You probably won’t be satisfied if you go into a restaurant only willing to pay for the lowest priced hamburger and a glass of tap water, yet wanting to eat the finest steak and best bottle of wine. I doubt you’ll find many restaurants willing to make that deal with you. If you want the finest meal you have to be willing to pay the higher price.
So it goes with most products and services, including health care. I was asked by readers to explain what I would like to see as changes in the health care bills currently in Congress. Instead of answering it quite that way, I will explain what I would like to see our federal government do to improve health care. I realize that some of the items on my wish list are a bit naive, like getting Americans to accept the fact that costs increase as the techniques for identifying and treating illnesses improve. That is not to say that the costs of health care are all legitimate, but it is a fact that health care purchases are rarely fun (I guess cosmetic surgeries are among the rarities) and as such, we complain more when we have to spend that money than we would if health care was a fun and sexy product. Yet, unlike many of those fun and sexy products we do buy, we continue to see real improvements in the outcomes from numerous health issues.
There is nothing sexy about a health insurance policy so we avoid spending on these things. But of all the things we avoid and dislike buying, few are as important as our health insurance.
So; my view of health insurance. Please note that I believe that the goal of many of those that support the current plans in Congress is to ultimately get to single payer universal coverage provided by the government – because I have read many comments from supporters stating that this is what they support. I am against that. I don’t believe that government run health insurance will help anyone in the long run. I do, however, believe that the health care status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. I want major changes.
1) I want to encourage competition based on price and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction should be driven by overall treatment and outcome. Not all that different from any other service.
2) I would like to see all healthcare related tax payments and exemptions removed. Employers should not receive any special tax treatment for providing healthcare to employees, but at the same time I should not be penalized for buying my healthcare on my own. This would enable insurance portability because I would buy my policy. My employer would not buy that policy. It would also change the competitive nature of insurance because insurers today work to meet the needs of the human resources departments within businesses, not the needs of the individuals on their plans. Yes, there is a difference.
Income taxes on health care workers should be removed. From the doctor to the janitor, the entire industry should be exempt. WAIT: Before you scream at me, think about this statement. If we can achieve real competition in health care, then by removing taxes we create room for prices to go down. For example, if a doctor wishes to take home $200k per year, that doctor needs to bill far more – varying by tax situation – to actually take home that $200k. The doctor also needs to pay staff, rent, equipment, etc, all of which are laden with taxes from income taxes to sales taxes. Keep in mind that even if the drugs the doctor injects you with were purchased tax free, the costs of those drugs included all the income taxes and other taxes the drug company and the company employees had to pay.
That we tax a patient, directly or indirectly, for trying to regain their health should be disturbing to every decent person. I would like to see Congress dedicate a committee to the removal of all health care related taxes.
3) No, I am not totally anti-government. I believe that government has some very important roles in health care. The first of those roles is to act as judge in disputes over complaints that insurers or the insured are failing to live up to their contracts. The ability to act as unbiased judge is huge and it is a role that is vital to protecting patients. It is a role that the government can not effectively play if the government also controls the health care industry. There is simply too much opportunity for influence and pressure. Think of it this way; how fair is it that if your health insurer denies coverage your appeal starts and ends with that health insurer? Why would it be different if that insurer is government? There are still budgets and careers and egos at play. Profits are gone but expenses still will need to be met by the government. However, when the insurer is private and the judge is government you increase the chance of a fair judgment.
4) The federal government should establish itself as the head of the standards body for the development of a nationwide healthcare information technology infrastructure – the computer network that will manage health records and billing, etc.
Those of you that have been part of an IT standards body, for example a standards body responsible for insuring that your PC can get your WiFi signal, know that this is an extremely complex undertaking. Standards bodies are complex organizations. Government as a whole, and individuals in government careers, can be very qualified to lead these bodies. Leadership involves constant politicking, compromise, deliberation, and deal making – the art of a operating a Constitutionally based representative government.
And, I bet Constitutional lawyers would find government’s involvement here very acceptable because it would absolutely involve interstate commerce.
