What the Supreme Court’s ACA Ruling Means for You

02 Jul

As promised, I digested the Supreme Court’s opinions on the Affordable Care Act over the weekend. I also read the opinions of several health policy and health law scholars, watched cable news, and a bit of Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report. From all of this, the court’s ruling is quite clear (although CNN and Fox News both struggled with that initially): The Affordable Care Act is being almost entirely upheld. The one thing that didn’t get the okay from the Supremes was a provision related to the Medicaid expansion. More on that later this week. Today, I want to give you a summary of what the court’s ruling means for you as it relates to the individual mandate. After all, this has been the lightning rod element of the law, and the one that, in my interactions with others, is the least understood. My hope is that you’ll share this with everyone you know–especially if they seem to have their facts wrong.

As I (and many others) have said before, the individual elements of the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly popular. People like the idea that young adults can remain on their parents’ coverage until age 26. They like the idea that no one can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They like the reduction in their Medicare Part D costs for prescription drugs. The proof that they like these things is that even Mitt Romney–who is distancing himself from “Obamacare” despite having signed its precursor into law in Massachusetts–has simultaneously gone on record in support of these provisions. You can see the video here.

The catch is the individual mandate. That’s the one part where people’s feelings seem to turn sharply negative. These people will say that this is “socialized medicine” or a “government takeover” although they cannot even begin to accurately describe to you the differences between the Canadian, German and UK health care systems. What is happening, I believe, is that people are scared of the unknown, and are hearing that they are going to be required to spend money to buy something, at a time when our economy is struggling and people are hard pressed to pay the bills they already have. If one looks at this problem from the individual household level, rather than at a system level, it seems a legitimate–albeit still misguided–concern.

I have had people tell me that they had to buy a government insurance plan to avoid being taxed. In fact, quite the opposite is true. This plan was designed to encourage individuals to obtain insurance on the private market. It is, in that sense, the antithesis of socialized medicine. If you doubt this point, you should realize that this is why there was even a court case in the first place. As both sides made clear during oral arguments, if the government wanted to create a single-payer “Medicare for all” insurance program and require you to pay taxes to support it, there was no question that it would be lawful under the Constitution. At odds was the notion of whether the government can incentivize you to purchase a private product. The ruling was that, yes, they can. In fact, they already incentivize behavior to avoid certain purchases. For example, sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol exist not only to raise revenue, but to discourage the use of these products which are harmful to individuals and the public’s health. However, people are still free to buy these products. Similarly, people are free to NOT buy health insurance. However, the government is encouraging them to do so by implementing a tax for individuals who do not purchase coverage. People don’t like taxes, generally, so it’s worth looking at that in more detail as well.

How much is the tax and who will have to pay it? The best, most concise overview of those details can be found here. Some of the basics are that the penalty will be phased-in beginning in 2014, when individuals who go without coverage will pay a nominal penalty of $95. I’m not sure if you’ve ever purchased insurance, but even in the most generous employer-sponsored plans, you’re likely to spend more than that in 2 months. So this is not a stiff penalty. That said, it does increase to $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. This is still cheaper than the cost of insurance in most cases. For families, the minimum penalty is three times the per person minimum, regardless of family size. So, that’s $2,085 per family in 2016. Still, much cheaper than a family insurance policy, which routinely costs more than $15,000 per year, of which the employee pays more than $4,000 according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The above amounts are minimums. For those who earn higher incomes, the amount of the tax they pay will be higher–up to 2.5% of their total annual income–although the amount of the tax can never exceed the average national cost of the lowest level of coverage (i.e., “bronze” plans). That means, that it will always be as much, or more expensive to buy insurance than to pay the tax, but with employers picking up the tab in most cases, the tax will be more expensive to individuals than their monthly premiums. Still, paying the tax doesn’t provide you with any tangible benefit in the way that having insurance coverage does, so it makes sense to get the coverage. I do think that if the penalty exceeded the total cost to buy insurance that would be coercive. Fortunately, that’s not the case.

Finally, there are several groups that are exempt from having to pay the tax. These include low-income individuals who do not file tax returns, those who are granted a hardship waiver by the Department of Health and Human Services, those without affordable coverage options (defined as coverage exceeding 8% of household income), and those with certain religious objections.

As a practical exercise, I think it’s worth considering several different groups of people and how they are likely to be affected by the individual mandate. First, there are those of us who already have employer-sponsored insurance. That’s about two-thirds of the U.S. population. For us, very little changes except that our employers will now have an incentive not to drop coverage, because doing so will subject them to a tax of their own. We have coverage, and therefore will not be subject to the penalty. There has been a focus on small employers who say the law will cause them not to hire additional staff, but I think those claims are mostly overblown. With an accountant and a lawyer, it is easy enough to get around the provisions that concern them by simply splitting their single business into two smaller businesses on paper.

For those who are enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare, nothing changes–except that drug coverage and preventive care in Medicare has become more affordable. Moreover, the Medicaid program will be expanding, which leads to the next group, the low-income uninsured. These individuals who are below 133% of the poverty level–many of whom are unlikely to be subject to the penalty anyway–will be able to obtain Medicaid coverage at no cost to them. So to recap, those with insurance through their employers, those who are elderly and/or disabled, and the low-income will keep the coverage they have or be able to newly obtain very affordable coverage.

That leaves those who are not offered insurance through their job and those who are otherwise uninsured. If these individuals aren’t quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, but aren’t quite wealthy enough to pay for all of their medical care with cash out of their own pocket, they will have the opportunity to purchase health insurance through the exhanges, which I like to think of as a for health insurance. Private insurance plans will compete with each other in a format that is more transparent and this is expected to rein in costs somewhat. These individuals will have their insurance purchase subsidized through tax credits. So, rather than the old way in which a person who bought individual coverage had to fork out the whole premium with after-tax dollars, they will only be responsible for paying a portion of the premium. It’s kind of like the government is playing the role of the employer in subsidizing the bulk of the cost for coverage for those whose employers can’t or won’t play that role themselves. For this group, it will become an unquestionably better deal for them to buy subsidized coverage than to pay the tax and get nothing in return. Right now, these are the people who are the most likely to decide that they can’t afford and don’t need insurance. They’re also the people who often turn out to be wrong and turn up at the emergency room seeking “free” care that the rest of us subsidize. So, it makes sense that they are the ones most averse to the penalty and most averse to the mandate.

Finally, there is the group of wealthy individuals who pay for their own care out of their pocket. Think Mitt Romney, who refused to enroll in Medicare on his 65th birthday. Why bother when you can just buy the hospital where you’ll be having your surgery if you happen to need it? I have little sympathy for this group, because whether they buy the insurance or just pay the tax, it’s not going to cost them much. Remember, there is a cap on the penalty not to exceed the national average for bronze plans. So Mitt pays an extra $15,000 in taxes each year. I don’t think he’ll go hungry.

So how many people does the individual mandate and the accompanying penalty really hang out to dry? Very few, I would argue. The low-income are exempt from the penalty and will be covered by Medicaid anyway. The very wealthy have it covered either way. The elderly and disabled have Medicare coverage and won’t have to worry about the penalty. The majority of us in the middle, who have insurance through our work won’t have to pay a penalty, and those of us who don’t have insurance through our work will find that, thanks to generous government subsidies, we will be able to buy insurance through the exchanges that is rather more affordable than it has been in the past.

Of course, if we don’t want to take advantage of that opportunity, it only seems fair that we should be penalized for our irresponsible decision-making. It just isn’t right for people to make a decision not to buy insurance knowing that there will be a safety net to catch them if they happen to need it. It’s called personal responsibility, and if that sounds like a Republican concept, it’s because it is. After all, they’re the ones who came up with the individual mandate in the first place. They just stopped liking it when the Democrats agreed with them. So you see, partisan politics have played to Americans’ emotions and have construed the individual mandate as something that it is not. It is not a burden on those who can least afford it to have to purchase yet one more thing. Rather, it is an incentive to motivate those who can afford it to stop acting irresponsibly.


