Is Obamacare Stifling Insurance Competition in Virginia?

Competition in Obamacare exchanges. Image credit: Heritage Foundation
Competition in Obamacare exchanges. Image credit: Heritage Foundation

by James A. Bacon

Sooner or later, we keep hearing, the technology malfunctions in Obamacare will get worked out and we’ll get to see what the program really offers the American people. The Heritage Foundation has issued a research report arguing that, when the dust settles, the picture won’t be pretty: Half the United States population will have access to health-care exchanges served by only one or two insurance companies. The lack of competition in these monopoly and duopoly markets, along with the standardization of benefit structures mandated by Washington, means that most consumers will have little real choice, Heritage contends.

“The lack of competition among insurers in the exchanges also decreases pressure to keep costs down,” writes Alyene Senger, research associate. “This is in addition to significant premium increases for a majority of consumers in a majority of states from Obamacare’s added benefit requirements, new insurance rating rules, and new taxes and fees.”

I regard Obamacare as a Typhoon Haiyan-scale disaster and I’m receptive to Heritage’s argument. But, while it might be right on this particular score — Obamacare may have reduced insurance company competition — the conservative think tank has not closed its case. It failed to ask how much competition there was before Obamacare — is there more or is there less? If a particular market was served by only two insurance companies beforehand, we can hardly blame Obamacare if there are only two insurance companies serving it today.

The map above shows a mixed picture in Virginia. The healthcare exchange in  Northern Virginia has four competing insurance companies while the Richmond, Peninsula and Roanoke markets have three. The rest of the state, including southside Hampton Roads, is out of luck, stuck with only one or two insurers. But what does that mean? Is that more competition or less? Because the situation varies from region to region and even county to county, it is difficult to generalize. I ran a check for my home county of Henrico. According to the Virginia Health Information database, seven different health plans sell a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) product in Henrico County (or, more exactly, within 10 miles of my 23229 zip code).

But what does that mean? Are those insurers serving the self-insured corporate market, the individual market or the small group market? If all seven insurers are competing in all three markets, that’s a lot of competition and Obamacare is reducing choices. But if they are competing in only one or two markets, there may be less competition than meets the eye. Based on the information readily available online, it is impossible to tell if Obamacare has engendered more competition or less overall.

My hunch is that Heritage is right and there is less competition — but the case remains unproven at this point.

Meanwhile, in the real world… Jonathan Katz, a Herndon health insurance broker, writes in his blog: “Our phones have been ringing nonstop and our email boxes are full!”

A majority of calls are coming from clients in the individual market who are receiving cancellation notices from their current carriers. Those most motivated to switch tend to be older and sicker, Katz writes. They will be pleased that their rates, subsidized by younger, healthier enrollees, will be cheaper than before. The downside: Deductibles and co-payments are most likely higher, and their access to providers is more likely to be restricted as insurers limit access to provider networks. “In one extreme example of reduced access to providers,” he says, “we are literally unable to find a 2014 plan whose network includes the only local hospital that offers a potentially life-saving treatment for a client with a serious medical condition.”

There’s one other interesting wrinkle that I haven’t seen reported elsewhere. Small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) with younger, healthier employees are likely to renew early, extending their private, pre-Obamacare coverage through 2014. That will mean lower participation in the exchanges of the young, healthy employees who will help keep rates low. Insurance companies could get creamed. If some wind up pulling out of the Obamacare exchanges, that will definitely mean less competition.

Bottom line: When thousands of Virginians are seeing their individual health plans cancelled and when thousands more are being herded into restrictive provider networks, that sounds like less competition, not more. What has become crystal clear in the past two months is that Obamacare isn’t just creating winners, it’s creating a lot of losers. Only time will tell whether there are more winners or more losers.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

42 responses to “Is Obamacare Stifling Insurance Competition in Virginia?”