5) When I first started writing on health care I opposed forcing individuals to buy health insurance, though I strongly believe that the economics in this country involves increasing the number of people that are actually paying into the system. I still hate the idea of forcing people to buy insurance, but I am coming around to the belief that we either need to insist that everyone that can possibly afford catastrophic coverage get that coverage or we need place some sort of payment requirement on those that visit emergency rooms or use some other means to get health care without paying. Maybe to avoid paying you have to prove you don’t own any luxury items or purchase alcohol or cigarettes. This sounds heartless on the surface, and maybe it is. But I would like to know that the part of my insurance and tax payments that go to pay for the health care of the uninsured is going to the truly needy. I believe that a portion of what we spend is to help those truly in need, but I also believe a portion goes to people that work the system and people that make bad decisions that I have to pay for.
6) Health care reform must include tax reform. I do not understand how we can burden the producers in this nation with complex, high taxes when we so desperately need to pump more money into health care, infrastructure, job creation, and a long list of other activities. Nothing would help ease the burden of health care costs and all the other above mentioned needs like an economic boom that benefited all segments of our economy. Simple as that. Tax simplification and reduction helps everyone at ALL income levels. I believe it helps those with low incomes but big ambitions the most. Naive?
7) Along with tax reform, we need to focus on cultural reform. See my many posts including yesterday’s post on encouraging President and Mrs. Obama to focus their efforts, first and foremost, on encouraging educational excellence, accomplishment, and self-reliance on the many people that they can reach in our society that no one else seems to reach – at least no one else that can act as positive role models.
8 . Health insurance today acts very much like a health care savings account in that almost everything that is a part of health care is paid for by health insurance. I believe that we should break out the health care savings account from the catastrophic, true insurance piece. Let the patient be the consumer for non-catastrophic care, making the best deal by using their health care savings account. I believe that insurers should offer rewards and penalties tied to insurance pricing based on patients following a course of routine health maintenance.
9) There are more than 1,000 health insurance providers in the U.S. We need to encourage competition among them. If that means opening up sales across state lines, fine. If not, then is there a better option?
10) My big concession to those that support strong government involvement. I believe that we need to restructure the insurance market – yes, forcibly through government action, so that the outcome is competitive and thus meets consumer needs, and can generate profits and incentives. I think that the best way to get to this environment may be by requiring this outcome.
So that it is folks. Have at it. The President meets with Republicans on February 25. I know, based on the readership of this blog, that our debate can impact that meeting.
Oh….One final thought. Whatever the health care outcome All government employees including Congress take part. No special privileges for the political class.
{ 33 comments }
Mr Robert…
I, as a poor under-educated Black woman, in the liberal stronghold of Detroit, actually like most everything you said, especially #5 and #8.
I’m not educated enough to understand all the possible tax ramifications involved here, but the points you’ve made seem to be sensible and workable, IF everyone gets behind the foreign concept of paying for routine procedures themselves and buying a high deductible catastrophic policy. (Keeping the 3rd party payers out of the picture.)
The fact that this makes so much sense and is 90% free market based, probably makes it DOA in the Obama socialist universe.
You, Robert, will get hammered from the usual cheap, socialist, irresponsible, lazy, Econ101 illiterates, who spout their drivel here, they know who they are, but I’m on board with you… an under educated Black woman in De-troit…..
Would you believe that health reform can be accomplished only by medical innovation, and nothng else? Would you believe that three such innovatios are available, but suppressed by squadrons of the medically corrupt and their hangers on? Let me give you a hint.
What is the primary predisposing factor for heart attacks, recurrent heart atacks, cardiac mortality, congestive heart failure, strokes, infectious disorders including HIV, and cancer?
Answer: Depression
Imagine the marvels that could occur were antidepressants, as politically incorrect as they are, ever unleashed to do battle with heart disease, strokes, cancer, and HIV? What would happen would be a dramatic improvement in the quality of care, and reduction in cost.
This would have happened some time ago, were it not for medical corruption, including the transmission of bogus health information by the lay and medical media.
Milo
Please get back on your meds…
I think point three is the most compelling reason to avoid what Congress is currently trying to do. There are plenty of ads slamming insurers for denying claims, but at least those claimants have an opportunity to seek judgement outside. If you are denied by the VA or Medicare where do you go?
