Obama To Propose Federal Board To Control Health Insurance Rates
This will be controversial, to say the least. I wonder on what legal grounds this will be asserted - and how long it will be before the insurance companies lobbyists stop it. (I also wonder why he didn't support the public option, which would have been less directly interventionist than this, and thus, less politically risky.)
You can read the details here:
President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said.
[...] The president’s bill would grant the federal health and human services secretary new authority to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, and it would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, comprised of health industry experts that would issue an annual report setting the parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in the market.
The legislation would call on the secretary of health and human services to work with state regulators to develop an annual review of rate increases, and if increases are deemed “unjustified” the secretary or the state could block the increase, order the insurer to change it, or even issue a rebate to beneficiaries. States would be eligible for a portion of $250 million in grants to finance premium review and approval.
The new rate board would be composed of seven members, including consumer representatives, an insurance industry representative, a physician, and other experts such health economists and actuaries, the White House said. The board’s annual report would offer guidance to the public and states on whether rate increases should be approved.
The corporatist-friendly RAND think tank issued a 2004 report on a similar proposal in California, warning of unintended consequences:
This issue brief evaluates why health insurance premiums are rising and examines the potential long-term consequences of regulating premium costs, using examples from other insurance products such as automobile coverage and workers compensation. The findings underscore that if health care costs continue to rise while premiums are frozen, stringent rate regulation could lead to undesired consequences. These include:
* In the short term, insurers could balance their losses by reducing the quality or quantity of care -- or both.
* Insurers could discourage unhealthy consumers from enrolling in plans, thus increasing the number of uninsured over time.
* If costs continue to rise and premiums are fixed, insurers may exit the market entirely.
* Over the longer term, regulation could discourage expensive treatments and technologies, no matter how beneficial, from coming to market. (A desirable related consequence is that premium regulation could motivate the introduction of cost-saving technologies.)
First, this kind of board is constitutional. There's all kinds of similar boards that perform similar functions. Second, in regard to the arguments raised by Rand:
(1) "In the short term, insurers could balance their losses by reducing the quality or quantity of care -- or both."
This argument ignores the fact that treatments are prescribed and rendered by physicians, not insurers. Presumably, the insurer would be sanctioned/fined for violating the terms of its agreement with its insureds.
(2) "Insurers could discourage unhealthy consumers from enrolling in plans, thus increasing the number of uninsured over time.
Highly unlikely assuming most people continue to receive insurance through their employers.
(3) "If costs continue to rise and premiums are fixed, insurers may exit the market entirely."
In addition to the fact that this argument presumes "premiums are fixed" and wouldn't be adjusted by the board (a silly assumption), insurers are unlikely to exit the market given the supernormal profits they realize. Someone will remain in the market to make up in volume what they previously realized on per consumer basis.
(4) "Over the longer term, regulation could discourage expensive treatments and technologies, no matter how beneficial, from coming to market. (A desirable related consequence is that premium regulation could motivate the introduction of cost-saving technologies.)"
True on both counts, at least theoretically, although you'd have to weigh one against the other. And if you look at the experience of other countries, e.g., Canada, France, etc., capping rates for services doesn't look like its harming their citizens.
As "The Last Word" said, there are many boards like this that control prices. Specificially, there are boards (whether on the state or national level, I do not know) which control the prices of public utilities such as electricity and water providers. The possibility for this to work for insurance is a hopeful thought.
I worry about corruption, but then any set of people can be corrupt.
nation. It unjust and unreasonable. For example, our bill might be 2k for a month and over in the next county under a different provider it might be $500. for the same amount of usage. In the end, it matters who's been paid off in your district, and how in need the local government is for revenue - and then the real bottom line, just how greedy are the people who run the corporation.
All I'm saying is, a panel could very well decide the profit motives for our provider are legitimate. Installing a board to oversee guarantees nothing.
