Posted on 06/26/2004 4:35:43 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Why Can’t We Buy Health Insurance Online?
...as seen in the Arizona Tribune
Americans purchased about $95 billion in goods and services over the Internet in 2003. This dynamism added significantly to entrepreneurship and our economy’s overall health and vitality. One important sector that could use a healthy dose of nationwide competition is health insurance. We can buy just about everything else online; maybe it’s time that health coverage was added to the list.
A basic law of economics is that competition is good for innovation, quality, and price. It’s high time consumers had the opportunity to get the best health coverage at the best deal possible. If health insurance could be purchased online, from anywhere in the country, costs would come down and more people would be insured.
You might say that’s such a concept would probably take an act of Congress. You would be right.
Right now, some states erect barriers to affordable health insurance by passing laws that force consumers to buy insurance plans that cost too much, and often contain benefits we don’t want or need.
Since 1980, state legislatures and the federal government have passed more than 1,000 laws that require consumers to pay for such benefits in their insurance policies. Large businesses and labor unions are exempt from these "mandated benefits" because they can selfinsure under a law called ERISA. That means individuals who buy their own policies and small employers end up paying the price for these politically popular but very expensive mandates.
The situation is intolerable in some states. Families who buy their own health insurance in New Jersey, for example, are forced to pay anywhere from $3,000 to $17,000 per month — that’s right, per month — for a health insurance policy with a $500 deductible.
Nobody has this kind of money, so what do people do? They usually go without insurance. When they are sick, they go to the emergency room where hospitals often overcharge them.
But if consumers could buy health insurance over the Internet in any state they wouldn’t have to go without. New Jersey residents could purchase insurance for themselves or their families in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, or Alabama. Using the Internet, we can tear down the barriers to expensive red tape and regulation and open the door to affordable health insurance for millions of Americans.
People would be able to shop the entire country for health insurance plans that fit their particular needs. They wouldn’t have to pay for benefits they didn’t need or want. Costs would come down, and more people could afford insurance — all without a big government takeover of the health care system and the large tax increase that would be needed to fund such a scheme.
Congressman John Shaddegg, R-Ariz., has a bill that would allow us to purchase health insurance online; it’s called the CHOICE Act. "CHOICE" stands for Creating Healthier Options In Health Insurance Through Choice And Efficiency.
Under the CHOICE bill, consumers would be able to use the Internet or physically go to another state and buy a health insurance policy. The policy they buy would contain the benefits from the state where the consumer purchased the policy.
Putting the power of the Internet to work in order to solve one of our nation’s most pressing problems is the rationale driving this bill. Every member of Congress should get on board. If we can purchase almost every other product or service over the Internet, there is no reason why the one item we count on for our health security shouldn’t be on the list.
Karen Kerrigan is chairman of the Small Business Survival Committee, a trade association based in Washington, D.C. representing over 70,000 member small businesses.
To view the Arizona Tribune endorsement of the Health Care Choice Act, please visit: www.aztrib.com/Ar03701
How about a "Consumer Reports" for health insurance? It sounds like there's an obvious market for that analysis.
All we need to do is allow folks to buy insurance across state lines (or over the internet). That would encourage deregulation in and of itself because companies operating in states with the least regulation would make the most money (kind of like the theory of tax competition).
All the CHOICE Act would do is allow consumers to buy the health incurance THEY need, without the acupuncture, infertility, and massage coverage they don't need. And it is true that some states due mandate these things. The CHOICE Act also calls for (1) employees to recieve reimbursement from their employer UNTAXED if they wish to opt out of teir health plan, and (2) a massive expansion of President Bush's Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), one of the best ideas to come around in a long time.
It is all an effort to redue reliance on a third-party payer system (employer-paid) and move to a consumer-driven system where cost-consious consumers drive prices down. That's the goal here.
10-4
Well, maybe I will. You're the second person to suggest them to me.
I just have a prejudice against them. Back in the early 70's when I was 22 or so, I got into a multiple car crash on the freeway near San Jose. It was not my fault, but fault doesn't really matter at that point.
It wound up with a ambulance ride to the hospital (siren and all) with some punk who had lost a finger and was screaming about it, many stitches, and an attempt to "queer" me by a gay orderly who was supposed to be taking me to X-Ray.
I had BC/BS at the time.
The bill for the whole thing came to several thousand dollars. The ambulance ride alone was over $500. Back then, that was real money.
I don't think I ever collected one cent from BC/BS. They found a reason to deduct or exclude everything I submitted.
But times are a little different now. I'm not as submissive as I was when I was 22. Not by a long shot.
