Saturday, December 28, 2013

Five Easy Steps to Health Insurance As It Should Be


1.      Repeal ObamaCare. It is a fiasco of the first order and will hurt far more people than it is intended to help. The latest series of atrocities revolve around President BO (the amateur president)’s breaking his own “law of the land.” After insisting that the insurance-purchase mandate was not only constitutional but essential to the law's success, Obama decreed that millions of Americans are magically exempt. They are offered a “hardship exemption” if their policies were cancelled. No sign-up, no penalty tax. 

2.      Allow interstate competition among health insurance companies. 

3.      Cap excessive payouts from lawsuits by category. 

4.      Encourage health insurance companies to establish a fund to pay for pre-existing conditions. Allow them to charge an extra fee to cover those conditions. 

5.      Pass a Constitutional amendment that would limit the federal government’s role in the health insurance industry, requiring the government to revoke at least 20 of its most punitive restrictions on health insurance companies.
So there you go. It's all fixed (in your dreams).

18 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

I love the hypocrisy of #2!

That would require the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to EXPAND IT'S POWER to USURP THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES and REQUIRE the states to allow other states to offer plans within their jurisdictions.

Your proposals are inconsistent with your principals.

This is why we don't take you seriously.

Joe said...

XO: Actually, it would mean that the federal government would have to repeal its laws against insurance companies competing with one another across state lines.

Duckys here said...

Joe, never mind that the cost of malpractice is a trivial portion of our health care costs, how do you expect malpractice premiums to be reduced when the malpractice insurers (about three companies) have a monopoly?

Other than denying judicial remedies to victims what have you accomplished?

"Encourage" health insurers to establish a fund? From your premiums? I don't think you've thought this out, Joe.

Can you name some of the most odious restrictions on insurers other than their being granted an antitrust exemption?


Joe, funding health care is complicated and a critical element of our society. You have only demonstrated why we can't leave this to right wingers to manage.

Happy New Year.

XO, Craig and myself are looking forward to it.

Craig said...

XO: Actually, it would mean that the federal government would have to repeal its laws against insurance companies competing with one another across state lines.

Wrong again, Joe. Each state has their own ins. board. They use community rating to establish what premiums can be charged and what must be covered. A junk plan sold in Texas wouldn't fly in Minnesota. The feds have no say. They would have to take away state control to establish interstate ins. That, and some ins. co.s don't want to sell to states in poor health. BTW, 9 out of the bottom 10 for health of their citizens are red states.

#3. You've bought into the lie peddled by the ins. industry. Who's going to decide what's 'excessive' for a loved one left on life support, or worse, by malpractice? Here are the facts on medical malpractice. I know you won't read it, so here is a money quote,

Several studies report some of the largest malpractice awards that made headlines ultimately resulted in settlements that were only between 5% and 10% of the original jury verdict [18, 39, 41, 42]. Using closed-claim files from Texas, Hyman et al. found that 75% of plaintiffs received a payout less than the verdict [18]. The average settlement for all cases was 29% less than the verdict; and the larger the verdict amount, the greater was the reduction during posttrial proceedings. For plaintiffs with verdicts equaling or exceeding $2.5 million, 98 received less than the verdict, averaging approximately 56% of the verdict. Hyman et al. [18] found that insurance policy limits were the most important factor involved in the reductions. Of the Florida medical malpractice cases involving verdicts of $1 million or more, the mean settlement was 67% of the original jury verdict

Another study that compared injury due to malpractice against malpractice claims show only 1 in 25 victims of malpractice file suit. People are generally reluctant to sue. States that have capped awards, like Texas, have not seen any reduction in medical costs. Nothing in your "plan" addresses costs and it only exacerbates bankruptcy due to health costs by allowing more people to have crappy ins.

From the last thread, I now know asking you questions or exposing your errors is like Hitler. How about wishing you a Happy New Year? Stalin, Pol Pot?

Joe said...

Craig: "Each state has their own ins. board."