How many times has your state utility board not gone along with a rate increase? How are your state utility boards selected...voted by voters? Likely not. Appointed boards by there existence is corrupt and corruptible. You get some progressive Governor or President who appoints a board that tamps down rate increases only to have George Bush, or Michelle Bachman take over or even good old Mitt Romney...puffffff rates quadruple. Then in comes a democrat..a progressive..no more big rate increases, well until Mitt jr is elected but wait...did you notice the progressives die NOT LOWER the previously increased rates? No. Yeah, we need a board...Barack great work. Rates will go down and stay controlled by going single payer or at the very least a public option and with the removal of anti trust exemption from the industry Othewise is horse droppings on the parade route to becoming a third rate country who does not care for its people. Welcome to Honduras.
1. presumably? Since Physicians are often over ruled by insurers what they will or will not cover that argument holds little water. As for sanctions, insurance companies currently trample and indeed cancel in mid treatment on agreements and to assume that the any politically appointed board would step up you only have to look at this White House on issues ranging from trials in NYC, Gitmo, the Public option, DADT etc...can you imagine what a GOP..Bushlike WH would do?
2.MOST people? What about those that do not currently or ever are afforded health care by employers or do WalMart workers simply not matter in your scenario..just to name one group?
3. Adjusted by a politically appointed board...of course, no they would ALWAYS act in good faith for the citizens of this country and certainly not for the lobbyist for say United Health or Anthem BCBS. Do you work for Anthem, United Health?
4. Yes and in Canada, France all government backed single payer countries and no capping rates has NOT harmed the system where your arguments and the current and latest effort to punk the citizens of this country by the WH and the Senate does.
First, you presume to question my intentions. My mother's Canadian, I grew up in Canada, and I am an advocate of a single-payer system. Second, your logic is wanting, and you don't even address the arguments I make. For example, you argue:
"As for sanctions, insurance companies currently trample and indeed cancel in mid treatment on agreements and to assume that the any politically appointed board would step up you only have to look at this White House on issues ranging from trials in NYC, Gitmo, the Public option, DADT etc...can you imagine what a GOP..Bushlike WH would do?"
Your conclusion that insurers' past conduct would be permitted going forward is a silly assumption given the elements of the present House and Senate bills. Likewise, your suggestion that a properly-constructed board, i.e., a board with staggered, fixed terms, apolitical, governed by data, and which includes consumer advocates, would necessarily fail lacks foundation.
What I meant was, there are very narrow grounds for what can pass through reconciliation and I don't think this can work.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
all I can say is why form a plan that requires a panel to "combat" the insurance companies? Frankly, this approach is b.s. and disasterous.
There are still penalties for failure to purchase and restricted access for women.
Having dropped the public option entirely the President has now entered scumbag territory - well, at least for me.
for the bill he's wanted all along, and helped to write - the awful Max Baucus' bill with minor tweaks. ThinkProgress has a good analysis -
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/...
Obama's plan leaves out the main components necessary for real reform - a national exchange, repeal of an anti-trust provision, and a public option. He's going to do what I've have thought all along - use the summit to primarily pressure *House progressives* to accept the very corporate-friendly Senate bill.
Obama is a sell out and the single individual most responsible for the healthcare 'reform' debacle.
where they are all breathlessly praising the master chess player on his latest move.
Single payer would be the solution, as usual, to this, but let's examine this for a second.
These companies exist to create profit. Not healthcare, profit. So, if you limit their income, they'll limit the flow of money out. It's simple math -- if you don't want to decrease shareholder profits, you have to decrease spending.
The simple fact is that companies that provide no tangible benefits (they hold your money in a pool and disperse *some* of it back to you) and don't really have any tangible competition (most markets are controlled by one or two companies), and only have the motive of *profit* can't possibly give a rat's ass about you or your health.
Most other countries have done the math on this, why can't we?
Most of those against single payer have never been to Europe, they don't know a person in Europe, they are afraid their doctors will quit, & the hospitals will close. What do they think the doctor is going to do? Invest in a Toyota dealership? My friends in France never worry about health care. It's just as good as our health care. In many ways the health care is better.
The quality of the healthcare is important, yes, but it's also about availability.
We have *exceptionally* limited availability, as it requires a financial prerequisite to receive. The best gold plated care in the world doesn't mean squat if people can't afford and/or receive it.
