The Right Prescription
Healthcare Reform for the “Party of No”
First government messes up the market. Then it calls for even greater regulation. It’s up to the GOP to point out what’s happened to private insurance.
The basic axiom of free-market economics is that government regulations mess up a market, which leads to misdistributions, which leads to more cries for government regulation.
You couldn’t find a better example than the current health insurance “crisis.” This week Congress is poised to take a problematic situation and make it much worse. There are indeed 45 million people who are uninsured in this country. Some of them (like my 23-year-old son) don’t want to spend $100 a month for what seems like a useless precaution but others are in dire need of insurance coverage and can’t get it. The basic reason is that, instead of allowing a free market to operate, we’ve done the following:
a) Allowed the states a free hand in regulating insurance, and
b) Shrunk the market by allowing 62 percent of the market to secure its coverage as employer-based “health benefits.”
The result is that only 6 percent of the non-elderly population actually buys insurance directly from insurance companies and these tend to be a perversely self-selected group who are too sick to work or can’t get a good job. As a result, the insurance companies can’t create large risk-pools and have to charge everybody a high rate.
Understanding all this requires a little analysis, of which Democrats seem to be incapable, and so the easiest thing is to blame it on “greed.” Thou and I are certainly not greedy, nor are our favorite politicians greedy, but someone out there is greedy — the insurance companies! — and therefore their greed must be countered by the government, mainly by getting the government into the insurance business.
I take my text from a 95-page report “Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market — Lack of Competition Hurts Rural State, Small Business,” issued last May by Health Care For America Now!, a Washington lobbying organization sponsored by the AFL-CIO, Move On, the AFSCME, the teachers’ unions, the Children’s Defense Fund, La Raza, ACORN and a lot of other groups, the names of which are probably familiar.
The report described an alarming situation:
Commercial health insurance premiums have risen four times faster than wages and have more than doubled in the last nine years. Shrinking competition among health insurance companies is a major cause of these spiraling costs. In the past 13 years more than 400 corporate mergers have involved health insurers, and a small number of companies now dominate local markets.
In 21 states, the top two insurance vendors control more than 70 percent of the market, while in nine states that portion has been captured by a single provider. In Alabama, for instance, Blue Cross/Blue Shield controls 83 percent of the market. In Rhode Island, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and UnitedHealth together own 95 percent. As the report notes, “The U.S. Justice Department considers a market ‘highly concentrated’ if one company holds more than a 42 percent share of that market, a level that is common in…more than 30…states.”
Americans are paying for this unchecked private insurance industry consolidation in the form of higher health premiums and a growing number of uninsured people. Meanwhile, insurance company profits and compensation for the industry’s top executives are surging…
The report quotes David Balto, former policy director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission and now a fellow at the Center for American Progress:
Antitrust enforcement against anti-competitive mergers and exclusionary conduct is essential to a competitive marketplace. This unprecedented level of concentration and the lack of antitrust enforcement pose serious policy and health care concerns.
Then it turns to President Barack Obama for a summary:
“The consequence of lax [antitrust] enforcement for consumers is clear,” then-Senator Barack Obama said is a September 2007 address to the American Antitrust Institute. “The number of insurers has fallen by just under 20 percent since 2000. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed.” [brackets in original]
Letter to the Editor View all comments (42) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/07/healthcare-reform-for-the-part
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 10.7.09 @ 8:06AM
This plan you’ve laid out here? Well it’s a very interesting idea Will, but it makes too much common sense for us, which is exactly why it won’t work, and we won’t try it!!
We “want” a Government takeover of the U.S. Health Care system, don’t you get that? We want bigger Government, and higher taxes, and more Government workers on the payroll.
And we want those Government workers to be able to retire after only 20 years on the job, and collect 50% of their base pay as a pension, living off of the rest of the hard working American Taxpaying fools, for the rest of their natural born life. So stop coming up with these good ideas for us Will, we’re not looking for them. We’re not interested in real solutions to real problems here. We just want bigger Government, and less freedom for all, don’t you Will?
Now about this Willie Loman character you mentioned here? We’d rather not see him going door to door everyday like you said he would, trying to earn an honest living. It sounds like a lot of unnecessary hard work to us. We would just like to turn him into another faceless bureaucrat, who becomes another part of the Government machine, another cog in the wheel, if you will. So he too, can retire when he’s only 45, and collect his big fat pension, and play golf everyday, for the next 35-40 years or so, until he finally dies from complete boredom. Now doesn’t that sound like a better life to you Will, than going door to door everyday, just to earn a living?
