07 Mar '10 16:53>
First, I'm going to make a big concession right off the bat. Something has to be done. I was watching the Lauer report this morning and the astounding rate at which premiums have risen recently, mostly to fuel larger and larger bonuses for insurance company executives, is disturbing. I have no problem with big executive bonuses per se; but when it comes at the direct price of a larger number of people being uninsured or underinsured, something needs to be done about it. Right now, the system works fine for me, but:
a) There are too many for whom it does not work; and
b) If insurance companies are allowed to continuously raise rates with no repercussions, it's only a matter of time until it's a problem for people like me as well
So, what to do?
I'm on record advocating a public Medicare-like option for all with reasonable premiums (which are also based on income and resources), coupled with deregulation of private insurers. I think competition from the public option and each other would keep insurance companies on the straight and narrow. I still think this is the best idea. But I recognize that it will not happen. There's too much antipathy for the "public option" as it were.
So, aside from subsidizing insurance for the lower middle class (which is probably necessary in some form or another), what about the system itself.
It seems to me the two political parties are arguing opposite means to the same goal. The goal is putting a check on insurers' ability to raise premiums to unreasonable levels and engage in unsavory practices like retroactive termination, denial for unknown pre-existing conditions, etc.
The Democrats are arguing for increased regulation:
- prohibit premium hikes beyond a certain point
- prohibit denials based on pre-existing conditions
- prohibit health criteria for obtaining insurance in the first place
- cap executive pay
etc.
The Republicans are arguing for decreased regulation:
- Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state line
- reduce state limitations on the types of policies that can be sold
- cap punitive damages against healthcare providers (okay, this is not really decreasing regulation, but tort reform is a GOP plank)
etc.
Something no one's arguing for, but should be done:
- eliminate insurers' tort immunity
My point is:
Maybe BOTH positions are necessary and appropriate. Can we have BOTH increased regulation and decreased regulation at the same time? Can we cap executives' pay, allow insurers to sell across state lines, prohibit denials of existing customers based on unknown pre-existing conditions AND decrease regulation on the types of policies that can be sold?
Is anyone willing to take the better elements of BOTH plans and use them to construct a real solution.*
* There's no need to respond that "there's no real solution but a single payer system." I know many of you think that, but fighting over that is not really what I'm looking to do with this thread.
a) There are too many for whom it does not work; and
b) If insurance companies are allowed to continuously raise rates with no repercussions, it's only a matter of time until it's a problem for people like me as well
So, what to do?
I'm on record advocating a public Medicare-like option for all with reasonable premiums (which are also based on income and resources), coupled with deregulation of private insurers. I think competition from the public option and each other would keep insurance companies on the straight and narrow. I still think this is the best idea. But I recognize that it will not happen. There's too much antipathy for the "public option" as it were.
So, aside from subsidizing insurance for the lower middle class (which is probably necessary in some form or another), what about the system itself.
It seems to me the two political parties are arguing opposite means to the same goal. The goal is putting a check on insurers' ability to raise premiums to unreasonable levels and engage in unsavory practices like retroactive termination, denial for unknown pre-existing conditions, etc.
The Democrats are arguing for increased regulation:
- prohibit premium hikes beyond a certain point
- prohibit denials based on pre-existing conditions
- prohibit health criteria for obtaining insurance in the first place
- cap executive pay
etc.
The Republicans are arguing for decreased regulation:
- Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state line
- reduce state limitations on the types of policies that can be sold
- cap punitive damages against healthcare providers (okay, this is not really decreasing regulation, but tort reform is a GOP plank)
etc.
Something no one's arguing for, but should be done:
- eliminate insurers' tort immunity
My point is:
Maybe BOTH positions are necessary and appropriate. Can we have BOTH increased regulation and decreased regulation at the same time? Can we cap executives' pay, allow insurers to sell across state lines, prohibit denials of existing customers based on unknown pre-existing conditions AND decrease regulation on the types of policies that can be sold?
Is anyone willing to take the better elements of BOTH plans and use them to construct a real solution.*
* There's no need to respond that "there's no real solution but a single payer system." I know many of you think that, but fighting over that is not really what I'm looking to do with this thread.