Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: College Republicans: Now With Even More Alienation From Their Peers Previous entry: “[I]t is really difficult for him when women are experiencing pain…”

Well, It Is A Day That Ends In “Y”

imageSo it must be time for the Wall Street Journal to propose a health insurance reform that would save insurance companies money.  It’s refreshing when you wake up knowing exactly what’s going to happen.

Today’s idea is that we should remove interstate barriers to insurance sales, because of all the awesome that will ensue:

That’s not how interstate insurance would work. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. “If consumers do not want expensive ‘Cadillac’ health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits,” Mr. Herrick has written.

A 2008 publication “Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance,” (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.

A “more rational regulatory environment” is a synonym for a much smaller regulatory environment.  If I were in charge of a state with a dying city (say, Michigan), the first thing I would do is get rid of every single restriction on health insurance in state law, and then encourage tax abatements or even permanent tax restructuring for health insurance companies who wanted to locate in Detroit.  Within ten years, every major insurer in the nation would be located on Woodward Avenue, and Detroit would be the Wilmington, Delaware of the health insurance industry.

I mean, there are some little downsides.  Virtually every base-level insurance plan in the country would become a high-deductible plan with high coinsurance rates.  So-called “Cadillac” plans (you know, the ones that cover you when your neighbor decides to play “Elvis Watches The Teevee” but misses because of his undiagnosed glaucoma) would invariably become more expensive as the lack of any regulatory structure allowed pool-splitting.  If you hate insurance company bureaucracy today, imagine what happens tomorrow when massive call centers are handling policies from all over the country.  Guaranteed issue rules would die, meaning that when you bought into the cheapest insurance and got any of the conditions that it didn’t cover - for instance, sickness - you would now likely be barred from ever being insured by a private insurer for those conditions.  Oh, but there’s a solution for that!

This doesn’t mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.

So, as we all head towards that dark midnight of the body, increasingly racked by the various diseases that come along with the aging process, we would enter into a sort of large-scale government pool that would cover anyone who qualified…sort of a “Medicine that Cares”, but for all of us.  That’s a darned good plan, Shaggy!  Especially when a national market makes almost anyone over the age of 40 “high risk”.  Truly, this Shadegg is a prince among men.

It’s great to endorse market competition, but when you have a market that’s fundamentally based on taking in as much money as possible to insure as little as possible, an unregulated national market is the surest way to maximize that profit while minimizing the benefit for consumers.  On the plus side, I think we might get more calendars reminding us to ask our insurer about Avodart and Zoloft.  I could always use a good calendar, myself.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 08:44 AM • (29) Comments

Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.

Let’s give the insurance industry a guaranteed regulated oligopoly on insuring people that are highly unlikely to get sick! This kind of thing works really, really well in the cell phone industry, where Americans have much better service than any other country and pay much less, right? And once we force all the young healthy people to buy private insurance, then we’ll have the Federal Government insure at extremely high cost all the people who are actually likely to get sick. That’ll be totally awesome!

Comment #1: PhysioProf  on  08/24  at  09:05 AM

But all of us “young invincibles” who already don’t buy insurance still won’t buy it because it’ll be so cheap that we figure we can just pick it up whenever our cough lasts longer than a couple of days!  So really, uh, because of…yeah!

Comment #2: Jesse Taylor  on  08/24  at  09:13 AM

“If consumers do not want expensive ‘Cadillac’ health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits,” Mr. Herrick has written.

Don’t you just love how fertility treatment is grouped together with acupuncture and hairpieces? Lovely.

Comment #3: Tesla Dethray  on  08/24  at  09:16 AM

Sara Pulis - it’s Jon and Kate Gosselin that have been driving up our healthcare costs.  This is a proven fact.

Comment #4: Jesse Taylor  on  08/24  at  09:19 AM

Ah, I just *knew* there had to be a good reason that CNN kept reporting on the Gosselins!

Comment #5: Tesla Dethray  on  08/24  at  09:23 AM

Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.

If you define “high-risk” as anyone approaching 40 and older, then you’re talking about expanding Medicare, basically. So let’s go the whole hog.

Comment #6: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  08/24  at  09:35 AM

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates.

Of course!  The answer is so clear now!  Insurance will be affordable if it doesn’t actually cover anything.  Of course, that still leaves the problem of what to do when you get cancer or something, but at least it looks nice on paper when everyone has something they can technically call health insurance.

Comment #7: bananacat  on  08/24  at  09:48 AM

Catgirl - it’s applying basic market principles to our health.  Take iPods, for instance: everyone pays a ton for these players that can hold thousands of songs.  But if we just opened up the market, everyone could have an iPod that played 50 songs for under $25.  And really, are you ever going to be in a situation where you want to listen to more than 50 songs?  No.  Never.