I will say the the California Highway Patrol officer who stayed by my side with his hand on my chest telling me that I would me okay while blood was gushing out of my eyebrows and I was thinking that I was going to die -- he forever made an impression on me.
because stupid Nixon made it a deductable 'benefit' that your employers could offer you, stoopid insurance executives saw a mutual benefit of raising p-rices (unknown to comsumers) and less paperwork (your company does their work for them)
This was the first step (incrementalism) to socialized medicine.
I dont buy my car or homeowners insurance at work...!
That is why most people do not realize health insurance would cost over $6000 a year if you bought it yourself- a figure that would be intolerable otherwise.
You gotta go all the way back to the wage controls during WWII, when the inability to offer higher wages forced companies to entice workers with "benefits". It's grown ever since.
The only difference is marketing costs and collection costs. It's doubtful the insurance company saves much on marketing, since the consumer usually is picking the doctor and most insurances have a large selection of doctors. It's also doubtful that the costs of collecting from individuals is any worse than collecting from insurance companies.
Should Sam's Club pay the same prices for merchandise as Mom & Dad's Local Market?
Sam's club buys in quantity. I don't think insurance companies do. The negotiation power that insurance companies have isn't from guaranteeing a volume purchase. They negotiate the same rates whether a doctor does 1 surgery or 10,000. It's simply that the insurance company has inserted themselves between the doctor and patient. And while the insurance company doesn't promise the doctor any more volume, they can eliminate the doctor from the consumers options. Thus if a doctor wants to play at all they have to give the insurance company discounts, which means they have to mark their standard rates way up.
You expect the rest of us consumers to pay higher prices, so you can get a free (or reduced price) ride?
Since you belong to a union, though, I am sure you have no clue how much it costs the consumer, for your benefits! They will (promise to) take care of you, when Uncle Sammie won't!!! And, I will bet that you would expect the rest of us to pay for your retirement, should your union go under, taking those bucks with them, that you gladly gave to them... along with your soul, and personal choices. Unions are great, if you do not strive for personal excellence...or expect others to do their share... then, its' just a job, where everyone gets paid a lot of money, to read newpapers, and take smoke breaks! And wonder why the jobs are being sent overseas, that they used to get $30 an hour to do...
Of course, that is all fiction, and unions are good. Everybody knows that!
I think it's a great idea. However there are some factors that limit the market. The individual isn't usually making the decision. It's usually a corporate or company benefits administrator. Thus the market is reduced to fewer individuals. That makes marketing it a little harder.
But after reform turns it into a consumer-dorven healthcare system, it'll work wonders!
The only winners in the insurance game, are the sick, and the wealthy. The sick, because they get others to share the cost of their care. The wealthy because they can afford good doctors, and let their insurance investments grow! Accident insurance is for the unseen, health is a known factor. You can't get
If you take care of yourself, eat properly, and practice a healthy lifestyle, you will get a far greater return on your money... and feel better, too.
(Rant off)
My husband and I are self employed with two kids. We were with Kaiser Permanente's Individual plan but it increased to over $600 per month. Maybe a single person could get lower rates from them.
We are now with a MSA account. High deductible of $4000 but a premium of $300 and we keep what we don't spend in the HSA/MSA account. Real good tax advantages to the MSA/HSA's.
Get me an Actuary! I believe that couples and single women would take a serious hit if all health insurance coverage was ala carte, but it would take some serious analysis to prove it.
We don't have Kaiser where I live, so that's not an option for me.
My daughter, who lives up near Fairfax, VA, has it. Overall, she has been very pleased with it.
As I understand things, one does need to learn their way around the system and to be fairly assertive. But it is quite good.
That is what I would like to have.
Hmm...I obviously struck a strong nerve with you about unions. Maybe I should have given a MUCH longer explanation of my whole thoughts on unions. My quick point is that people get so wrapped up on negiotiating for a 1% payraise, and they let their health benefits be carved away. I am a former office manager for physicians, so I do have an extensive background on health care issues. My statement to our union group was they should be locking in the healthcare benefits instead of the 1% raise as the healthcare costs for all of us have raising at an alarming rate. The union members need to look at the whole picture instead of just one small portion. As a person who had to see how much it costs EMPLOYERS, I truly am sympathetic towards the employers. A dollar can only go so far. And as for your statement that union members do not strive for personal growth, again, I think you've got a chip about this somewhere. And I don't make a practice of reading the paper at work, I take great pride in my work, I don't get paid $30 an hour and don't plan to bleed my fellow employees dry when I retire. And last but not least, my soul is firmly intact and that was kind of you to worry about it. Cate
I believe insurance companies and Major League Baseball are the only two industries exempt from anti-trust laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.