Hey, it's easy to demonize...much easier than discussion...
However, here's the newest piece from the WSJ, which may hint
at why you have such outrageous insurance premiums.
Of course it's easier to blame me, because my state didn't "believe"...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...emEditorialPage OPINION OCTOBER 6, 2009, 10:36 P.M. ET
The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms
The major provisions of ObamaCare already have been tried.
They've led to increased costs and reduced access to care. By PETER SUDERMAN
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously envisioned the states serving as laboratories,
trying "novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
And on health care, that's just what they've done.
Like participants in a national science fair, state governments have tested variants on
most of the major components of the health-care reform plans currently being considered
in Congress. The results have been dramatically increased premiums in the individual market,
spiraling public health-care costs, and reduced access to care. In other words:
The reforms have failed. New York is exhibit A. In 1993, the state prohibited insurers from declining to cover individuals
with pre-existing health conditions ("guaranteed issue"). New York also required insurers to
charge those enrolled in their plans the same premium, regardless of health status,
age or sex ("community rating"). The goal was to reduce the number of uninsured by
making health insurance more accessible, particularly to those who don't have employer-provided insurance.
It hasn't worked out very well, according to a Manhattan Institute study released last month by
Stephen T. Parente, a professor of finance at the University of Minnesota and Tarren Bragdon,
CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center.
In 1994, there were just under 752,000 individuals
enrolled in individual insurance plans, or about 4.7% of the nonelderly population. This put New York
roughly in line with the rest of the U.S. Today, that percentage has dropped to just 0.2% of the state's
nonelderly. In contrast, between 1994 and 2007, the total number of people insured in the individual
market across the U.S. rose to 5.5% from 4.5%. The decline in the number of people enrolled in individual insurance plans, the authors say,
is
"attributable largely to a steep increase in premiums" because of the state's regulations.
Messrs. Parente and Bragdon estimate that
repeal of community rating and guaranteed issue
could reduce the price of individual coverage by 42%.
New York's experience with guaranteed issue and community rating is not unique.
In 1996,
similar reforms in Washington state preceded massive premium spikes in the individual market.
Some premiums increased as much as 78% in the first three years of the reforms—or 10 times
medical inflation—according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
Health Services Research in 1999.
Other results included a 25% drop in enrollment in the
individual market, and a reduction in services offered. Within four years, for example,
none of the state's major carriers offered individual insurance plans that included maternity coverage. A 2008 analysis by Kaiser Permanente's Patricia Lynch published by Health Affairs noted
that in addition to Washington and New York, the individual insurance
markets in Kentucky,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont "deteriorated" after the
enactment of guaranteed issue. Individual insurance became significantly more expensive
and there was no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.Supporters of federal health-care reform argue that the problems associated with these regulations
can be addressed with the addition of an individual mandate, which is part of every ObamaCare
bill in Congress. This would
require every individual to purchase health insurance.
Guaranteed issue alone,
the argument goes, results in slightly more expensive premiums,
which drives healthier individuals out of the risk pool, which in turn further drives up premiums.
The end result is that many healthy people opt out, leaving a small pool of sick individuals with
very high premiums.
An individual mandate, however, would spread those premium costs across
a larger, healthier population, thus keeping premium costs down. The experience of Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate in 2007, suggests otherwise. Health-insurance premiums in the Bay State have risen significantly faster than the national average,
according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health foundation. At an average of $13,788,
the state's family plans are now the nation's most expensive. Meanwhile, insurance companies
are planning additional double-digit hikes, "prompting many employers to reduce benefits and
shift additional costs to workers" according to the Boston Globe.
And health-care costs have continued to grow rapidly. According to a Rand Corporation study
this year,
the growth now exceeds state GDP by 8%. The Boston Globe recently reported
that state health-insurance commissioners are now worried that medical spending could push
both employers and patients into bankruptcy, and may even threaten the system's continued existence.
...
Maybe, just maybe we can learn from history without repeating the same mistakes on a massively large level.
When did everyone leap over moderate changes such as: catestrophic coverage (cancer, heart surgery,
premature babies) and the experiment with a nation-wide pooling of policies offered to small businesses
across state lines? No, now we have rammed through an administration and Congress that wants much,
much more...and can't detail it enough for anyone to understand exactly what it will cost, much less do.