It was already pretty dim for anyone who understands how insurance works. I used to be an insurance underwriter (property and casualty, not health) and I’ve been wondering since the beginning how anyone thought Obamacare was going to work. The risk size versus the pool of insureds doesn’t make sense. If insurance companies can’t adjust for risk (which for the most part they can’t under Obamacare) what bizarro mathematics is going to save this ill-conceived juggernaut of bureaucratic bull?
The answer is there is no math which will make it work. Either it gets tons more money from taxpayers or it dies.
I suspect that the people who threw Obamacare together just figured they’d get the camel’s nose under the tent and everything would work itself out. So what if it meant raising taxes and increasing the deficit and debt. They didn’t have a problem with that anyway. Once the thing starts to completely implode there will be no choice (in their political calculus) but to bail out the system. Heck maybe we’ll even get a VA style single payer system out of it. Won’t that be great?
We need to deal with catastrophic illness in the uninsured population. We need to solve that very real problem. Obamacare however is a million miles from that solution and serves to only give more power to the central planners in Washington. Which has been the point from the start.
A nightmare for Affordable Care Act supporters has been the possibility that only the sick would be left to purchase insurance through its exchanges, driving premiums up and insurers out. While the law’s boosters have been quick to dismiss the possibility that such a so-called death spiral could occur, data published in the Wall Street Journal suggest that this chain of events may not be so far-fetched after all.
The findings are significant not just for what they say about how Obamacare is working now, but also for their impact on the political debate over its future.
For more from Nick Sorrentino, visit AgainstCronyCapitalism.org