With modern technology we should be able to achieve your goals under point two. It may cost a little more for the insurance companies to deal more directly with individuals but technology could help them to deal with individuals paying. As a result, they could save money by focusing on (and rewarding through price) prevention and fitness. The way it is now most workers get new policies pretty often, even if they don’t change jobs. There is no reason for the insurer to invest in the individuals they insure when they know they will all leave the plan soon.
I think point four is DOA. The government can do standards but cannot do technology. I think the insurance industry could solve this more quickly and credibly.
What we need government to start doing is examining the barriers it has already erected. Instead of saying we’ll fix health insurance by restructuring this and that and adding a thousand new mandates and then backing them down for the select few with exceptions, we should examine the barriers to cost savings, tech standards, preventive medicine, etc. It’s not about picking a goal and then building a new path to get there, it’s about figuring out what is in the way of the most direct path to that goal.
I like your suggestions. Removing the tax break for employers is the right thing to do, but Reps would just yell that Obama is raising taxes. I haven’t heard anyone discuss removing taxes on healthcare, but since it’s one of the few sectors that’s growing, good luck with that one. If government has a role in determining what to do about coverage, you’re essentially talking about regulation (A legal process would take so long people would be dead before they got a judgment–and the insurance companies would make sure it would be costly and time-consuming.) I agree–I’m assuming you’d just want arbitration to make sure the companies lived up to contracts, but I’d like to see something more sweeping. A couple of the big problems that you don’t address is that insurance companies have exemption from antitrust laws and for-profit insurers have competing incentives. Companies that make widgets have to deliver widgets to make money. Companies that sell health insurance make more money by denying healthcare than by providing it. The for-profit model just doesn’t make sense for health insurance.
Lynn you wrote
“Companies that make widgets have to deliver widgets to make money. Companies that sell health insurance make more money by denying health-care than by providing it. The for-profit model just doesn’t make sense for health insurance”
While I’m not an expert on insurance companies, per se, (maybe we get Paul or Henry to explain it, they know it all), I can clue you in here on generalities…
In my experience, insurance companies make a profit by investing a portion of the money they take in from premiums in the stock and bond market and always keeping a cash reserve fund for claims.
A reliable insurance pays out only what is required of them in the contract for legitimate claims. Nothing more, nothing less.
I know you and the hairdressers, expect them to act like charities. Not the way it works. When the pool of subscribers is big enough, with a good mix of young and older, the system works well and they MAY end any given year with a single digit profit, if they are lucky.
(I haven’t been subjected to denial of a claim for covered items. and it makes sense, if their actuarial models hold up.)
I want them to stay in business, so I will be covered for that catastrophic situation, that I hope never happens. I don’t mind paying a very low premium ($98.00 mo. from Anthem) and paying for the routine everyday procedures myself, until the deductible of $2500 is met, in my case… I’m 31, and have yet hit the deductible in 5 years…
Usually I spend less then $600.00 /yr. out of pocket plus the premiums. For me, that’s generally, less then $1800.00 total per year…For me, it’s a bargain.
For cheap socialists, I’m sure any amount over “free” is expensive…
It’s really not as simple as insurance companies’ providing a list of procedures and paying for them without fail. There’s a complex web of red tape and regulations about what treatments are covered for what disorders, including some degree of medical opinion. If a wrong box is checked on a form, they don’t pay–it’s often the patient’s responsibility to call, wait on hold, and find out the problem, then call the doctor’s office back, let them know the problem, and hope it gets fixed–if it’s doesn’t, the patient is on the hook for it. If a doctor orders a test, the insurance company might cover it, or decline based on their determination of medical necessity, independent of what the doctor says. If the test has already been done, you owe for it. If an approved over-the-counter medication is ineffective, the insurance company may still decline to pay for a prescription version (sometimes the doctor can write a letter, to get it covered, but this might have to be resubmitted). Anything out of order? They don’t pay. A doctor might recommend a cancer treatment. One company might consider it experimental and decline to pay for it. Sure you can appeal, but you might die before your appeal get’s heard–happens all the time. Bottom line, they cut costs by not paying.
“It’s really not as simple as insurance companies’ providing a list of procedures and paying for them without fail. There’s a complex web of red tape and regulations . . . .”
