McSatan's Stealth Attack on Health Insurance

[KamaAina]

Reason #82,743 to vote for the Dem nominee in November, even if it's Clinton.

http://www.slate.com/id/2191699

The centerpiece of McCain's plan, as reporting in the New York Times has noted, would eliminate the special tax treatment of employer-provided health care and instead offer tax credits to everybody who pays premiums. In a less-noticed move, McCain also proposes to change the market for health insurance that people buy on an individual basis—he says that "families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines." That would be a big change. Today, insurance companies need to follow the laws of the states where they sell individual insurance plans, just as credit-card companies did before 1978. If an insurer wants to sell policies in New York, the insurer has to obey New York's laws. Many states pretty much let companies sell the policies they wish, but others set a floor of protections. New York laws, for example, require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick. As Stephanie Lewis points out in a forthcoming paper for the Center for American Progress, 17 other states impose at least some similar regulations. These rules may increase premiums for healthy folks, but they also give people with pre-existing conditions a decent chance to afford health insurance in the market for individually purchased policies.

McCain argues that different states' regulations "prevent the best companies, with the best plans and lowest prices, from making their product available to any American who wants it." Although he hasn't given details, his supporters say that he favors an approach, endorsed by President Bush and championed by McCain's Arizona colleague John Shadegg, that would allow insurers to choose the state laws under which they are regulated. (I e-mailed the campaign about the specifics of McCain's approach and didn't hear back.) An insurance company that chose to be regulated under Arizona law could sell policies in New York without following New York rules. Arizona, like most states, lets companies charge what they want to people who are sick—or simply deny them coverage altogether. Under Shadegg's bill, insurers wouldn't even need to pick up and move their operations; it would be enough to file some paperwork with a state insurance commissioner and pay that state's relevant taxes.

If enacted, this proposal would cause a shift along the lines seen in the credit-card industry. Like the Citibank of old, New York insurers would have little incentive to continue doing business under New York's laws. Insurance companies can make bigger profits by offering different policies to different people based on separate assessments of risk rather than charging everyone the same, as a state like New York requires. An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone....

With the individual market for health care, the libertarian argument fails on its own terms: Sick people can't get coverage they can afford. It's as though the rafts are reserved for people who already have life preservers. Americans with pre-existing conditions—cancer, asthma, diabetes, and the like—would need to pay even more than they do today. Through no fault of their own, more of them would end up without insurance. Meanwhile, insurers would improve their own profits by offering targeted policies to people with the fewest health expenses. As with the history of credit cards, it's Robin Hood in reverse. Apart from the obvious injustice, this approach could add to spiraling health costs. The sickest 10 percent of Americans are already responsible for 70 percent of the nation's health expenses. When more such Americans go uninsured, skip checkups, and land in the emergency room, they end up costing taxpayers more.

[opihimoimoi]

1. McSatan??? Now that I LOVE...LOL Good one Kama

[Vinca]

2. I heard somewhere the estimate of the uninsured would rise

to over 150 million with another 50 or 60 million unable to purchase insurance at any price because of pre-existing conditions. Must be more of that compassionate conservatism.

[rdenney]

5. McSame wouldn't be covered as he is a PTSD survivor who needs psychiatric attention. n/t

[JfortheDonks]

3. Lol! Good Nickname!!!

John is shooting himself in the foot over and over again!

[ramapo]

4. Just a fucking great idea

The individual health care market is stacked against those who need it most. It is discriminatory, unfair, and leaves the individual with little recourse.

The sickest joke is when the word "choice" is invoked, especially in regard to government intervention in the system limiting this supposed choice.

So McSleazy wants to beat back the few protections that some health insurance consumers have in return for a "tax break". What a scam.

I happen to live in one of the more enlightened states of the nation, New Jersey. Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to individuals based on their medical history. Few other states have similar protection so if you've been sick, well too bad you just might get turned down. Yes our individual policy options are few and they are expensive, most absurdly so. So absurdly expensive that few can afford them nor would it make much economic sense. If your premium was $3,000 a month, well what's the point of paying that...take your chances (assuming you even could pay such a premium).

Coverage cannot be denied under a group policy either and I believe this is fairly standard.

So if you're lucky enough to work for an employer that offers insurance, you should be able to get coverage. Again, assuming you can afford it.

How about this true life example.

I'd like to leave my job, go out on my own but the individual family coverage is between $1000 and $1500 a month, no prescription plan either. Plus there is only one PPO plan. There are a few HMOs but there goes your choice. So maintaining coverage long-term might be problematic so maybe I have to stay at my job. So much for choice.

Of course I don't have choice now. I'm limited to the doctors who happen to now take my plan. This list changes everyday.

My son is in college, out of state. When he graduates his benefits end. He'd like to stay where he is but will need health insurance while finding his way in life. Who knows how long until he finds a job with health benefits. This state allows medical underwriting. He had a very serious medical problem five years ago. He's ok now but who knows. So he'd have to submit a complete medical history which then goes into the Medical Info Board for all to see forever. He might get denied coverage. So he then could not stay where he wants to be, he'd be forced to return to NJ. Some fucking choice.

McSleazy's proposal sounds like he'd do an end run around our protections here in NJ and let outside companies pick off the healthy. The few companies doing business here would stop and we'd all be screwed. His plan of tax credits is such a friggin joke. I heard it would be a few thousand dollars. Big deal. Make it $10-15K and I'd think about it.

Bottom line is we're at the mercy of the insurance companies. Big redundant bureaucracies that exist to deny coverage whenever possible. We make life decisions based on what would happen to our benefits.

Some choice....