  1. Competition in insurance and particularly health insurance has always been problematic. To be competitive and cost-effective insurers have had to develop broad networks – it’s expensive for the insurer to do that, but unless it has a large number of insureds, it can’t negotiate a competitive rate of reimbursement, and if it can’t get a good reimbursement rate, it can’t make money. It makes it difficult for competitors to get in the market. It’s hard to compete with the bargaining power of Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare. One way that smaller insurers have been able to compete is to undercut the big insurers and to heavily market the plans – this requires a reduction or limitation of benefits (hence the $5,000/year “mini-Med plan”, and the $500,000 lifetime limit) and to pay agents more for selling plans that are not comprehensive. Obamacare eliminates these strategies – and so insurance companies that had relied upon them are leaving the market. And those insurance companies, as well as the big ones, are eliminating those plans. Is this good? If you want to ensure comprehensive coverage, it is good. Hospitals like it because it eliminates some of the nonpays. It reduces noncomprehensive plans, and so those who had relied upon them have to either leave the market or find out how to compete with the big insurers. The big question is whether the exchanges will be a viable market – if so, there will be lots of competition based on price because that is where the buyers will be, and the pricing of the various options will be transparaent; the idea is that it will bring “internet shopping” to health care – lots of choices, lots of information, transparent pricing. Admittedly the exchange is not looking good right now, but if the technical problems can be worked out, it will be an excellent marketplace that should give lots of choices for good plans.

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    The Heritage Foundation? No competition? Hmm. Chck this out from the New York Times a couple of weeks ago:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/business/health-law-fails-to-keep-prices-low-in-rural-areas.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1384277295-lRedkL6q3xCauo5GF6pPfQ

    “Counties with one carrier are mostly concentrated in the South. Nearly all of the counties in Mississippi and Alabama, for example, are served by just one insurer, according to The Times’s analysis. Other states with scarce competition include Maine, West Virginia, North Carolina and Alaska.”

    Many parts of the country have only one or two insurers as part of the exchanges. That’s a lack of competition GOING IN.

    As usual, you have cherry picked some conservative think tank without really understanding what the real life situation is.

    1. If you’d read past the second paragraph, you would have seen that the blog post was questioning the Heritage Foundation. Try reading my whole post some time. You might find it enlightening.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    ..although, Jim, to be fair, you did raise the possibility that if there’s little to no competition at first, the situation might change.

    Just to be fair.

    1. Yes, I did raise the possibility. But I also said that Heritage had not proven the point that competition had diminished.

      Otherwise, I don’t see how it’s arguable than in an exchange designed to be a competitive marketplace (not a single-payer system but a competitive marketplace) that less competition is a bad thing.

  4. according to several authoritative source, over 100 million people in the country have a “pre-existing” condition.

    how much “competition” is there in the insurance market outside of ObamaCare and where is the alternative to ObamaCare from the Heritage folks or the GOP?

    Remember, the Heritage folks a few years back actually supported, the individual mandate.

    now the opponents of Obamacare are legion for sure – they have to elbow each other to get noticed! – but there is no alternative that the opponents support legislatively. Lot’s of “ideas” – but nothing real.

    Our healthcare system was broke before ObamaCare was part of the vocabulary.

    One guy had the courage to try to change it while everyone were hiding …

    now those that were hiding – are critics… no alternatives mind you – just critics.

  5. You want to know about competition. Ask why, in Virginia – every school system and county has a separate contract with a health insurer.

    The Federal Govt has ONE program that offers a cafeteria assortment of policies from different providers – but the policies and the rates are nationwide – even international.

    Why does Virginia not have a master policy approach like the Feds have?

    why does Henrico have a separate contract for health insurance than Spotsylvania instead of a state-wide “exchange” that offers people more than the limited options offered on a county basis?

    and why not have a national exchange for healthcare for citizens similar to what Fed employees have?

    insurance that is portable, cannot be denied and has one price no matter your “pre-existing” condition”

    and why can’t the GOP present a simply alternative that met those goals instead of lining up as opponents-only ?

    Don’t focus on the problems of ObamaCare – focus on the feckless opponents who have nothing other than opposition to show for their efforts.

