Look out Louisiana every insurance company in the US will locate there if selling health insurance across state lines passes. It is almost impossible to get your own state to respond to a complaint against an insurance company how in the world do you think you would get a state regulator 3 thousand miles away to respond. What ever happened to states rights the Republicans are always bringing up.
Just as a side note that affects me personally - I "retired" in 2003 at age 52 with healthcare costs for a family plan of $121 per month for a 90/10 plan. Since then I have seen the cost rise dramatically in the last 8 years. My costs for the same family plan for 2011 are $1211.57 per month. The reason for this is primarily that they "decided" to drop dependent coverage in 2006.
Today I received a mail-out from my former employer that stated "The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a program under the "Affordable Care Act" to provide reimbursement of 80% of the portion of early retiree claims paid in the plan year for an individual that exceed $15,000 but are less than $90,000."
Even with this subsidy my coverage increased CY 2009 - CY 2010 from $893 - $1211 per month. The irony of this is that I managed a union workforce for 33 years (since my return from Vietnam in '70) and all of the union employees pay $359 per month for the same plan.
As a footnote in the mail-out were the following words - we as the plan sponsor must use the proceeds (i) to reduce its own health benefit premiums or health benefit costs. (ii) to reduce the health benefit premium contributions, co-payments, deductibles, coinsurance or other out-of-pocket costs (or any combination of these costs) of plan participants, or (iii) or combination of the costs (i) and (ii).
The company has not yet determined how it will use the Program proceeds but intends to use the proceeds in a manner consistent with the program requirements or , with respect to reimbursement of costs associated with health care benefits paid in a manner consistent with Program requirements.
I seriously doubt that this rant will mean anything but it just shows that we all have our health care issues with regard to "insurance".
Our government is just "too damn wimpy" to deal with the powers of capitalism unless we all unite for the common good of everyone!!
Peace
Last edited by Zigzagman; 1-21-11 at 9:05pm.
Originally Posted by loosechickens
That getting people to want to "buy insurance across state lines" is just one example, to me, of the Republicans tremendous ability to sell anything, because that one is truly "lipstick on a pig".
If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there are small variations in laws and governance between the states, should we just abolish the states to ensure that all things are equal? (Alan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, there are LARGE variations in laws and governance among the states, with some having strong consumer protection regulation of companies and some very lax, pretty much allowing companies to do what they like.
You, of all people, are usually arguing for STATES to have power, but in this case, by allowing this, you would take AWAY rights from states to regulate for their citizens, and require all states to accept that companies could cluster their headquarters in whatever states were willing to give them free rein and no protections for the consumer, thereby negating any ability of an individual state to regulate the insurance industry doing business in their state.
You'd be for the Federal government to take away that right from states, to regulate the insurance industry doing business in their state, and require them to accept companies being allowed to "shop around" to where they had the fewest regulations to protect customers to headquarter their businesses?
Talk about overreaching...........whatever happened to states' rights? I just can't imagine you being willing to give the Federal government that power, Alan. To override the states in that way. Or does the wish to give corporations free rein trump that?
Last edited by loosechickens; 1-22-11 at 1:43am.
LC, I keep hearing, from the left, that anyone opposed to the healthcare bill is either a victim of misinformation or that the polls are skewed via selective questioning (is there a poll that's not?). I would gently offer a third possibility. There are some of us that are reasonably well informed and not taking part in a poll that are simply opposed to the bill. Plain and simple, we don't like the plan.Originally Posted by loosechickens
JMO, it's too expensive. The country just can't afford it as written. Not to sound cold and not saying we should do nothing, but I don't believe this is the best option. Other complaints? There are actually quite a few of us that think frivolous law suits are responsible for more than a "tiny, tiny" share of healthcare costs. There's a pretty substantial number of folks who think providing a basic universal plan for everyone with "Cadillac" (read: private) coverage available beyond that makes sense. There are practical people who would love to see coverage available that rivals our European allies, but are in opposition because they realize there is a lot of other baggage that comes with such a plan. Is it possible to please everyone? Nope. Is it possible to implement a plan with broader coverage and lower costs? Yes, I think it is possible and without scrapping most of what is already in place. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Now is as good a time as any to reform the reform into something we can afford, that makes sense and that protects the most citizens.
I am a strong believer in states rights. I'm also a strong believer in the free market. It's not an either/or position.
I think we all benefit when you allow competition in commerce. Competition always brings down costs and lack of competition always raises them.
I see no reason to believe that states should not compete among themselves, whether it be for providing a climate condusive to business or to increase its attractiveness to potential residents.
But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Well, I think that you make good points, Gregg......although when you take apart the components of the plan as passed, and ask people about them individually, large majorities like them, but somehow when asked the question "are you for this health reform plan?" they say "no".