So what do you think of our little Government takeover plan here? Doesn’t this sound like a great idea to you? Wouldn’t you like to have a secure job just like this too? What’s the matter with you Will? Don’t you like to play golf? No? Well, there’s always Tennis or racquetball!!
And one last question for you Will, you don’t actually buy into this U.S. Constitution thingy at face value now do you? Hmmm!! How quaint!!
Becky| 10.7.09 @ 8:58AM
Does anyone doubt that the founders experienced profoundly sad stories regarding health care at the founding of the country, and yet, chose to ignore that issue as a right? Why? Jefferson's wife died young, as did most of his children, and he was good friends with Madison, with whom he corresponded during the document's construction. I don't remember reading in some of those letters about instituting a health care right (which seems to be one that has the potential to destroy the constitution), yet he talked about the adoption of term limits for potential despots.
The health care system is becoming like a knotted, kinked up chain of a necklace or ball of yarn. There comes a point, you just pitch it because it wasn't that nice anyway and start over.
The reason the current proposals are such a mess and scaring the public, is that as one problem is confronted, the solution seems worse. Politicians focus on the problem, and not the solutions. Mandatory insurance with the threat of punishment doesn't sound like much of a right to me, yet when you are intent on covering everyone and still calling it an individual's choice, the only choice is between a and b, not none of the above.
What if, in order to enforce any of the other rights, like owning a gun, the government mandated we have to purchase and maintain one?
What if, in order to maintain and enjoy the freedom of speech, you have to write an essay about the status of your opinions every year?
No, it is not about rights. Like so many words in our lexicon, it is about wants. Political wants.
Bob| 10.7.09 @ 8:58AM
Tucker, you are basically on target and your analysis is sound. I've been calling for insurance to be regulated on a national basis for some time now given that I actually worked as an insurance executive. You cannot sell insurance over state lines right now because you need different policies for each state as each state has different regulations. My company sold in all 50 states and we had different policies in each state. Once you have different policies, then you have differential pricing so this would not be competition.
Where I disagree with you is that most regulations are necessary. Do you want insurance companies to not have the capital to pay claims? If one goes bankrupt, who will pay the claims? We don't have an insurance equivalent of the FDIC. What about pre-existing conditions? What about dropping customers if they get sick? What about redlining? What about lifetime policy limits? What about allowing insurance companies to invest in risky instruments like derivatives?
Most insurance regulation happens to be necessary to protect the consumer. I think you need to actually read through some state regulations to see what they actually do.
That said, your basic premise is quite sound. If we had real competition among health insurance companies, it would help control costs.
The public option makes little sense because it would not be competition. Adverse selection would force the costliest customers into the public option thereby making the cost of that program excessive. Therefore, it doesn't work on the fundamental purpose.
I would propose a different solution -- one that is even more libertarian and market driven. The government should provide emergency and catastrophic coverage ONLY. This might allow one physical per year but no other doctor visits or procedures. We require hospitals and doctors to treat emergency cases so it only makes sense to pay for it. Catastrophic coverage would solve some of the medical bankruptcy issues. This also solves the issue of coverage for everyone. Then, we should allow the freedom of insurance companies to provide all other coverages individually. If you want a premium plan, you can pay for it. If you want a basic plan, you can pay for it. It would be your choice. The only downside for some people would be if they chose a less expensive plan, they might not get the procedures that will keep them alive. However, that is the price you pay individual responsibility.
John II| 10.7.09 @ 12:31PM
"The government should provide emergency and catastrophic coverage ONLY."
Bob: You've made this point before, and I keep forgetting to ask. From your experience in the field, how would you anticipate "catastrophic" to be defined? By type of illness or injury? By the proportion of one's income that treatment would otherwise drain? Or both or what?
I'm not throwing rhetorical challenges here. I'm just curious. Your proposal makes sense to me in the abstract, but, as usual, the devil's in the details.
Sue| 10.7.09 @ 11:38PM
The government has defined "catastrophic" before. One such disease is kidney disease/dialysis/transplants. They define everything else, why not more types of diseases?