    1. virginiagal2 Avatar
      virginiagal2

      Henrico and Spotsy are almost certainly experience-rated – and almost certainly self-insured with a stop loss.

      What that means is that basically premiums are based on actual claims, plus cost of administration, plus the fee to the claims processor/insurer. The stop loss part is basically insurance on the insurance in case they have an extra-ordinary claims year.

      Most large-ish companies and organizations use this type of arrangement. That’s one reason why large companies don’t have trouble getting insurance – they are essentially their own insurer, with the insurance company acting as an administrator.

  6. rossjudson Avatar

    The Post has an article describing why some plans are being cancelled; for the most part it’s because they don’t comply with the minimum requirements for health plans in the new law. Of course limited catastrophic condition-only medical insurance for young single men is inexpensive. The backstop there is the taxpayer and bankruptcy courts — once the limits are exceeded or pre-existing conditions are “earned”.

    What’s always missing from these discussions is comparisons to the health care systems in other countries. The US spends massively more per capita than any other industrialized nation and its outcomes don’t even crack the top ten.

    Those against socialized medicine say that it doesn’t work. The cost and outcome statistics say otherwise. What they really mean to say is, it can’t work here, in this country. And maybe it can’t.

    1. re: what is missing – even health care in THIS country.

      Medicare is a single payer plan that provides health care to about 50 million intensive “pre-condition” users of healthcare for about $500 a month per insured.

      http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

      why would we think it would cost more to provide that to a younger pool of people?

      this still boils down to those who want to do something and those who do not.

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    apologize but did try to correct

  8. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    It seems to me that the goal of any fix to health care in this nation should be to maximize competition among service providers up and down the line, and also to maximize consumer (patient) choice up an down the line.

    Without both of these elements – maximum competition and choice – any new system will end being a very poor system not matter what else it entails.

    1. Agree. But just saying those words is not a true competitive alternative to ObamaCare and that’s the problem. We have critics. We don’t have solutions from the critics – solutions the critics themselves can agree on and put together as a real legislative alternative.

      you can’t win with nothing.

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Reed,
    In theory, you are right. But health care can’t be measured in widgets or cost per variable. Most advanced industrialized countries have a one-payer, government system. Overall, it works. We should go that way.

    1. Peter,

      Obama’s political problems stem from the fact that his health care reform is creating too many losers. Movement to single payer will create even more losers. Taking the position that people need to suck it up and accept less so coverage can be expanded doesn’t cut it. “If you like what you have you can keep it.” Big lie. Being lied to by the President and being forced to accept less than what you have today doesn’t cut it.

      It appears Obama’s promises to expand coverage to people with existing conditions and not screwing anyone are not compatible. It’s not the GOP’s problem that Obama promised the impossible.

      1. I think it’s the GOPs problem in that they did not offer a competitive alternative and spend all their time in opposition.

        Medicare is Single Payer – and it has 50 million people in the pool and it costs about $500 per person.

        People over 65 are more intensive users of healthcare than younger people and yet there are no “losers” other than those sent to the death panels (sic).

        Our health care system was a disaster for a decade and no one did anything until Obama did – and the others have done nothing.

        you cannot claim any virtue in opposing and criticising without offering
        at least an alternative.

        the American people see this. They may not like ObamaCare but what alternative do they have with the critics?

        the opponents would dump us back into the same disastrous system as before and in terms of “losers”, it’s not like we did not already have a bunch BEFORE ObamaCare.

        that’s the part that is hard to understand about the opponents. They hate ObamaCare, they have no alternatives, their “solution” is to go back to a system with millions of people had no insurance and no chance to get it.

