Insurance Industry Declares Open War on Reform: They Promise to Raise Their Rates if Reform Passes

by: Mike Lux

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:00


The insurance industry inadvertently gave health reformers the best argument we ever could have had to pass a public option and the strongest possible regulations on insurers. Declaring that rates will go up dramatically if reform passes, insurers launched a full-scale open assault on the idea of any reform at all yesterday, except I guess a reform plan especially tailored to them and their profitability. What they left out of their little study is that they are the ones who decide when rates go up because the biggest companies have very little competition in most of the markets they are in. There is no federal rate regulation, there is no anti-trust enforcement in insurance (they are specifically exempted from it in the McCarran-Ferguson Act), and unless there is a public option, there will be little competition. They will be the ones who decide if the rates go up, and they have just guaranteed they would raise those rates if we don't stop them from doing it.

It's sort of like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles holding the gun to his own head, and saying "back off or I'll shoot." The insurance industry is saying that if they don't like what's in the bill, they will just decide to arbitrarily raise the rates. But we can stop those rates from going up by checking the insurers' power. That's why a public option, real competition for an arrogant out-of-control, way-too-powerful industry, is so essential. Without it, we are left to their whims, and anytime, for my reason, they will just jack up their rates. If their stocks go down, if they just want more profits, if some regulation they don't like is passed, they will just raise their rates. With a strong, robust, nationwide public option, we can force insurers to the table, and give them real competition.

Personally, I think we ought to repeal McCarran-Ferguson and impose tough rate regulation as well. That would really open up competition and guarantee lower prices. But at the very minimum, we have to have a strong national public option. The insurance industry has just reminded us as to why that is. Thanks for the help in making our case, friends.

By the way, it's not just me who thinks this. Voters do not support being forced to buy health insurance unless there is a public option- at that point, as the polling clearly documents, voters are fine with an insurance mandate. As long as there is real competition with a public option, voters are fine with being asked to buy insurance. Sometimes I think regular voters are smarter than the politicians they elect to govern them.

Mike Lux :: Insurance Industry Declares Open War on Reform: They Promise to Raise Their Rates if Reform Passes

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What about short-term prospects? (4.00 / 2)
If insurance reform doesn't go into effect until 2013, could insurance companies make everyone miserable until then and get Democrats voted out of office?  Not that this would be an argument against reform (if anything, it's an argument that the reforms need to go into effect sooner), but I'm just curious as to what their game plan is.

They would do that anyways... (4.00 / 3)
There's nothing there to stop them!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
This is a trigger I could support!~!!!! (4.00 / 1)

If they actually do this, if they actually start raising rates the fallout would be immediate and sharp. they would be hated even more, by even more people, and the "permission" to  pull the trigger (lol) on legislation that should be drawn up tomorrow morning.

Pelosi should announce tomorrow a set of laws, with a trigger (lol), that installs windfall taxes on Health Insurance companies, and price regulation. This also means that any "exemption" from the Sherman Antitrust Act would be (and already should be) removed. The trigger could also establish a single payer.

I support this trigger!!!

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 2)
I'm writing a post about that, among other things, tomorrow. Dems need to make sure there is a way to stop the insurers from doing this embedded into the bill.

[ Parent ]
Open up the public option (4.00 / 2)
to EVERYONE.

Cite this threat as the reason why that's necessary, because the insurance CEOs' have just demonstrated they cannot be trusted to keep it clean otherwise.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
What this should really be doing… (4.00 / 10)
...is hardening our resolve to push a single-payer plan. Anyone out there for just ridding ourselves of the health-insurance racket once and for all?

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

re: single-payer (4.00 / 3)
Anyone out there for just ridding ourselves of the health-insurance racket once and for all?

raises hand

they are nothing more than a criminal syndicate and they have to be taken out


[ Parent ]
that's way too radical, man (4.00 / 3)
No, the only way ahead is to keep throwing shitty compromise after shitty compromise at the wall, in the hopes that one of them will stick in the populace's minds long enough for the Democrats to pass the buck once again.

Co-ops didn't work. Triggers didn't work. An opt-out public option didn't work. So they're just going to have to come up with newer, shiner, better ways to not give us what we want while still tricking us into believing that we're getting it.

I mean, you don't expect these guys to actually try to solve the problem, do ya?


[ Parent ]
Anyone know where the candidates in the MA Senate election (0.00 / 0)
stand on Medicare for All?  I've been thinking that this is a great place to start on getting pro-single payer Senators, especially since it's in MA and it was Ted Kennedy's seat.

[ Parent ]
er... (4.00 / 3)
... except I guess a reform plan especially tailored to them and their profitability.

oh please, Br'er Baucus, don't throw us in that briar patch!

sometimes watching Democrats negotiate with industry is just too painful.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


although. (0.00 / 0)
via FDL (Did Schumer Cause the AHIP Freak Out?), i see the Finance Committee has been getting uppity:
By a vote of 22 to 1, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday made significant changes to the individual-mandate provisions in its overhaul bill. Sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, the amendment would delay for one year any penalties for not having insurance and then phase them in over a four-year period. The fines would begin at $200 in 2014 and reach $750 in 2017.  The amendment would also decrease the level at which individuals were required to purchase coverage from 10 percent of income to eight percent of income.

plus they are weakening the mandate is some other ways as well. that's much better than i would have expected.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
Lesson learned? (4.00 / 1)
I hope so. Hopefully, Reid & Pelosi have realized that negotiations with the HMOs are useless. They were NEVER really planning to support any version of health care reform, but rather ensure that whatever is passed is so weakened that it will never really hurt them. Now we need to get Obama to get off The Baucus Caucus and see the light.

I hope there's still a chance for The White House to realize all the pre-compromises to the insurance industry were worthless and need to be scrapped ASAP just to keep all of us progressives on board.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


Accesssible PO also needed... (4.00 / 4)
In addition to having a decent public option, making it as accessible as possible has been somewhat neglected, especially since the Wyden amendment was glossed over in committee.  A public option that is only available to those without corporate sponsored health insurance may not provide enough downward pressure on rates to bend the overall cost curve.  It is important to have both a robust public option and an entry plan that allows as many individuals as possible to access it.

Yes, and Mike's suggestion too: (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I think we ought to repeal McCarran-Ferguson and impose tough rate regulation as well. That would really open up competition and guarantee lower prices.


[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search