Deninor | 10.7.09 @ 9:29PM
Most states do have a "guaratee operation" which will pay claims if the insurers are not able to do so. Agents are not permitted to emntion it for some silly reason. Most states also have requirements for "reserves" to pay off claims. States have also, further distorted the insurance marketplace by imposing mandates, some states have 30 plus, covering baldness and fertility treatments, although most people don't use them, want them, or need, but must still pay for them to satisfy the legilature's special interest group. In one state, which has more than 30 mandates, someone from the Insurance Commissioners office told a group of agents that one company asked to put together a plan that did not include four of the thirty mandates. This very knowledgeable woman, who missed the humor in her statement, said: The premiums dropped only 20% with the elimiantion of the four mandates." Do the math. If all 30 mandtaes wer eliminated the preimiums would have dropped bu 60% or even more. Some states have driven good insurers out; Vermont, New Jersey, New York, and a few others come to mind because of guraranteed issue. Some states handle that with a "high risk pool" paid for by a tax on all insurers and polciies in the state. There are many ways of covering those who want to be covered without a bloated bureaucracy whose functionaries owe allegiance only to their bosses.
There is no trulu free marketplace in health insurance.
Pingback| 10.7.09 @ 9:57AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Healthcare Reform for the "Party of links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 10.7.09 @ 12:55PM
John,
You've obviously uncovered the weakness of my proposal. From an operational perspective, what I'd probably do is use this as a stop loss procedure. Anyone who goes beyond a policy limit, of, let's say, one million dollars would be automatically enrolled in Medicare. I wouldn't want to create another government bureaucracy to manage this.
Along with this proposal, I'd also include tort reform and means testing for Medicare. I would also limit end-of-life treatments in Medicare. If you want unlimited care at the end of your life, you should buy a supplemental policy and not charge the rest of us with your expenses.
I would only define catastrophic in terms of money (probably indexed to inflation) and not in terms of illness or injury. Once you go down the path of defining coverages, you will get into the argument about rationing, letting grandma die, etc. We need to avoid those arbitrary decisions.
John II| 10.7.09 @ 1:11PM
Bob: Thanks. The really scary part of what's going on in Congress now, which Tucker and others have been exposing in frantic dribs and drabs, is that this mercilessly complex issue requiring patient analysis and good judgment is in the hands of nitwit and power-hungry ignoramuses skilled only in hothouse maneuvering and the suppression of debate.
Bob| 10.7.09 @ 2:07PM
John, it is not about ideology and it is not about Democrats or Republicans -- it is about politicians getting reelected. Both sides maneuver and both sides suppress debate if they have the votes. It is a mistake to believe that Democrats want to "control" health care. They just want to be reelected. That requires pandering to the electorate through polls and pandering to lobbyists for money. This is also true for Republicans. That's why when Republicans had full control over government they did not even address the health care issue. Until we have term limits and better campaign finance laws, we won't get anyone in Washington on either side who is worth a grain of salt.
John II| 10.7.09 @ 2:52PM
Hi again, Bob. I think your response is broadly true of most politicians of all stripes, but if the liberal Democrats were merely pandering on this issue, they'd be responsive to the statistical fact that most Americans (more than 80 percent, according to some polls) are happy with their own health care arrangements--and I know of no precedent for the rebellion welling up among seniors, whom the Democrats need as a reliable voting bloc.
Whatever motivates Obama, Pelosi, and the rest on this issue (I happen to believe that it's kneejerk ideology and a taste for power), it doesn't strike me as plausible to consider the motivation routine pandering unless the pandering is to what's evolved as the far-left base of the Democratic Party, in which case we're back to ideology again, because that fruitcake base is not remotely sufficient to keep the Demos in power.
On the other hand, I do think it's plausible to interpret the Republican do-nothing stance pre-2006 as an elaborate case of pandering--which now sticks the rest of us with the ideological fanaticism of the libs. As Ed Feulner (I recall) once said to a Russian visitor expressing bewilderment over the American two-party system of politics, "It's really very simple if you just understand that the contending parties are The Evil Party and The Stupid Party."
