Obamacare: good intent, bad policy

On March 23, 2010, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was signed into law. The government overhaul of our nation’s health care system has proved controversial ever since. Upon the law’s enactment, many Americans lauded politicians such as President Barack Obama and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their efforts to make health care affordable for every American citizen.

For years, patients with pre-existing conditions were subject to coverage denial because of their unfortunate health status. If not rejected, patients with such conditions were offered premiums at incredibly high rates. The Affordable Care Act mandated that this unfair practice no longer continue. 

The law also permits individuals to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until the age of 26, granting comfort to those struggling to find a job in today’s bleak job market. Along with these benefits, Americans have been promised that insurance plans will lose cost but not quality. They have been promised that their current plans would be kept free from government takeover.

From the outside, it sounds great. Yet why are so many against the seemingly auspicious health care system? Simple. Through the Affordable Care Act, Americans are experiencing the inconvenience and problems government over-involvement creates.

Clearly, Obamacare has good intentions, but it’s a bad policy.

Beyond the favorite talking points of pro-Obamacare pundits lies more than 2,400 pages and 381,000 words of overreaching legislation. When legislators voted yea or nay on the Affordable Care Act, little was known about its actual content. It is difficult to imagine that all nine justices, both of the majority and dissent, possessed a comprehensive knowledge of the bill when the Supreme Court decided its constitutionality in June 2012. 

This is not a negative assessment of lawmakers or justices; it is the consequence of the bill’s massive nature.

Which begs the question: How could anyone fully understand it? As the law rolls out, experts try to comprehend the act, and bureaucrats attempt to interpret it despite the fact that neither are adequately equipped to do so.

What we do know is that the bill is not living up to its promises. As it turns out, the Affordable Care Act is not so affordable. In 41 states, premiums in the individual market have risen by more than 40 percent. Some states have seen premium growth at an inexcusable rate, including Nevada (179 percent), New Mexico (142 percent), Arkansas (138 percent ), North Carolina (136 percent) and Vermont (117 percent).

This reverse effect was not entirely unforeseen. In 2009, before the law was passed, the Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would in fact increase because of the bill’s near-innumerable regulations. Remember, the actual bill itself comprises an already verbose 381,000 words. Compared to another word count, this number is diminutive.

There are about 11,588,500 words of Obamacare-related regulations. There is absolutely no possible way that a central entity, no matter how potent, efficient or effective, could possibly enforce such a law without burdening those whom it is meant to protect.  

But the negative economic impact of the law goes beyond increases in health care costs. Overregulation related to the Affordable Care Act has not developed the economy, but drained it. It has not promoted competition, but constrained it. Many protest against the wrongdoings of big business, but how can anyone expect to give big business legitimate competition if policies such as Obamacare continue to crush smaller and growing entities?

The Affordable Care Act is projected to have a negative effect on hospitals, nonprofits, municipal and state governments, educational institutions, labor unions and small businesses. This reality impedes growth of industries responsible for providing jobs to countless Americans.

Consequently, employees are losing benefits by the demotions forced upon them by the Affordable Care Act. Workers who previously enjoyed full-time status have been conveniently bumped down to a part-time 29-hour week. Whether or not one finds this practice ethical or troubling is not the point. The reality is that employers have a right to legally react as they feel necessary.

Additionally, many have not been demoted but let go altogether. People losing jobs means less prosperity and economic growth. Because of the overbearing burden forced upon businesses by Obamacare, negative consequences are trickling down from government to business to employee to family.

Overall, after a simple, rational analysis of the Affordable Care Act, one should see that despite its good intentions, it fails to protect patients or provide affordable quality health insurance. Perhaps more importantly is that it economically weakens the country and inhibits future growth of industry and competition: two qualities necessary for the success of a capitalist society.

That being said, there is no question that our system is in need of reform. But the role of government in such efforts should not be as the entity by which reforms are created, but rather, as a mechanism to create an environment in which private industry and natural competition can flourish. Therefore, competition among opposing providers will create higher-quality coverage at more affordable rates.

Despite my advocacy of free markets, there is no vice in prohibiting the denial of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions or cracking down on unethical behavior among insurance companies providing coverage. Moderate, rational, succinct and clear regulation is appropriate. Such regulation, however, should be geared toward the expansion of competing interests, not the reduction of them. Regulation should aid buyers, not burden them.

Our health care system is certainly in need of reform. However, Obamacare is not the answer. We can do better, and in order to provide high-quality, affordable health coverage, we must do exactly that.

Write Matt at mrb111@pitt.edu.