      2. Larry, I think an alternative was what Obama said he was offering – change for those who wanted it and no change for those who didn’t. The problem is no change doesn’t create a big enough cash pool to fund preexisting conditions. Health care is a problem for those without insurance. Most with insurance like what they have. Obama’s give away instincts put him in a position where he could not deliver on expansion without simultaneously screwing a lot of other people. That and Washington’s tendency to believe it knows best. ”

        I still have not adequately explained the difference between Obamacare and Medicare. LBJ brought something new to most seniors – coverage and a new tax. But all were treated alike. Obama is messing with something many people like – their existing insurance coverage. This messing with people’s stuff pisses them off.

  10. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    TMT,
    Not sure that people in Japan, Canada, Japan, Germany or the U.K. (despite the anecdotes about National Health Care) would agree that single payer makes everyone the loser.

    They seem to have better overall health rates than ours. True it affects elective issues, some serious, some not, such a botox or knee replacements so a rich guy can keep golfing at 65.
    .

    1. Peter – Larry, with all due respect, you don’t get what I am saying. There is a big difference between beginning a new program where few, if any, people have coverage and that is financed by universal taxes or premiums and a situation where many people have coverage that they like and are forced to abandon in favor of single payer. Either single payer becomes too darn expensive or benefits are cut. Either way, a large number of people are going to be worse off because of the conversion. Alternatively, you don’t get the biggest pools necessary to fund coverage for preexisting conditions.

      Right now I’m covered by the Federal Employees insurance program, for which I reimburse my wife one half of the her premium costs. It has excellent coverage and reasonable premiums. If we had to pay more for less coverage as part of a conversion to single payer, I’d be pissed and would be all over Mark Warner’s %%&. I am not willing to give up what I have so Obama can expand coverage. And I’m not alone.

  11. DJRippert Avatar

    Jim:

    Say what you want about the US Supreme Court – they are a bunch of smart people. Obamacare, at its essence, is not health care reform. Obamacare, st its essence, is not insurance reform. Obamacare is a tax. It is a wealth redistribution program designed to buy votes for the Democratic Party.

    Go back to the start of the last big government healthcare failure – Medicare. And many remember the first year of Medicare in 1966, when the cost of the program was $3 billion. Projections for the cost of Medicare in 1990 were $12 billion. The actual cost in 1990: $107 billion. Cost estimates of government programs are always underestimated, as will be the case with the ACA. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2013/10/03/why-healthcare-costs-are-about-to-explode/)

    Obamacare = wealth redistribution = socialism. Stop equating this program with health care reform.

    1. virginiagal2 Avatar
      virginiagal2

      Speaking as a person with a pre-existing condition (cancer survivor), it is actually health care reform.

      People who pay in their whole lives and have been kept continuously insured should be able to start their own business, or even just change jobs, and be able to get insurance, including after they are middle aged and start having things go wrong.

      Further, if everyone stays insured and you keep coverage throughout your life, COVERING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DOES NOT DESTROY THE RISK POOL. The problem occurs when you leave out the healthy people, in which case you are not pooling the risk.

      IMHO, as long as you continuously keep health insurance coverage, and are not gaming the system, you should be able to stay covered. For heavens sake, everyone dies, but we still have perfectly good life insurance markets despite the 100% risk of a claim.

      I am underwhelmed with the rollout of Obamacare, which seems like a case study in how not to manage a large project, but many of the needs it addresses are important and badly needed.

      People/ politicians do need to realize – there are a lot of people out there who may be critical of the program, but will scream bloody murder if the pieces that help them are taken away.

      I currently have perfectly good health insurance that is going to be basically unchanged, but I also would be greatly alarmed if the pre-existing condition protections were removed. That’s my safety net if I lose my good job or if I take the leap and turn my small business into my day job.

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        I never said you were gaming the system. I said Obamacare is a wealth transfer.

        People with pre-existing conditions are more likely to incur higher medical costs. Historically, the insurance industry has demanded higher premiums from those with pre-existing conditions to offset the expected higher outlays.

        What has magically changed under Obamacare? Nothing. People with pre-existing conditions still are likely to incur higher health care payouts. Yet their premiums have gone down. Why? Because young, healthy people are being forced into the system whether they like it or not. Their premiums have gone up despite their risk profile remaining static. Beyond that, popular insurance coverage that only included the costs of catastrophic illness has been ruled unacceptable under Obamacare.

