Reverse Tort Reform. Lets open more doors for the trial attorneys. In a general sense that is what the whole Health Care Reform is all about. Another cash cow for the trial attorneys to go after. Just like the lawyer advertisements for denied
social security benefits, the trial lawyers will be waiting for anyone to have a negative experience in health care. They will sue the governement, exchanges, co-ops, states or carriers.
God help us all.
Leahy is a despicable liar that has been in congress too long. He represents no one but himself and the DNC. I have no problem believing his motives are meretricious.
Shouldn’t be. Leahy is single handidly responsible for giving Vermont the reputation it has as a hotbed of flaming liberal views, and that’s not something to be proud of. That state is a mess. Leahy has no conscience whatsoever, or integrity for that matter.
As much as conservatives (like me) protest whenever a public option is proposed, what are some other options, short of the repeal of McCarran-Furgeson, would be reasonable compromises to increase free market competition across state lines in the health care industry?
It’s pretty clear that a Public Option would be a health insurance industry “killer” but I’d like to be able to better explain to my liberal acquaintences why they have 100s of choices for Homeowners, Family Auto & Life Insurance, but only a handful for health insurance (not just because it’s employer-based).
Leahy is absolutely the wrong messenger for this message since his credibility is so low among conservatives, but it’d be nice to have a very simple recommendation that would actually let the free market normalize competitive premiums, terms and coniditions while at the same time allowing it to natuarlly penalize those companies with poor service or non-competitive terms/conditions.
If we could devise and effectively communicate such a program, it should knock some of the wind out of the public option sails.
I find it quite amusing and at the same time hypocritical that Leahy would make this statement…”Insurers should not object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.”
If you follow that same logic we should be hearing Leahy say “Congress should not object to being subject to the same Health Care Program as everyone else.”
I wonder how long until we hear that statement come from a congressman’s mouth? anyone want to take a guess?
Leahy is just kissing Obama’s backside by jumping on the Healthcare wagon. I hope the good people of Vermont get the internet soon so they can read these posts about their elected official.
Mr. Charter, both you and Mr. Leahy should do a little more research before spouting off.
McCarran does not exempt insurers from all federal anti-trust legislation. Bid-rigging and other unfair trade practices are still illegal. Price discrimination on any basis other than expected cost is illegal.
McCarran exempts insurers from specific provisions in the Sherman act on the condition that the domicile state has appropriate antitrust legislation. The main effect of McCarran is to permit the sharing of insurance data between companies.
Insurer operations, be they property, life, or even health, are dependent on vast quantities of data. A small company or startup would never be able to acquire enough data to get off the ground without access to pooled data such as from ISO. Far from restricting competition, McCarran does more to enhance competition in the insurance marketplace than any other piece of federal legislation.
Thanks, Ratemaker. Good explanation of why we need to pool statistics.
Now, any suggestions on how we can stimulate more competition among health insurors and get these Public Option fans (who by the way, have me pretty p.o.’d) to understand that the private sector can handle this better than “Big Brother”?
Wendell PotterPurging through pricing games is not limited to letting go of an isolated number of … Within a few years, Aetna let go 8 million covered lives due to strategic and other factors.
The current health insurance system isn’t able as currently address the needs of the “chronically” uninsured which is why most conservatives I know welcome the right types of health care reform.
Not sure how many of your 4.5MM are uninsured because they:
* Are not eligible for employer-based group insurance? (ie. part-time, minimum wage, etc.)
* Cannot afford to contribute any of their income toward the cost of their own health care expenses (ie. below the poverty level)
* Are between jobs and just need an affordable bridge (since COBRA is not affordable) until the are again eligible for employer-based group health insurance)
or
* Have pre-existing health conditions which make health insurance cost prohibitive,,,, but…
Accesiblity, Affordability and Portability of health insurance by:
Creating more competition between private health insurance companies by allowing them to compete across state lines (currently prohibited by state insurance law)
Reducing the cost of health care (not just insurance) by reforming the legal system so that frivolous malpractice or product liability lawsuits are eliminated (or at least drastically reduced), which in turn will reduce the need for defensive medicine and the malpractice and product liability insurance costs which medical providers and drug companies end up passing on to health care consumers either directly through their health insurance carriers.
Reducing the cost of treating those who are not in this country legally by passing meaningful immigration reform.
Motivating those, through tax incentives, who CAN afford but choose not to purchase health insurance so that the pool will not be limited to just the unhealthy or the poor, broadening the spread of risk among a more diverse group of health care consumers.
Aggressively purse waste and fraud in both the private and public sectors as respects the delivery of health care services.
Then for those who STILL can’t afford the cost of less expensive health care insurance, supplement the truly needy or those with chronic preexisting conditions either through an assigned risk pool comprised of private insurers or with the savings from the elimination of waste & fraud, lower the threshold for those who eligible for existing programs like Medicaid.
Bottom line, there are many private industry solutions to the problem of taking care of the “uninsurable” that the private industry has never been encouraged to pursue but most are rejected by those who are still convinced that the only solution is to eliminate the free enterprise system from this industry leaving only the government to control it. So why trash what works for 85% of Americans in an attempt to take care of the the other 15% (which is really more like 5% when only the truly unable to afford health care insurance.
Most of my open-minded but still progressive friends agree that if the private sector can solve this problem, the government shouldn’t have to.
Please explain to me, in small words as I consider myself a Democrat, how the existing health insurance system is currently moving towards providing coverage to all Americans?
What are their next steps towards providing coverage to the 4.5 million uninsured within the country that this reform bill will stop?
Or (since that was trick question) what actions would you like to see in a health care reform bill which will motivate the private health insurance sector towards providing affordable health insurance for those 4.5 million citizens?
Again, small words.. I am a Democrat.
Oh, and see if you can leave ad hominum attacks, partisan political rhetoric & sound bytes out of your proposed solution.
Just solve the problem in the fewest number of steps.
One thing you forgot to mention when you were listing the uninsured is “Those who just don’t want to pay for it due to their own ignorance” How many people my age (mid twenties) are eligable for health insurance thru their employer but just choose not to pay that little extra a month? I’ve had health insurance thru my employer since I was eligable for it (when I worked full time at 18) and have only had to use it maybe twice (and the bills were very low)
All of those actions look sensible, like they would move towards addressing most of the concern. I appreciate being informed in that manner.
Now, about this line:
“Bottom line, there are many private industry solutions to the problem of taking care of the “uninsurable” that the private industry has never been encouraged to pursue…”
What encouragement would they need and from whom?
I believe that the majority of the American public would like to see everyone taken care of, but how do I as a citizen get the health insurance industry to make this decision?
Normally, I would say “vote with your feet” but if there isn’t a company out there making these changes for me to do that, then change must come from outside the system since the system isn’t making it happen.
“…but most are rejected by those who are still convinced that the only solution is to eliminate the free enterprise system from this industry leaving only the government to control it.”
See my above comments. I believe that the free enterprise system isn’t working to provide the reform towards the goal I want. BTW: this is dangerously close to political rhetoric… *grin*
“So why trash what works for 85% of Americans in an attempt to take care of the the other 15% (which is really more like 5% when only the truly unable to afford health care insurance. ”
I won’t argue the number, but will provide an answer to the question. These people who are uninsured end up being a burden on the tax & government budget system when they DO require critical/emergency medical care/hospitalization.
People who are dying are not refused medical care because they can’t provide proof of payment up front. When they are found to be indigent, the medical facilities bill by other means, either by direct billing the government for the services paid, or by absorbing the cost of the uninsured into the costs which we pay for services.
Additionally, by providing a better quality of life through routine medical care, we can extend the life/quality of our work-force and become more efficent. I would like to see a better life for that minority as it improves my quality of life.
I agree that I would rather that the movitation for change be from the private sector…that the CEO’s of these various companies would see someone dying from preventable, flu-related pnemonia a tragedy rather than a bad debit to be passed on to the consumer.
The government should have better things to look at… but since the private sector isn’t solving the problem on its own & needs encouragement which I am unable to provide with my support, then I have no other choice than to let the government encourage them.
Reverse Tort Reform. Lets open more doors for the trial attorneys. In a general sense that is what the whole Health Care Reform is all about. Another cash cow for the trial attorneys to go after. Just like the lawyer advertisements for denied
social security benefits, the trial lawyers will be waiting for anyone to have a negative experience in health care. They will sue the governement, exchanges, co-ops, states or carriers.
