Healthcare overhaul won't stop insurance company premium increases

[Better Believe It]

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases
The new law doesn't prevent rate hikes such as Anthem Blue Cross' double-digit increase last year. 'It is a very big loophole,' says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.
By Noam N. Levey
April 13, 2010

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

"It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-premiums13-2010apr13,0,6665250,full.story

So what are the chances the Democrats will pass this legislation in the Senate? Unless the Democratic leadership changes its policy and decides to challenge Republican obstructionism by forcing them to engage in real filibusters, the proposed legislation is dead on arrival.

They will not get 60 Senate votes to end fake Republican procedural "filibusters".

Period.

They could force Republicans to actually filibuster but won't do that because it will make Republicans angry.

BBI

[AngryAmish]

1. ?

[tridim]

2. They're free to do so, at their own peril.

There will be plenty of smart companies that play ball and follow the intent of the LAW. The rest will die due to simple economics.

[Better Believe It]

3. You going to threaten to beat them with a wet noodle? Scary!

The healthcare bill "peril" will give the health insurance industry up to 30 million new customers!

Oh boy, are they ever pissed with that!

[dionysus]

5. "says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation."

in your haste to fill a pamper, you overlooked this sentence.

[tridim]

8. Do you think the shareholders will approve of the self-inflicted death of their company?

People always seek out the best service at the lowest price, insurance is no different.

[laughingliberal]

20. It will be just as it has been. If they all raise their prices to around the same level...

Remember, we did not repeal their anti-trust exemptions.

[Better Believe It]

22. So they no longer have their anti-trust exemption? When did that happen?

They engage in collusion and set rates that will enrich all of the major carriers at our expense.

That's why many have proposed ending their anti-trust exemption.

[eridani]

34. What bullshit. You never get "service" from an insurance company unless you get sick

Which mwans that the 85% of the population accounting for only 15% of health care expenses has absolutely no basis to know anything about insurance company '"ervice."

[laughingliberal]

19. Lol! Or sic Stewie on them. nt

[Bluebear]

4. Yes, all we have to do is believe, really hard~!

:silly:

[mdmc]

11. You think ANY of them won't milk us to death?

I think that they are still a monopoly, are they not?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. "There will be plenty of smart companies ..."

that play ball and follow the intent of the LAW."

:wow:

That's the problem -- there IS NO FEDERAL LAW stopping them from raising their rates to kingdom come if they wish. As for a market solution -- if all the available insurance companies are doing it, where the fuck is a consumer supposed to go??

As for companies suddenly developing a concious and doing the right thing by their customers just because, all I can say is:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Brigid]

6. I have a serious pre-existing condition.

I refuse to believe that if I ever have to buy a policy on my own, I won't have to pay an arm and a leg for it, no matter what regulations are in place. That is why only a single payer system will do.

[HillbillyBob]

7. Yup. I have several pre existing conditions that were

not so bad until bcbs dumped me. I had to end up homeless, really sick and lost all assets. Now I am on medicare/medicaid and ADAP, now there is talk of dumping ADAP. Even co pays will take all of my ssd to pay for them.

[Bluebear]

9. +1

[The River]

10. Increased Prices

will only hasten the day we transition to Single Payer.

[mdmc]

12. I agree

this whole hcr bill is set up to fail.
For profit insurance can never compete with a single payer system.

Eventually people will tire of getting ripped off and will demand access to affordable medical treatment.

[Brigid]

14. Hmmm . . .

That might be the ticket. We'll see.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Well look on the bright side

At least 30+ millions more Americans will be covered as a result of this legislation.

I think the glass is half full.

[MadHound]

17. Yeah, covered by over priced, underperforming insurance that they are forced to buy

:woohoo:
:eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Better than no coverage at all

:hi:

[Better Believe It]

23. Right. 30 million more Americans will pay insurance companies for the right to get screwed by them

That's the bright side!

[librechik]

15. I believe these bills would be subject to reconciliation--51 votes.

[laughingliberal]

26. I believe Feinstein's bill to do this to begin with had to be scuttled because it did not meet the

test of the Byrd rule.

[librechik]

28. gotta keep trying anyway--how hard can it be?

I make myself laugh!

[Better Believe It]

29. "The Senate parliamentarian can only can advise, It is the vice president who rules"

Biden rules
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
March 1, 2010

Former Senate parliamentarian of 37 years Robert Dove said on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown that the vice president, who also functions as the president of the Senate, can override the parliamentarian when it comes to what qualifies under reconciliation.

"The parliamentarian only can advise," Dove said. "It is the vice president who rules."

Here's a transcript of the exchange:


DOVE: It is the decision of the vice president whether or not to play a role here.

TODD: He can play president of the Senate.

DOVE: Absolutely. And I have seen vice presidents play that role in other, very important situations. Hubert Humphrey...

GUTHRIE: So the vice president could overrule the parliamentarian?

DOVE: Oh, absolutely. The parliamentarian only can advise. It is the vice president who rules. But I will say that not since Hubert Humphrey have I seen a vice president try to play that kind of role in the Senate.

TODD: But not since Hubert Humphrey have we had a vice president this familiar with Senate rules as this vice president in Joe Biden.

DOVE: That's why I brought this up. Yes. Humphrey had been the majority whip. He had been in the Senate since 1948.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/01/2215134.aspx

[MadHound]

18. And isn't that what those of us who objected to this mandated gift to the insurance industry

Were saying all along. Weak price controls, no incentive to lower prices, a gift to the insurance industry, the destruction of the middle and working class as premiums continue to go up and up.

Why should the insurance companies compete with each other now, they have little incentive. They can all charge high rates and rake in the big bucks.

[jtrockville]

33. Yes indeed. We saw it coming. It was crystal clear.

[Vinca]

21. This is why, without major revisions, this bill will not work for millions

of the uninsured. Subsidies are based on income, not the cost of premiums. Today I might get a $1,000 subsidy for a $6,000 policy, by it may be $1,000 on a $12,000 policy next year. The end result could actually be more people uninsured than there are now. Maybe that's what it will take to get single payer. It's funny. I was reading an article in a Canadian magazine and politicians there are also addressing the high cost of health care. They have found they must do the polar opposite of politicians in this country to earn votes. They have to promise not to institute "US-style" health care.

[laughingliberal]

24. Do not forget, those subsidies are paid for by our tax dollars

The subsidy might make the policies affordable for some consumers but it is going to drain more and more of the treasury as they increase prices. Wouldn't it have made sense to get more for our money than we did?

[Yo_Mama]

32. This is wrong

The subsidy is not based on a dollar amount - it's based on a percentage of your costs that is related to income.

[QC]

27. Why surprise surprise surprise!

[deaniac21]

30. .

[Yo_Mama]

31. It might not do much good anyway

You can't force companies to underwrite insurance at a loss.

In MA, there's a huge rate fight going on now. Six of the companies are going to court over the rejected rate increases, and I'm pretty sure some of those are nonprofits.

Insurance companies have to bring in enough in premiums to cover the payments out. And economic times like these - in which a lot of people can't pay for insurance - raise costs overall for the ones left in the pool and generally raise uncompensated care costs for hospitals and thus their charges the insurers have to pay. And mind you, this is happening in MA which already has a system similar to that which will go into effect in 2014 nationally.

According to the state's court filing, some of these companies are in trouble, given the quoted RBC levels. PDF of state's filing:
http://hcfa.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Affidavit%20of%20Kevin%20Beagan.pdf

[eridani]

35. Indeed. That is why their CEOs need to be put up against a wall and shot

They perform no useful service. With national health care, everybody pays for the "losses" that are inevitable whenever we pay for health care.

[amborin]

36. course not; and many will not be able to afford co-pays or deducibles

[jeanpalmer]

37. If underlying costs are going up

insurance companies will have to raise rates. When Obama used the rate increase on the Ohio woman to beat up insurance companies, Anthem Blue Cross subsequently made the statement that the rate increase was in response to increased costs. I was hoping Congress or the President would look into that claim to see if it was true. But no one did, that I'm aware of. I think Sebellius made a public demand at the time for Blue Cross to justify the rate increase, but there was no follow-up or explanation of what was found, if anything. It seemed at the time that the political uproar over the premium increase was just posturing to get the health bill passed. Regardless, the premium increase was not rolled back.

The new law requires insurance companies to justify rate increases to the HHS Secretary, but she has no power to control rate increases. All she can do is publish the insurance company's justification on the internet. That's why when people used to tout the health bill as "requiring justification od rate increases" to a new "rate authority," it was a joke.

The issue of what is driving up health care costs -- is it greedy insurance companies or increasing underlying costs, or both -- was never brought up for discussion in Congress. It would have been nice to have had some documentation on that issue, and then perhaps a policy response based on that documentation. But instead, the rising costs were noted, but the response was "we need mandated insurance." Which only ensures that rising underlying costs, if they're the problem, will be passed onto everyone.

[Dank Nugs]

38. Disband the Corporate Charters of all for-profit insurance providers

then expand medicare to all, implement cost controls, and use bargaining power to lower cost of drugs.

Why even have the middleman? Oh, right. Corporations are people too. I forgot.