Sunday, December 8, 2013

Obamacare: even economics should wash its hands of it


Obamacare, a common nickname for the Affordable Care Act, is not only unconstitutional in many regards, but it is economically unsound.  Forced lowering of price with increased cost will lead to unhealthy bottom lines, as is becoming the case.  The main points that I want to highlight are
1.     The government’s entry into an oligopolistic market with a perfectly competitive fringe.
2.     The increase in cost and forced decrease in price for many individual insurance plans.
3.     The rise in marginal cost of labor due to the employer mandate.
The insurance market, prior to the flawed rollout of Obamacare included 1,035 issuers[1], none with a market share of over 19%, but with at least four issuers with market share over 5%.  In 2012, roughly 47 million Americans were uninsured.  With the government now entering the insurance market and theoretically making itself the 1,036th insurer with expanded Medicaid offerings, the market is most definitely going to be jostled.  With an endless bottom line (taxpayer dollars), the government could outbid every private insurer in terms of price for coverage.  With the debt snowballing as fast as it is, it would be a fair guess to assume that government spending will continue to occur in this new capacity of healthcare.  
When a new competitor joins a market for the sole purpose of providing insurance at a cost lower than the market previously provided, and has the means to do so, that competitor introduces an unfair advantage and erases any possibility of perfect competition.  The large amount of insurance businesses and the small amount of those businesses with over 5% market share makes the industry oligopolistic with a perfectly competitive fringe.  It is unclear how much the public option provided by the government will consume in terms of market share, but with 47 million uninsured and a significant amount qualifying for the new Medicaid standards, it could be substantially large.
The individual mandate rocks the economic boat in a few ways as well.  Firstly, the government now mandates that all Americans cover health insurance or face a fine (in many cases less than the cost of insurance, which makes me wonder about the economic decisions behind that).  This mandate also in turn forced insurance companies to offer policies to everyone so that they can become insured, including Americans with pre-existing conditions.  Along with this regulation, issuers were limited on the premiums they could charge and were not allowed to place caps on coverage.  This is possibly the most economically unsound part of the plan.  Forcing companies to make financial decisions that are unprofitable is going to adversely affect the private market sector.  This drives up average total cost for insurance issuers because pre-existing conditions are huge expenses over the long run. 
Additionally, one of the areas getting the most attention, the employer mandate forces companies to provide health insurance to full time employees if they employ over 50 employees.  This dramatically increases the cost of labor for each full time employee.  In many small businesses, employees work over 30 hours/week, but providing each with health insurance coverage would turn the employer belly up.  The average health insurance monthly cost is $328 according to a recent NBC report.  Adding $328 to the Marginal cost of labor will cause a severe downturn in hiring by small businesses, where the majority of post-recession hiring has taken place.  Adding that cost for each current “full-time” employee will also raise variable costs and Average cost of labor by that significant amount.  Some businesses in low margin industries will not be able to survive this mandate.  They will either need to lay off workers to compensate for the increased cost of labor or raise prices of goods significantly to match former levels of profitability.  Causing business to go out of business because of forced regulation and spending is economically wrong.  The government’s involvement in the private sector should not cause other businesses to go under.             


[1] IbisWorld

No comments:

Post a Comment