• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama health plan would curb insurers on rate hikes

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Obama health plan would curb insurers on rate hikes - latimes.com

Reporting from Washington - President Obama's new healthcare overhaul plan would give the federal government greater authority to stop rate increases imposed by health insurers, an administration official said late Sunday.

The proposal, to be posted on the White House website Monday, would give the Health and Human Services secretary power to block premium increases that were deemed excessive.

It also would set up a panel of experts charged with evaluating the healthcare market each year and determining what would constitute a reasonable rate increase. The board's members would include consumers, doctors, economists and insurers.

Under the president's plan, rate increases outside the reasonable boundaries established by the board could be overruled by the HHS secretary, who would also have the power to require the insurer to revise its proposed rate changes or to order rebates for customers who overpaid.

Because this worked soooooo well when we did it with oil.

Seriously, this is absolutely appalling. Oh hey, what was that about this not being a government take-over?
 
Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

WASHINGTON — 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 Sunday.

+_++_

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, potentially superseding state insurance regulators. The bill would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, made up of health industry experts that would issue an annual report setting the parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in the market.

Officials said they envisioned the provision taking effect immediately after the health care bill is signed into law.

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.

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.

Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers’ Rate Increases - NYTimes.com

Remember folks it's not Government taking over anything, just the Government protect you poor, hapless, helpless victims of greedy money mad evil people.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

With the insanity and unethical practices in the insurance industry, this is one regulation that I completely agree with.

I do not understand how anyone with even the loosest grasp of economics could support this.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

I do not understand how anyone with even the loosest grasp of economics could support this.

And I do not understand how anyone with the loosest understanding of the insurance industry could not.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Yup.

And they did that with lowering the home loan requirements.

How's that worked out for us? :roll:

Not to mention with oil under Nixon. This crap doesn't work in theory, it doesn't work in practice, and it's shameful that it's even being considered.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Any industry that makes its money by denying service to those who have paid for such service needs regulation.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Yup.

And they did that with lowering the home loan requirements.

How's that worked out for us? :roll:

This doesn't make sense. The real problem wasn't the housing industry. It was the leveraging within the financial industry and securitization of the mortgages that was the real mess. Housing alone is too small a part of the economy to have caused this. What totally failed was lack of any regulation on the rating industry. When Moody's rated known C grade mortgages as As because it got them the business of rating over S&P's and then help sell them to investment houses and banks which was effectively fraud, doing nothing is not the answer.

Furthermore, AIG issuing CDS that in total were far above its capacity to meet even a fraction of its obligations with its assets is not a sign that doing nothing is acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Yup.

And they did that with lowering the home loan requirements.

How's that worked out for us? :roll:

And that is what they did with antitrust laws...

And that is what they did with product safety laws...

And that is what they did with consumer fraud laws...
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

And that is what they did with antitrust laws...

And that is what they did with product safety laws...

And that is what they did with consumer fraud laws...

Product safety laws was one I was thinking about. The other two are good ones too.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Product safety laws was one I was thinking about. The other two are good ones too.

Great minds and stuff.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Any industry that makes its money by denying service to those who have paid for such service needs regulation.

There are many problems with this. One, "regulation" is very general. Should the government enforce contracts between insurers and those who use them? Of course. Two, I find it very unlikely that, however many individual cases you find, money insurers save by denying to pay for things they have promised to pay for is any more than a drop in the bucket. Three, even if what you say is true and insurers make money by denying services, how will regulating their price increases stop that? If anything, it will make them more likely to do so to make up for lost profit. Finally, this will help large insurers stay at the top by reducing competition from small insurers who will be less able to bear the burden this will put on them.

This proposal suggests the mentality of a third grader. "Insurers are raising prices? Hey, I know, let's tell them not to!" Ugg. The more I think about it the angrier I get.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Great minds and stuff.

No offense, but it's not exactly being a great mind to decide that because one particular regulation is good, all regulations on anything are good.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

No offense, but it's not exactly being a great mind to decide that because one particular regulation is good, all regulations on anything are good.