LOL! What an understatement! There’s a whole cottage industry of trial lawyers who’ve become rich suing health insurance companies for “bad faith refusal to pay,” usually in cases in which the insurer suddenly finds itself confronted with a major claim from an insured who becomes seriously ill, and the insurer comes up with some ridiculously convoluted reason for denying coverage.
Let’s remember the argument that conservatives used against welfare in the 90s: if you give people a financial incentive to remain dependent, that is exactly what they’ll do. For some reason, conservatives have a tough time understanding that the same incentive argument applies in other areas too. If your insurer has a financial incentive to deny coverage whenever it can come up with a plausible reason for doing so, then that is exactly what it’ll do. The only way to prevent that practice is to take away that incentive.
Mr. Siegel, to his credit, seems to have recognized that the structure of the health insurance business is rife with incentives to give insured patients the shaft, and that the only way to prevent this is to force changes in the way insurers operate – in other words, to remove those incentives. Good for him.
Henri
If you see what you’ve just pontificated as the problem, why not have our Representatives address this problem and all the others, fix them for the good of the system, instead of the government taking over the whole thing and making everything worse? IMO.
I like my insurance. Most of the time.
“Juni,”
You seem unaware of the fact that BOTH of the Democrats’ bills DO address this problem.
Both contain provisions forbidding insurers to refuse coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
Both contain provisions forbidding insurers to cancel a patient’s insurance because he becomes ill.
Both contain provisions forbidding insurers to impose lifetime limits on the amount of money they will spend on claims that are covered by a policy.
Both contain provisions requiring insurers to spend a certain percentage of the premiums they take in paying claims rather than on “administrative costs” (i.e., salaries and bonuses for insurance executives).
You didn’t know that?
Regarding “the government taking over the whole thing,” you also seem not to know that these provisions are exactly what reform opponents are talking about when they say the bills amount to “the government taking over the whole thing.”
The truth is that under the Democrats’ bills, the vast majority of health insurance coverage to non-elderly people will continue to be provided by private insurers, just as it is now.
Many conservatives (although not our host Mr. Siegel, apparently) oppose the provisions that require everyone to buy health insurance. What’s the point of that requirement?
Simple. If you’re going to forbid insurers from refusing people with pre-existing conditions, then what’s to stop people from waiting until they’re sick to buy health insurance and then demanding that the insurer pay their medical bills? The only way to prevent that is to require everyone to buy insurance NOW. Or can you think of another way? If so, do tell us.
Henry
That’s all very interesting,very informative, and you are really up on all the main points. I congratulate you on your persistence.
But, I still must harken back to a point I made earlier, Obama has all the numbers, the personality, the political capital,WHY COULDN”T THE DEMOCRATS GET IT DONE?
The answer is, IMO, 70% of the country is happy with their insurance, so to legislate against this satisfaction is foolhardy, if you want to keep your kush job in Congress. People see how Medicare is run and don’t want any part of it.
If MrO had tackled Medicare FIRST, and got it on the right track, showing the doubters that his ideas were viable, perhaps then the masses would have gone along with his ObamaCare.
But the vast majority are not going to give up on a working, yet imperfect system, just because one man thinks we should.
And that’s the way I see it, Feb 17, 2010…
HenryC
You’re not going to believe this but I agree with the last paragraph of your post you so eloquently wrote with no spelling or syntax errors.
In order for the system to work, EVERYONE must buy at least catastrophic insurance, and pay for the small procedures themselves. Conservatives I know agree with this . ( We just know where the Dims want to take this train eventually, so we oppose it on its face. Sorry)
This simple concept, where all are required to have a policy, will insure that the insurance companies remain viable to cover big cost items and is a good way to keep costs in general under control.
The less the Gov’ment and insurance companies are involved in payments to med professionals, the better and healthier the overall system will be.
“But, I still must harken back to a point I made earlier, Obama has all the numbers, the personality, the political capital, WHY COULDN”T THE DEMOCRATS GET IT DONE?”
Juno, your question has already been answered in another thread. You just don’t seem to understand the answer.
Here it is again. Neither the Dems nor any other party can get majorities in both houses of Congress without including some moderates in their caucuses. Some of the moderates on the Dems’ side simply do not agree with some of the principal ideas in the bills. The Reps, now in the minority, have purged virtually all moderates from their caucus in each house, so they are ideologically united and are united in opposing the measures. That’s the problem. What part of that do you not understand?