William Tucker| 10.7.09 @ 2:25PM
Bob,
I thoroughly agree that insurance has to be supervised and regulated at some level. There are too many opportunities for Ponzi schemes and frauds. One of the most common incidents is where somebody comes into a market, starts selling everyone "insurance," and then as soon as the first big claim is filed they disappear. It used to happen a lot in the 1990s when companies claimed to be setting up ERISA plans to get around state regulators. It happened again in New York last week when company on Long Island sold a bunch of insurance policies and then reneged on the first claims. Regulators have to be able to set reserve levels and enforce them with investigative powers and this is probably done best at the state level. But that's still not reason for not selling insurance across state lines. If a state Delaware or Arkansas becomes notorious for allowing Ponzi schemes and frauds, people will quickly catch on. It's having to deal with 50 different state insurance commissions that hobbles the big nationwide companies and reduces competition.
defeated pigs| 10.7.09 @ 4:48PM
It appears that you, bob, and lullaby are the only people who listen to this drivel. I feel sorry for bob.
Bob| 10.7.09 @ 2:57PM
William -- as usual, the devil is in the details. The reason state regulated insurance will not be competitive when you sell it across state lines is that state regulation pertains to where the customer is located, not the insurance company. If one state requires pre-existing conditions to be covered, you cannot sell another state's policy that doesn't have that provision. If one state has a mandatory policy limit and another state doesn't, then the same applies. When the actuaries judge the rates for the policies, it is done on a state by state basis. Thus, if one state has higher claims because of different socio-economic levels, an insurance company will avoid that state. State by state regulation today is tremendously inefficient. We have national banks, we should have national health insurance companies.
In my career, I dealt with more state regulators than you can imagine. Some were good, and other didn't know their you know what from their you know where. Developing new policies on a state by state basis and gaining approval is a tedious and expensive process -- I've done it several times. We also need an "FDIC" for health insurance because a person should not die because their health insurance company went bankrupt.
So, William, it may sound good to sell insurance across state lines, but it won't work once you get into the details. Furthermore, once insurance companies are able to sell across state lines, they will nationalize so you will still end up with 3-4 major competitors nationwide and not the 1000's that I hear stated by Republican politicians. That said, 3-4 is a lot better than state monopolies.
Bob| 10.7.09 @ 3:06PM
John -- I hope you listen to more than Fox News. The fact is that your stat regarding 80% like their plan doesn't mean they think it will be just as good in the future. In fact, 65% of Americans want a public option. Fox asks the questions differently than others to artificially get their result just as MSNBC does the same from their perspective.
The truth is that people want what they have now but at half the cost. That will not happen. The vast majority think that they won't be able to afford their plans in the future which explains why 65% of them want a public option.
To correct another of your facts, during the last election, seniors were the only segment that voted for McCain. All other segments voted for Obama. Thus your pandering statement applies more to Republicans than Democrats.
Seniors simply want to protect their costly ride right now (and I am a senior). They want their Medicare which is a government run health care system. Does that make sense? Remember that in that 80%, about a third of those are saying they like Medicare.
John II| 10.7.09 @ 4:06PM
"The truth is that people want what they have now but at half the cost. That will not happen. The vast majority think that they won't be able to afford their plans in the future which explains why 65% of them want a public option."
Yes--that makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for the refinement. And there's something else. Not only are a third of the happy 80 percent among those who are already on the dole, but considerably more than half (including yours truly) are on group plans connected to their employment. I've been on the same plan for the past 35 of my 45 working years (and I'm acquainted with several people who are well past retirement age but won't retire solely because they're terrified of losing the substantial medical benefits they've grown accustomed to).
In other words, I already know intimately how borderline corrupting it can be to one's dignity and sense of responsibility to be, as I am, on a kind of dole-lite. With roughly half of America's medical system already socialized, and a great portion of the other half softened up for the same treatment, I'm amazed that only 65 percent of Americans want the "public option"--which, once it's available, won't be an option for long.
Interesting figure, 65 percent. I recall from my history lessons in the dim past that the American Revolution, while in progress, never had the support of more than 35 percent of the colonists. I wonder if that number touches on a universal divide in the human condition.
Anyhow, I stand happily corrected, although I don't see how senior support for the senior McCain necessarily argues against the general expectation that seniors are a reliable voting bloc for the Dems. Doesn't the exception somehow prove the rule? In any event, you'll turn me into a hardboiled cynic yet, Bob: keep those numbers coming!
And, for the record, I don't listen to Fox News or anything else except my grandkids, my kids, my wife, my students, classical music, and the sound tracks of old movies. I get my news by reading. The other media make me feel used and queasy.
defeated pigs| 10.7.09 @ 4:45PM
(AP) Opposition to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has dropped dramatically in just a matter of weeks, according to the latest Associated Press-GfK poll.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.09 @ 5:23PM
Well Hello Pig
Did David Axelrod put you in here to reinforce our resident liar, Bob?
Say hello to Obama for us, would you?
He needs to know he is fired!
John II| 10.7.09 @ 7:06PM
Yeah, I saw the expression "dropped dramatically in just a matter of weeks." Trips off the tongue nicely, doesn't it--and you can always use it to numb your tongue (along with your brain stem) if your dentist doesn't use enough novocain.
Yet here's the rub. Opposition to Obamacare has "dropped dramatically" (9 points) to 40 percent, yet support for Obamacare has risen pathetically (6 points) to--guess what?--40 percent. That leaves 20 percent. The nation is perfectly divided, if we assume that 20 percent are leaving.
Bob| 10.7.09 @ 5:18PM
John, the only reason I pointed out Fox News is because they were the only ones to continually point out the 80% number without talking about the 65% number. MSNBC, on the other hand, did the reverse.
Since we no longer have objective news, I watch both sides. When I check the facts with factcheck.org or politifact, or on my own, I generally find that Fox is less truthful than either CNN or MSNBC. Even their president of news has justified the lies of Beck and Hannity by saying they are commentators, not newscasters, and can therefore say anything they want. Olbermann is forced to be factual by NBC, but he is far from objective.
I miss the good investigative journalism of the past. Today, instead of investigative journalism, we have commentators supporting positions prior to doing their homework.
Did you know that Jon Stewart was named the most trusted newsman in America today? How do people make good decisions without objective data? Did you also know that only 23% of high school students knew that George Washington was the first President?
There is a lot of discussion about economics on this board, but positions are stated without the supporting numerical data. My favorite is that most people here believe that tax cuts are stimulative when the macro data doesn't support that contention.
Sorry for the rant, but you hit my hot button.
Victor| 10.7.09 @ 8:17PM
"Today, instead of investigative journalism, we have commentators supporting positions prior to doing their homework."
So we're "Bob" today, are we? Is that you again, Toddard? Liberal Reader? Here's a fact: You are wasting your time. Fact: Commentators here have the same God given right that you have to spout your utter nonsense. Fact: Commentators here make a lot more sense than you do. It's really great to behold. Thanks for the show!
John II| 10.7.09 @ 6:18PM
Well, we're back to square one, I guess. Allow me to reiterate from an exchange long ago: Facts don't speak for themselves.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have a hot button to hit. Your faith in "numerical data" is not itself grounded on numerical data. The data are empty without interpretation. For example, the datum that 65 percent of Americans say they want a "public option" suggests to you that a "vast majority" of Americans fear they won't be able to afford health care in the future. The same datum suggests to me that a substantial majority of Americans are too damn lazy to think public issues through seriously.
If we split the difference between "vast" and "substantial," we might agree on strictly logical grounds that we could both be right--since there's no contradiction between the two interpretations: I mean, they're not mutually exclusive. And we might also agree that several other interpretations could be attached to that datum, which of itself doesn't account for motive and circumstance and the relative strength or subjective certainty of the opinion proffered by the actual respondents in the poll.
But it's enough, I think, to point out by way of example that the 65 percent datum signifies something different to each of us. I'm a literary/philosophical type, so my preoccupation is moral; you're an analytical type, so your preoccupation is, well, numerical.
For me, it is enough to say that tax cuts are potentially good for the soul in a way that tax increases cannot possibly be. It's personally important to me that my oldest son, who (being of a more practical bent than his old man) has his own construction business, thrives better with tax cuts than with tax increases, so that his business grows and he can pay his workers better and his family lives better.
But even THAT datum is of less enduring import to me than my sense that tax cuts are better for the soul than are tax increases. The macro data to which you refer are of no interest to me whatever, even if your interpretation of those data is subject to counterpoint by competent economic authority.
To repeat: Facts don't speak for themselves.
By the way, my list of things that I DO listen to was incomplete. I left out bluegrass.
Truth to Power| 10.7.09 @ 7:45PM
Just saw the Gibson Brothers. Who would guess that some guys that are practically from Canada could sing like that?
