OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
- HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION BOONDOGGLE & CONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB ATTEMPT
by Rowan Scarborough
09/21/2009
The House Democrats' huge health care bill bestows immense powers on one Washington bureaucrat who it authorizes to regulate every step of insurance buying and to collect any data on the American people the czar deems necessary to do the job.
The position is called the Health Choices Commissioner. The post will be filled by the president and confirmed by the Senate to oversee a brand new government agency whose health industry powers seem boundless under the bill. This person, and this person alone, will decide whether a health coverage plan is acceptable to Washington or not.
"He will rigidly and vigorously defined the choices that are available to you," said Robert E. Moffit, a health policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
It is a massive shift in state's rights, moving decisions made by legislatures, governors and local insurance commissioners from the people to one desk in Washington.
"The big story in the House bill is that what you're looking at is a massive transfer of regulatory authority from the states to the federal government over health insurance," Moffit said. "This basically will undermine state independence, innovation in the provision of health insurance, the writing of health insurance and regulation. States vary from state to state on the kind of rules governing health insurance. What this does, it federalizes the entire process."
The choices commissioner will create a single, national insurance exchange -- a place to shop for private insurance or the federal government option favored by liberals -- and decide which companies can participate.
Because of the way the bill is written, almost certainly all private insurers will want to join the exchange and compete with the feds. Regardless of whether a company joins, the commissioner will rule on the acceptability of its plan, too. And by 2013, all individuals seeking insurance must apply through the exchange.
The commissioner will create the standards for all plans, meaning an insurer must meet his dictates on benefits or get out of the business. He can decide where companies can put their profits and tell them how to write brochures and other marketing tools.
The bill's section on Medicaid, a health care program for the poor, reads, "The commissioner shall establish effective methods for communicating in plain language and a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner."
In other words, languages other than English.
The commissioner also has free rein to audit any health plan and charge the company for costs. Moreover, Democrats have given the commissioner control over provider networks, meaning in theory he can decree the number of doctors or nurses or beds in a particular region.
"By concentrating so much authority into this one agency governed by a health choice commissioner and allowing the commissioner to have such vast discretion over what qualifies as health insurance, you're vesting an unelected bureaucracy with a tremendous amount of power," said Greg Conko, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Certainly unprecedented. And then he has the authority to punish plans for breaching what he decides is the right way to provide insurance."
Perhaps the most disturbing power is an blank check to collect data -- a power that in the past has rankled liberals and the mainstream press. But in this case, with a Democrat bill backed by liberals, the prospect of unchecked "data mining" has stirred no leftist protest.
Under section 142, which details the commissioner's authority, the bill states:
"The Commissioner shall collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting quality and value, protecting consumers, and addressing disparities in health and health care and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services."
That's it. No qualifiers. No limits. Analysts told HUMAN EVENTS under such broad language the commissioner's bureaucrats can obtained people's tax records, credit reports, employment history. They could argue the data is needed to understand the region's demographics, patient requirements and income trends.
Another section specifically gives the commissioner authority to read tax returns.
"It gives him basically a blank check to go after all kinds of stuff," Moffit told HUMAN EVENTS. "Whatever he decides he needs. It's at his discretion. One of the things that is outstanding about the health choices commissioner is that as a public official he has enormous discretion in the exercise of his duties. Certainly I've never seen anything like this in my experience."
Then there is the section letting the commissioner oversee private insurance company finances.
"It's basically saying how much you can spend on benefits and how much you can retain for administrative costs or profits," Moffit said. "The health choices commissioner is an enforcer."
To Moffit and other conservatives, the ultimate purpose of the national health exchange is to put private insurers out of business. Afterall, when one government bureaucrat, the commissioner, is writing the rules for everyone, who is he going to favor: private industry or the government?
Afterall, one section allows the commissioner to automatically enroll individuals in a health care plan. "Such process may involve a random assignment," the bill says. To conservatives, "random" means the commissioner will shoe-horn them into the federal government plan.