Your statement that people see how Medicare is run and don’t like it is a fantasy of your own creation. Every survey I have ever seen shows that a higher percentage of Medicare enrollees are happy with their health coverage than is true of employer-provided health plans. If you know of a survey that says otherwise, please post it here.
Your statement also shows you still do not understand what is in the Dems’ bills. Neither bill expands Medicare to cover more people. Neither bill creates a Medicare-like public insurance system for the non-elderly, although many Dems would prefer this solution. What you’re complaining about simply isn’t in the bills. So what made you imagine that it is? Have you been listening to Bill O’Reilly again?
Henry
I don’t watch TV…And Bill O is, IMO, obnoxious.
But you just cut and pasted what you said before which begs the question that has been previously been asked:
“If the dems can’t agree among themselves, when they have the numbers, how can’t we expect the Repubs to agree on anything we are for”?
Please don’t respond unless you have a better answer, as you’ve said the same thing twice.
“If the dems can’t agree among themselves, when they have the numbers, how can’t we expect the Repubs to agree on anything we are for”?
That isn’t the same question I answered in my previous post, which is “Why can’t the Dems get it done.” Do you have trouble understanding the difference between the two questions? It seems obvious to me.
Now you’re asking how we can expect Reps to agree on anything Dems are for if Dems can’t agree among themselves.
Well, I don’t know about you, but as a citizen I think I have a right to expect our elected officials to come up with solutions to our problems that actually work. I don’t expect them to reject a solution for no other reason than that people in the other party support it. Do you think it is reasonable for them to reject a solution for that reason?
And I am not the only one who feels that way. In case you haven’t heard, that is why Evan Bayh just decided not to run for reelection. According to Bayh, the last straw on the camel’s back was the fact that seven Republican senators who had sponsored a bill to create a deficit reduction commission turned around and voted against the same bill simply because Obama decided to support it.
Henry
I’ve always kind of liked Evan Bayh. He’s more moderate then Obama, but has supported all things Obama. oops! Bad idea..
But this is my opinion only. I believe he quit so he could keep his $13 million campaign fund. Distance himself from Obama policies. Re-group and run for President in ’12 or’16. You may accept the “lack of bipartisanship” reason, but I’m very skeptical.
As for the Repubs not going along with the the Dems.I’m not surprised.
Whether we like it or not, their (Repubs) thing is small gov, they see Obama Care, as Socialized Med, that goes against what they, as a party stand for. It seems many BlueDogs feel that way too. Obama is really showing his inexperience and inability to read public opinion. Remember most Americans (65%) really like their healthcare. Me and hubby are two of them. Hard to argue with a big majority like that!
That’s the way it is Feb18,2010
“”Whether we like it or not, their (Repubs) thing is small gov, they see Obama Care, as Socialized Med, that goes against what they, as a party stand for. “”
Does it? Dems have been pretty clear that they favor more government and more spending. Reps claim they favor the opposite, but as we saw during the Bush years that was a lie. So the truth seems to be that both parties favor the same approach, but one party lies about it.
“”Obama is really showing his inexperience and inability to read public opinion. Remember most Americans (65%) really like their healthcare. Me and hubby are two of them. Hard to argue with a big majority like that!”"
You seem to have trouble with some fairly simple concepts. One of them is that the Dems’ bills don’t change anything for those who already have insurance and want to keep it. That’s what Obama promised and that’s what is in the bills. So how does that go against the majority you mentioned? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to answer that one.
Henri
Why you hasslin’ this poor girl that just tell it like she sees it? She likes her health insurance and HATES socialized Med, which we will eventually all get stuck with, if this stupid Dim bill is passed…But it’s not gonna pass…If it does, you gonna see planes flyin’ into the Capital Bldg, flown by disgruntled, really po’ed citizens…Dig fool?
JUNO’s just too polite for my tastes. You on the other hand, like to explain yo’ dumb crapola way too much, and really answer pathetically. You write good but you respond thru the confused, ECON101 illiterate, liberal prisim.
