In last week's Liberty Update, we highlighted the Heritage Foundation's 2022 Index of Economic Freedom…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: More Economic Freedom = Higher Standard of Living

In last week's Liberty Update, we highlighted the Heritage Foundation's 2022 Index of Economic Freedom, which shows that Joe Biden has dragged the U.S. down to 22nd, our lowest rank ever (we placed 4th in the first Index in 1995, and climbed back up from 18th to 12th under President Trump).  As we noted, among the Index's invaluable metrics is how it demonstrates the objective correlation between more economic freedom and higher citizen standards of living, which this graphic illustrates:

 …[more]

May 19, 2022 • 12:53 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Beware: Obamacare Penalty Could Come Back Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, December 27 2017
State lawmakers need to hear from the public that doubling down on Obamacare's coercion model is a mistake.

The federal tax cut signed into law last week eliminates the federal penalty for not having health insurance, starting in 2019. That's good news for those who've been buying Obamacare to avoid the penalty, and even better news for those who've actually been paying the penalty. But don't start celebrating yet. In New York, California, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey and other deep blue strongholds, the insurance industry and left-wing activists are agitating to enact state penalties to replace the soon-to-be defunct federal one.

Ouch! Six-and-a-half million filers paid the federal penalty last year, including approximately 400,000 right here in New York, and 60,000 in neighboring Connecticut. The penalty payers largely earned less than $50,000 a year. They paid the penalty because they found Obamacare unaffordable. But paying the penalty also hurt. It averaged $470. Getting rid of that penalty will be a sizable tax break for them.

But tell that to insurance companies already lobbying in Albany, Sacramento, Hartford and other capitols for a state penalty. They're looking out for their own interests. What could be sweeter than a law requiring consumers to buy their product or get whacked for not buying it? State lawmakers need to hear from the public that doubling down on Obamacare's coercion model is a mistake.

Paul Macielak, president of the New York Health Plan Associationlobbyists for insurersinsists "New York's individual market must be protected." What he means is that without a penalty, many healthy people will say "no" to Obamacare's high premiums and drop out of those plans. How about protecting the millions who finally will get relief from the Obamacare penalty?

If the choice is between propping up the current, coercive system or giving individuals freedom to choose, lawmakers should know the right answer. Don't kowtow to lobbyists and Obamacare activists. Listen to the public.

Some want less expensive plans with fewer bells and whistles. Women over 50 shouldn't be forced to pay for maternity coverage or breast pumps, and couples without kids shouldn't have to buy pediatric dental coverage. Forcing them to buy a standard health plan is like telling car buyers they have to settle for a four-door sedan, no more hatchbacks or convertibles. It presumes they're too stupid to choose for themselves.

Relatively healthy people want lower premiums, which have more than doubled in the individual market since the end of 2013.

Blame Obamacare's one-price-for-all rule for more than half those premium hikes. Obamacare plans charge the healthy the same premiums as people with pre-existing conditions, whose health care costs are 10 times as high. The healthy pay sky-high premiums and never meet their deductibles. Instead their premiums foot the bills for the very sick. A rip-off for most people.

As for protecting people with pre-existing conditions, that can be done by separately funding a high-risk pool for the sick out of general tax revenues. That will spread the burden broadly, instead of foisting it entirely on the small number of buyers stuck in the individual insurance market.

Last fall, the Trump administration relaxed federal health insurance regulations to allow consumers more options, including short-term plans that exclude many costly services, such as maternity care and inpatient drug rehab. They're not guaranteed renewable, but the upside is very low cost. The Obama administration had slammed the door shut on these plans, limiting them to 90 days in order to force people into Obamacare no matter how unaffordable. Trump lifted the 90-day rule. Now with the federal penalty gone for not having Obamacare, industry experts expect the demand for these more affordable plans to soar.

That is, unless state lawmakers put the kibosh on choice by imposing their own penalty. These lawmakers have to answer the fundamental question  Whose side are they on: The consuming public or the insurance companies?


Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and a former lieutenant governor of New York State.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Quiz Question   
How many days does it take the average U.S. household to consume as much electrical power as one single bitcoin transaction?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"Lawmakers continued to raise concerns about the Internal Revenue Service at a Congressional hearing this week as the agency deals with billions in misspent dollars, hefty processing backlogs, and complaints over poor customer service.Lawmakers lobbed questions at the tax-collecting agency during the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing.'The program has an annual improper payment rate…[more]
 
 
—Casey Harper, The Center Square
— Casey Harper, The Center Square
 
Liberty Poll   

Should any U.S. government agency have a function called the "Disinformation Governance Board" (See Homeland Security, Department of)?