The Corner

Where Are the Sick People Who Can’t Get Insurance?

That’s the question asked by Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic. The idea that there were thousands of sick people who were being denied access to health insurance because of a preexisting condition was one of the most appealing cases for the health-care bill. It appealed to me, even though I thought the bill wasn’t the right way to address it.  A report recently released by the Department of Health and Human Services states that if the GOP succeeds at repealing Obamacare, “1 in 2 non-elderly Americans could be denied coverage or charged more due to a pre-existing condition.” Yet, as John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis noted, “The Medicare program chief actuary predicted last spring that 375,000 would sign up for the new risk pool insurance in 2010. But by the end of November, only 8,000 had done so.”

That leads McArdle to ask:

. . . if the problem’s so big, where are all the victims? I’m not saying that they don’t exist, but if they do, we should really be trying to find them.  We’re not talking about a program that isn’t serving quite as many people as expected.  We’re talking about a program that was supposed to serve almost 400,000 people, and is instead serving around 2% of that number.  Nor have these people been turned away due to budget constraints; they don’t seem to have applied in the first place.  This leads us to one of two conclusions:

1. Pollack’s study, and others like them, have massively overestimated the population of patients who would like to purchase insurance at market rates, but cannot do so due to their pre-existing conditions; most people with pre-existing conditions who needed coverage were managing to find it one way or another under the old system.*

2. There are huge numbers of people out there who cannot access critical services, yet for some reason, they have not been able to negotiate their way into the new program.

One reason for the lack of enrollment by those with a preexisting condition is that even these highly subsidized high-risk premiums remain super expensive. It makes sense — by nature, high-risk pools are bound to be expensive and hence unworkable. Over at Slate, Timothy Noah had a pretty good piece a few days ago about how high-risk pools are, in fact, a terrible solution to the health-care crisis. He also writes that:

But they happen to be the terrible solution Republicans most favor (along with tax breaks) whenever they’re forced to state their preferred alternative to last year’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. They were the central idea in the health plan proposed by Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during the 2008 election. They were the central idea in the House leadership’s proposed substitute for the Democratic plan in 2009, and they played a major role in the alternative plan set forth that year by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a medical doctor who became the GOP’s lead opponent to Obamacare. They were the central idea in a 2010 repeal bill introduced in May by Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., that would have replaced the health reform bill that became law with the 2009 House leadership bill. They’re absent from the current leadership repeal bill, introduced Jan. 5 by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., but only because Cantor’s bill proposes no substitute at all.

I am assuming he is right about this, even if I do think it a little harsh to argue that the responsibility for these high-risk pools falls exclusively on Republicans when none them ultimately voted for the bill.

I disagree with his conclusion that the predictable failure of high-risk pools is an argument in favor of Obamacare. It’s just one more argument for getting rid of most of the federal and state governments’ interventions into the health-care industry altogether, for putting an end to the protections that insurance companies get so they don’t have to compete with one another at the national level, and for ending the subsidies that health-care providers receive every year. Instead, we could have a voucher system or lump sum of money to pay for the health insurance (not the health care) of those who really can’t afford it. I am sure there would be some frauds and abuses in such a system but it would beat what we have today, wouldn’t it?

I would be interested to hear your suggestions on this issue.

Veronique de Rugy — Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Most Popular

National Security & Defense

So Long to the Iran Deal

Almost immediately after the news broke that President Trump intends to replace Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with CIA director Mike Pompeo, media figures speculated that the decision was about Russia. The argument went like this: Tillerson was fired because he had recently criticized the Russian government ... Read More


EMPIRICAL   As I can fathom neither endlessness nor the miracle work of deities, I hypothesize, assume, and guess.   The fact that I love you and you love me is all I can prove and proves me. — This poem appears in the April 2 print issue of National Review. Read More

Nancy MacLean Won’t Quit

One of the biggest intellectual jousting matches last year was between Duke history professor Nancy MacLean, who wrote a slimy, dishonest book about Nobel Prize–winning economist James Buchanan and the whole limited-government movement, and the many scholars who blasted holes in it. If it had been a boxing ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Rolling Back Dodd-Frank

The Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would roll back parts of Dodd-Frank. The vote was 67–31, with 17 members of the Democratic caucus breaking party lines. If the legislation passes the House and is signed, it will be the largest change to the controversial financial-reform package since it became law in ... Read More

How Germany Vets Its Refugees

At the height of the influx of refugees into Germany in 2015–17, there was little doubt that mixed among the worthy cases were economic migrants taking advantage of the chaos to seek their fortunes in Europe. Perhaps out of instinctive pro-immigrant sentiment, Germany’s Left obscured the difference. Its ... Read More
National Security & Defense

Leave McMaster Be

About every two months, there are rumors that Gen. H. R. McMaster might be let go as Trump’s national-security adviser (along with many other stellar appointees). The world, however, is a much more logical and predictable place than it was 14 months ago. We’ve restored ties to the Gulf monarchies; Israel ... Read More