Mr. Scarborough is a national security writer who has written books on Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, including the New York Times bestseller Rumsfeld's War.
Showing posts with label U.S. Health Insurance Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Health Insurance Reform. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Truth About Health Insurance.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK - Wall Street Journal
Only nine states have the costly rules that Obama wants to impose nationwide.
The White House is priming the defibrillator paddles to revive ObamaCare, and its new strategy is to talk about "health-insurance reform," rather than "health-care reform." The point is to make its proposals seem less radical than they are, while portraying private insurers as villains for supposedly denying coverage to the sick.
Sounds like a good time to explain a few facts about the modern insurance market. Start with the reality that nine out of 10 people under 65 are covered by their employers, most of which cover all employees and charge everyone the same rate. President Obama's horror stories are about the individual insurance market, where some 15 million people buy coverage outside of the workplace.
Mr. Obama does have a point about insurance security. If you develop an expensive condition such as cancer or heart disease, and then get fired or divorced or your employer goes out of business—then individual insurance is going to be very expensive if it's available. But what the President and Democrats won't tell you is that these problems are the result mainly of government intervention.
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That's one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama's proposal for "guaranteed issue" on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
There are better ways to go. Tax credits to individuals to buy insurance would make it more affordable and thus strengthen the individual market. Other tax rule changes could also make it easier for people to join and form their own risk pools beyond their employers, such as through business federations, labor unions or, say, the Kiwanis Club. They would no longer be hostage to one job for insurance.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions ("orphan diseases") that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."
Only nine states have the costly rules that Obama wants to impose nationwide.
The White House is priming the defibrillator paddles to revive ObamaCare, and its new strategy is to talk about "health-insurance reform," rather than "health-care reform." The point is to make its proposals seem less radical than they are, while portraying private insurers as villains for supposedly denying coverage to the sick.
Sounds like a good time to explain a few facts about the modern insurance market. Start with the reality that nine out of 10 people under 65 are covered by their employers, most of which cover all employees and charge everyone the same rate. President Obama's horror stories are about the individual insurance market, where some 15 million people buy coverage outside of the workplace.
Mr. Obama does have a point about insurance security. If you develop an expensive condition such as cancer or heart disease, and then get fired or divorced or your employer goes out of business—then individual insurance is going to be very expensive if it's available. But what the President and Democrats won't tell you is that these problems are the result mainly of government intervention.
Because the tax code subsidizes private insurance only when it is sponsored by an employer, the individual market is relatively small and its turnover rate is very high. Most policyholders are enrolled for fewer than 24 months as they move between jobs, making it difficult for insurers to maintain large risk pools to spread costs.
Mr. Obama wants to wave away this reality with new regulations that prohibit "discrimination against the sick"—specifically, by forcing insurers to cover anyone at any time and at nearly uniform rates. But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.
That's one reason that only five states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—have Mr. Obama's proposal for "guaranteed issue" on the books today. New Hampshire and Kentucky repealed such laws after finding that they soon had an even smaller individual insurance market as companies fled the state.
Another proposed reform known as "community rating" imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer. This is why 35 states today impose no limits whatsoever on how much insurers can vary premiums and six states allow wide variation among consumers.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.
There are better ways to go. Tax credits to individuals to buy insurance would make it more affordable and thus strengthen the individual market. Other tax rule changes could also make it easier for people to join and form their own risk pools beyond their employers, such as through business federations, labor unions or, say, the Kiwanis Club. They would no longer be hostage to one job for insurance.
University of Chicago economist John Cochrane also argues that in a more rational individual insurance market, people could insure not merely against medical expenses but also against changes in health status. This kind of insurance would cover the risk of premiums rising as you get older and your health condition changes.
In turn, that would free insurers to compete for the business of all patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, because then they could charge enough to cover the costs—instead of passing them to others. As for those with rare conditions ("orphan diseases") that require a lifetime of special care and are thus uninsurable, this is where government subsidies could be both appropriate and affordable.
ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)