Comment #8: Jesse Taylor  on  08/24  at  10:00 AM

“Of course, that still leaves the problem of what to do when you get cancer or something, but at least it looks nice on paper when everyone has something they can technically call health insurance.”

What to do?  Why, the Marketplace (the Insurance Companies) will bring back the Barber Surgeon.  After all, they “performed surgery, bloodletting and leeching, fire cupping, enemas, and the extraction of teeth”, all of which were “cutting edge” 11th-Century medical technologies and treatements.

Besides, our ancestors had all sorts of marvelous skills.  They even had an answer to seeing what happens inside the human body, just like an MRI:  Dissection…

Comment #9: MikeEss  on  08/24  at  10:14 AM

Because obviously, coverage for giving birth is a total cadillac luxury.

What I find to be intriguing is how the anti-choicers haven’t picked up the issue. Because I would think that if financially pressed, nothing like a $20,000 bill for a basic vaginal birth to make people consider if they actually want a baby. Some regulation to force insurers to pay for maternal and infant health care would be right up their alley.

But of course the anti-choicers don’t care about -actual- babies.

Comment #10: Nora Bombay  on  08/24  at  10:18 AM

The other thing about interstate insurance sales like this is that it would make it essentially impossible to sue your insurance company when (not if) they default on their obligations. Big claims would all get punted to federal court, which is slow, expensive and often tilted against small plaintiffs, and smaller claims would have to be litigated on the insurance company’s home turf (if you could find a lawyer there and pay for all the witnesses to travel).

Comment #11: paul  on  08/24  at  10:59 AM

‘Cadillac’?  Really?  That’s the term they came up with?  Whoever come up with that is several decades off on what constitutes a quality car.  I’m sure my grandparents would have gotten the reference immediately, but I had to think about it for a second.

I was initially trying to figure out the connection between the French explorer and health insurance ...

Comment #12: Richard Goblin  on  08/24  at  11:51 AM

paul,

And that’s assuming that membership in the plan doesn’t require that all disputes be handled through the arbitration process.  I really look forward to my health insurance plan resembling a used car sales contract.

Arbitration is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice it has been shown to lead to arbitrators (often semi-retired judges) relying on the contracts and the contracts being renewed only if the results are to the company’s liking.  When it’s a choice to arbitrate, it can be much faster and lead to better results than a court proceeding, but that same convenience and flexibility can be used to screw the little guy (and we’re all little guys) if the choice isn’t there.

Back to interstate insurance: The idea has merit, but not enough to overcome its many flaws.  Really, the problems would be solved by a nationwide single-payer system where the private insurers cover things that the government system doesn’t or won’t (abortion, fertility, getting to be in a private hospital rooms, some “alternative” medicines, whatever.)  Such plans make sense if there’s a nationwide government program, since there will be rationing under any plan and some people prefer that something else get rationed.  Government-supplied transportation such as city buses hasn’t killed off the car or the bicycle industry (though both are helped by the government roads,) so I don’t see why government healthcare would bankrupt the insurance industry unless they’re as stupid as a baggie of gravel with a lunch inside.

Comment #13: 3letterjon  on  08/24  at  11:54 AM

If that happens in Detroit, I’m in favor of it.

Comment #14: stormhit  on  08/24  at  11:56 AM

3letterjon,
Don’t let the right-wing propaganda convince you that we’ll have rationing in a public system.  While there may be minimal “rationing” (such as not covering alternative medicine), it will be significantly less than the actual rationing that we have right now.  People won’t have to face annual or lifetime coverage limits when they get cancer, and they won’t get kicked off because of a “pre-existing condition”.  The facts are clear.  Every other industrialized country has some time of universal health care.  They all spend significantly less per capita than we do, and most of them receive better care (meaning less rationing) than we do now.

Comment #15: bananacat  on  08/24  at  12:27 PM

So Blue Cross would get to be the next Clear Channel.  Great.

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  08/24  at  12:34 PM

3letterjohn:

You could fix most of the problems with interstate insurance by creating a large federal regulatory structure that would—oh, wait.

Comment #17: paul  on  08/24  at  12:38 PM

And once we force all the young healthy people to buy private insurance, then we’ll have the Federal Government insure at extremely high cost all the people who are actually likely to get sick. That’ll be totally awesome!

OH HAI!  IC U FOND MEDICARE!

Comment #18: Zifnab  on  08/24  at  12:47 PM

catgirl,

It’s not rightwingers that cause rationing of healthcare, but reality.  There will never be enough of everything available right now to please or cure everyone, there can’t be, and it’s not the result of any political conspiracy or even an industrial one.  Yes, rationing of what is actually needed can be greatly relieved by a public system, but it’s not rightwing kool-aid drunkenness that made the rationing part of reality.