"Did you also know that only 23% of high school students knew that George Washington was the first President?"
You'll never guess what fraction of Harvard graduates are misinformed about the three-fifths compromise. 3/5 Bob is a pompous ass or a liberal troll. If you say liberal than pompous ass is redundant.
John II| 10.7.09 @ 8:22PM
Yeah, I've heard, and I agree. But I'm still partial to the Rice Brothers, Emmylou Harris, Ricky Skaggs, and the Kentucky Colonels. Can't help it. It's the throw-back in me.
And stop ragging on Bob. Hay-el, the boy's not liberal; he's libertarian. We can talk to each other. We have an understanding. 'Course, he's wrong and I'm right, but we understand each other. There's something that brings folks together more than politics: old age.
Sue| 10.7.09 @ 11:54PM
Good read; the conundrum the government has now is the very fact that they "manipulated" the risk pool by removing the disabled and 65 years and older crowd with the implementation of Medicare; they then proceeded to remove even more people from the pool by the implementation of Medicaid and coverage of children. They are now attempting to remove from the "remaining" pool, the middle class. They really aren't interested in removing the rich; they just want to tax them to health care "death."
So, what we have is the purchase of insurance product markets manipulated by the government; purchase of medical goods and services products manipulated by the government; and regulation of all of it. Three to four times the cost to the government for products or services verses the private sector.
We have been healthcare incrementalized to death already; they (the Democrat party) have arrived to finish off the free markets (actually, the manipulated markets).
This stuff about 10 or 15 years or so to effect their changes is just "stuff." The changes will come quickly once they eliminate the big chunk of baby boomers from the "so called risk pool."
Government lies, people die.
Government regulates, people slowly choke to death;
Freedom survives, saves lives!
The government has been more interested in saving "Willy" and the whales than promoting a free market system. If they get universal health care, the Nation will be a lot less healthy for it and our survival rates will decrease, but probably not directly from a lack of health care, but from the stress of dealing with the bureaucracy.
OSAMAS PAJAMAS| 10.8.09 @ 1:41AM
I recall the excitement of watching what looked like millions of Russians in the streets of Moscow defying the communist government --- and one young fella turning with a big grin to a camera and in bad English saying "They can't kill us all."
It's time to DISOBEY THE BLOODSUCKING GOVERNMENT ---- and just do the right thing. It won't be pretty and it won't be easy.
"We the people" have very level of American government outnumbered and outgunned. The problem is in reaching all the victims of government and uniting them against the United States government and all the satrapies and despotisms operating under the guide of the "states." Who wants to crush Uncle Sam's nuts and take back the Constitution, which the predatory humanitarians have mangled beyond recognition?
hoads| 10.8.09 @ 9:09AM
There is much more to the health insurance oligarchy that is being shoved under the rug. As a matter of fact, Leahy (D) introduced just such a bill to repeal the anti trust exemption of health insurers a couple of weeks ago: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200909/091709a.html
I am still trying to find out what was the outcome of this bill. It obviously did not gain any traction because it would have been big news--so why not? And, where are the Republicans on this issue?
I'm still waiting for healthcare economists to explain how it is that medical costs have increased roughly 6-7% per year over the last decade while health insurance premiums have increased 10-15% (and higher) per year while health insurers claim a 3% profit. There is much more beneath the surface and those in the know don't seem to be stepping up to give this its proper analysis. They can start by analyzing the cozy relationship between government and health insurance companies that dates back to Medicare and then exposing the benefits of Obamacare to the health insurance industry despite both health insurers and politicians attempts to obfuscate this fact.
123xyz| 10.8.09 @ 9:57PM
I agree opening the insurance business to a national region from just states is required. But, without other controls won't a company like, the "South-Eastern Underwriters Association" somehow corner the market somehow like they did in the 40's?
Our free-market is good, but one flaw is it allows one or a few companies to dominate markets at the expense of better choice and pricing for customers.
Cindy| 10.9.09 @ 1:36PM
Catastrophic is defined by dollar amount. When I was younger there was an option at work which the employer provided free of charge, the Catastrophic. In this case you pay all of your expenses up to a fixed limit, in our case it was $5,000.00. Anything over that was paid at 100%.
Trackback| 12.1.09 @ 4:09PM
credit repair rhode island, on credit repair rhode island, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:58PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com