Obamacare: Making Kids Freeloaders And Throwing Spouses Away

Economic decisions have consequences. This should be obvious. If they didn’t have consequences there would be no point in making such decisions. Complications arise because we cannot always foresee the outcomes of the decisions. Many people can survive without a written budget but others learn to keep a budget after a decision to buy a computer turns out to be a decision to not pay the whole mortgage that month. One learns early with money that you have to make sure you have enough to go around (or else stops having much of it).

But when arrogant politicians decide to make your decisions for you, they can wreck your finances much more thoroughly. Someone in the bowels of the decision-making process of Obamacare looked at the way we normally do insurance, and decided that it needed to be improved. Traditionally, insurance is offered for a husband and wife and children in their minority. Once the children became adults they had to find a new policy. That was not good enough. The decision was made to “improve” the traditional offering by saying that kids could stay on their parents’ policy until they were twenty-six years old.

The idiocy here, was simply assuming that the traditional offering wouldn’t change if Obamacare mandated this additional coverage. But it did change. By mandating new coverage, insurance companies and companies that offered insurance to employees had to try to cut costs to compensate for the new services so that prices wouldn’t shoot up.

Thus, The New American reports,

“With healthcare costs continually on the rise — a situation compounded by ObamaCare’s new taxes and regulations — employers are looking for every means possible to keep those costs down. The healthcare law requires them to offer coverage to all full-time employees and their dependent children aged 25 and younger. The one person whose coverage it does not mandate, however, is the employee’s spouse; spousal coverage, therefore, is increasingly on employers’ chopping blocks.”

Does Obamacare not mandate coverage for spouses because of some plan to marginalize marriage? I doubt it (though I’m not ruling anything to be impossible). Rather, they probably simply assumed that the “traditional” pattern of coverage was simply self-sustaining. All they had to do was “add” something to it and it would only change in that one way: adult children would be included. Instead, the traditional coverage is dying.

It turns out that, in the traditional coverage plan, if the husband works, the wife is much more expensive to insure. A woman not only has more medical needs on average, she also has more time to go to the doctor. So this new mandate especially hurts women.

The lesson that ought to be learned from this, and which Americans should already be educated enough to know, is that politicians have no idea how to control and plan the economic decisions of millions of people. Nor can they second-guess the decisions of the companies that are serving their needs in the market place. They just pretend they can do so in order to expand their own power and inflate their sense of their own importance.

Obamacare is arrogance resulting in a lack of care.