A half-dozen health insurers…[Monday] filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to reverse last week’s decision by the insurance commissioner to block double-digit premium increases ”” a ruling they say could leave them with hundreds of millions in losses this year.
The proposed rate hikes would have taken effect April 1 for plans covering thousands of small businesses and individuals. Insurers wanted to raise base rates an average of 8 percent to 32 percent; tacked on to that are often additional costs calculated according to factors such as the size and age of the workforce.
Yesterday’s legal action sets the stage for a showdown between state regulators and the health insurance industry.
Governor Deval Patrick has made reining in runaway health care costs a centerpiece of his administration and his campaign for reelection ”” contending they are stifling the capacity of small businesses to create jobs. At the same time, health insurers argue that government is forcing them to sell policies at a loss that is unsustainable as the costs of medical services climb.
To force insurers to sell policies at a loss is to drive them into insolvency.
Communiity organizers cite Massachusetts as a great example of Obamacare-like excellence.
Personally, I care more about the sick than the insurance company’s solvency.
I wonder if Mr Wilkins realizes that an insolvent insurance company becomes unable to pay claims.
If an employer buys the insurance thru an employee deduction – and the insurer becomes insolvent and unable to pay – is the employer on the hook?
5. Typically an employer’s obligation is to provide the insurance coverage by purchase of an appropriate policy.
Claims against an insolvent insurance company would be handled by the state insurance commission a/o bankruptcy courts.
How the above will change under Obamacare I’ve not a clue.
[blockquote]Personally, I care more about the sick than the insurance company’s solvency.[/blockquote]
Yep, who cares how many lose their jobs? Who cares how many others will lose their insurance because these companies go bankrupt and stop offering all coverage?
No, what is important is our [i]intentions[/i], not the actual results. We only need to “care” more about the sick, so that we can feel good about ourselves. We don’t have to care about the pensioners that own stock in the insurance companies losing their pensions. We don’t have to care about yet thousands more added to the unemployment rolls (and all the suffering and sacrifice that their families will now endure). We don’t have to care that all the folks covered by these companies will suddenly be without coverage when their insurer goes bust.
We are above all that, because we “care” about the sick. (Of course, we don’t actually [i]do[/i] anything to help them except arrange to try to take other people’s money by the coercive power of government and throw it at the problem.)
Well, thank goodness we none of us have to worry about it. Obamacare has solved all problems with health care. Let’s all get in line for our free medical care now…the Chinese are paying.
I found a recent news report of an up-tick in the number of persons showing up in physicians offices asking for their free medical care. There is the growing assumption that everyone (or perhaps me, myself and I) will be getting something for nothing, or at least, something for which someone else will going to pay someday. Asking “by whom and how will it be will paid?” does not mean a person is mean-spirited or without compassion. It just might mean that pragmatism is a core value.
This highlights a major weakness in the newly passed bill. While it (laudably) attempts to extend coverage to many millions without it, it contains no meaningful mechanism(s) for controlling costs. Without such cost controls it will inevitably feed the monster (the Health Insurance Cartel) and or drive the country even more rapidly towards national bankruptcy.
The Swiss have managed to run a system of mostly private but mandated universal health insurance rather well. But that required extremely aggressive regulation by the government of the insurance industry to work. This is something that is generally anathema to the hard core Free Markets or Death types.
My general fear is that unwillingness to compromise on important issues such as health reform will lead to catastrophic events down the road. How are we going to get the debt under control if Democrats won’t even discuss entitlement reform and Republicans can’t utter the word “tax” without sounding like they are trying to expel a rodent hair accidentally caught in their teeth?
My fear is that we will end up doing one of two things…
Revert to a system of no insurance where everyone is on their own. If health insurance costs are not brought under control they will within a decade or so be beyond the reach of a majority of Americans. Or…
We will end up adopting a single payer system of government run health insurance similar to what exists in the vast majority of the world’s developed countries.
#9 – Actually the way I understand the health care bil, Insurance companies (ie the middleman between us and the drs/hospitals) have an incentive to raise costs. They get 15 -20% of what they take in to cover overhead and profit – the rest MUST be paid out. The only way that they can make more money is to pay more out. There is NO incentive for them to negotiate a lower rate for the patient. Perhaps they will do it just because its a good idea.
Did I get this wrong?
um… if people lose their jobs due to mismanagement (after all, much of an insurance company’s costs are bureaucratic), whose fault is that? Of course, one of the problems is that insurance companies do not, in fact, operate by looking at results.
#7 offers a litany of complaints – all justifiable – but no solutions. Should the pensions not have been invested in the free market? Look – they played the game of capitalism and lost. Not sure who we expect to step in.
The government is going to have more bureaucratic cost than insurance companies. It’s hard for me to believe anyone thinks the government will be more efficient. So when what is happening in Massachusetts happens on a national scale the same thing will happen. Insurance companies forced to cover more and more, without being able to raise their rate (either directly or because they have to “compete” with a government run, tax payer subsidized, alternative) the insurance companies will go out of business and we will have a single payer system. As shown in Massachusetts, it will cost more and as the government has shown with other programs it will be less efficient. So how will it be paid for? Either fewer benefits or more taxes. But we all be equal, right?
I don’t think that Obama and others are ignorant of this “flaw” of Obamacare. Rather, they want the insurance companies out of the insurance business. “Insurance policies” where there is no risk stratification is not insurance. When the insurance companies leave, Obama can say, “Well, now we really need government to step in.”
“Look – they played the game of capitalism and lost.”
How exactly is it capitalism when the government sets the price and mandates everyone buy? Perhaps we have different definitions.
RE: “How exactly is it capitalism when the government sets the price and mandates everyone buy? Perhaps we have different definitions.”
S&ToN; — yep, that’s right. JW consistently uses words like “capitalism” and “socialism” and “gospel” and “Jesus” and “free enterprise” in order to play the sophist’s game here at T19, while of course redefining all those words during his own use.
He does it both for discussions about Christianity and economics/secular politics. It’s systemic for him.
It’s also deliberate and calculated. Were it simply a deficiency that he couldn’t help I could pity him. As it is, his rhetoric is merely contemptible and crassly transparent.
But as a result of his deconstruction of various words, attempted evacuation of their meaning, and importation of his own, it’s not really possible to have consistent conversations or even debates with him. It’s best to simply assert the negation of his statements, using the same words, so that every one can see it, and then move on to engage in discussions with people who don’t deliberately behave in such a fashion with ideas and language.
I guess the fine people of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to regulate the insurance companies or perhaps they understood better than most how efficient government managed health care is..HUMMMMMMMM
Thanks Sarah,
I know I’ve said it before, but it is worth repeating…you have a beautiful mind. : )
Most companies have to deal with regulations. Like child labor laws. Insurance companies have to follow rules as well. They should.
Personally, when it comes to health care I’d rather there be more jobs actually providing care than administering costs. Nurses caring rather than number-crunchers rationing.
But if Insurance companies can’t find ways, when people are forced to buy their product, to provide services, the aren’t being managed right. I know it sounds impossible, but yes, some companies are mismanaged.
Nobody complains when manufacturing jobs go overseas. No need to complain here.
Well John, 157 new government agencies to regulate health care is certaintly going to put more providers on the ground! (sarcasm off)
subscribe