        That is a wealth transfer for the relatively young and healthy to the typically middle aged people with pre-existing conditions (but too young for Medicare).

        That policy doesn’t change the cost of anything. It simply transfers some of the cost of insuring typically middle aged people with pre-existing conditions to young people without pre-existing conditions.

        The older people who are now benefitting from this subsidy did not subsidize their elders when they were young and healthy.

        If you have a pre-existing condition and you need insurance – you are a winner under Obamacare. If you are young and healthy – you are a loser under Obamacare.

        All wealth transfer schemes involve winners and losers.

        1. virginiagal2 Avatar
          virginiagal2

          Everyone is going to have a pre-existing condition one of these days. When you look at how most of us get health insurance – through our employer – we are insured under more of a lifetime model. The assumption is that there will be healthy employees and sick employees.

          The reality is that most of us will be healthy most of our lives, and almost all of us will get sick at some point. The entire reason we buy insurance is to spread that risk out OVER TIME so we don’t have to pay all of it at once.

          About 75% of health insurance is through work and is using pools that include people of all ages, with the premium based on that pool.

          Spreading that out is HOW IT WORKS, not getting winners and losers. When you charge only per person risk, you are essentially setting up young people so that they get cheap insurance when young, and unaffordable or unavailable insurance when they are older.

          It works better, mathematically and societally, to use pooled risk in the individual insurance market, just like you use it in the group market.

        2. virginiagal2 Avatar
          virginiagal2

          PS – and yes, the older people benefitting from pooling almost certainly were part of larger risk pools when they were younger. Most people stay in the individual market for brief periods.

          What we have been doing is taking advantage of young people for group rate pooling, and kicking them to the curb when they need an individual policy – after paying in insurance for many years when they were younger.

    2. virginiagal2 Avatar
      virginiagal2

      Speaking as a person with a pre-existing condition (cancer survivor), it is actually health care reform.

      People who pay in their whole lives and have been kept continuously insured should be able to start their own business, or even just change jobs, and be able to get insurance, including after they are middle aged and start having things go wrong.

      Further, if everyone stays insured and you keep coverage throughout your life, COVERING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DOES NOT DESTROY THE RISK POOL. The problem occurs when you leave out the healthy people, in which case you are not pooling the risk.

      IMHO, as long as you continuously keep health insurance coverage, and are not gaming the system, you should be able to stay covered. For heavens sake, everyone dies, but we still have perfectly good life insurance markets despite the 100% risk of a claim.

      I am underwhelmed with the rollout of Obamacare, which seems like a case study in how not to manage a large project, but many of the needs it addresses are important and badly needed.

      People/ politicians do need to realize – there are a lot of people out there who may be critical of the program, but will scream bloody murder if the pieces that help them are taken away.

      I currently have perfectly good health insurance that is going to be basically unchanged, but I also would be greatly alarmed if the pre-existing condition protections were removed. That’s my safety net if I lose my good job or if I take the leap and turn my small business into my day job.

  12. The ObamaCare exchanges work very similarly to the Federal Health Care program and Massachusetts health care in that unlike Medicare, they are NOT single-payer and you can choose the private insurance company AND kind of plan that you want.

    The FEHB and Mass plans LIKE Medicare cannot deny insurance to people, cannot cancel insurance due to pre-existng conditions, and the insurance is portable – for the Feds anywhere in the country and for Mass – any employer.

    so if you want to call ObamaCare a wealth transfer – then think about Medicare, the FEHB and Massachusetts BECAUSE –

    FUNDAMENTALLY – ALL INSURANCE is essentially wealth transfer because when you have auto insurance and a crash – other people are paying for you accident. that’s the kind of wealth transfer, ObamaCare fundamentally is – it’s insurance.

    if you want to complain about wealth transfer – consider this:

    1. each employer provided insurance plan is tax free to the insured – that’s the equivalent of a Federal Tax Credit.