Government care is a wonderful idea, it’s long overdue, and will be better than the status quo.  But it will not create more general practice doctors from some fiat, it will not grow kidneys in vats so people won’t waste time in dialysis, it won’t get more people to exercise and eat right, nor will it get the ambulance there any quicker.  Rationing will happen, it will always happen, and we don’t live in a world where we can make that fact disappear.

The question is, what will get rationed and how?  Right now, the people left out are the poor and the working poor and anyone with the audacity and gall to get sick in an inconvenient way.  That will change under government healthcare, and that has people bothered.  I think the bothered people are generally assholes, but that doesn’t change reality.  It will get even harder to get a liver transplant if government healthcare comes to fruition.  I have very good insurance right now, and it would actually help a lot toward something like a liver transplant, but there’s just no denying that a socialized system would negate the very slim advantage I have from the status quo.  It would also negate that advantage in a way that’s much more fair than the current system, so I’m okay with that.

Rationing exists under the current system, but let’s not pretend that all the problems will go away if we go socialized.  Healthcare will still be expensive, still be rationed to some degree, and it will still not be able to fix everyone’s problems.  I think every one of those things will get significantly better, but the Utopian Dream isn’t in any of the proposals.

Comment #19: 3letterjon  on  08/24  at  12:56 PM

Rationing under a public system will be minimal.  It will only happen for treatments for some very conditions, untested therapies, new therapies that are extremely expensive, or possibly expensive treatments for fatal conditions that only have a small chance of prolonging life a little longer.  We will not have any of the type of rationing we have now.  We will not have the kind of rationing that wingnuts are talking about.  It’s not some Utopian Dream to see the reality of how other countries work.

Comment #20: bananacat  on  08/24  at  01:22 PM

And, on top of everything else said, consider that genuine Sherman Act enforcement has, effectively, been dead and buried for the last thirty years.  There would be such a round of mergers, acquisitions and takeovers that one’s head would be spinning for decades.

Wall Street would see this as the next good bubble to blow (hell, I suspect they’re licking their chops as it is at the prospect of mandatory insurance enrollment and government subsidies for those who can’t afford their rapidly accelerating rates, and no counterbalancing government plan).

If Wall Street and the for-profit health care industry control the flow of money, with 40 or 50 million guaranteed new customers, the wheelin’ and dealin’ would be enough for Albert Schweitzer to blow a CEO’s head clean off….

Comment #21: montag  on  08/24  at  01:35 PM

catgirl,

It will be better, but there still won’t be enough kidneys to keep people from dying of diabetes.  That’s just one example of one thing that won’t be solved.  There may be better treatment before things get to the point where dialysis is needed multiple times each week to stave off certain death, but still there won’t be enough kidneys.  Kidney transplants are not experimental anymore, but they sure are expensive and the waiting lists are long.  Although there is a system under which organs are supposed to be rationed in an orderly manner, it’s hidden in plain sight that certain people (cough cough Steven Jobs cough cough David Crosby cough cough, excuse me) can game the system.  I’m certain those people paid handsomely for that, and probably saved many others’ lives by doing so, but I’m not convinced that socialized healthcare will magically change reality to make more organs available unless some rightwing fantasy actually does come to fruition and Obamacare Thugs start to harvest organs from grandmothers.

I’m not at all saying socialized medicine is somehow bad because it won’t solve every problem, but I do caution against saying that no other country has any need to ration things.  They all do, they all will, and I think it’s stupid to say that government healthcare will solve every issue when the reality is that it won’t.  It will make things much better overall, but it’s not rainbows and unicorn rides territory.

Comment #22: 3letterjon  on  08/24  at  02:00 PM

3letterjon, it’s true, countries with universal healthcare do ration things to some extent (though not the supply of kidneys - we use all the kidneys that are available). But what we don’t do, to take the example I am familiar with, the NHS, is ration the care available to the _individual_. Insofar as the NHS rations it chooses the money put into the public system (and we can always vote for more) and it declares which treatments _must_ be available. For almost everybody this means that if you need a treatment you’ll get it, even if you have to wait a little longer if your condition is very minor and people with more severe conditions need to go in front of you (as I did recently for isotretinoin treatment, but hell, I’d prefer it if people with skin cancer and suicidal teenagers with scarring acne got ahead of me, an adult with a mild case). In a few rare cases you may not be given experimental, expensive treatment that might have given you an extra month’s life. when you’ve got terminal cancer But you know what? That hardly ever happens, and if it does you can still pay for that treatment as you can in the USA. Moreover, you’ll find it easier to pay for it because you aren’t already £500 000 in debt for your cancer treatment which your insurance won’t pay out on because it’s a pre-existing condition.

Comment #23: Nineveh  on  08/24  at  02:51 PM

The best way to offset the Republican lies about rationing isn’t to deny that rationing would exist but to say that it wouldn’t be as big a problem overall under nationalized healthcare.  Plus, I wouldn’t want to get into a lie contest against such shameless opposition.