Dav, you went the wrong way with this. OP is about a new proposed regulation. Texmaster pipes in with an example of a regulation that did not work great. I list examples of ones that do, to show that just because one does not work does not mean all do. Nowhere did I claim or suggest that examples mean everything is like that, I pointed out that flaw in another person's post. Go back and look at what I quoted, and what my response was, and note the chain of logic.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Any industry that makes its money by denying service to those who have paid for such service needs regulation.

An example of regulated insurance.
Pay attention to who denies the most claims, it's hilarious. :lol:

"according to the American Medical Association's 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card, "Medicare Denied 6.85% Of Submitted Claims – A Higher Percentage Than Any Private Insurer Sampled By The American Medical Association." Oh and when a private insurance company denies your claim, you at least have legal recourse. Good luck suing the government."

Stats show private insurers deny fewer claims than Medicare | Washington Examiner
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

An example of regulated insurance.
Pay attention to who denies the most claims, it's hilarious. :lol:

"according to the American Medical Association's 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card, "Medicare Denied 6.85% Of Submitted Claims – A Higher Percentage Than Any Private Insurer Sampled By The American Medical Association." Oh and when a private insurance company denies your claim, you at least have legal recourse. Good luck suing the government."

Stats show private insurers deny fewer claims than Medicare | Washington Examiner

Percentages are one thing. I would be curious to know the raw numbers... how many folks who receive treatment via Medicare verses how many receive treatment via private insurance. I know in my practice for example, the percentages are probably 20:1 in favor of private insurance. In other places I've worked, the ratio hasn't been quite as pronounced... probably only 8 or 10:1.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Percentages are one thing. I would be curious to know the raw numbers... how many folks who receive treatment via Medicare verses how many receive treatment via private insurance. I know in my practice for example, the percentages are probably 20:1 in favor of private insurance. In other places I've worked, the ratio hasn't been quite as pronounced... probably only 8 or 10:1.

Here is what he is referencing.
I was going to post it but PDA to vBulletin doesn't work so well.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf#page=5
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Here is what he is referencing.
I was going to post it but PDA to vBulletin doesn't work so well.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf#page=5

Very interesting. There are several that are missing, though, Horizon BCBS, Oxford and Magellan, most notably. It's also interesting to note that when looking at the "remark codes" a lot of them, across the board, are simple paperwork or routing issues.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Very interesting. There are several that are missing, though, Horizon BCBS, Oxford and Magellan, most notably. It's also interesting to note that when looking at the "remark codes" a lot of them, across the board, are simple paperwork or routing issues.

A lot of private rejections are people who don't even have coverage anymore.

This is something a bit too complicated to attempt price controls with.
That is very foolish in my opinion.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Here's the numbers in question:

denialsbyinsurer2008.jpg


And that is what they did with antitrust laws...

And that is what they did with product safety laws...

And that is what they did with consumer fraud laws...

Antitrust laws regulate whether or not a particular company controls an industry in a marketplace. They do not set price.

Product safety laws look at the objective safety of a product and set a minimum threshold for performance in order to allow things to be sold. They do not set price.

Consumer fraud laws protect individuals from actual criminal frauds perpetrated by corporations. They do not set price.

This entire thing just reeks of half-baked populism. How do they actually think this is going to work in practice?

Insurance company: "We're raising rates 25% because our costs have gone up 25% because the country is full of fat, sick, and old people."

Government: "No, you can only raise your rates 3% because the poor, hardworking, Joe Sixpack can't afford 25%."

Insurance company: "Okay, we're closing/no longer going to cover XYZ/no longer going to insure X type of people."

Government: "SEE! We need national health care!"

Actually, now that I think about it, they know exactly what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

With the insanity and unethical practices in the insurance industry, this is one regulation that I completely agree with.
Mommy Government is the only Answer to lifes problems.


Here's the thing, if you increase competition by allowing insurers to sell across state lines... when a company starts jacking prices too high, a competitor will offer the same service for lower rates to get business!

Works a hell'va lot better then the Gov't dictating market forces.
 
Last edited:
Obama health plan would curb insurers on rate hikes - latimes.com



Because this worked soooooo well when we did it with oil.

Seriously, this is absolutely appalling. Oh hey, what was that about this not being a government take-over?

While I have strong reservations and concerns about such an approach, the idea that policy could evolve toward a solution where the health insurance industry is regulated with respect to rates in a fashion not too dissimilar to public utilities is not surprising. The up to 39% rate hike announced by WellPoint might well have been a catalyst.

At this time, a look at the company's February 2010 10K filing suggests that business objectives other than benefit payment increases were the primary driver.

From data on pages 14 and 93 of the 10K:

Benefit payments per insured member:
2008: $1,362.16
2009: $1,383.16

Change: +1.5%

From data on pages 14 and 55 of the 10K:

Premiums received per insured member:
2008: $1,629.18
2009: $1,674.55

Change: +2.8%

From its own financial disclosure, one finds that the company raised its premiums per covered person by $2.16 for every $1 increase in its benefit payments per insured person.

To date, the company has provided no specific detailed actuarial and financial data that would allow one to really dig into its operations to assess the validity of the substantial rate hike. Worse, based on the highly general nature of comments from company spokespersons, I don't believe the company will provide Congress with anything close to that level of disclosure in its testimony this week.

IMO, the company should use the opportunity presented by its testimony before Congress to fully disclose financial and actuarial data by demographic group, census tract, and other market subsegments if it wishes to substantiate its forthcoming rate hike. Otherwise, one can only go by the information it has filed with regulators and that information does not show a company that is hemorrhaging from rising benefits payments, much less one that is in a so-called "death spiral." And, in the absence of such disclosure, it is more likely than not that new policies that increase government oversight, even approval, over health insurance rates could gain political momentum.

Does the company see the big picture, much less understand it? Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
Instead of supporting theft by the government, start your own health insurance business.

If our system is so bad, answer these three questions.

1) Why are there no alternatives to the current insurance industry? With 50 plus percent of the country liberal, why don't they start their own businesses with new business models?

2) Why do Americans spend so much money on non-essentials?

3) Why don't Americans take better care of themselves?

I humbly suggest that actions speak louder than words. Americans don't want to pay for health care. They want cars and big homes. They want 200 plus channels of on-demand goodness. They want to eat junk food all day and never exercise. The excess and high cost of health care in this country is a direct result of our collective actions. The solution lies with us, not government. If Americans would eat better, exercise and spend their money on necessities first, we would not be in this mess.
 
Mommy Government is the only Answer to lifes problems.


Here's the thing, if you increase competition by allowing insurers to sell across state lines... when a company starts jacking prices too high, a competitor will offer the same service for lower rates to get business!

Works a hell'va lot better then the Gov't dictating market forces.

Instead of supporting theft by the government, start your own health insurance business.

If our system is so bad, answer these three questions.

1) Why are there no alternatives to the current insurance industry? With 50 plus percent of the country liberal, why don't they start their own businesses with new business models?

2) Why do Americans spend so much money on non-essentials?

3) Why don't Americans take better care of themselves?

I humbly suggest that actions speak louder than words. Americans don't want to pay for health care. They want cars and big homes. They want 200 plus channels of on-demand goodness. They want to eat junk food all day and never exercise. The excess and high cost of health care in this country is a direct result of our collective actions. The solution lies with us, not government. If Americans would eat better, exercise and spend their money on necessities first, we would not be in this mess.


1. 50% of the country is NOT Liberal, nice try.

2. Because their free to do what they want with their lives.

3. Because too many figure the Government will save them.


The solution is, you are right, for peopel to care about themselves, but that also means that Government needs to be stopped form OFFERING such "help".
 
Back
Top Bottom