This article originally appeared on heartland.org.
So it turns out that there are cheap and plentiful insurance options available to the American peopleâ?¦ if only they are looking for them outside the Obamacare exchanges.Hereâ??s the Washington Examinerâ??s report:
A new and comprehensive comparison of health insurance options offered by Obamacare versus private websites finds that President Obamaâ??s program offers less choice and higher prices than promised by the White House and leading Democrats.
Adding to the list of broken health care promises, the study from the National Center for Public Policy Research found that there were more and cheaper options available on websites outside the health insurance exchange in 2013 than on healthcare.gov and state Obamacare exchanges.
The report, â??Obamacare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices,â?ť looked at options available for a 27-year-old single person and a 57-year-old couple in metropolitan areas across 45 states.
The report found that a 27-year-old male had about 10 more policies to choose from on eHealthinsurance.com and finder.healthcare versus the exchange. The older couple had about nine more policy choices.
Ditto for the cost findings, with the 27-year-old male having access to 32 policies that cost less than the cheapest Obamacare offering, and the 57-year-old couple access to 29 cheaper policies.
â??In general, consumers had substantially more policies to choose from on private websites such as eHealthinsurance.com and Finder.healthcare.gov than they presently have on the exchanges,â?ť said the study.
The study is available here.Â Whatâ??s really telling about this assessment is how it puts into perspective theÂ Obama administrationâ??s latest unlawful alteration of the ACA, which takes the form of allowing tax subsidies to be available outside the exchanges.Â Seth Chandler weighs in on why this time, insurers may have standing to sue:
The Obama administration has made a habit in its implementation of the Affordable Care Act to exploit the law of â??standing.â?ť â?¦ With the latest lawless action, however, the Obama administration may have gone too far. Insurers who sold off Exchange will be hurt by the cost sharing reductions. The reason is â??moral hazard.â?ť The idea of moral hazard is that the more generous an insurance policy is the greater the frequency with which insureds encounter covered events. In the health insurance arena, people with lower co-pays and deductibles go to the doctor more. Indeed, the major reason for co-pays and deductibles is precisely to induce insureds to be judicious in their use of expensive medical services. Moral hazard is one of the major reasons that platinum policies cost more than bronze ones.
When cost sharing reductions imposed on off-Exchange insurers effectively convert their silver policies into silver-plus, gold-plus and platinum-plus policies, those insurers end up paying more in claims. And, while insurers selling policies on the Exchanges could have taken the induced demand created by cost sharing reductions into account in pricing their policies, there may well be insurers who sold only off the Exchange who, of course, did not take this additional moral hazard into account. Those insurers never dreamed that the government would reduce the amount its insureds would owe in cost sharing. Such insurers should have a strong case for standing in bringing a declaratory judgments to challenge the new guidance or, perhaps, in refusing to honor the demand for cost sharing reductions. Such insurers will, of course, need to be willing to take the political heat that may come from taking on an Executive Branch that more than ever is regulating their products.
President Obamaâ??s crimes are not victimless. Just as offering unauthorized subsidies through federal Exchanges will trigger illegal penalties against employers, offering unauthorized subsidies to people who purchase coverage outside their state-established Exchanges will likewise trigger illegal taxes against employers. Employers in Maryland, Oregon, and other affected states may want to lawyer up.
The point of the administrationâ??s activity is obvious: subsidize as many people as possible to create as much difficulty for repeal in 2017. They had the exchanges for that â?? but now that theyâ??ve failed, theyâ??ll drive those subsidies further before scaling back to the coverage they prefer.