    2. each Medicare recipient receives on average a 6000 subsidy each year – direct from other taxpayers. Medicare recipients can make up to 85K in income – remember this is RETIREMENT income – and still get insurance that cannot be denied for about 100.00 a month.

    yet -even if seniors had to pay the subsidy – they’d still be getting full-coverage, non-deniable insurance for about 500.00 a month.

    so where s the logic on the anticipated costs of ObamaCAre if we can cover 50 million people for 500 a month?

    but in terms of wealth transfer – who do you think is paying for the uninsured right now? You and I pay taxes for MedicAid and we pay taxes to compensate hospitals for uncompensated care and hospitals charge
    your insurance extra costs for things like aspirin to shift costs to you from the uninsured.

    How can we end up paying even more than twice as much as all the other OECD countries anyhow?

    we have critics – some of the criticism is justified – but the critics have caused this problem. You’ve fought to keep a status-quo system that is a rolling disaster that already transfers wealth on the premise that it does not already transfer wealth.

    Obamacare, by itself, will not fix the problem – because in the US we pay for procedures not outcomes and so the game every medical provider plays is to find the diagnostic codes he can use for a patient – render that service and get paid for it – no matter whether it’s cost effective or helps you.

    being a critic without supporting specific alternative legislation is hypocritical in my view.

    would we be where we are right now – if the opponents had actually put together a competitive alternative ?

    “ideas” are NOT legislation. the GOP is totally AWOL on actually trying to solve the problem .

    Me? why not let Medicare folks who make 85K in income pay a bigger share 300 instead of 100?

    and use 1/2 that money to reduce the deficit/pay down the debt and the other 1/2 for expanding earned income credits to include health insurance credits to be able to by guaranteed access insurance but where would such insurance come from if not from ObamaCare?

    we have no real ideas from the opponents and that’s a bigger problem
    than ObamaCare in my view.

    we’re a divided country of haves and have nots – and the haves think they are not paying for the medical care of the have nots – and we are and we do so at higher dollar costs than any other OECD country in the world.

    1. Larry, you are correct. Taxpayers do pay a lot for uncompensated care. But so is Don. No federal entitlement program ever costs anywhere near its estimate. Hell no government program period ever costs anywhere near its estimate. Take what state taxpayers pay now and transfer it to the insurance system, but cancel the other programs. Fund insurance for everyone – including illegals — but don’t offer any other medical assistance. What we simply cannot afford to spend unlimited amounts of money on health care.

      1. we may actually agree! wanna list the programs to defund?

        how about flood insurance for second homes?

        how about mortgage deductions for anything other than one
        primary home at median price?

        how about tax-free employer provided insurance?

        how about farm subsidies?

        ethanol subsidies?

        imputed rent?

        charge 500.00 a month for Medicare for incomes 85K and over?

        what’s your list?

      2. re: ” No federal entitlement program ever costs anywhere near its estimate”

        that’s true.

        does it apply also to health care costs if we don’t act?

        won’t all of us pay more and more for uncompensated care if we
        do not deal with the issue?

        this is not a situation when sticking with the status quo arrests the damage… the damage continues….

        this is not a choice between keeping not getting worse – or getting worse.

        if we do nothing – it gets worse.

        what do we do to keep it from getting worse?

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      ” … but in terms of wealth transfer – who do you think is paying for the uninsured right now?”.

      This is just another Obamacare lie. If Obamacare insures the uninsured and thereby reduces health care costs – they why is spejding on health care in the US expected to rise from 17% of GDP to 20% of GDP under Obamacare? Because the uninsured – who will now insured with other people’s money – will find lots of reasons to see the doctor. Some may prevent more serious illness down the road but many will be just showing up with a cold or a stiff knee and demanding attention.

      There’s a dirty secret in medicine. Cigarette smokers cost society less over their lives than those who don’t smoke. Something like $3.22 per pack less. Why? Because they die younger. By dying younger these smokers avoid many of the maladies they would have suffered had they lived long enough to get sick.