4 responses to “What the Supreme Court’s ACA Ruling Means for You

  1. Joel

    July 2, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I figured this was as good a place as any for this link. That way, the 6 people that read this blog can get a perspective from someone a little less “in the tank”.

    • Brad Wright

      July 2, 2012 at 3:35 pm

      YouTube is great. Anybody with a computer and a camera can say anything they want to. Doesn’t make it accurate. This entire video consists of little more than inflamed rhetoric. It is completely devoid of facts. This is my problem: people hold strong beliefs that are often ill-informed and actual facts—that is details of how the law actually works—are helpless against such visceral emotions. Moreover, I don’t have to resort to name calling as the video does to make my points. He wouldn’t have to either if he was actually saying something rather than attempting to play on people’s fears to get out the vote.

  2. Joel

    July 2, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    The fun thing is, the more facts that are discovered as this law is steamrolled into place over the next few years the more sense this video will make. Maybe 66% opposition will become 90% opposition and we can get the thing repealed. Then you can turn your sights on 9 out of 10 Americans for not knowing what you know instead of only 2 out of 3.

    I know that you love to imagine you are operating from a purely objective, fact-seeking perspective and to denounce dissenting opinion as “ill-informed” and “rhetoric” – but we both know the truth. Your support of this nonsense comes from a deeply ideological, irrational place. Things like “facts” and “research” are incidental – carefully manipulated and filtered to support a preordained conclusion. I’m not being mindlessly insulting when I draw your attention to the term “useful idiot”. Take care that you don’t become one, it would be a waste of a good brain.

    Thanks for leaving the video up. Maybe we can direct a few people to the ideas of actual personal responsibility, rather than the “government encouraged” variety.

    • Brad Wright

      July 2, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      I’m not sure how it’s incidental. The hard numbers I use in my piece, for example, are codified into law. Those seem to be pretty objectively factual. There are certainly places where I inject some opinion, and make inferences about things. Absolutely. By contrast, the guy in the video is just banging a war drum.

      You and everyone else are entitled to an opinion, and I don’t fault you for having it. I just don’t think that opinions are an appropriate substitute for detailed information. That goes for people on both sides of the issue. Believe it or not, as I mention in the post, the health care systems in Canada, Germany, and the UK are all different. Whereas folks more aligned with your camp like to label anything other than the patchwork system we have in the US as “socialized medicine” that simply isn’t accurate. That isn’t an ideological thing. It’s again fact. Socialized medicine refers to government ownership and financing of the health care system. The UK is socialized. Canada is not. Canada basically has Medicare for all. Old folks in America seem to like Medicare. Should we tell them that it is actually socialized medicine? Or should we point out to our veterans, who actually DO get socialized medicine through the VA (that also happens to be some of the best care in the country) that they are getting care like the British get?

      The bottom line is that if you have insurance, you are paying more for it because it is subsidizing the costs of uncompensated care. I understand why being told you’ll be taxed if you choose not to buy insurance seems like it violates a libertarian position, but it also seems to me that a truly libertarian position would not be okay with covering other people’s costs, as currently happens.

      While I know you like to remind me how all of the research is biased—which is why you so rarely rely on it in making your arguments–the simple fact of the matter is that I know more about this than you. I realize that you like to play devil’s advocate, and you’ll love to disagree with me on this, and attempt to discount my expertise in this field, but it’s not as if that’s going to lead me away from a career in health services research. I think you need to realize that I’m not just some guy with an opinion who you used to know in college. I’m a guy who has studied the U.S. health care system, from all sides, over the last 10 years. Your opinions, no matter how deeply held, are not a substitute for that. It’s difficult to condense a decade’s worth of expertise into a few paragraphs with a brick wall, which is why I don’t do it often. However, the fact that I always publish your comments, no matter how inane I may consider them, should give you hope that I believe strongly in the right to free speech, and am not as ideologically biased as you suggest.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: