Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House and Progressives Should Be Cheering Ruling Striking Down Mandatory Health Insurance

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:51 PM
Original message
White House and Progressives Should Be Cheering Ruling Striking Down Mandatory Health Insurance
White House and Progressives Should Be Cheering Virginia Ruling Striking Down Mandatory Health Insurance
Jamie Court - Author,The Progressive's Guide To Raising Hell/President Consumer Watchdog
Posted: December 13, 2010 02:24 PM - HuffingtonPost

<snip>

...

The notion that mandatory insurance is necessary for a "take-all-comers" law to succeed, like so many assumptions in the Beltway, needs to be reexamined. Fear of gaming by those who won't buy insurance until they are sick can be alleviated by creating greater carrots for buying coverage and less severe deterrents for failing to, such as a limited national open-enrollment period.

Current law now requires Americans to spend 8% of their income on health insurance by 2014 or face fines. Sliding scale subsidies would assist a family of four up to $88,000, but the $7,000 the family would have to pay could not even buy a policy likely to meet their needs, since the average policy for the family costs more than $12,000 today.

Mandatory health insurance has not produced lower premiums or health care budget savings in Massachusetts, the laboratory for the experiment. Massachusetts recently adopted strong premium regulation to give consumers relief from the highest health insurance rates in America.

New York, which has a take-all-comers law, is often cited as the disastrous consequence of the failure to enact mandatory purchases. But the empire state also is embarking on tough premium regulation to deal with its problems -- which still rank it lower than Massachusetts in premium prices. Premium regulation is the key.

This principle set me on my journey as a consumer advocate more than twenty years ago. Californian endured double-digit premium hikes on their auto insurance under mandatory auto insurance laws imposed in 1986. This sparked a voter revolt in 1988 led by the founder of the consumer group I now head, Consumer Watchdog. Proposition 103, passed via ballot measure, created the nation's toughest premium regulation. A 2008 report by the Consumer Federation of America found California motorists have saved $62 billion on their auto insurance bills. Congress has no such appetite for tough regulation, however.

Driving is discretionary, so you can always take the bus rather than buy auto insurance. Breathing and not having to pay more than 8 percent of your income are the only requirements for the 2014 federal insurance mandate. When the public feels that blow, the backlash will make the midterm election look like a baby shower.


...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/white-house-and-progressi_b_796006.html

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. No mandate for insurance but without it you are responsible for all of the medical bill
Or you can choose not to receive medical treatment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The mandate is no guarantee of health care
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 09:39 PM by dflprincess
all it does is force people to continue buying the same old crap from the same old crooks. And, if all a person can afford is a policy with big out of pockets, they still won't be able to afford care after paying their premium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Amen to that
The insurance companies loved the individual mandate - it meant a captive audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. That's how it is now--even for those with insurance.
The reality is, having insurance is no guarantee you can afford health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. :facepalm::facepalm:


:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. $5k premium, $10k per year, per person deductible, then 'they' pay 70%
No pre-existing conditions! That's our 'Medical Insurance Policy'. We go without Medical Treatment now, even though we have expensive Insurance - what would change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. You get fucked over even more when they raise the deductibles and the premiums
--again and again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Okay, but then medical providers should be prohibited from gouging the uninsured..
to make up for the lousy reimbursement rates and denials from insurance companies.

Flat rate for services and no more $200 tylenol pills and $5,000 MRI scans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ratty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
22. Then we need another law
That hospitals and emergency rooms are not legally required to treat people unless they show an ability to pay, either through insurance or savings. Nor can they be sued or otherwise penalized. And contracts made with same are enforceable even when technically made under duress. Yeah, that'll work. Hasn't anybody learned a thing from the Tennessee fire department fiasco?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why? In the states that have tried this the insurance premiums skyrocketed.
If the insurance companies are required to take everybody, but only the sick apply, that's what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Did You Read Those Little Paragraphy Things After My Subject Line ???
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. If it costs you $5.00 to make a basket, and I order you to sell it for $4.00 or less, what will you
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 10:33 PM by BzaDem
do?

Will you sell it for $4.00 or less? Or will you just stop making and selling them?

In New York, the problem is that the only people with insurance are those that are sick. This means the cost of care in the aggregate is too high to have affordable premiums. Ordering insurance companies in that particular situation to lower premiums won't help, since that won't make the risk pool any healthier.

In most cases, premium controls can work. When the insurance company is making a profit, you can mandate that they make less of one. (That's exactly what the Medical Loss Ratio does in Obama's bill.) But you can't mandate them to operate below cost. They'll just leave the individual market and seek out other markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. It is only one decision out of many, so I am hopeful but not yet cheering
As long as the "pre-existing conditions" escape clause for insurance companies stays gone I could someday cheer this decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. This progressive is cheering.
Loudly at that. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. Partying like its 1999!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. Fuck no. Without a mandate, insurance companies can drop you for sneezing.
Without a mandate, then either insurance goes up to thousands per month, or we're back to the good old days of "pre-existing conditions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Get a clue. Even with a mandate the premiums go through the roof
They have in MA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Not faster because of the mandate. MA always had the highest costs, and they still do.
As I said below, their goal was not to control costs at all. They SPECIFICALLY punted on costs when they passed the bill. The goal was to insure everyone without making the rate of increase go up any more than it would have otherwise, and in that they largely succeeded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. If you consider depriving older and sicker people of care, it's wonderful
Healthy affluent people don't mind MA at all. It's only the lower income and sick people who are fucked over.

Having Health Insurance Does Not Mean Having Health Care

Statement of Rachel Nardin, MD., President, Massachusetts Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted a health care reform law with the stated goal of providing near-universal coverage of the Massachusetts population. Nearly three years into the reform we know a lot about what has worked and what hasn't. Examining this data critically is vitally important as the Obama administration considers elements of the Massachusetts' plan as a model for national health care reform.

On Feb. 19 we released a new study on the Massachusetts reform. This study details many problems with the reform effort. We are also releasing a letter from nearly 500 Massachusetts physicians to Senator Kennedy asking him not to push for a Massachusetts-style reform nationally. My colleagues and I see the effects of the Massachusetts reform on patients every day and know that this is not a healthy model for the nation.

The Massachusetts reform is an example of an “incremental” reform. It tried to fill in gaps in coverage, while leaving undisturbed existing public and private health insurance programs. It did this by expanding Medicaid, and offering a new subsidized coverage program for the poor and near-poor. It also mandated that middle-income uninsured people either purchase private insurance or pay a substantial fine ($1068 in 2009).

The reform has reduced the numbers of uninsured, although our report shows that the state's claim is untrue. This claim is based on a phone survey that reached few non-English speaking households and few who lacked landline phones—two groups with high rates of uninsurance. Other data also calls this claim into question. For instance, both the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and the March 2008 U.S. Census Bureau survey indicate that at least 5 percent of people in Massachusetts remain uninsured. Moreover, the use of free care services in Massachusetts has fallen by only a third, suggesting that the numbers of uninsured in Massachusetts may well be even higher than 5 percent.

Despite the reform, coverage remains unaffordable for many in our state. As a result, despite the threat of a fine, some residents remain uninsured. Others have bought the required insurance but are suffering financially. For a middle income, 56-year-old man, the cheapest policy available under the reform costs $4,872 annually in premiums alone. Moreover, it carries a $2,000 deductible and 20 percent co-payments after that, up to a maximum of $3000 annually. Buying such coverage means laying out nearly $7000 before expenses before the insurance pays a single medical bill. It is not surprising that many of the state's uninsured have declined such coverage.

The study we released on Feb. 19 also reminds us that having health insurance is not the same thing as having health care. Despite having coverage, many Massachusetts residents cannot afford care. In some cases, patients are actually worse off under the reform than they were under the state's old system of free care because their new insurance has far higher co-pays for medications and care. According to a recent Boston Globe/Blue Cross Foundation survey, 13% of people with insurance in our state were unable to pay for some health services that they had received and 13% could not afford to fill necessary prescriptions. The reform does not appear to have reduced the numbers of people who were unable to get care that they needed because of the cost.

I will close with the story of one Massachusetts patient who has suffered as a result of the reform. Kathryn is a young diabetic who needs twelve prescriptions a month to stay healthy. She told us “Under Free Care I saw doctors at Mass. General and Brigham and Women's hospital. I had no co-payments for medications, appointments, lab tests or hospitalization. Under my Commonwealth Care Plan my routine monthly medical costs include the $110 premium, $200 for medications, a $10 appointment with my primary care doctor, and $20 for a specialist appointment. That's $340 per month, provided I stay well.” Now that she's “insured,” Kathryn's medical expenses consume almost one-quarter of her take home pay, and she wonders whether she'll be able to continue taking her life saving medications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. I'm vexed....
....it's one thing to be forced to pay for something collective through government taxation, it's quite another to be forced to BUY something from the private sector....

....boner will soon be in charge, hopeless; no telling what fat-tony and the fascists will do; I really don't want to see 30 million Americans go without healthcare; I don't know what to think about this tangled-up bastardized bill anymore....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. The goal of MA was not to produce lower costs. They specifically punted on that.
The goal was to insure everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, and they have 97% insured.

It's interesting that they talk about New York, as if some premium regulation would solve it. Guess what? If the risk pool is so sick that the cost of care for the AVERAGE person is 12,000/year, then the premium is going to be 12,000/year. If they want to regulate that down to 10, then the insurance company will say "thanks but no thanks" and leave the individual market. There is no way an insurance company would sell their products at a massive loss.

New York is a perfect example of what happens with an all-comers law, but no mandate. It should be frightening to everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC