Who Loses the Most Under ObamaCare?

Chris Conover writes about

…the 3.8 million Americans that the RAND Corporation estimates will become newly uninsured as a result of this law. 2.5 million of these currently have employer-based coverage and another 1.3 million have non-group coverage. While there arguably are tens of millions of other losers created by this ill-conceived law, these 3.8 million arguably are its biggest losers.

And goes on to say:

What should be obvious and is doubly tragic is that we never needed to sacrifice these 3.8 million victims in the first place. As just one example, the conservative alternative to ObamaCare recently proposed by Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin would provide universal catastrophic coverage to every American.

Sorry, but that’s a bit glib. There would surely be newly uninsured under the Ponnuru/Levin/AEI plan, previously summarized here. But, unlike ObamaCare, the plan would not leave them to fend for themselves.

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Perry says:

    In the end, I think we’ll find most will lose, some more than others.

  2. Studebaker says:

    Moderate-income middle-aged people with pre-existing conditions will be the winners. Young, high-income people will be the losers.

    • Patrick M says:

      It’s essentially a redistribution of wealth from young to old – just as with present entitlements. Older Americans consume the most in long-term care and chronic illnesses that fall under catastrophic conditions.

  3. Patrick M says:

    Could full catastrophic coverage ever be conceivable – without caps on spending?

  4. Benjamin Tover says:

    Who knows. They may grant another extension. It doesn’t seem as if that will solve the grandfathering in the long run though; all of the health plans that don’t meet requirements eventually have to get done away with.

  5. frank li says:

    a whole lot more people are getting screwed by this policy

  6. Patty Clancy says:

    “What should be obvious and is doubly tragic is that we never needed to sacrifice these 3.8 million victims in the first place.”

    precisely.

  7. Patty Clancy says:

    how does the lewin plan impact access on the supply side?

  8. John R. Graham says:

    I can’t speak for AEI but I am not sure the plan (actually, Wall Street Journal op-ed) put forward by Mr. Ponnuru & Mr. Levin is the same as the so-called “AEI plan” put forward by Bhattacarya et al in August 2013.

    The so-called “AEI plan” was not actually signed by either Ponnuru or Levin. Nor was it signed by AEI scholars like Mr. Antos, Mr. Miller, Dr. Gottlieb, or Prof. Conover.

    Nevertheless, both the “AEI plan” and the one sketched out by Ponnuru & Levin invite a lot of questions. For example, if someone goes without coverage and then gets sick, under what terms can he buy catastrophic health insurance. If underwriting is allowed, who pays the higher premium for the sickly new subscriber? Taxpayers?

    Nevertheless, it is a very good start, and surely better than Obamacare.

  9. Chris Conover says:

    Let me reiterate John Graham’s point. The Ponnuru/Levin proposal is NOT the same as the best of both worlds plan recently released through AEI.

    More importantly, the Ponnoru/Levin plan envisions universal catastrophic coverage. So I’m hard-pressed to understand the basis for the claim that “There would surely be newly uninsured under the Ponnuru/Levin plan.” President Obama and Secretary Sebelius may well sneer at catastrophic coverage, dismissing it as “substandard.” But it is coverage nevertheless and unless micromanaged by regulations, likely to be superior to doing without coverage whatsoever both from the standpoint of financial peace of mind and a free rider perspective.

    Consequently, I stand by my original claim and would need more convincing evidence than has been offered to persuade me otherwise.