Americans like their healthcare, overwhelmingly, with a few improvements, that everyone agrees are necessary.
If you weren’t such a dumb know- it -all “y-ner”, you’d just accept what the vast majority want…Dig?
You may now return to MMfA….Cut and paste more crapola..
Hi Juno,
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-not-to-run-for-another-term-in-senate-but/
As to Henry’s “point” that under the bill insurance companies cant turn down coverage of those with pre-existing conditions. It is important tio examine the mechanics of how the Democrats do this.
The Democrats bill allows you to wait till you get sick, by insurance online and go to the emergency room or the doctor when when your done you drop the coverage and wait till you are sick again and need another treatment, so you do it again.
This will make the insurance companies go broke and that is what the bill is designed to do, to blow up our health care system.
The GOP bill fixes the pre-existing problem 2 ways. First they allow the states to makie high risk insurance pools that are partially subsidized so that those with preexisting conditions can get coverqagte and competitive rates. This makes 50 ways to tackle the problem, the best run plans and ideals will rise to the top and be adopted by the others. The GOP plan also be used to create a catastrophic pool that pays for the very few of us that get in catastrophic injuries like the worst car accidents etc.
Lynn and Henry know this and decided that you didnd’t need to know it. Their emotional partisan attachment is so strong that they are willing to engage in any half truth and deception to satisfy that emotional attachment.
Chuck
I don’t need to know ALL the particulars of the bill, I just need to know who is FOR unsustainable destructive, policies like ObamaCare, and run the other way.
Cheap Econ101 illiterates like Henri/Paul/Hesh and the Colossal of Ignorance, Lynn, are welcome to remain in the dark.
Me and hubby will stay with our high deductable private insurance, pay for routine procedures out of pocket, and remain responsible consumers of medical care.
And that’s how I see it, Feb 19,2010
Juno, I’ve been treating your posts seriously up to now, but it’s hard to continue doing so for two reasons.
One is that your use of identical expressions (and identical mistakes in English) to those found in the posts of Rafi/Shinequa makes it clear that you are the same person.
The other reason is that although you claim to dislike O’Reilly, your criticisms of the Dems’ bills are clearly taken straight from the rants of O’Reilly and other Right wing talk radio types. Your criticisms all assume that the lies these people have told about what’s in the bills are true, when in fact they are the opposite of the truth.
As you say, you don’t need to know the particulars of the bills – unless you want to have a serious discussion about this subject. What you obviously want instead is to echo Right wing rants like a good little Limbaugh dittohead.
Henri/Paul/Hesh/RightasRainman & all other hairdressers
I REALLY don’t like O’Rilley…I consider him a spineless RINO and you a very diluted, ECON101- illiterate, leftist…
All of us had alot of fun with you, but you blabber on and on incessantly on issues you are clueless about. Your copy and paste jobs from MediaMatters talking points are really quite droll. Bye, bye…
Henry,
I notice how you attack people in your statements but in no way do you actually attempt to tackle the details of their arguments.
I have read the health care bills and what I have posted about them is 100% true and easily varified by the text of the bills themselves and other good sources.
I am becoming quite convinced that while you may know the some talking points about the bills, you really have no idea what is in them.
I am certain what you would consider a “right wing talk radio type” but you could not out debate me or even discuss the issue with me fact for fact because you are so obviously ill prepared to do so.
As far as O’Reilly, no he is not always accurate, but he is certainly more accurate than MSNBC, NBC, CBS or the NYT, but beating them isn’t all that hard.
“The Democrats bill allows you to wait till you get sick, by insurance online and go to the emergency room or the doctor when when your done you drop the coverage and wait till you are sick again and need another treatment, so you do it again.”
I’m afraid you’re lying. Both the House and Senate bills require EVERYONE to carry insurance. No one is allowed to perpetrate the kind of scam you’re complaining about by purchasing insurance and then dropping it. Why lie about that?
Okay, Chuck, I will bite. Since you have read the health care bills, you should have no problem posting here the specific provisions you are referring to. I am not talking about a summary or description you read somewhere, but the actual language of the bills. For someone who has actually read them, that should be easy.
If you don’t post the language, of course, that will be a pretty good indication that you were not telling us the truth about reading the bills, and that all you have read is some Right wing blog. Put up or shut up.
