Matt K. Lewis:
Boosted by starry-eyed young Americans who embraced his “hope and change” message, Barack Obama ascended to the presidency in 2008 — and was re-elected in 2012. This might have made the idealistic young people who clung to his lofty rhetoric feel good — and maybe Obama really did advance their progressive social agenda. But from an economic standpoint, their support was highly ironic. They have been largely rewarded with high unemployment rates — and long-term policies that transfer wealth from the young to the old.
Consider, for instance, the Affordable Care Act. It is not exactly a win for the young and healthy.
Contingencies, the magazine of the actuarial profession, recently looked at how the Affordable Care Act would affect various age cohorts. According to their study, premiums for younger, healthier individuals may well spike by more than 40 percent.
A little-known provision in the law, called the Adjusted Community Rating, all but guaranteed it would turn out this way.
Here is an oversimplified — but fair — illustration of what this provision means: Let’s say a 70-year-old man pays $800 a month for health insurance, and his 25-year-old neighbor pays $100. Collectively, an insurance company gets $900 to insure them both.
But according to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance premiums must fall within a ratio of 3:1 for adults. So assuming the insurance company still seeks to collect $900 a month to cover both neighbors, the older man would now pay just $675, while his younger neighbor would be charged $225.
If you’re 70, this is a much better deal. But if you’re the 25-year-old, you’re now saddled with paying $125 more a month. That is $125 a month less that a young person can invest in a home or education or… whatever.
(A caveat: Assuming someone can get through the enrollment process, ObamaCare does provide subsidies to help many younger, healthier consumers pay for coverage. But in many cases, the subsidies will not be big enough to offset ObamaCare’s cost increases — and many consumers will not be eligible for subsidies in the first place. For example, a family of four making around $80,000 would not be eligible for subsidies.)
Now, you might say this is simply what civilized societies do, and young people should just suck it up. That’s a completely coherent argument to make if you have a liberal worldview. But ask yourself this: Was it sold to young people that way? Is this fair to them?
Health care isn’t the only example of how the young are being fleeced. If being targeted by ObamaCare and enduring high unemployment rates aren’t enough of a challenge for young people just starting out in life, the debt burden should add an additional level of concern.
All actions have consequences. Obama was not hiding his intentions to redistribute the wealth. It was just that idealistic but ignorant people who voted for him failed to understand the consequences! Now they will pay and pay and pay for their lack of diligence in vetting their candidate.
Oh! This is about Obama ‘redistribute the wealth,’ said the man sitting on Glenn Beck’s lap, lol!
And what part of insurance do you not understand?
@This one: The part where an unmarried man 65 years old must carry OBGYN and pediatric coverage and pay extra for it . The insurance industry has always used risk to determine policy costs. Under Obama care as the article above states and you likely can not read wants to change the risk from individuals to population, thereby distributing the cost across the population. This is distributing the wealth of young individuals across the population. Do you ever read the posts before you comment or does your comment get sent to you by the administration for you to post?
@This one:
This is not insurance anymore. It is forced redistribution by the collective using insurance companies as patsies. Everyone is forced to accept policies with “benefits” they don’t want or need, with inflated premiums, deductables, and copays. People at four times the poverty level are given government subsidies, while I and others in the middle class who made just a little too much this year (after dozens of lean years) are forced to pay for them, after our previous policies have been cancelled. I think that qualifies as “redistribution of wealth”. As an added feature, the beneficent executive branch of government is now able to dictate the terms under which its citizens are allowed to live. Stay healthy, my friends.
@Randy, #3:
I don’t know what this 65-year-old unmarried man is complaining about. Younger working Americans will be paying for his Social Security and Medicare for years. Around half of them are women. Even if he doesn’t have a daughter or granddaughter, it’s a fair bet that at some time he probably had a mother.
Since insurers are limited in their profit margin under ObamaCare, where is all the extra money (those 20 to 30 new taxes and all the penalties) going?
Why, to pay for the government employees who administer the Obamacare part of the program.
All those IRS agents, all the navigators, all the extra bureaucrats and more.
The fed gov’t is so money-hungry that a HOMELESS man who found $850 and turned it in to police was rewarded with that money after 60 days …….. along with a back tax assessment and penalties for his windfall!
@Greg: I think if you look at the amount of SS tax a 65 year old man paid in over 48 years, he earned it. The point here that you missed again is that we should only be paying for what we need. At what point will you be true to your word Greg? What has to happen before you will believe that Obamacare is a plague on the population instead of a boon? Show me where health care is a right? Obamacare was supposed to take care of 30M who had no health care but whose medical needs were being met by institution like the Catholic Relief Funds. Now all of those hospitals and free clinics are in danger of being shut down due to Obamacare. It is looking like there will be more without medical coverage after Obamacare than before. The only difference is the government will have grown by 5-10,000 employees.
It’s all just another part of the Democratic party’s ongoing War on Children. It is truly sad how much they detest the (current and future) younger generations, in how these progressives plot to make them suffer such heavy burdens.
I’ve said it before, but it bears being repeated: Deficit spending is taxation without representation.