Chad’s Morning Brief: New Study Shows Staying Uninsured is Cheaper Than Obamacare for Young Adults, Guns and the Supreme Court, and Other Top Stories
Here is your Morning Brief for the morning of January 23, 2014. Give me your feedback below and tune in to The Chad Hasty Show for these and many more topics from 8:30 to 11am. Remember, you can listen online at KFYO.com or on your iPhone/Android with the radioPup App.
Cheaper Than Obamacare
According to the Daily Caller, it may be cheaper for young people to stay uninsured than to opt for Obamacare.
As Obamacare struggles to appeal to the young and the uninsured, a new study has concluded that the health care law is a bad deal for 86 percent of this demographic.
The free-market American Action Forum (AAF) found that in Obamacare’s first year, 6 out of 7 uninsured young adults will pay less if they go without health insurance than if they enroll in Obamacare. As Obamacare’s individual mandate tax penalty rises drastically over the next several years, the proportion will only slightly decrease to 71 percent in 2015 and 62 percent in 2014.
Analyzing data collected from a 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component — a large-scale, nationally-representative, household survey collected by one of the Department of Health and Human Services’ own agencies — AAF discovered that paying out-of-pocket for health care will overwhelmingly cost “young invincibles” less overall.
“We’re talking about a population of people who chose to go without insurance when it was much more dangerous to be without insurance and when insurance actually cost less,” the study’s co-author Chris Holt told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “So the incentives have changed so that these folks now have less risk in remaining uninsured while the cost of getting insurance is even higher.”
The Obama administration is already facing a tough final two months in Obamacare’s open enrollment period. Reports on Obamacare enrollees this far have indicated that young enrollees and the uninsured are vastly underrepresented in the exchanges.
Just 24 percent of exchange enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 35 years as of December 28; the Obama administration had repeatedly outlined that the exchanges will need 38-39 percent of enrollees in that range in order to keep costs down.
As for the uninsured, Obamacare’s enrollees tend to have purchased exchange coverage after having plans cancelled or have switched over to access taxpayer subsidies.
The study’s authors Conor Ryan and Holt told TheDCNF that Obamacare is simply making even stronger incentives for young Americans not to get coverage.
Even as Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty for not purchasing insurance rises in the next several years, a majority of young adults will still benefit from remaining uninsured, according to data on the group’s past health care spending. While the tax penalty is just $95 in 2014, it will jump to $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016.
But Obamacare’s tax penalty stops increasing there. After 2016, Holt told TheDCNF, the law will make it “increasingly discouraging” for young adults to purchase health insurance, “in part because of rising premiums and subsidy indexes.”
The amount of taxpayer subsidies will somewhat level off, according to AAF models. By 2019, exchange participants that receive subsidies will see their payments increase by an estimated 25 percent. From 2014 to 2023, AAF projects that premium contributions will increase by 75 percent, disincentivizing young adults and low-earners.
Supreme Court and Guns
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a new gun rights case. According to FOX News the court is weighing whether it should be a crime for someone to buy a gun for somebody else.
The Supreme Court took up a new gun rights case on Wednesday, weighing whether it should be a crime for someone to buy a gun for somebody else, if both people are legally allowed to own one.
Justices on Wednesday heard from Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer who got in trouble with the law after he bought a Glock 19 handgun in Virginia -- and transferred it to his uncle in Pennsylvania.
Abramski bought the gun because he could get a discount, and checked a box on the relevant form saying the gun was for him. But he sold it to his uncle.
Abramski was later indicted under federal law for making a false statement material to the lawfulness of a firearm sale -- and for making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept in the records of a license firearm dealer.
But Abramski's lawyers told the high court that since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.
His team argued that Congress never intended for a lawful buyer who transfers a gun to another lawful owner to be prosecuted under this law -- and that the intent was all about making sure straw buyers don't purchase guns for people not allowed to have them, like certain convicted criminals.
But the government argued that he violated the plain language of the law, when he said on the form that the gun was for him. They argued he never gave the seller any idea that he planned to essentially resell the gun to someone else the dealer would have no opportunity to vet.
Much of Wednesday's arguments centered on the question on the form -- prepared by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- and whether the agency's decision to include the question gives it the force of law, enough to make it a crime to answer untruthfully.
A decision in the case is expected by June.
Other Top Stories:
9:05am- Barry Smitherman, Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General
9:35am- Ken Paxton, Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General
These and many more topics coming up on today’s edition of The Chad Hasty Show. Tune in mornings 8:30-11am on News/Talk 790 KFYO, streaming online at kfyo.com, and now on your iPhone and Android device with the radioPup App. All guest interviews can be heard online in our podcast section after the show at kfyo.com.