Correction France health care system is superior to the US system.
I fully agree with that. Health insurance system in European countries is really well developed comparing with our country. They are paying for it as part of taxes and there is no problem for that. Also it is government regulated so there are no crazy increases of health insurance rates there. I fully support Obama on this one. Some of you say that it is intervention to the economical sector. However there is nothing wrong in that. Our government is only trying to make the situation in the country more stable. They are not regulating those insurance rates for their own purposes. It would be like some sort of social liberalism with minimal government intervention. Obama is more innovative then republicans were, that's why some decision can be strange and people are just not used to them. I have read one story about New Jersey insurance company (I won't name it) which was making insurance bigger by themselves just because some CEO's were stealing our money. If there will be a watchdog like Federal Board there will be no such stories I think. So I fully support Obama on this reform and let's hope that it will last long. Thanks for the article by the way.
corporations and are simply unable to get anything done that actually benefits the people they're supposed to serve. What have they done to serve you in any meaningful way in the past 30-40 years? They have done plenty to harm you - NAFTA and banking deregulation, for instance. The higher up their position, the more in bed with them they are. Thus, the corrupted Senate and presidency.
America is a nation in steep decline and people elected Obama 'hoping' he could reverse the trend; little did they suspect he would be as much in bed with the plutocrats as Bush. The recent Supreme Court decision will hasten the decline; time to think about emigrating.
C&L - please get the smirking face of our president off of my computer screen. I can no longer stand to look at or listen to him.
"setting the parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in the market."
Aren't a lot of cards Prime-plus too get an APR?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
government to regulate rate increases (which it won't do until AFTER increases go into effect) when they think a 30% or higher return on credit cards is o.k.?
What happens to the regulatory agency once it's populated by republicans like Leiberman?
Not republicans necessarily. Just ex lobbyist apparatchiks like they do at SEC, the Fed, the FDA, etc.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
Yeap...Just like only worse.
Every state has an Insurance Commission which was formed to do that exact same thing.
Now look at your premium notice, if you are lucky enough to have health insurance, and see how much good your state insurance commission is doing on keeping your premiums affordable.
What makes you think that adding one more will do any better?
The lobbyists and the regulated own regulatory boards, and they will have their a**kissers appointed to those boards before you can finish your coffee.
No public option? Obama is beginning a new debate over health care. And guess what! The repubs won't vote for it, they want the status quo. Clueless.
This is not my father's America
vote for this misbegotten proposal. Mandating purchase, penalites for failure to purchase, restrictions on womens care, government panels set up to "combat" the insurance companies "after" they've "unreasonably" raised rates or denied care.
I have absolutely no faith that government panels will give a shi* about us.
Only the collective cares enough to give a shit and collect it too.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
No public option...the bone Obama is tossing is this board. How'd ya like it? This WH thinks we are as stupid as the last occupant did
is everyone in washington dc and the whitehouse
as stupid as palin?
Because the public wants the Public Option?
Because he wants this to fail?
The public? Are you kidding? They don't give a shit what the public wants. They are in the pockets of the insurers.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
many months ago that there wouldn't be any government-run plan eating into their profits (see Who's Killing the Public Option? President Obama With a Rahm-Bow). Therefore, you can be sure that any government board overseeing rate increases will also not eat into their profits.
The only way to control prices is for an across-the-board NON-PROFIT healthcare system, like every other modern nation has. Why won't we get it? Because the American government has been taken over by the corporations and no longer serves the people.
It should be an open national embarrassment that every little Bumblestan and declining European nation can run a health care program which provides better and more solvent health care than America has done, or plans to do.
Our health care system has all of the logic, universality, and modernity of that fabled Islamic locale, Bumf**k, Egypt, and the only difference is the Rock instead of the pyramid.
Single Payer or nothing.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
agreed.
This must be a trap! :P
Study the symptoms not the virus...
everywhere at once.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
.
Wistful thinking. Wistful, not wishful.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I'd have prefered someone else to have won the last election - and wistfully wishing (damn!) someone like Kucinich would kick his ass in the next election.
