The Washington Times Online Edition
Select a category: 

Report: Obamacare mandate isn’t really an issue

Few Americans seen facing enrollment or penalty


This artist rendering shows Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler speaking before the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 28, 2012. Justices, from left are, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteran)

It’s been squarely at the center of the policy and constitutional debates over President Obama’s health care law, but some are arguing that the mandate to buy health insurance — and the penalties for people who don’t — aren’t hefty enough to matter in the real world anyway.

The individual mandate, and whether Mr. Obama’s law can survive if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, were at the center of the Supreme Court clash last month during three days of oral arguments.

But some analysts argue that the economics of the mandate and the penalty make the focus of the debate misguided.

Starting at $95 per person, the penalty is scheduled to gradually increase by 2016 to either $695 for individuals and $2,085 for families or 2.5 percent of total taxable income — much less than what many can expect to pay for the cheapest plan on the new insurance exchanges.

And few Americans are expected to even have to face that choice: A report by the Kaiser Family Foundation says that almost everyone else will be covered by Medicare, Medicaid, individual insurance or employer-sponsored coverage in 2014 when the penalty goes into effect.

Others will be excused because of financial hardship, leaving only about 10 percent of Americans weighing whether to buy insurance or pay the penalty.

“You add all those together, you really have a narrow band of population,” said Ron Pollack, director of Families USA. “At the end of the day, the number of people likely to be affected by this penalty is very small.”

A balancing act

For the Obama administration, the key is not how many people the penalty will motivate to buy insurance, but who they are.

In order for new insurance reforms to work without premiums becoming prohibitively expensive, healthy young people must buy insurance to help mitigate the costs incurred by older, sicker Americans, the government has argued.

But problems could arise if the penalty isn’t a strong enough incentive to push those healthy young people to buy coverage instead.

While no one knows for sure how it will all play out, most of those choosing to forgo insurance and pay the penalty will be moderate- to high-income earners, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that 75 percent of those paying the penalty will have incomes more than twice the federal poverty line and a fourth will earn at least 500 percent of the poverty level.

And a March study by the consulting firm Milliman found that the higher the income bracket, the less effective the penalty will be.

The less Americans earn, the more insurance subsidies they can receive, making it cheaper to buy coverage than pay the penalty. But higher-income earners won’t qualify for enough subsidies to make insurance the most cost-effective option, with the cheapest plans on the exchanges expected to cost $4,500 to $5,000 for an individual and $12,000 to $12,500 for a family, according to the CBO.

Insurance carrots and sticks

“There are reasons to think the penalties are not strong enough and we just don’t know,” said John McDonough, who advised the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee while the Affordable Care Act was being written and also helped forge the 2006 Massachusetts reform spearheaded by then-Gov. Mitt Romney. “We’ll just have to sort of keep a close eye.”

But Mr. Pollack said the credits could provide incentives to precisely the population that the administration is targeting.

Younger adults presumably earn lower salaries, making the insurance credits a tougher offer to refuse, he said.

And Mr. McDonough pointed to Massachusetts, where the penalties for being uninsured are even lower and yet the uninsured rate has shrunk to around 5 percent.

But he also warned that it’s impossible to extrapolate directly from Massachusetts to how the penalty will affect the uninsured population throughout the whole country.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
About the Author
Paige Winfield Cunningham
blog comments powered by Disqus
All site contents © Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC
Jobs | About | Customer Service | Terms | Privacy