Henri/Paul/LeNotre
You” boys” might want to try listening to an under-educated .poor, Black woman from De-troilet, liberal Garden of Eden. That would be Shinequa….
She knows what she be talkin’ ’bout….You fools can hammer away all you want at Conservatives, but keep in mind, Anthem was forced to raise premiums because a bunch of cheap, juvinile, hairdressers canceled their insurance when they went back home to live with their mommies….
So the insurance pool shrunk. making all policies more expensive for the responsible adult population…
Thanks, A**HOLES…
If the Obama plan will “blow up” the insurance industry, why do they support it? I ‘ll admit that the penalty is low for not carrying insurance, but the plan is designed to get healthy people into the plan by requiring everyone to carry insurance. If we could get Republicans to quit demagoguing about a health insurance tax, we might be able to get a provision that would work. Don’t get me wrong, I think a single payor system could work just fine, and works in other countries, but I’m also fine with a competitive system here that gets everyone covered. Reducing costs still has to be tackled though, the current plan doesn’t do enough (but the Republican “plan” does nothing).
Let’s just look at the unintended consequences of “provisions forbidding insurers to refuse coverage for those with pre-existing conditions”. Say the uninsured are offered a directory from which they can find an insurer. AAA Health Insurance is the first on the list. So now AAA gets the lions share of the people with pre-existing conditions calling and they are not allowed to deny them. Now what is going to happen to AAA insurance, they just got loaded down with a huge share of people with conditions requiring more than average health care expenses they now have to cover, yet they are also forbidden from charging enough to cover it all.
Good intentions are no substitute for logic.
Greg, you are quite right about the possible consequences of the pre-existing condition provision — IF that were the only provision of the Dems’ bills AND NOTHING MORE was in the bills.
But if you knew anything about the bills, you would know that they also contain other provisions to prevent the very situation you are describing. The bills require everyone, not merely those with health problems, to buy insurance. They take account of the fact that many uninsured are uninsured because they are healthy and choose not to spend money on insurance at this point in their lives. The fact that a lot of healthy people have taken themselves out of the market for insurance raises costs for everyone who is insured. That’s why the bills contain provisions to prevent this. Apparently you didn’t know that.
If you follow the news much, you’ll have heard of the controversy over Anthem Blue Cross of California, which recently announced it is raising rates for individual health insurance policies by an average of 25 percent, and in some cases by as much as 39 percent, despite being extremely profitable in its last fiscal quarter. You remember Anthem – that’s the company Rafi/Shinequa told us he uses.
Why is Anthem doing this? According to them, one reason is that a lot of their healthier insureds are dropping coverage because of the economy. That leaves Anthem with a pool of insureds that is smaller and composed of people with higher medical costs, which in turn raises Anthem’s costs. Again, that is exactly the kind of situation that the Dems’ bills, by requiring everyone to carry insurance, would prevent.
Chuck
I told you this guy’s a MediaMatters blockhead and not worthy of civil discourse. He would no more go to your site and read the truth then he would donate cash to the “Wounded Warriors”…
It boils down to him bein’ cheap and irresponsible, not to mention an ill-informed DailyKos hack.
But he writes well yet understands nothing. When you read his answers, they have little or no relationship to the question or statement except peripherally… I see why Arianna keeps him around…He make her sound smart…
But we in Detroit, read your blog daily…. great source of honest info and fun…
Good point about Anthem. Just when conservatives are demanding government ease up on the insurance companies, one of the biggest insurance companies raises rates up to the sky and makes fools of them.
This Shinequa person is the biggest liar on this blog, pretending to be five different people including a teacher and a wife who voted for Obama and a black woman from Detroit. I notice in “her” latest post she dropped the Amos ‘n Andy dialect “she” used in all the other posts. It’s kind of funny that one of “her” identities recommended everyone get a policy like the one “she” has with Anthem, then it turns out Anthem is gouging the hell out of its customers. Another lying dittohead.
This youtube from ABC News. Interesting look at healthcare
“http://www.youtube.com/v/gdx_2cuPgQQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs
Sorry
Here is the correct youtube vid on ABC News. 8 min…Worth a watch, no matter what side you’re on..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