Just call me a dreamer.
its no trap..it is political bullshit that is insulting.
...Obama should propose another Federal board to control "military contractor" rates.
...and another to control housing rates.
...and another to control oil rates.
...and another to control food rates.
...and another to control tax rates. (ect. ect..)
(NOT!)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Czar of The Federal Board of Commentariat Control!
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Board to determine what's torture or not. Whoops.
Public Option or Medicare for all is the control and only control that will work. No boards required.
"..giving the federal government new power..."
The magic words that makes teabaggin' Retroublican heads explode!
The Health Care Plan To Nowhere.
in a federal uniform deliver the mail.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
and since the post office is strictly regulated by laws that can be very punitive, I am pretty sure that postal carriers will NOT be stealing my checks. No such assurance if it goes private.
No, I don't trust FedEx. They once lost a very important package of urgent material I needed, and didn't give a damn.
able to raise their rates, at will, might be a very good thing. We would then be more or less forced into single payer.
raising rates, or charging higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. They'd have to be nuts to close their company when by all accounts it would still be a major cash cow that produces NOTHING, especially with everyone being mandated to purchase.
Head fake!
Seriously. If the insurance companies shift to defend against this, then the public option might get by.
If I had wanted cream and sugar why order the damn coffee?
Purveyors of the REAL progressive meme have declared Obama to be a chess player. With your name you should know this and adhere to it religiously.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Whatever metaphor ya choose, Obama's not going to go into negotiations with the GOP and give away his bishops for their pawns.
Maybe his leverage here is anti-trust. He regulates with anti-trust, or we open the market.
Do any of them really play chess? I doubt it.
He's already knocked most of the pieces on the floor.
IMHO, regardless of what they do, it won't matter much to me. When employed I always had good insurance. Since unemployed, I'm solely at the mercy of the taxpayer, free health clinics, and non-refusal @ E.R. visit. But watching the fallout from this controversy will be real~~very real!
Windfall Profits Taxes on For-Profits -- job done!
-
How is it that non-profit healthcare providers can own subsidiary for-profit companies, such as diagnostic testing facilities?
-
How is it that non-profit healthcare providers can pay their boards of directors such princely sums, between their salaries and bonuses and total compensation packages?
-
How is it that non-profit healthcare providers can pay their medical review personnel salaries and bonuses based upon the percentage of medical claims denied?
-
How is it that the non-existent Federal anti-monopoly regulations exclusively for healthcare providers has no control over interlocking interstate healthcare providers, nor of their executive pay packages, nor of their percentage of medical claims denial, nor of any transparent claims appeal process, let alone their percentage of profit?
-
How is it that, unlike any other service industry, the healthcare providers have no restrictions on taking customer / patient / client money by way of insurance premiums for years, even decades, all while having an out via "too expensive" or "pre-existing condition" to fall back on in order to deny coverage?
-
How is it that the healthcare provider industry can take customer / patient / client money under false pretenses, and then deny coverage, without a total refund (plus interest) for premiums refunded to the client?
-
How is it that the FTC has no recourse against these healthcare providers regarding breaking contracts with patients, or taking money under false pretenses (fraud), or even false or misleading advertising?
-
Whatever happened to aspects of good governance, civic contracts, public subsidies, or even the Hippocratic Oath in regard to the healthcare provider industry?
-
-
And why would I expect any politician, at any level of office, to truthfully answer such questions -- questions, which if answered would doom their political career and future employment prospects within the Corporatist State?
It is time, past time, to deconstruct the private for-profit health care system in this country and bring us, dragging and kicking, into the industrialized 20th century and provide universal single-payer healthcare. HR-676 is the best, and only rational, first step back into the future -- otherwise this country is doomed to return to the Dark Ages regarding medical care.
-
Obama, are you listening?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
to the plutocrats.
And they're all a bunch of Mickey Mouse politicians.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan ADDED a brand NEW premium of $88 a month OVER what Medicaid or extra help will pay. For someone with income of $708 a month, this increase, especially along with NEW co-pays for doctor visits and medications, and coupled with no increase in benefits to Disabled, Elderly and Sick Social Security and SSI recipients, is simply out of reach.
As of March 1st, those who cannot come up with that additional amount will be dropped from the coverage they have now, including myself and end up with even HIGHER costs.
I have over $315 in co-pays for Jan and Feb alone due to pre and post op testing and a bill from Blue Cross for $264. Do they just thing money grows on trees for average people like it does for them? Or maybe they think it just materializes out to thin air like a rainbow.
In the state with about the highest unemployment.
But they felt so good chanting USA! USA! USA! and voting GOP to keep the homos from destroying America, helping to enable entrepreneurship and preventin' them abortions.
How's that morning in America thing working out now.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
This Administration and this Congress keeps throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick.
The only thing that sticks is the one thing they don't want to throw. Publicly funded universal healthcare and the elimination of for profit health insurance.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Virtual @ 8:51
I feel exactly like you do whenever I hear or see any hypocritical, arse-kissing,phoney Jesus-Freak,hiding in-the-closet Republican or any of their minions!
But "controlling" rates is a ridiculous overstatement. In Illinois, I don't believe the "board" has disapproved a requested increase more than once in the past forty years.
Remember, we already have a "board" controlling banks (The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve). How's that working?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Higher rates are good for America! Higher rates means more profits for the insurance companies that guard our national health.
If we undermine the ability of those insurers to properly price their
profitsrisk, then it will undermine their business. Which will damage our economy. Which will mean that we will be weakened as a nation...and then....and THENNNNN...the terrorists WIN!!Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Puts the Republicans on the defensive with nothing more than a proposal. If it actually came to pass the insurance companies would be forced to fall back on recission to meet Wall Street's projections in effect forcing them to recruit for a publicly run alternative. Quite shrewd if you ask me.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
will screw up with out any help from Repugs. The Repugs can just sit back and watch Obama implode. The great messiah is no longer trusted, he is a complete lame duck. Go back to Chicago and take Emanuel with you.
continues to place bandaids ("regulations") on this cancerous tumor ("for-profit health insurance corporations") we have on our healthcare system, the tumor will continue to kill the system.
THE FOR-PROFIT HEALTHCARE CORPORATIONS NEED TO BE EXCISED FROM THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO FIX IT.
After much pain, EVENTUALLY the American people will figure out the solution (Medicare for All with the elimination of PROFIT from the system). It's almost too late now.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Ahhhhhhhh. He's a member.
*
A heh heh...you said "member".
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
He knows it will fail, that is why he is proposing it. A single payer/public option solution is too effective, fair and progressive. Therefore, it has to be killed, probably at the insistence of that F*UCKING RETARD Rahm.
trying another con on the sweaty gullible masses needing healthcare. The Nobel Peace Prize Winner and his war in Afghanistan on behalf of Big Oil, has again cost the lives of innocents through High Tech Air Raids conducted by low tech morons. Bringing democracy to another set of sweaty masses whether they want it or not, thanks Barry. You are such a spineless fuck-up.
Single Payer Health Care. Anything else is a slap in the face to the American people.
NOBODY 2012
A "Federal Board"???
Just make all health insurers non profit by law.
Done.
This guy makes everything so f-ing difficult.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
"Obama To Propose Federal Board To Control Health Insurance"
Proposing is one thing; achieving is something else.
I think I will sit on my hands until this is an achieved fact.
Gee, if the insurance companies can't raise rates, they'll discourage treatment and refuse to insure people that will cost them money!
So, in other words, they'll continue to act the same way they do now.
For some time I have been saying that this so-called health summit is nothing more than an infomercial for the democrat rats thinking of deserting a rotting ship of state. Now John Boehner says the same thing. Perhaps he too reads Hot Air!!!!:
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement in response to the partisan health care proposal posted online by the White House for discussion at the upcoming bipartisan health care summit:
“The President has crippled the credibility of this week’s summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare benefits.
“This week’s summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial for continuing on a partisan course that relies on more backroom deals and parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and jam through a massive government takeover of health care.
_________________
Acne Treatment
Comments are closed on this entry