      Routine medical care may make people happier, it may make them healthier but it won’t make their lifetime health care costs go down. Just the opposite.

      It’s time America had an honest discussion about healthcare. Honest – you know, without the bald faced lies from people like Obama.

      We need to reduce the cost of healthcare. That’s the issue.

  13. re: ” Obamacare = wealth redistribution = socialism. Stop equating this program with health care reform.

    what do you think Medicare and the earned income credit or tax-free employer-provided health insurance or HSAs are?

    not paying taxes on diverted income – is a wealth transfer also.

    getting Medicare for 100.00 a month when it costs 500.00 is a wealth transfer

    MedicAid and EMTALA are wealth transfers…

    if you’re going to be a critic – be consistent and honest about ALL the wealth transfers that ALREADY exist!

  14. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Massive wealth redistribution + loss of competition + loss of choices = higher prices for lower and fewer benefits = worst of all worlds.

    Thus, the rich bail out. The working middle class get shafted. Their health care plummets, their costs escalate. Many are forced into part time jobs.

    Who gets benefited? Likely very few. And the bad health habits among them only escalate, driving up costs and driving down their collective health.

    This is receipt for disaster health wise, wealth wise, society wise.

  15. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    TMT,
    I am with VirginiaGal. I, too, have “pre-existing conditions” that are under control but since I have been self-employed for the past 10 years and am over 60, try to get independent coverage! What truly pisses me off is that I have cranked in hundreds of thousands of dollars from me and my family for private, for-profit managed care for many, many years. But make a job change or go by yourself, you are screwed!

    Think of how many men and women in this country enjoyed corporate-sponsored health benefits and then got downsized so their employer could improve his bottom line by shipping labor out to Malaysia or Guatemala.

    You are lucky to have federal employee insurance. And others among us, who opine constantly about the need for cost discipline, have never had to shop all alone because they are on their spouses’ policies.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Insuring those with pre-existing conditions is not health care reform. At best, it is insurance reform. At worst, it is simply a wealth transfer.

      Many pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with lifestyle choices. However, many do have direct ties to lifestyle choices. Smoking and COPD. Obesity and Type-2 diabetes.

      It seems to me that if some what others to defray their healthcare costs then those seeking the defrayment should do everything in their power to keep those costs low. What does that mean? If we’re going to guarantee coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions then we ought to demand a healthy lifestyle during the person’s youth, young adulthood and middle ages. So, if you don’t get an annual physical, you pay 1% of your salary that year into a pre-existing condition fund. And if you do get a physical and you are deemed obese you pay 2% of your salary that year into a pre-existing condition fund.

      If we middle aged people are going to once again burden our children to pay for our maladies the least we can do is try to live a healthy lifestyle.

      1. virginiagal2 Avatar
        virginiagal2

        Annual physicals actually do not increase health and are not recommended.

        And by the time you’re in your 40s, the majority of people have what would be considered a pre-existing condition on the open insurance market. I believe it’s a fairly large majority, too.

        That is not burdening our children – it is how the cost curve works. The insurance that most of us get – group insurance – pools younger and older to allow an affordable rate throughout life.

        Most employers do not charge older employees ten or twenty times more for their health insurance, or, worse, simply not give it to them.

        The ONLY thing Obamacare is doing is expanding this principle – of pooled risk – to the individual market – where it should have been all along.

        Most of these people participated in employee insurance most of their lives. When they were young, they brought rates down. Now that they’re old, instead of benefitting from that, you’re suggesting essentially that they pay twice – once into the pool, then take away their pooled contributions and make them pay again.

        Yikes.

        1. virginiagal2 Avatar
          virginiagal2

          “The ONLY thing Obamacare is doing”

          Okay, that is one of the dumber things I’ve said in my life. Obamacare is doing dozens of things in all sorts of areas.

          Reworded to get back to planet Earth – basically all Obamacare is doing with pooled rates is expanding this principle – of pooled risk – to the individual market.

