In an article entitled “Obamacare a raw deal for young people” (Other Views, Dec. 21), Alyne Senger raises an interesting question: Why was the pricing structure of Obamacare so heavily oriented toward making the young “pay (more than) their fair share”? Obviously, there is no sound business purpose for this distortion. Actually, the pricing structure utilized by the insurance industry in the bad old days was intended to make all “pay their fair share.” Thus, prices were established that were based on actual usage statistics. Lighter usage resulted in lower premiums; heavier usage lead to higher premiums.
If we then conclude that there was no sound business basis for this distortion, we are left with the assumption that political considerations overruled common sense. This assumption is consistent with other actions of the present administration.
So we must then examine what were the political considerations. I believe the answer is obvious. What percentage of the older generation votes in the general elections versus the percentage of the young who participate in the elections? In short, who wields more power at the ballot box? So whose ox must not be gored? Not only should that ox not be gored, he should be favored with extra rations of the highest quality. Therefore, the political decision was made to lower premiums for the older (voting) generation while increasing the premiums for the younger (non-voting) generation.
As the article points out, not only was the older generation favored with lower premiums but the net effect of the taxpayer-funded subsidies is greater for the older (voting) generation.
I for one do not want politicians making decisions about my health-care insurance. I do not want politicians placing their drive — their need — to be elected and re-elected above considerations of my health care.
James P. Whitaker