The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Mandate Nation

The medical insurance industry’s health care reform proposal is hardly market-friendly.

After being sent home over Thanksgiving to revise their pitches for a multi-billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded “bridge loan” to keep them a float through the end of the year, Michigan’s “Big Three” automakers returned to Capitol Hill this week to renew their respective cases.

The retooled bailout plan included requests from automotive manufacturers that Congress pass legislation requiring every individual to purchase a vehicle (whether or not the definition of “everybody” includes Americans who are under the age of 16 or resident aliens is expected to be worked out at a later time) and mandating the price of gas be cut by 30%.

The preceding paragraph is, of course, not true. However, if it sounds more than a bit over the top to you (as it should), then consider this: America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a national trade association representing over 1,000 insurance providers covering an aggregate 200 million Americans, has made a series of recommendations to Congress for health care “reform” that is identical to the aforementioned example in every way except one: it’s real.

Last week, AHIP unveiled its eleven page proposal for overhauling the health care system. The plan included a call for Congress to implement “an enforceable individual coverage mandate” — quite simply, a law requiring that every individual in America purchase and maintain health insurance — and to legislate the cost of health care down by 30% over the next five years.

Further, the proposal calls for expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid, and making “advanceable and refundable tax credits” available to Americans whose income is at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine that: a “reform” plan, released by a service provider, that proposes that the government (a) require every American (all 300 million plus of them) to purchase what they’re selling, often with taxpayer dollars, and (b) declare by law that those insurers must be charged less by providers and hospitals for the services their policyholders require.

With the ushering into office of a new regime that is supportive of a version of health care reform based on increased regulation and government control, it is no surprise that AHIP has offered up a plan that both provides for its self-interest and adheres to a form of the ideal overhaul result put forward by the Democratic Congressional majority and the incoming Obama administration.

Unfortunately, while AHIP’s proposal will likely appeal to many now in power in Washington —≠ which is almost certainly why it took the direction it did — it is far from an actual solution to America’s many health care problems.

A far better proposal than the one submitted by AHIP would have been built around reducing the factors that cause health care to cost as much as it does in the first place, and removing the barriers that cause many people to choose not to purchase insurance.

Simply including in the proposal a recommendation that states allow mandate-free or mandate-lite policies to be sold to those who desire less than full “Cadillac” coverage replete with required cost-increasers like coverage for birthmark removal, hair transplant, and alcoholism (these must be included in every policy sold in the states that require them, and paid for by consumers, even if the policyholder has no birthmarks, has a full head of healthy hair, and/or is a teetotaler), as well as a recommendation that Congress knock down barriers to interstate purchase of health insurance policies, would have made at least a portion of AHIP’s plan realistically workable and effective.

Unfortunately for the millions of us who are consumers of health insurance — and for the millions more who would likely purchase insurance if the state and federal governments would stop attempting to “reform” the industry by increasing regulation and, as a result, increasing the product’s cost — AHIP likely had little choice in the matter, as putting a market- and reality-based proposal in front of the incoming Congress would likely have resulted in its being laughed off of Capitol Hill.

The result of that is what we see in the 11-pager released on Wednesday: a proposal that works within the unfortunate existing political framework to salvage what America’s insurance companies can from the coming disastrous overhaul of health care, while leaving consumers and patients out in the cold altogether.

Until America embraces real reform to its health care system, which can only take place when competition is allowed to re-enter the marketplace and when people control their own health care dollars and medical futures, rather than simply trusting to third parties to decide (and fund) the treatment that is best of them, consumers and patients are going to continue being slighted, while insurers and Congress work together to enact and enforce policies which look great on paper (and on the insurers’ balance sheets).

