GOP Pushing to end state insurance requirements

[Balta1701]

So, here we have another idea which, as far as I can tell, is bad on every level unless you own a ton of stock in an insurance company. It's bad for folks who like states' rights, it's bad for folks who dislike the government spending money on health care, it's bad for almost everyone who has health insurance, but it'll make insurance companies a freaking fortune.

 

On a party-line vote, a Senate committee approved a bill that would preempt state laws that require insurance policies to cover specific services, such as maternity care and supplies for diabetics.

 

California, which mandates that insurers cover 23 specific treatments and procedures — including mammograms and second opinions — would be one of the states most affected by the legislation.

 

Sponsors of the bill said overriding state coverage rules, as well as state laws regulating insurance pricing, would allow insurers to offer less-expensive plans. They say it would prompt more small businesses to purchase insurance for workers.

 

"Today's vote is the first major step in 15 years to get affordable health insurance for small businesses and working families," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.).

 

Enzi heads the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which approved the bill, 11 to 9.

 

Critics, including the panel's Democratic members, charged that the legislation would undermine state protections meant to guarantee that insurance policies provide adequate health coverage at affordable prices.

 

California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi warned that the bill would lead to "an ever-increasing number of people who are uninsured … and for those with insurance, the benefit package is certain to be dramatically reduced."

 

The dispute mirrors the partisan divide on an array of healthcare issues, including restructuring Medicaid and the health savings accounts proposed by President Bush.

 

In each case, Republicans and their allies promote ideas they say would save money and increase efficiency by offering consumers more choice. Democrats and other critics say the GOP plans would shift risk and cost toward patients, especially those who are older and sicker.

 

So, let's quickly go over why this is bad on so many levels.

 

1. State's rights? Duh, that's pretty damn obvious.

2. Like lower taxes? What will happen if you get rid of every state minimum insurance requirement? There will likely be many procedures which suddenly are not covered by the plans people are on. And unless you read through your insurance manual fully, most customers won't know which ones aren't covered until it's too late. What happens then? Well, either the people end up bankrupt, or the government will end up footing the bill.

3. Like having health care? Well, this is an easy way to start eroding the health care that you personally have. As Ezra says:

 

The reason states mandate that insurers cover certain procedures is so insurers can't price folks who are likely to need those treatments out of the market. Insuring young women, if you didn't need to cover anything related to pregnancy, would be relatively cheap. Pricing the pregnancy package through the roof would be relatively easy. And denying the claims of those who bought the base package and then got pregnant would be trivial -- and would save you a ton of money. So almost all states mandate that you cover maternal care. And this goes across the board, from procedures the old use but the young don't need to packages that target specific lifestyles. If you allow the insurance companies to subdivide the market by treatment needs, what you'll have is bargain-basement pricing for the young and healthy coupled with unbelievable premiums for their less-lucky friends. Because if you can draw the cheap, good bets out of the main insurance pool and put them in low-coverage policies of their own, you can charge the sick what they're likely to cost, pricing most of them out of the market. Health insurance for the well but not the sick.

 

Obviously, yes, this sort of action would allow insurance companies to offer lower-cost plans. The problem is...those lower-cost plans would be lower cost because they simply wouldn't cover anything. People would wind up in a plan, and then later on, wind up getting ill with something that isn't covered, and would wind up in the same boat as your average uninsured person. But at least the insurance company would make out like a bandit.

 

Any time you allow lower-risk groups to contribute less money to the insurance pool, you also risk cutting the amount of money in the pool as a whole, as the money that pays for the sick comes from those who are healthy. So if you're going to find ways for the healthy to pay less, then there's only 1 group who can foot the bill for the remainder...the sick.

[mmmmmbeeer]

I can't believe I'm registered with this party. The ideological shift within the GOP in just the past 10 years is absolutely astounding. Conservatives trumping state laws. nice.

[samclemens]

this would exponentially increase the number of auto tort claims in my state. as a lawyer, i therefore support this as it directly correlates to my livlihood.

[Balta1701]

this would exponentially increase the number of auto tort claims in my state. as a lawyer, i therefore support this as it directly correlates to my livlihood.

Damn liberals...always wanting to expand the federal government for their own benefit...

[samclemens]

Damn liberals...always wanting to expand the federal government for their own benefit...

 

you forgot to make those letters green my friend. im no liberal.

Edited March 19, 2006 by samclemens

[Cerbaho-WG]

you forgot to make those letters green my friend. im no liberal.

 

Thanks for covering that base, chief, I was getting worried there!

[AbeFroman]

this would exponentially increase the number of auto tort claims in my state. as a lawyer, i therefore support this as it directly correlates to my livlihood.

 

 

isn't this really about health care coverage? I'm not sure how it would increase the number of auto tort claims.

[samclemens]

isn't this really about health care coverage?  I'm not sure how it would increase the number of auto tort claims.

 

when people arent required to have insurance, there will obviously be many more people that will neglect to pay for insurance. this means that when they get into a car accident and are suing or being sued, they will have to go out and look for their own lawyer for any auto tort claim. with required insurance, insurance companies and insurance lawyers haggle the entire thing out between themselves most of the time.