Some say no, certainly, because they really wanted a single payer government run plan, and some (me for example) like the idea of a basic level of health care insurance for all, and the ability to buy supplemental insurance for really major stuff.
The problem is that we had to come up with a plan that could get PASSED. Plenty of people have tried to deal with this issue over the years, but couldn't get anything passed. I don't think this bill is the greatest we could have come up with. But it was a bill that was able to overcome some of the industry opposition, tried to build on the system we already have, which couldn't just be upended and done away with.
If I felt that the Republicans were honestly INTERESTED in coming up with a good plan (this plan, after all, is very similar to other, Republican plans of the past), as opposed to just obstruction, I'd feel more patient with the attempts to "tinker" with it.
I am one who thinks that "just leaving it alone" would be disastrous. It's terrible for business, who has to go out in a global world to compete, wearing the concrete boots of having to provide health care to their employees, yet compete against all the other countries who have universal health care provided to all.
What do you make of the testimony of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that says that this plan is NOT going to cost money, but will, in actuality, SAVE hundreds of billions of dollars over a 10-20 year period.
It's not like we have a wonderful system as it is. We pay more than twice as much as any other developed country for our health care, yet have demonstrably worse results for the average citizen. We do great (if you have good insurance), doing cutting edge, catastrophic type stuff, but very poorly in providing basic health care, preventative health care and run of the mill access to many, many millions of our citizens.
I think that this plan that was passed, DID try to improve the system, take away some of the egregious examples of health insurance companies protecting large profits by denying care to large numbers of people, and worked with the system that is already in place.
let's see if the Republicans are really interested in "improving" or "destroying". I wish I had your faith in their intentions. But when I see this "buying insurance across state lines" that profit making health insurance company lobbyists have been salivating for for years, because it meant that they could headquarter in a state with the least regulation on them, yet mine customers from the entire country.....you KNOW that their aim wasn't to "provide better care". Give me a break. All it would mean is that we'd enter a race to the bottom to see who could deny the most claims with impunity, and continue to improve their bottom line.
So.....you said, "JMO, it's too expensive. The country just can't afford it as written". How does that square with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and numerous impartial analysts that say it will actually SAVE money. And, why do you think that we, wealthy country that we are, are unable to do what virtually every other developed democracy in the world has managed to do, provide good health care and universal access to it to all their citizens? Are we SO much less able than other countries to solve problems? And if so, why?
"I am a strong believer in states rights. I'm also a strong believer in the free market. It's not an either/or position.
I think we all benefit when you allow competition in commerce. Competition always brings down costs and lack of competition always raises them.
I see no reason to believe that states should not compete among themselves, whether it be for providing a climate condusive to business or to increase its attractiveness to potential residents.
But on top of that, I'm most interested in individual choice. Government, in it's desire to take care of us, should not limit our choices and we should resist it whether it's a state government or a federal government. (Alan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear you, Alan........it's hard sometimes, because some things do seem to be either/or.
In this case, it would be advocating that the Federal government assist the profit hungry insurance companies in being able to bypass states' attempts to provide "rules of the road" and consumer protections for their citizens, by not allowing companies to sell insurance in their states who did not meet basic levels of quality.
This "buying insurance across state lines" is one of the Holy Grail desires of the insurance company lobbyists. Who among us believes it's because these companies want to provide better care for their customers?
It's just hard for me to see how you could advocate giving the Federal government MORE power......I'm practically feeling faint at the very thought.
I'm not in favor of giving any government more power. You misrepresent my stance.It's just hard for me to see how you could advocate giving the Federal government MORE power......I'm practically feeling faint at the very thought.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I find it hard to understand how allowing insurance to be sold across state lines would reduce cost. California and New York are two of the most costly states for health care services. I am leaving out insurance and just focusing on the cost of providing health care. That cost would not change if the insurance company was located in Mississippi. So the only way insurance could be cheaper is if the coverage was less and the insurance companies figured out ways to increase their profits by reducing the amount of money they pay out.
California has a regulation that an insurance company must pay out 80% of it's premiums to cover health care costs. So California allows an insurance company to make 20% profit. Not bad. Now Mississippi probably has no such regulation and an insurance company can pay out as little as it wants. The big question is how would a California resident get help in filing a complaint against a company in Mississippi.
The outrages cost of health care coverage must be addressed not just the cost of insurance. Unless the cost are addressed nothing will ever change and no party has put forward a proposal to address the cost of health care.
My choices for getting health coverage outside of a) spouse's Big Company coverage, or b) my own Big Company coverage (which I don't have anyway right now), are pretty damn limited. Explain to me how repealing the not-so-great healthcare bill enhances my individual choice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote