A study just released by Harvard and the University of Texas-Austin, finds that ObamaCare rules “penalize high-quality coverage for the sick, reward insurers who slash coverage for the sick, and leave patients unable to obtain adequate insurance,” writes Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. Even so, Michael explains in the WSJ, “Republicans are nervous about repealing ObamaCare’s supposed ban on discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions.” ObamaCare rules also are “subjecting patients to higher deductibles and cost-sharing across the board, narrow networks that exclude leading cancer centers, inaccurate provider directories, and opaque cost-sharing.”
It doesn’t have to be like this. Employer plans offer drug coverage more comprehensive and sustainable than ObamaCare. The pre-2014 individual market made comprehensive coverage even more secure: High-cost patients were less likely to lose coverage than similar enrollees in employer plans. The individual market created innovative products like “pre-existing conditions insurance” that—for one-fifth the cost of health insurance—gave the uninsured the right to enroll in coverage at healthy-person premiums if they developed expensive conditions.
Read more here.
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
- What Makes Donald Trump Different? - August 23, 2019
- Senator Elizabeth Warren Chairs a Century-Long Taxpayer Fleecing - August 22, 2019
- Democratic Candidates Forced to Resort to “Wealth Inequality” - August 21, 2019