More on the Mandate

Jonathan Gruber has crunched numbers and determined that —

  • If the mandate to purchase insurance is removed from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by 2019 average insurance premiums purchased through an exchange will be 27 percent higher than they would be otherwise.
  • If the mandate is removed, by 2019 about 7 million formerly uninsured people will have insurance coverage, but with the mandate in place about 32 million formerly uninsured people will have insurance coverage. However, the cost of the bill would decline by only 25 percent, because the seven million would be disproportionately older and sicker.
  • If the subsidies are removed as well as the mandate, by 2019 average insurance premiums will be 50 percent higher than they would be otherwise, and the bill would have no effect on the number of uninsured Americans.

There’s a PDF report with tables showing how changes in the bill will affect outcomes. It also explains why repealing one part of the bill effectively kicks the legs out from under the other parts.

See also Eztra Klein, “Economic security — and insecurity — in one graph.”

12 thoughts on “More on the Mandate

  1. Maybe we need another word for “mandate?”
    It could be that some of these homophobes think we’re talking about everyone having to man-date.

    And you simply must love the RepbuliConfederate Party, who insisted on mandates in any health care bill for nigh on a generation, but now that the Fascist Black Guy who’s President wants it in there, they’re shrieking, screaming, and spitting like it’s like poisoned rancid cod liver oil.

    OT – As for the legislation for 9/11 responders, neither ABC, CBS, nor NBC covered any news of the bill getting shot down. SURPRISE!
    But, FOX did!!!
    They blamed the Senate. Without, of course, pointing out that it was ONLY the RepubliConfederates who voted against it, and all Democrats for it. ‘Oh, shame, Shame, SHAME on the Senate for denying our brave 9/11 workers any medical coverage and help! SHAME!!!’
    You can’t make this shit up! I wish I was. Shame…

  2. Meh. What’s the difference. My insurance went up 20% for next year, after going up 18% last year, and so on and so on. At this rate, I’ll have to drop it long before 2019 anyway, and hope I don’t get too sick before I reach medicare eligibility. Assuming they haven’t destroyed that by then too.

  3. Its still baffling. These things shouldn’t be taken seriously. Yet they are… what a freakin pity.

  4. This is why we need single payer. We need to get the insurance companies out of the health uncare business.

  5. Frankly, I favor giving them what the hell they want. Make an opt-out option for adults only with the following provision. Anyone who opt out will be demanding the provisions that the uninsured have. Namely –

    They can have insurance if offered by their employer with whatever options their employer offers. Or none if the employer decides to cancel.

    If they can’t get insurance through their employer, they can buy on the private market at whatever rate private insurance is available – unregulated by the government. Price increases also unregulated.

    If you want free enterprise with no mandate – OK – insurance companies will be able to cancel YOUR insurance at will with no warning for no reason. Expect this if you get sick. You want it – you got it.

    Insurance companies WILL be able to deny coverage to anyone in the free-market system. If you have a heart condition or cancer, get a tin cup.

    Now OFFER an opt out – don’t worry, there’s nothing unfair here. It’s the system that EXISTS for the uninsured. I don’t expect people will be trampled trying to sign up for that deal. But let them have it if they want it.

  6. From ThinkProgress, this is what the Republicans have done to the country:

    “The ratings agency Moody’s warned that the U.S. “will put its top level credit rating at risk if Congress extends a sweeping package of tax cuts and unemployment spending.” “Unless there are offsetting measures, the package will be credit negative for the US and increase the likelihood of a negative outlook on the US government’s AAA rating during the next two years,” said Moody’s Steven Hess.”

  7. Bonnie,
    Moody’s? HA! Is this the same Moody’s that basically backed the Wall Street Casino Royale by providing directions to addicted gamblers and telling them to max out on buying chips? The same Moody’s who told investors that the bankers buying scratch-off and mega-million lottery picks were AAAAA+ rated investments?
    That one?
    Then maybe we should raise taxes and extend UI to the employed! Moody’s ain’t been right in awhile…
    It’s sad, because when I was growing up, those ratings agencies were THE determiner of the solidity of financial investments. Now, like a restaurant critic on the take, who after taking fistfulls of cash, tells you Mickey D’s burgers are the finest and healthiest on the entire planet, almost none of the ‘Credit Ratings’ agencies deserve any credit.
    Mr. Hess, your company was the ‘boy who SHOULD have cried wolf,’ but didn’t. Why should any of the remaining lambs believe you have anything but the wolves best interests at heart? Or ever will? This is what happens when you sell your companies reputation for a handful of silver coins. You’re never trusted again.

  8. Uh-oh! I must be in trouble. I think I got twit-filtered. The wonder of it is, is that it took this long…

  9. bonnie & cg:
    “Unless there are offsetting measures” being the operative phrase here. Golly, I wonder what sorts of “offsetting measures” Moody’s has in mind?

  10. I was realy hoping that the American people would get a really strong health care bill passed. One like the other countries in the world have. Alas, we will never have one.

  11. Pingback: The Mahablog » The McArdle Mystery

Comments are closed.