Posted on 11/25/2011 5:12:13 AM PST by ex91B10
A gaping loophole in state insurance rules that lets freeloaders pick up coverage to pay for expensive surgeries — and then dump it once they’re treated — has cost taxpayers as much as $37 million a year, according to a study that warns the same wrinkle in Obamacare could add a staggering $2 billion a year to the deficit-wracked federal budget[Emphasis mine].
Exploiting a state provision that forces insurers to cover patients with pre-existing medical conditions, thousands of so-called “jumpers and dumpers” are buying plans just before major operations and procedures, and then chucking their coverage and passing those costs onto residents who play by the rules, according to a study by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute obtained by the Herald.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Anyone who is surprised by this is an idiot.
It’s exactly what detractors said would happen, and is in accordance with human nature.
The program should not be called ‘insurance’. It flies in the face of actuarial and underwriting practices which were instrumental in the success of private and group health insurance for over a century.
Trust the socialist do-gooders to destroy a private sector enterprise by ‘forcing’ it to commit suicide.
Well done Romney - the brain of Bain Capital. How much more about private enterprise does he not understand?
I know this is a Mitt attack thread, and I don’t want to interrupt it, but there is also a serious question to be discussed.
This is the obvious result of government regulating the insurnace business, in this case by forcing insurance companies to offer coverage to all comers, and not allowing insurance companies to individually price insurance at the expected cost of that insurance.
But the purpose of THAT provision is to cover “pre-existing conditions”. That, btw, is something that polls extremely well, and has a wide majority of elected REPUBLICANS in support. I’m certainly not saying that makes it conservative, or desirable, just noting that the “pre-existing condition coverage” is a very popular thing.
To give two examples, Newt Gingrich appears to support coverage for pre-existing conditions. And we know Cain supports some form of it; in an NRO article about a November 2nd meeting he attended: “Rep. Billy Long (R., Mo.) asked what Cain would do about preexisting conditions ... he said he believes it is a proper role for government to provide a safety-net, with both state and national contributions. “We don’t want to leave anybody out of getting health insurance coverage,” he said.”
I do not have the statements for all candidates on this subject, and this isn’t about the two candidates I mentioned.
If you don’t have private insurance cover pre-existing conditions, but you require that all people be able to get health insurance or health care if they need it, you then need to handle those without health insurance — which means either requiring doctors and hospitals to provide care to those without insurance, or a government program to pay for health care for those without insurance. Both lead to a different form of what is reported in this article — people drop insurance, knowing someone will pick up the tab.
But if you don’t cover pre-existing conditions, and you DON’T pick up the tab for people who fail to get insurance, and then get sick without the means to pay, you must then rely on the charity of others; and accept that charity won’t always cover the cost, and people who fail to by insurance will suffer and die from treatable illness, or have lifetime disabilities because they couldn’t afford to get broken bones fixed, or buy the drugs that would manage their conditions.
I often say it this way: If you don’t cover pre-existing conditions, and you don’t make someone pick up the tab, you must be willing to let poor people die on the sidewalk in front of a hospital. The problem is — I don’t think a majority of Americans are ready for that.
Is there another alternative? Yes. Instead of letting people die from their bad choices, make it illegal to make the “bad” choice. Force them to buy health insurance, and regulate that insurance to make it good enough to cover everything life-threatening. It essentially legislates away the “pre-existing condition” problem, because once in place, every person in the country will have insurance from the moment of birth, and therefore can never have a “pre-existing condition”.
Other plans try for voluntary “mandates”, seeking to get universal coverage mostly by making insurance so cheap that even “stupid” people will see the value in purchasing the insurance. Government subsidies play a big part of that type of plan, and this may be where Cain was talking about “government contributions”.
There are other alternatives, which I think might be more palatable for conservatives, but which fall afoul of the “limited-government” mantra. For example, government could, as part of a federal loan program for doctors (it costs tons of money to train doctors), require service at a salary. Then government could run health care operations in parallel with the private system, using these salaried employees, to provide medical care at cut rates for those who don’t have insurance.
And those who use this could pay based on their income tax returns, or their net worth, so people who have no money wouldn’t pay much, people with lots of money would pay more. But the treatment would not be as extensive, (cut-rate treatment?), and that might still cause trouble if people think we are just trying to kill poor people with bad health care.
No, I think we’d be better from the LOGICAL argument perspective if we simply said freedom includes choosing stupidly, and if that kills people, that’s what happens. I just don’t think we’d win on that argument, especially if it’s parents choosing and children dying.
Which I guess you could solve with an SChip type of program that just covers kids until they are 18, except now you’ve done the same thing with people dropping insurance coverage, just on a smaller scale.
You mean people game the system? And then the taxpayers pick up the tab? Those rascals.
We have to make a 2 year commitment on our cell phone service but we can drop our insurance right after making a big claim. Nice.
If government didn’t consume 20% of the GDP, it is possible charity hospitals could make a comeback. And no, you can’t sue for improper care at a charity hospital when you are not paying a dime for care.
Government, lawyers and health insurance have so skewed the cost of healthcare. Free market health care should allow people to shop for the best care that they can afford. Knee replacement? If thee different providers have the same success rate, why pay the highest rate?
These decisions are taken out of the hands of the consumer of health care services.
In other shocking news...
Pope is Catholic.
Sun rises in east.
Death&taxes still likely outcomes.
Why buy insurance before you need it ?
Why indeed? Only the very rich self-insure.
You need to shout "Get The Government Out Of All Of It!!! NOW!! if you want people to agree with you.
P.S. Don't skimp on the exclamation points.
Cain ... said he believes it is a proper role for government to provide a safety-net, with both state and national contributions.
I'm sorry to hear this, as it's a fascist impulse on the part of Cain. There is no charity article in the constitution.
The government doesn't need to do anything to handle those without health insurance. Some of those without health insurance have enough money to pay for it, for example. Some of those should be deported so their home governments have the worry. For others, there has always been private charity. There had been other cheap solutions (see 'Lodge doctors'), that the AMA forced out of business with the help of the government.
Now, requiring doctors or hospitals to cover charity care is a downright criminal suggestion, and heartless too. The doctors and hospitals have no place to get the money except from other sick folks.
People who fail to buy insurance, simply
fail, and should not be fully protected from their own stupidity. Capitalism doesn't work without failure, and freedom in general means you are free to suffer the pains of your own failure as well as the joys of your own successes. You really can't have one without the other.
It's a strawman argument to say that if I do not want the government to force Peter to pay for Paul's medical costs, that I want Paul to die on the sidewalk. Private charity works, and should be encouraged. Forced charity is not real charity.
There's a real moral hazard here. If you train everybody to leave charity to the government, you will kill the charitable impulse in general. And eventually the government will have no real idea how real charity is supposed to work. If the people are charitable, there is no need for government to take over charity. If the people aren't charitable, then a democratically elected government isn't going to be too charitable either.
The main attraction of government charity is to the Alinsky-trained folks, for whom it is a convenient cover for more government force to bend the population to their desires, to reward and punish as they please.
Hospitals are required by law to do that now.
The law is called "EMTALA".
It was passed by a Republican Senate and House, and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
I often say it this way: If you don’t cover pre-existing conditions, and you don’t make someone pick up the tab, you must be willing to let poor people die on the sidewalk in front of a hospital. The problem is — I don’t think a majority of Americans are ready for that.
This is a false choice. Why not a third way. Those who are unwilling to pay for their medical treatment, for whatever reason, are subjected to the same collection process as the taxpayer by the IRS.
Allow the federal government to pay the cost, but use the same standards of collection that the IRS uses for back taxes.
I would prefer buying car insurance after I have an accident, but that’s just me.
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.