Yes, and they are prohibited by law from offering their insurance, whatever its quality, in another state under the same papers of incorporation. Some companies have managed to simi-circumvent the law by establishing themselves in other states under different names, but they cannot, by law, sell health insurance in another state.

As to your "facts," 67% of $1,000,000.00 is not peanuts. However, with sensible litigation rules the result would have been the same or less with much less spent on the litigation.

"...asking you questions or exposing your errors is like Hitler."

What does that even mean? Are you
drunk?

Craig said...

From Theo in the last thread.

These “scum” [XO, Ducky & Me] are the kinds of people that made the Soviet Union successful, and Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s Revolution

I haven't had a drink in 30 years but thanks for asking. Odd, Theo thinks the Soviet Union was successful. Okie Doke.

Craig said...

The is, Joe, malpractice is a miniscule part of driving healthcare costs. If your asking for a $1M dollar settlement or a capped settlement, malpractice must still be proven and it won't make a bit of difference in the cost of litigation. All caps do is protect ins. co.s and screw the consumer.

Joe said...

Craig: "All caps do is protect ins. co.s and screw the consumer."

Actually, they help prevent ludicrous litigation. Caps, though, would not be my first choice of ligigation reform. But caps are the only currently viable one.

Duckys here said...

I'm not much of a drinker either, Joe.

I don't drink hard stuff but I like a glass of wine at dinner and a good beer now and again.

Can you get Brooklyn Dark Chocolate Stout in Florida?

Meanwhile, why should people be denied judicial remedy for malpractice?

Joe said...

Ducky: "Meanwhile, why should people be denied judicial remedy for malpractice?"

They shouldn't be. BUT there should be some way to insure reasonable limits...but not by the feds. If anybody needs help deciding what the limits should be, I'm always here to help.

Joe said...

Oh...and as everybody knows, if it's me doin' the suin' that's a whole different ball game.

Joe said...

OK. I think I have found Blogger's problems with the comments section. (I'm not getting about 1/3 of the comments being left).I'll have to wait until I get home to get it corrected.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Yes, and they are prohibited by law from offering their insurance, whatever its quality, in another state under the same papers of incorporation. Some companies have managed to simi-circumvent the law by establishing themselves in other states under different names, but they cannot, by law, sell health insurance in another state."

It is the individual states that prohibit that! Not the feds! If you can point to a Federal Law that prohibits that, please do so.

Duckys here said...

The R's are constantly trying to introduce a bill to ALLOW sales between states.

If it were blocked at the Federal level they would be trying to REPEAL the existing statute.

See, Joe, liberals are here to help you live the life of the mind.

XO, are you booking the over/under on Joe admitting he lost this round, badly?

Duckys here said...

Joe, any comment on this excerpt from that commie rag, Forbes?

"In 2011, Georgia passed a law allowing people to buy insurance from out-of-state carriers. But not one out-of-state insurer has sought to do so. “Nobody has even asked to be approved to sell across state lines,” Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens told Teegardin. “We’re dumbfounded. We’re absolutely dumbfounded.”"

Xavier Onassis said...

Ducky - "XO, are you booking the over/under on Joe admitting he lost this round, badly?"

Of course not. He will never admit that he's wrong or that the facts don't support his point of view.

It's what makes him "Jo Joe Politico".

If he was capable of changing when presented with facts our job would have been done years ago.

The most promising thing I've seen from him was his response to caps on malpractice litigation when he said "Oh...and as everybody knows, if it's me doin' the suin' that's a whole different ball game."

He acknowledges that he doesn't want to see ANY caps on judgements when he is the one seeking a judgement.

It gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, he sees the hypocrisy in his desire to impose limits on others.

Joe said...

XO: "...he sees the hypocrisy in his desire to impose limits on others."

For the record, I do not.

Lone Ranger said...

The level of support for ObamaCare coming from the left represents the greatest level of partisan fanaticism since Nazi Germany. At least when Stalin was stripping the freedoms of the Russian people, they knew they were being oppressed. But American liberals will support Obama even though they will be subjected to the same financial disaster that other Americans face. Liberals are capable of only two political positions -- blind hatred and blind devotion.