The effect of the health care “reform” policy coming down the pipe will be to allow congressional Democrats to pat themselves on their collective back over a job well done, while the working men and women who actually have a need for insurers’ and providers’ products continue to be stiffed.

topics:
Health Care

About the Author

Jeff Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a columnist, a combat journalist, and a director emeritus of conservative weblog RedState.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (7) |

Marc Jeric| 12.9.08 @ 10:05AM

Health care (this name smacks of marxist language twists - it should be care of the sick) costs about 1.5 trillion dollars a year. One third of that cost is caused by trial lawyers and is absorbed by malpractice insurance. If you have a pain in your knee and go see a doctor, the latter will prescribe a battery of tests, some 25 of them, just as a preventive defense against possible suits for negligence; 24 of those tests have nothing to do with your complaint. Depending on his or her specialty this malpractice insurance costs somewhere between $100,000 and a million dollars per year. Malpractice judgments that have nothing to do with actual medical cases sometimes reach multi-million dollars delivered by ignorant juries - see ex-Senator Edwards cases.
Marc Jeric, Las Vegas

Dustoff| 12.9.08 @ 11:31AM

If anyone hasn't noticed that many GP doctors are leaving the system.

You think the lines at the ER are bad now, just wait till it's free.

Peter Balsam, MD| 12.10.08 @ 9:41AM

AHIP - will that replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Bend over, here it comes again.

James Hovland| 12.14.08 @ 8:52PM

Marc Jeric has a valid point about malpractice being a costly issue that needs addressed. However this issue does not solve the insurance problem.

Insurance is a huge administrative waste, on top of being a corrupting influence in our politics. Reform is always a huge headache because the situation with health care is, as Tom Daschle puts it, "politically problematic".

The insurance companies are pouring money into this right now, because 'National Health Insurance' cuts out their profit scheme. As part of the high cost of insurance, they are using our health care dollars to pay lobbyists, make political contributions, and fund anti-government propaganda.

The propaganda is intended to instill fear of government control, and use that fear to create public opposition against 'National Health Insurance'. Quality propaganda creates emotional triggers intended to cause a reaction with various programmed responses, preferably avoiding any rational thought.

We all know what the lobbyists are for. They get paid to eat launch with our Representatives, while computers are busy answering constituents mail because the Rep doesn't have time . I think this makes getting decent representation 'politically problematic'.

The insurance industry also makes a lot of political contributions that are not exactly good for our health. One recipient of these contributions is Senator Max Baucus(D-MO) who was quick to introduce the first in a slew of proposals for mandatory insurance as a 'generous' way of answering the peoples call for 'universal health care'. Instead of "politically problematic", Max described 'Single Payer' as "not politically feasible". Perhaps because it would cut into his campaign funding.

Corruption doesn't come cheap, and it's being charged to our health care tab. Marc made a good point about malpractice being another big expense. We will have to address the waste and corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical industry as well. We want our Health Care to be the best, but to have it, we need to cut all the waste and corruption out so that we have the money for everything we want.

America spends more on Health Care than anyone else. The countries with national health care rank better than we do, and pay far less. Some of them have shortages and long lines, but they don't have our budget. This isn't Canada.

The waste and corruption are obvious, just watch the insurance companies pour money into this while they tell us how terrible everything would be without them. Do they think we are stupid?

We were promised a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I don't know who all made that promise, but I know we are the ones who have to keep it.

Pingback| 5.13.09 @ 5:59PM

The Skinny on Obama’s Supposedly ‘Watershed’ Health Care Meeting | Social Debate: Bar links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…progression that began in December, when AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) embraced President Obama’s election by calling on the incoming administration to make it the law of the land that every American had to purchase their product or face legal consequences. Despite the administration’s penchant for spending trillions of dollars it simply doesn’t have, the cost of subsidizing…

Pingback| 8.13.09 @ 12:24PM

The Skinny on Obama’s Supposedly ‘Watershed’ Health Care Meeting - Jeff_Emanuel’s bl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…progression that began in December, when AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) embraced President Obama’s election by calling on the incoming administration to make it the law of the land that every American had to purchase their product or face legal consequences. Despite the administration’s penchant for spending trillions of dollars it simply doesn’t have, the cost of subsidizing…

Related Articles

More Articles by Jeff Emanuel

More Articles From Special Report

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/09/the-health-insurers-bailout

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT