Posted on 08/27/2012 6:39:52 PM PDT by 11th_VA
Somebody gotta pay for all that free stuff.
Why should an insurance company get a state monopoly ever. Allow interstate competition per the original intent of the Commerce Clause.
And in the government’s usual manner of screwing things up even further, there will probably be a Fred Kinnan solution proposed to this problem.
Hey, didn’t President Zero promise that Obamacare would lower health premiums?
Bump!
Emblem Health/HIP is going for a 40% increase.
Going for the kill before Obamacare kicks in?
FYI
You, nor I, nor anyone else have enough bribes to swing that one. Too many people are being paid off to keep the monopolies in tact.
It is all about power and corruption all the way around. Just about any politician you can name either quit working for his “subjects” or never did. They are all free lancers, opportunists and self-serving. It is just too good a deal for high-mindedness to survive. An honest man in politics is about as scarce as a virgin in a whore house. Marble halls or gaudy parlors it doesn’t matter same thing goes on in both places.
Not a monopoly ....but some states will MANDATE that if a company wants to sell medical insurance policies in the state, it meet all the state standards ....and standards vary between states.
Some states want the insurance companies to cover the important basics - sex change operations, drug and alcohol rehab, etc. And the state wants the end user to have things “free” (i.e. - no copay) ...so the costs skyrocket. Other states might allow a medical insurance company to offer “just the basics” - catastrophic coverage, while the end user has to pay out of pocket for the reasonable items like basic checkups, etc. Such policies can be very very cheap.
But - the “compassionate states” don’t want the unwashed and unenlightened end users to go and get those “cheaper policies” (because how else are you going to spread the costs for these wacko added mandates unless you force everyone to pay.) Imagine how cheap the policies would be if the company could have higher rates for smokers, non-compliant overweight & obese people who wouldn’t change their life style, exclusions for injuries or medical conditions brought on by drug use or alcohol abuse? The “enlightened states” want the risks to be equalized and borne by everybody - hence the inability of the healthy people to by cost-effective insurance out of state!
Obamacare IS kicking in.
Even though Obamacare won't be fully operative until 2014, when the indivual mandate kicks in, other elements are being steadily phased in.
This year, the insurers are hit with a whole raft of regulations and specified coverages that they must include in their policies. All of these things cost money -- and you'll be charged for it.
The only plans they should be working on is how to file for bankruptcy, as the government forces them to provide more and more services that eventually no one will be able to pay for, and the government itself will take over the business.....
I’ll tell you where this headed—the employers are going to stop paying for health care and let the workers find their own insurance. They will gladly pay the government fine and still be saving money. But I tell you what will happen after that starts to happens—the government fines will go up big-time.
“non-compliant overweight” That’s a chilling phrase. So we all have to be compliant to get insurance or care? So, when are they going to start peeking into people’s bedrooms to make sure they are not promiscuous or having risky sex?
The answer to all these issues is the free market without the politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover. If somebody wants insurance only for a catastrophic illness or accident, fine. If someone else wants the latest alternative treatment that never ends, let the insurance companies charge them extra. Right now, we all have to pay for people who see a counselor or a chiropractor week after week after week, because psychologists and chiropractors have good lobbyists. Scrap the entire system and open it up to competition. What we really need is LESS insurance and LESS government in health care and insurance.
Has anybody noticed that with the facist 80%/20% (Payouts/Overhead ratio) fascist rule in Obamacare, wouldn’t the insurance companies react by simply raising policy premium rates so they “fit” within the Obama 80/20 rule, given their fixed amount of overhead?
They could generously offer fractionally more benefits to their insured policy holders so that the 80% payout is in a perfect ratio with their overhead amount.
For example, suppose their ratio was 79%/21% ...
Their revenue from premiums is, say 100 units (e.g. a million dollars), so if they raised their rates, and hence their revenues, to 104 units, with the extra “4” unit of revenues would all go to increased “generous” payouts for new items covered.
So on a “unit’s basis, they’d have 83 units vs 21 units, which is essentially a 80%—20% ratio. Voila! Now they’re in compliance with the heavy-handed Obamacare gestapo AND they get to keep their bloated administrative staff levels of their choosing. However, those paying insurance rates get even more screwed.
Another tragic side-effect of government tinkering in the free markets.
Nothing prevents an insurance company in State A from doing business in State B, but if they do so they must meet all of the regulatory standards of State B. One reason why New York is such an expensive place for insurance is that the regulations can be very onerous. On the flip side, New York also has a reputation for sound, stable insurance companies. It's kind of strange how that works, I guess. Historically, a state like New York with a well-run financial regulatory structure (despite the fact that its politics are so leftist) is looking to protect its citizens from fly-by-night insurance carriers from other states who may undercut New York insurance companies by selling insurance policies without the financial backing and reserves that NY requires.
The issue here really comes down to the Commerce Clause vs. the Tenth Amendment.
And that's when the employer lays off all the staff and either hires them back as contractors or moves their operation to another country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
The problem is state mandates that create local monopolies. Licensing and permitting don’t protect you from scoundrels or bad actors. That’s utter myth.
There is no conflict between the 10th and the Commerce Clause. The conflict is between individual liberty and state control. I should be able to cross state lines and buy whatever insurance I want as an individual.
That power is available to Congress and would create real competition. That way if I want a policy that is no-frills and “unmandated” I can get it. Let the state regulate all businesses within its borders, but it cannot regulate interstate commerce and that is what they’ve done.
Undo it and prices fall. It is absolutely pro-consumer and doesn’t need a massive bureaucracy to manage it.
Congress can, with a simple law, make it possible for me to buy insurance across state lines. No state can regulate another state. There need be no change to a local state’s laws regarding insurers in that state. Just let me buy the policy I want. It works in life insurance. Why is health insurance any different? You can add car insurance to that mix as well.
that bumpersticker on my car gets me the finger at least once a week...
or it might be the “trillion is the new billion”(with Barry’s logo)
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.