God help us all.
Leahy is a despicable liar that has been in congress too long. He represents no one but himself and the DNC. I have no problem believing his motives are meretricious.
Shouldn’t be. Leahy is single handidly responsible for giving Vermont the reputation it has as a hotbed of flaming liberal views, and that’s not something to be proud of. That state is a mess. Leahy has no conscience whatsoever, or integrity for that matter.
As much as conservatives (like me) protest whenever a public option is proposed, what are some other options, short of the repeal of McCarran-Furgeson, would be reasonable compromises to increase free market competition across state lines in the health care industry?
It’s pretty clear that a Public Option would be a health insurance industry “killer” but I’d like to be able to better explain to my liberal acquaintences why they have 100s of choices for Homeowners, Family Auto & Life Insurance, but only a handful for health insurance (not just because it’s employer-based).
Leahy is absolutely the wrong messenger for this message since his credibility is so low among conservatives, but it’d be nice to have a very simple recommendation that would actually let the free market normalize competitive premiums, terms and coniditions while at the same time allowing it to natuarlly penalize those companies with poor service or non-competitive terms/conditions.
If we could devise and effectively communicate such a program, it should knock some of the wind out of the public option sails.
I find it quite amusing and at the same time hypocritical that Leahy would make this statement…”Insurers should not object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.”
If you follow that same logic we should be hearing Leahy say “Congress should not object to being subject to the same Health Care Program as everyone else.”
I wonder how long until we hear that statement come from a congressman’s mouth? anyone want to take a guess?
Leahy is just kissing Obama’s backside by jumping on the Healthcare wagon. I hope the good people of Vermont get the internet soon so they can read these posts about their elected official.
It’s about time insurance co. have to play by the same rules.
Bitter
Mr. Charter, both you and Mr. Leahy should do a little more research before spouting off.
McCarran does not exempt insurers from all federal anti-trust legislation. Bid-rigging and other unfair trade practices are still illegal. Price discrimination on any basis other than expected cost is illegal.
McCarran exempts insurers from specific provisions in the Sherman act on the condition that the domicile state has appropriate antitrust legislation. The main effect of McCarran is to permit the sharing of insurance data between companies.
Insurer operations, be they property, life, or even health, are dependent on vast quantities of data. A small company or startup would never be able to acquire enough data to get off the ground without access to pooled data such as from ISO. Far from restricting competition, McCarran does more to enhance competition in the insurance marketplace than any other piece of federal legislation.
Thanks, Ratemaker. Good explanation of why we need to pool statistics.
Now, any suggestions on how we can stimulate more competition among health insurors and get these Public Option fans (who by the way, have me pretty p.o.’d) to understand that the private sector can handle this better than “Big Brother”?
Scott, my hat is off to you. You have succinctly applied the correct verbage to describe the Obama administration and his blind cronies. Thank You
Wendell PotterPurging through pricing games is not limited to letting go of an isolated number of … Within a few years, Aetna let go 8 million covered lives due to strategic and other factors.
OK, “Explain”, I’ll bite, too.
The current health insurance system isn’t able as currently address the needs of the “chronically” uninsured which is why most conservatives I know welcome the right types of health care reform.
Not sure how many of your 4.5MM are uninsured because they:
* Are not eligible for employer-based group insurance? (ie. part-time, minimum wage, etc.)
* Cannot afford to contribute any of their income toward the cost of their own health care expenses (ie. below the poverty level)
* Are between jobs and just need an affordable bridge (since COBRA is not affordable) until the are again eligible for employer-based group health insurance)
or
* Have pre-existing health conditions which make health insurance cost prohibitive,,,, but…
Accesiblity, Affordability and Portability of health insurance by:
Creating more competition between private health insurance companies by allowing them to compete across state lines (currently prohibited by state insurance law)
Reducing the cost of health care (not just insurance) by reforming the legal system so that frivolous malpractice or product liability lawsuits are eliminated (or at least drastically reduced), which in turn will reduce the need for defensive medicine and the malpractice and product liability insurance costs which medical providers and drug companies end up passing on to health care consumers either directly through their health insurance carriers.
