« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If You Like Your Health Care Coverage, Vote Against Obama/Biden

Moral Imperatives and Economic Incentives Are Meeting In A Dangerous Place

The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

The quote above represents the reaction of one, small Catholic university to the DHS mandate that all health insurance plans pay for abortificants. Franciscan University of Stuebanville, boasts about 2,500 students. They don’t have Touchdown Jesus, but they did take 3rd Place in National Small College Rugby Organization Tournament. Such a small event would probably lead Mein Obama to scoff “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”

The President has already eaten his negative press on this and deflected it by accusing Mitt Romney of marshalling the forces of iniquity in a war on women. Barack Obama has led recent college graduates to levels of unemployment that have caused periphery countries in the Eurozone to suffer economic collapse and require national bail-outs. He has been utterly oblivious to the fact that his policies have failed them like nobody else in America. If Georgetown or Notre Dame were to drop student Health Coverage, President Obama would only use this as an excuse to further demean the beliefs and values of religious Americans.

Yet the directors and the faculty at Franciscan University of Stuebanville can read laws and statistics. They know well that health care costs are a major driver in everything they do involving human beings. The university health center describes how the ObamaCare Law effects the costs of carrying the students.

Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future.

So let the law go in effect in 2014. Let’s see how holy they feel when the fines impact. Of course, people who can read laws and statistics have already gone to work on tabulating that. Here’s what many employers who cover large workforces believe.

Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.

(HT: Fox News)

This suggests that anyone who can get rid of insurance plans for any reason saves a lot of money by dumping these costs onto the Government Exchange. This suggests that we haven’t solved our insurance problems at all. ObamaCare has successfully done is create a major example of “The Tragedy of The Commons.” Everybody’s insurance will cover everything politically desirable for free. Nobody will actually have to pay for it. This is how the Eurozone turned into its dysfunctional self.

Meanwhile, this post assumes that the Individual Mandate won’t get stricken down by the US Supreme Court. Won’t it be a pleasure to see how the US Government offers affordable policies that make political goodies like $3,000/Year of contraception available for “free”?

COMMENTS

  • lineholder

    1) Employer-dumping I was aware of. Last year, McKinsey survey showed 30% of businesses choosing employer-dumping into the exchange. Do we have any more current reports on how this may be trending? The Fox News report really doesn’t focus on this that much.

    2) About the mandated increase in maximum coverage and the added costs to colleges, has there been any indication about how other schools might be addressing this? Are they simply increasing insurance premiums costs? Or are they “redistributing” it by dispersing it across the student population via tuition rate increases?

    3) This quote from the Franciscan University statement:

    “Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance. The current student health insurance plan will expire on August 15, 2012″

    About point 1…just my take, but that flies in the face of one of the objectives of PPACA doesn’t it, which was to get people in this age group covered under some form of health insurance?

    Also thought this post-script added after to the fact at the CatholicVote.org site to be interesting:
    “Further, according to this administrator, the ?exception? even for self-insured plans is ambiguous and likely on paper only. In implementation the HHS would likely rule the same as the so-called accommodation, requiring the third-party administrators of self-insured plans to cover the items and procedures ?for free,? which of course is a farce”

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      1) Not that I know of. My take is that it will start at a slower rate than that survey and then accelerate into a Tragedy O’ The Commons scenario as more and more businesses fail to compete on Labor Cost unless they follow suit. Expect it to become virulent in non-capital-intensive occupations. Not so much in huge factories.

      2) Unknown. It could easily become a component of the all-encompassing “Student Fees” if a university chose to bury it somewhere.

      3) A good follower of Mein Obama would argue that these children can stay on Mom and Dad’s plan until age 26. Not that all students are under age 26 anymore, but it is somewhat of an answer. The problem ensues when Mom and Dad work for employers who dump them onto the exchange.

      Here is a question for you.

      Why would anyone who qualifies their plan on the exchange and has a large, forced market charge anything that resembles a fair, market-clearing price? This is particularly of relevance since the AAFCA doesn’t direct HHS to investigate any annaul rate increase under 10%. It could be like the magic of compounding interest….

      • lineholder

        or regulating it. The only force that would be able to do so would be the federal government and that’s it.

        And the market prices can be directly related to the subsidy costs, can’t they? Which in turns comes back to the taxpayers.

        Another question…in the case of the Public Health Insurance Exchange, and with the federal government having so much direct influence on entities that may or may not be provided with the opportunity to offer their product/services via the exchange…will Kickback statutes apply?

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Notice I didn’t ask should these statutes apply? Bottom line. Insurance rates will move IAW any advance notice of regulatory activity. Coincidentally, so will political contributions. Correlation or coincidence? Who’s to ever say….

          • lineholder

            from service providers, in a situation where the only entity with regulatory controls over price for the service is government, and in a case where market values of services can be directly related to subsidy costs, which comes back down to the tax rates put upon taxpayers.

            And Obama’s plea to Americans is that he “needs more time”????

            Vote Romney, 2012!!!!

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            to discover that gambling happens here….

          • lineholder

            It’s politics. SOOO much deceitfulness and corruption…so little time.