          It isn’t socialism and it isn’t different than what employer insurance does. It’s the same principle that is used in the employer insurance that about 75% of people have.

          BTW, interesting factoid – most people are only in the individual market for a few years at a time.

  16. the worst hypocrites on this issue in my view are those with Federal Health care looking forward to a smooth transition to Medicare.

    Fed employees get guaranteed access to an exchange of multiple insurers each offering several types of policies and the same price for all no matter what conditions you have.

    that insurance or a virtual equivalent stays with you no matter when you work or live and you are free to change every year during open season and kids get added when they are born and it stays with you when you retire if you wish to use it to supplement Medicare.

    of all the people in the US that need health insurance, Federal Employees – including the military, DOD, FBI, FDA, FAA, NTSB, even the Postal Service – get this deal ….

    It’s a moral scandal when govt, retired govt and military employees oppose ObamaCare – for others.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      George Washington, that giant of prudence and probity, rendered the harshest of judgement on any legislature or government that exempted itself from the laws it imposed on the citizens it was tasked to serve. George Washington declared that no such legislature or government deserved to stand. Indeed, our first President declared that it was the duty of all freedom loving citizens to overthrow such a legislature or government by all means necessary, including by force of arms.

      This was apparently obvious to Washington. He’d made it his life’s work.

      PS. I own an apology to Don. I’ve been reading up on George recently. Surely he was as great as Lincoln. Perhaps these two greatest of our presidents should not be compared one to the other. Such an effort might be a foolish endeavor that leads only to an unnecessary injustice to each.

      Perhaps it is better to say that no other president or US leader confronted more difficult and consequential challenges than Washington and Lincoln. And no other proved more uniquely suited to the task before him and its solution. One can only marvel at the nation’s good fortune in having the benefit of both in such times of crisis.

    2. Larry, are you arguing that my wife doesn’t earn her federal health care benefits – or that I didn’t earn them when I worked for a big company? That’s what it sounds like to me. She took some vacation days last month. Was she not entitled to them either?

      Right now with two kids in college, I wish there was a right to a post-secondary education.

      1. I’m saying that people who are lucky enough to get FEHB are much better off than most other people in the workforce – and that they have done nothing in particular to deserve it over others – who themselves have done nothing wrong but end up in much, much worse circumstances

        AND I’m saying if you ARE lucky enough to be in that circumstance, it’s pretty hard to oppose something similar for others.

        government workers get virtual tenure in their jobs – unlike most of the rest of the workforce and they get guaranteed health care – unlike most of the rest of the workforce especially when they change jobs.

        we sometimes view our own circumstances as we ‘deserve’ the benefits we get – and those who don’t have them – just did not work hard enough to get them.

        that’s simply not true. It’s a world of winners and losers and the losers are often in their situations because they did not become government workers.

        this is along the lines of ” there but for the grace of God go I” – not that I was “better” than others.

        your kids go to college no matter your health status, while other kids parents go bankrupt because they got sick.

        I mean no disrespect to you or your wife – only that your circumstances were no more earned than others not… unless one believes that “smart” means finding a government job.

        Down my way – women teach school – so their families can have health care – because their husbands work locally in the trades and have no govt jobs..

        the real world has LOTS of people who cannot work for the govt or a big company and get “benefits”.

        1. Larry, back up the truck. Federal employees are not “lucky” to have health insurance. They earn it. I would agree they have a good plan, but don’t we want our federal employees to be compensated fairly? My wife has had a number of opportunities to work in the private sector at compensation much higher than she has made working for the feds. She is a patent lawyer, who could make a heck of a lot more money on the outside.

  17. the other thing is how is ObamaCare paid for?

    to be more precise – is it paid for out of ADDITIONAL general revenues or is it paid for from EXISTING revenues – that have been switch from an existing purpose to ObamaCare?

    how many know the answer to this? How many know what the specific funding sources of ObamaCare are? are those sources additional spending in the budget?

Leave a Reply