lawgator1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 72,723
- Likes
- 42,918
As a small business owner who has watched health insurance premiums for my employees jump approximately 180 % in the last 7 years, and who has therefore this year for the first time had to ask the employees to contribute to a portion of the most recent increases, I've been watching the health care debate with a somewhat different perspective than a lot of you.
To me, cost containment , if not outright reduction, is issue number one. Broadening the universe of people covered is a fine idea, but not if it increases costs.
As I understand the current bill, there is no effective public option, meaning that the insurers have no incentive to dramatically increase efficiencies or reduce profit. Economies of scale are such that, in most states, there is very little competition among health insurers.
But, the bill proposes to do away with preexisting coverage denial. As I say, I support that in principle (I think we all would like to see people stop having to worry about that, in a perfect world). But when that happens, it just means more $ will be required to be spent to pay for the new policy holders and that means higher premium costs for every business like mine. Again.
We all know the politics of this. Let's not fool ourselves about why this is the current version of the bill. It doesn't matter why -- but it is the way it is.
Proposal:
I can't speak to your states, but in Florida, there are a couple of insurance and other industries whose rates are regulated such that they are guaranteed a profit, but have some oversight to protect the public interest. Most notably, the power companies and the property insurers every year must go to a public service commission and justify current rates. If they seek higher rates due to expenses or losses, they have to support those and there is susually some given and take.
They never go out of business. They do well.
How about we do this with health insurers? The benefit to them is they do not have to look over their shoulder and wonder when the reform that drives them out of business is coming. They simply cannot lose.
On the other hand, you see evenness of rates and the consuming public ends up choosing between providers based on combinations of locale and strength of service.
It seems everyone agrees that the history of the last two decades as to expense of health insurance is a grave crisis for the economy. Something has to be done to cut the costs. There is no alternative.
To me, cost containment , if not outright reduction, is issue number one. Broadening the universe of people covered is a fine idea, but not if it increases costs.
As I understand the current bill, there is no effective public option, meaning that the insurers have no incentive to dramatically increase efficiencies or reduce profit. Economies of scale are such that, in most states, there is very little competition among health insurers.
But, the bill proposes to do away with preexisting coverage denial. As I say, I support that in principle (I think we all would like to see people stop having to worry about that, in a perfect world). But when that happens, it just means more $ will be required to be spent to pay for the new policy holders and that means higher premium costs for every business like mine. Again.
We all know the politics of this. Let's not fool ourselves about why this is the current version of the bill. It doesn't matter why -- but it is the way it is.
Proposal:
I can't speak to your states, but in Florida, there are a couple of insurance and other industries whose rates are regulated such that they are guaranteed a profit, but have some oversight to protect the public interest. Most notably, the power companies and the property insurers every year must go to a public service commission and justify current rates. If they seek higher rates due to expenses or losses, they have to support those and there is susually some given and take.
They never go out of business. They do well.
How about we do this with health insurers? The benefit to them is they do not have to look over their shoulder and wonder when the reform that drives them out of business is coming. They simply cannot lose.
On the other hand, you see evenness of rates and the consuming public ends up choosing between providers based on combinations of locale and strength of service.
It seems everyone agrees that the history of the last two decades as to expense of health insurance is a grave crisis for the economy. Something has to be done to cut the costs. There is no alternative.
