Of course, given the fact that Freedom-Hater-care has been consistently underwater in public opinion polls since it was imposed on us, we know you didn't swallow his socialist hooey.

But once the overlords, made it "the law of the land," as they crowingly referred to it, we had no choice but to dive in and see how it was going to work out.

And now the dynamics of the monstrosity are bearing that first law out:

 as The New York Times reported this weekend, even the words “affordable” and “care” have turned out to be untrue as well. The sharp rise in premiums has garnered the most headlines in the first three open-enrollment seasons of Obamacare, but equally if not more pernicious has been the increase in deductibles. As Eric Pianin explained for The Fiscal Times on Monday, deductibles have increased an average of 11 percent on Bronze level plans for 2016, intended to be the most affordable of all options, and now average over $5700. For Silver level, deductibles rose 6 percent and now average over $3100.

Consumers have to pay both the premium and then thousands of dollars for care out of their own pocket before insurance takes effect.

When the media focused on skyrocketing premiums (rightly so, considering the large serial increases for health insurance on the individual exchanges since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act) its advocates defended the system by pointing out that many on the exchanges qualified for subsidies to absorb the costs. For instance, Obama himself promised, “Most Americans will find an option that costs less than $75 a month,” and HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell claimed that 80 percent of Americans would pay no more than $100 in premiums after the subsidies.

Those claims may be true, but those subsidies don’t just fall out of the trees; they come from higher taxes on providers and manufacturers, and eventually out of the pockets of consumers, as do all business taxes. However, that defense doesn’t work on deductibles, which insurance companies were forced to raise when the state and federal governments tried to squeeze premium increases for the exploding demand down to a dull roar.

As we know, in a truly free-market scenario, the only kind of health insurance that anyone would need would be for catastrophic care. The individual consumer would budget for anything else. Competition would keep medications, therapies, routine office visits, maintenance-type procedures - and the insurance itself -  affordable.

But what we have under FHer-care is coverage for the catastrophic stuff at an exorbitant cost because the government makes the insurers include all kinds of non-catastrophic stuff in the policies.

Consumers used to have an option for that kind of health insurance – catastrophic coverage, used to indemnify against unforeseen major health events. Those policies featured low premiums and left routine care for consumers to negotiate directly with providers on a cash basis. Combined with health-savings accounts (HSAs), those plans offered a rational approach to balancing health and economic requirements, especially for younger consumers who rarely need more than one or two clinic visits a year, which would cost far less than either comprehensive-coverage premiums or deductibles even in the pre-ACA era.

Instead of “affordable care” promised by President Obama and Democrats, consumers have instead discovered they have effectively been forced to pay for catastrophic health insurance at comprehensive-plan prices. They have become victims of a bait-and-switch scheme that the government would vigorously prosecute – if it wasn’t masterminding the scheme itself. The consumers interviewed by Robert Pear in The New York Times figured out that they’ve been had.

“Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use,” said one Texas man who decided to drop his coverage. Another 60-year-old New Jersey man told Pear, “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it,” thanks to a $3,000 deductible on top of his premiums. One woman told Pear that she’d be better off saving the money from her premiums as a form of self-insurance against catastrophe – since Obamacare no longer allows for low-premium catastrophic coverage in most cases.

Consider what a Colorado engineer who had just taken a new job that include pretty good health insurance as a benefit discovered when, just for grins, he decided to compare numbers between the plan he did have and what would be available if he opted to go with a gummint plan:

 I went to the eHealthInsurance commercial website and was able to get an account set up there. (Bear with me, we're getting to the punchline.) I looked for the least expensive, not to say cheapest, plan I could get. Here's a screen capture of the associated terms:

The actual premium: $468.33. But look at the terms: a $5000 deductible. Co-pay of 30 percent, but office visits are subject to that deductible, so you don't get the 70 percent discount until you've used up that five grand.

Of course, under the ACA, I get some things for "free" -- preventive care, like basic checkups (but not the lab work); and I get free GYN care and pediatric dentistry, so if I ever need to see a gynecologist for family planning, or have any pediatric dentistry needs as a 60-year-old single guy, I'm set.

Look further in the terms, and it turns out that drugs are covered, but subject to the deductible. Diabetic care supplies are covered, but only subject to the deductible.
Bottom line: this plan, for $468 a month, pays for an annual checkup but no labs, vaccinations on the approved list, which includes a flu shot but not the shingles or pneumonia vaccinations I could use now, and pretty much nothing else until I've gone out of pocket $5000. The maximum out of pocket is then $6500, so were I to get hit by a truck or have a heart attack, then hospitalization would be covered.

In other words, it's a catastrophic care plan. 

I have heard it said that economic freedom is the absence of an "ism." To speak of advocating it as embracing some kind of "ideology" is inaccurate. Individuals exchanging goods and services for prices they, on their own,  deem a good value is just what normal people do when the Leviathan state is left out of the equation.

Leftism is based on an immature fantasy, a wish that reality could be some other way than what it is. It's like New Age "spirituality."

It's why fraudulent hucksters looking to maximize their power absolutely love it.

So to those who respond to the battle cry to repeal this monstrosity with the snide question, "What kind of program would you replace it with?", you can, of course, present any of the myriad proposals from various free-market think tanks, but the essence to which all those boil down is this: human activity that enhances an individual's well-being does not lend itself to "programs."

Just leave people alone to do what is in their best interest, as they define that.

Can we please give that a try?