Reducing the cost of treating those who are not in this country legally by passing meaningful immigration reform.
Motivating those, through tax incentives, who CAN afford but choose not to purchase health insurance so that the pool will not be limited to just the unhealthy or the poor, broadening the spread of risk among a more diverse group of health care consumers.
Aggressively purse waste and fraud in both the private and public sectors as respects the delivery of health care services.
Then for those who STILL can’t afford the cost of less expensive health care insurance, supplement the truly needy or those with chronic preexisting conditions either through an assigned risk pool comprised of private insurers or with the savings from the elimination of waste & fraud, lower the threshold for those who eligible for existing programs like Medicaid.
Bottom line, there are many private industry solutions to the problem of taking care of the “uninsurable” that the private industry has never been encouraged to pursue but most are rejected by those who are still convinced that the only solution is to eliminate the free enterprise system from this industry leaving only the government to control it. So why trash what works for 85% of Americans in an attempt to take care of the the other 15% (which is really more like 5% when only the truly unable to afford health care insurance.
Most of my open-minded but still progressive friends agree that if the private sector can solve this problem, the government shouldn’t have to.
Ok, I will bite.
Please explain to me, in small words as I consider myself a Democrat, how the existing health insurance system is currently moving towards providing coverage to all Americans?
What are their next steps towards providing coverage to the 4.5 million uninsured within the country that this reform bill will stop?
Or (since that was trick question) what actions would you like to see in a health care reform bill which will motivate the private health insurance sector towards providing affordable health insurance for those 4.5 million citizens?
Again, small words.. I am a Democrat.
Oh, and see if you can leave ad hominum attacks, partisan political rhetoric & sound bytes out of your proposed solution.
Just solve the problem in the fewest number of steps.
One thing you forgot to mention when you were listing the uninsured is “Those who just don’t want to pay for it due to their own ignorance” How many people my age (mid twenties) are eligable for health insurance thru their employer but just choose not to pay that little extra a month? I’ve had health insurance thru my employer since I was eligable for it (when I worked full time at 18) and have only had to use it maybe twice (and the bills were very low)
It’s not 4.5 million unisured, it’s 45 million.
Thank you for a response, Curious.
All of those actions look sensible, like they would move towards addressing most of the concern. I appreciate being informed in that manner.
Now, about this line:
“Bottom line, there are many private industry solutions to the problem of taking care of the “uninsurable” that the private industry has never been encouraged to pursue…”
What encouragement would they need and from whom?
I believe that the majority of the American public would like to see everyone taken care of, but how do I as a citizen get the health insurance industry to make this decision?
Normally, I would say “vote with your feet” but if there isn’t a company out there making these changes for me to do that, then change must come from outside the system since the system isn’t making it happen.
“…but most are rejected by those who are still convinced that the only solution is to eliminate the free enterprise system from this industry leaving only the government to control it.”
See my above comments. I believe that the free enterprise system isn’t working to provide the reform towards the goal I want. BTW: this is dangerously close to political rhetoric… *grin*
“So why trash what works for 85% of Americans in an attempt to take care of the the other 15% (which is really more like 5% when only the truly unable to afford health care insurance. ”
I won’t argue the number, but will provide an answer to the question. These people who are uninsured end up being a burden on the tax & government budget system when they DO require critical/emergency medical care/hospitalization.
People who are dying are not refused medical care because they can’t provide proof of payment up front. When they are found to be indigent, the medical facilities bill by other means, either by direct billing the government for the services paid, or by absorbing the cost of the uninsured into the costs which we pay for services.
Additionally, by providing a better quality of life through routine medical care, we can extend the life/quality of our work-force and become more efficent. I would like to see a better life for that minority as it improves my quality of life.
I agree that I would rather that the movitation for change be from the private sector…that the CEO’s of these various companies would see someone dying from preventable, flu-related pnemonia a tragedy rather than a bad debit to be passed on to the consumer.
The government should have better things to look at… but since the private sector isn’t solving the problem on its own & needs encouragement which I am unable to provide with my support, then I have no other choice than to let the government encourage them.
This view is my own.
Your Mileage May Vary.