Telling people that things are rationed and we can’t have everything right away isn’t the most popular message in the world, but it isn’t total political doom to be the only grown-up in the room even when a good part of the electorate are spoiled children crying “Mine! Mine! Mine!” all the time.

And again, socialized medicine would still be much better than what we have right now.  It’s just not perfect, that’s all.  It’s not concern-trolling or work for the opposition to point that out.  It’s going to look like the budget is blown, there will be confusion and some fuck ups, and there will be lots of jobs lost in the private insurance industry, but it’s still worth it.  It will not end some systematic problems we have with the way we train doctors, the fields doctors choose, and rural areas still won’t have waiting lists of doctors wanting to move to small towns.  Plus, I haven’t heard much about mental health or dental care, which is good because the last thing these “debates” needed was a bunch of signs featuring Austin Powers.

Let’s just pass this thing and ignore the bullshit talk about faux competitiveness and phonier tort reforms and unreal discussions about death panels.  Please?  Then we can start griping about details, since there will be an actual framework to change things rather than a series of distractions meant to stop all improvements.

Comment #24: 3letterjon  on  08/24  at  03:08 PM

If consumers do not want expensive ‘Cadillac’ health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits…

I’d sure like to know which states mandate that.

Rationing under a public system will be minimal.  It will only happen for treatments for some very conditions, untested therapies, new therapies that are extremely expensive, or possibly expensive treatments for fatal conditions that only have a small chance of prolonging life a little longer.

There will be more rationing than that, but more along the lines of waits for non-emergency, non-serious conditions.  Right now under our system, anyone with insurance has an easier time going to a podiatrist to get an ingrown toenail removed than they do getting care for cancer, since the very high cost of cancer treatment makes rescission more likely.  Under a government plan, those scenarios would essentially be reversed.  The speed at which you get health care will increase the more serious, and expensive, your condition is.

But ultimately universal health care isn’t about getting perfect care for everyone, it’s about improving overall health outcomes while spending less money (and bankrupting fewer people), especially through preventive care.  Cuba can’t afford incredibly expensive treatments for its citizens and yet it ranks 37th in health outcomes.  The U.S. ranks 35th.

Comment #25: keshmeshi  on  08/24  at  03:13 PM

Blame the Right for not enough kidneys too. If stupid Luddites weren’t so squicked out by Human Cloning, we could have kidneys for all by now!

Comment #26: Mark Temporis  on  08/24  at  03:19 PM

‘Cadillac’?  Really?  That’s the term they came up with?  Whoever come up with that is several decades off on what constitutes a quality car.  I’m sure my grandparents would have gotten the reference immediately, but I had to think about it for a second.

I have no idea who originally coined that phrase, but it’s a framing that has become fairly accepted by people on both side of the argument… President Obama has made numerous references to “Cadillac Plans” himself.

Comment #27: DTG in STL  on  08/24  at  04:14 PM

3letterjon, it’s true, countries with universal healthcare do ration things to some extent (though not the supply of kidneys - we use all the kidneys that are available).

I think what jon meant when he said things like kidneys would still be rationed is that there will always be a greater demand for kidneys than the number of kidneys actually available.

No matter what system you utilize, if you have 50 people who need kidney transplants, and only 30 kidneys available, 20 of those people are going to have to go without - there is no system that can fully address the fact that there are always going to be more patients in need of an organ transplant than there are viable organs available for those transplants.

What changes in a truly universal healthcare system is the odds of being a recipient - people whose whose odds of getting a transplant before were lower (generally the poor and the lower middle class) will see increased odds of getting a transplant, people who had an economic advantage on the waiting list will see their odds diminished.  We all become equals, or at least get closer to a place where one’s economic means don’t as strongly influence their healthcare outcomes.  Even under far more equitable healthcare systems, the ultra-wealthy and society’s elite will always have better healthcare (which is why people can still purchase “supplemental” policies in places like the UK, where they have the NHS)... is there any doubt that although the UK’s plan is light years ahead of the US, that Queen Elizabeth II still has access to far better healthcare than the average homeless person in London?

The same will apply here… no matter what plan we institute - even if we were to go with Rep. Conyer’s proposed “Medicare for All”, the President of the United States will ALWAYS have better healthcare available than any of the rest of us.

Anyway, none of that is meant to be an argument against a more equitable system which could be ideally achieved through single-payer universal healthcare, just pointing out the reality that no matter what we do, Bill Gates (and everybody else in the economically elite class) will always have better healthcare access than the average citizen.

Comment #28: DTG in STL  on  08/24  at  04:33 PM

Umm, if plans don’t cover a minimum, what do they cover?

Also, if their PPOs are in another state, I guess that would really lower their expenses when they sell their policies to people across the country from their PPOs.

Comment #29: Crissa  on  08/24  at  06:15 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.