Steve Benen on MaddowBlog provides a useful public service – context! – with regard to the rise in ACA rates which has caused a ruckus:
No one should characterize this as good news, but some of the details are getting lost in the shuffle. For example, the vast majority of Americans are covered through their employer, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. Those on the individual marketplace may face steep increases, but (a) it will depend a lot on where they live; (b) federal subsidies are also increasing, which will soften the blow and insulate most of those covered through the individual market; and (c) this will be a concern for a tiny percentage of the population.
Of course, if you’re in that sliver of the population, it doesn’t much matter whether or not you have a lot of company. All that matters for these consumers is that coverage is going to be a lot less affordable. The question then becomes what happens next.
The fact remains, regular medical checkups and care will greatly reduce the cost of medical care to society – and if that means we have to subsidize the users of the ACA a little more, we’re still well ahead of the game. I’ve been wondering about the mad panic displayed by the local Republicans when Dayton shot his mouth off with “… but the reality is the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable.” [minnesota.cbslocal.com] The cries of “it’s totally broken” and “we must destroy the monster” have been annoying, and makes me wonder if they ever try thinking. Perhaps there should be an inquiry into why the rates have gone so high? Perhaps they made an actuarial mistake – or perhaps there’s some collusion. How much higher will taxes need to rise in order to lower the effective rate increase to, say, 10%? What are we talking here, anyways?
Not to be snarky or anything, but has anyone calculated how much rates would drop if the salaries of the C-suite execs of the participating companies were dropped to reasonable levels? Say, no more than half a million a year?
