“Those guys specialize in tax shelters,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. “Clearly this is not their area of expertise.”

Says the guys who underestimated the deficit by what? $2-3 trillion? Yeah, they are clearly the experts on accounting.

–Blacksheep, I’ve been covered by employer group health plans for 30 years. My employer is being taken over by another company. If I’m terminated, once COBRA ends, I will be unable to buy individual coverage for my pre-existing conditions except under high risk plans.

Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM

While I certainly sympathize with your predicament, and pray for the best for you, I echo veni’s sentiments.

Also, perhaps your situation is exacerbated by having employer-based insurance. Many of those who are currently numbered among the ‘uninsured’ were simply folks who, at the time of the survey, were waiting for their coverage at their new job to start. If you were to get your own insurance at a young age, before any pre-existing conditions had a chance to manifest (at least for the vast bulk of the population), then you wouldn’t have to worry about not getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions, would you?

In a free market, the pre-existing conditions exclusion would probably be a good thing, because it would encourage folks to join the insurance plan early, and thus spread the risk over a larger pool. Exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions is only bad in the stupid employer-based insurance structure we have now.

–In Texas, the cost for my family would be about $2600/month under the high risk pool. (The premium depends on the plan purchased).

Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Well, since the health insurance industry averages about 3-4% profit margins after all costs are subtracted, it would seem that to them, the cost of insuring you is about $2500/month and they are making a net of $100/month. You say you’ve been covered under employer plans for 30 years. Well, did you save any money in case you needed to cover your own insurance? If you didn’t, why didn’t you? You know you have a pre-existing condition, so why didn’t you put money away just in case. If you did put money away, but wanted to use it for other things and are now disgruntled because you have to use it for insurance, you can either take your chances with no insurance or suck it up and pay the monthly premium.

I’m still not seeing any reason whatsoever why you should get some of my income to cover your health care costs.

If you want coverage for pre-existing conditions, you need to pair that with an effective individual mandate that makes it expensive for people to not have insurance.
Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM

The real public policy pickle is this: How do you incentivize consumers to select cost-effective health care options without defeating the entire purpose of medical insurance, which is to protect people against sudden, expensive health care needs?

The problem with a mandate is that mandating insurance coverage, without forcing the consumer to internalize the cost of his care, results in dramatic overutilization of medical services. This is a huge problem in Massachusetts. They’re only on the hook for their $20 copay or whatever it is, so why not go to the doctor every time they get the sniffles? The result? Huge lines, care rationing, and spiralling costs.

I don’t purport to have all the answers, although I like the concept of high deductible plans for cutting some of that crap out. But this is a really, really tough issue, and not one I trust the Democrats to throw together to fulfill every leftist’s government takeover wet dream.

–In Texas, the cost for my family would be about $2600/month under the high risk pool. (The premium depends on the plan purchased).

–Blacksheep, I’ve been covered by employer group health plans for 30 years. My employer is being taken over by another company. If I’m terminated, once COBRA ends, I will be unable to buy individual coverage for my pre-existing conditions except under high risk plans.

Under your plan, there’s no requirement for insurance companies to offer insurance that covers pre-existing conditions or not to raise prices significantly once someone gets sick.

Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Other than the fact that were I a competitor to an insurance company that increased rates once patients got sick, I would find a way to attract customers by making the undertaking not to do so. I think accident forgiveness in automobile insurance is a somewhat comparable phenomenon.

In any event, demanding coverage for pre-existing conditions is equivalent to demanding other people pay for my known illness. Why would they do that? Do I get auto-coverage to pay for pre-existing dents in my car? I probably could, but it would cost me more than fixing those dents myself.

Get coverage early, have medical savings plans, live healthily and accrue savings prudently. In other words, conduct yourself responsibly, and you’ll reduce the likelihood that you’ll be in such a state as to have no option but to ask other people to pay for your illness.

Under your plan, there’s no requirement for insurance companies to offer insurance that covers pre-existing conditions or not to raise prices significantly once someone gets sick.

Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM

And if that plan does not offer what people want, no one will buy it. At least they won’t as long as no one is forcing them to do so.

And it would be far easier for the feds to just to disallow recission after a certain period (like they already do with life insurance). Gov’t reinsurance would keep ins companies from raising prices just because you get sick, although sick people really should pay more than well people for health insurance. If they can’t afford it, there’s Medicaid or state high-risk pools. These are small, simple solutions that would directly address our problems instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Here’s a concept: Have everybody pay for their own health care, and allow them to buy insurance to cover catastrophic illness/injury. Give them tax breaks to put money in the bank to be used for medical expenses. That brings consumers more in touch with the costs, and creates an incentive for suppliers to offer a lower-cost product. Ok, maybe at the bottom end, you get care fashioned in the image of Ronald McDonald, but I’d rather have a Big Mac than nothing.

The classic examples of letting the market do its thing are Lasik and plastic surgery. The range of product and cost options are staggering: there’s something for everyone, at every price-point.

–Lasik and plastic surgery are generally one-time, voluntary procedures. That’s not the case if someone gets sick and needs some sort of medical help. Under your plan, there’s no requirement for insurance companies to offer insurance that covers pre-existing conditions or not to raise prices significantly once someone gets sick.

Why would employers suddenly decide it makes sense to dump health insurance and pay a fine?

Do the math. It would be cheaper to pay the fine..

Caper29 on October 12, 2009 at 2:23 PM

only in the beginning,than it will have to get more expensive to cover the REAL costs. The fines will go up.

“Those guys specialize in tax shelters,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. “Clearly this is not their area of expertise.”

Their first reaction is always to attack the motives and integrity of the messenger. These are dangerous people.

I think it is a good bet we can trust the bean counters of insurance companies to predict what the result of the health care plan will be. They understand it and what the impact on them, and us, will be. The public is much less aware what is in it, but we have a good idea of what is in it and that it is not in our best interest to have it, and then you have congress who admits they don’t know what is in it or can understand it, let alone feel they can or need to read it, but they will vote for it and figure it out later.

Who do you think we should listen to?

That’s why I’m all in favor of requiring people to have health insurance and making it expensive for them if they don’t.

Jimbo3 on October 12, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Which is really just wealth redistribution.

Here’s a concept: Have everybody pay for their own health care, and allow them to buy insurance to cover catastrophic illness/injury. Give them tax breaks to put money in the bank to be used for medical expenses. That brings consumers more in touch with the costs, and creates an incentive for suppliers to offer a lower-cost product. Ok, maybe at the bottom end, you get care fashioned in the image of Ronald McDonald, but I’d rather have a Big Mac than nothing.

The classic examples of letting the market do its thing are Lasik and plastic surgery. The range of product and cost options are staggering: there’s something for everyone, at every price-point.

Look at cellular telephones. Do you really believe that if the profit motive had been removed from the market by the government (after all don’t cell phones enhance the “right” of Free Speech?), we’d have the phones we have today, or would we still have suitcase-sized phones with bakelite handsets?

The poor, blacks and illegals will be the pivot in winning the war against our country without firing a shot.

volsense on October 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM

That seems like a bad bet in a country with as many guns as this one.

It is not feasible that 52% of the population tell the other 48% of the population what to do at the level of granularity that the Left seems to want. It’s not a stable situation and won’t stand for long, electoral processes or no electoral processes.