"In the greatest country on Earth, no American should die simply because they don't have health insurance. We have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform that will work to stabilize the economy, provide quality for millions of Americans," stated Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on the Senate floor Monday (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/senate-debate-begins-with-baitsmanship/). While one is hard pressed to locate a single America that does not feel reform is needed to control escalating insurance premiums and cost of health care. The trouble is that Congress is off the mark with either bill being discussed. The central tenet of the House bill is a public option while the Senate version has one with an opt-out clause. For the majority of the year thus far, Congress members have touted their take and pimped their vote all under the guise of health care reform.
I still, as of this post, not heard one signal argument that unequivocally demonstrates how adding only one option to the pool of options for health care is going to drive down costs and premiums so all can afford health care. In order for reform to have the desired affects – affordable choices and lower costs – Congress needs to scrap the public option and replace it with legislation that will open state borders for the purchase of health care insurance and remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Open up competition will lead to lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) estimates that in the best-case scenario that premiums would go down for most Americans by 2016 due to government subsidies while a worst-case scenario results in a little more than 10 percent of policyholders will experience a decrease even after the subsidies. In fact the CBO estimates that, under the worst-case scenario, the majority of Americans will see no effect or an increase up to 13 percent. The assessment can be seen at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf.
Again, why are we allowing Congress to pass a bill that does not achieve the goals in all scenarios? Why not allow market forces to work through increase competition? Some may argue that free market forces are not enough. To that I agree slightly. To assist free market forces the government will need to repeal the anti-trust exemption. Let's demand true reform from Congress. If the CBO is correct and the best-case scenario does take place, we will be looking at higher taxes in order to fund government rule health care. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme every done if we allow our Congress to pass "reform" in its present state. Neither bill will start for at least three years after passage. In the meantime our "reform" does nothing but collect taxes; taxes that will have to be raised to cover the costs.
That being said, it is time for Congress to pass true reform that takes effect immediately and does not raise our taxes. As Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states" This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured. But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews). I don't know about the rest of you but Government said that Social Security was going to be there for me when I retire and we all know that it will be insolvent in the near future. If the bill does nothing but establish more government in our lives then why are we sitting idly by and allow Congress to pass "reform" that reforms nothing and will raise our taxes?
First of all...which of the following would the healthcare insurance companies lobby hardest against-the insurance exchange, the public option, or your method of removing their anti-trust exemption?
ReplyDeleteSecond...how many insurers are primarily located in one state? How many of those would want to provide coverage to individuals in locations such as New York City or Los Angeles where healthcare is more expensive?
Third...Exactly what kind of cost savings and competition would we be seeing and aren't the insurers open to competition now?
If there is a public option available to people, the thought is that insurers would make available plans that could compete with this option. Do I buy it? Kind of. However we are gambling that insurers can actually create plans that are available to those who can barely afford them. We are also gambling that if the economy faces a longer term funk then what we have built for the public option will be cut. Remember, the private sector raises prices, the public sector makes cuts. That is why social security and Medicare are crap today. It's either higher taxes or entitlement cuts.
You're pretty much dead set against another entitlement program, I getit. However, the government rarely exercises any other option to assist people. Your call for excessive regulation usually falls on deaf ears.
Okay Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteCurrently the majority of states, nearly 75%, experience 1 or 2 providers that control 90% of the market. Reason why these companies are capable to achieve control of this magnitude is the anti-trust exemption they have. Remove that exemption and it will open up competition immediately. Granted it does not mean that XYZ clinic will automatically open up its doors to Joe's Health Insurance; rather it will give them an opportunity to bid for the services of XYZ clinic thus expanding their coverage area for individuals, small businesses, and large corporations.
The way the market forces are limited - anti-trust exemption and no inter-state ability - to the state in which they operate. Thus they cannot use economy of scale to offset lower costs in Minnesota for higher costs in New York or other places in the United States. The same can be said for insurance companies in New York, they cannot offset the higher costs by great margins in other places like Minnesota.
I am not for entitlement programs at all. We are not entitled to live in the United States so why should be be entitled to government handouts at the expense of others freedom.
Of those 1 or 2 providers, don't they already provide insurance in the majority of states?
ReplyDeleteBlue Cross/Blue Shield
UnitedHealthcare
Aetna
Are those the three insurance carriers that basically cover the 90% of those who are covered?
Before we go any further read: United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533)
As a result of this court opinion, on March 9, 1945, the McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress. Among other things, it allows for:
-Exempts health insurance companies from the federal anti-trust legislation that applies to most businesses
-the state regulation of insurance
-allows states to establish mandatory licensing requirements
-preserves certain state laws of insurance.
Now with more legal precedent (perhaps you already know of this) do you feel it would be a much larger and difficult task to get insurers out of the anti-trust exemption?
Remember, this is just argument sake. Personally, I can't stand anti-trust exemptions at all and do agree with you about them in this case. Why is the media not focusing on them?
Thank you for letting me post
Correct, precendent is set but that does not mean that Congress cannot repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I agree the repeal may be a tougher road to go but it will be worth it since it is the road that will bring real "reform" to the industry. The stuff in the current bills is not reform; rather a restribution and enslavement of taxpayer's money to the Federal Government.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that when tough, I mean really tough, decisions are required by members of Congress they shrug from it. The sad part is that they know that voters will back their spineless decisions by re-electing them for trying. The media does not focus on this aspect because it runs counter to the goals of the Obama Administration. If the media did their job and investigated the root cause they would run the risk of being black listed by the White House as Fox News has.
If the anti-trust exemption debate actually took off it would stall the "reform" being debated and ruin Democrat chances of re-election in the mid-term election cycle.
Sorry, this has been bugging me and in no way is a personal attack. But, did you collect unemployment after you were let go from Eaton?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, I do not see the question as a personal attack. I am wonder the relevance but will answer the question anyway. At first I did not need to collect unemployment but after a while, since I was not able to gain employment I had to use any and all resources available to make ends meet.
ReplyDeleteI'm just wondering how you balance that against your opposition to other entitlement programs. Really, it's no different. I'm not opposed to individuals taking advantage of programs that are offered if it is justified. I guess it helps me to differiantate your opposition to those individuals who use the programs versus the programs being offered in the first place. I know many conservatives argue that individuals need to pull themselves up by their boot strapes. I view various government programs as giving the individual the bootstrapes by which to pull themselves up by.
ReplyDeleteIs there abuse? Definitely. But that doesn't mean to me that the programs should be eliminated. Rather reworked to achieve the original goal: Having productive citizens who can contribute to society.
Thanks for sharing. I don't often agree with you but do appreciate the exchanges.
Are some programs warranted? Sure. Does fraud, waste and abuse exist? Naturally. Where I struggle with entitlement programs are ones that exist for reason other than assistance in time of need.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security is a program, had it been left alone, that works as a nest egg for retiring citizens. The trouble is that the program should be voluntary and not mandatory. There is no reason why I cannot divert my Social Security tax toward another investment company to assist me in ensuring a nest egg exists for me at retirement.
Medicare and Medicaid are programs that can be scaled back and eliminated from the taxpayer dole by Congress making simple changes to the health care system - some of which we have discussed.
Unemployment should not drag on for 72 or 79 weeks. Americans have outlived their lifestyle on many fronts. There are many jobs - part time and lower wage - that exist but people stay on unemployment because they "make" more on it.
Welfare is the same thing. One should not be allowed to spend their life on welfare or be reimbursed for habitual bad behavior (i.e. having multiple babies out of wedlock).
I appreciate our exchanges and wish more would participate as it is through these type of exchanges that progress can be made and understanding is gained. Thank you!