Comments on: Rhetoric versus Reality in Reform

By: I Spy the Senate Bill « See First Blog

I Spy the Senate Bill « See First Blog — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:13:13 +0000

[...] been warning for months that the rushed process and soaring rhetoric veiled the reality of what was happening. And that is this: no one really can describe what [...]

By: Doctors: Beware of Politics « See First Blog

Doctors: Beware of Politics « See First Blog — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:49:31 +0000

[...] consider that much of what is in these health care reform proposals are changes to the health insurance market, not health “care.” The proposals are about long-term [...]

By: Should Insurance be Regulated by the Feds or the States? « See First Blog

Should Insurance be Regulated by the Feds or the States? « See First Blog — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:43:28 +0000

[...] War II. Congressional leaders and the President have made clear in their actions (if not their sales pitch) that they want the federal government to dominate the regulation of the U.S. insurance [...]

By: Evan Falchuk

Evan Falchuk — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:46:47 +0000

Hi Janet,

Well, that’s certainly the rhetoric they are using.

It’s not clear, though, that the proposed legislation (at least from Senator Baucus) actually treats insurers that way. Promising insurers a “bounty” of new customers doesn’t sound like annihilation to me!

But we’re a long way from being done, so you never know. Maybe at some point we’ll start to see more of what you are worried about.

Evan

By: Evan Falchuk

Evan Falchuk — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:39:21 +0000

David, thanks for your comment – of course you’re right about the tax treatment of HDHPs and HSAs.

If something like all of this becomes law we will see the launch of a whole new set of specialized law firms and law careers. It will the ERISA for the 21st century!

By: Janet D'Orazio

Janet D'Orazio — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:49:23 +0000

Since when did making a profit become a dirty word? First, states impose mandates that insurance companies have to pay for. Second, inspite of all the efforts of wellmeaning folks, our population is getting fatter, older, and sicker. And somebody has to foot the bill for the care.

But getting back to profit. How many people in this country would accept a paycheck that covers their household expenses & nothing else? Nobody in their right mind. For most of us, our salaries are higher than the sum of our expenses – we invest, save, spend, give away, re-invest in our home or child’s education the rest. So if the insurance company (who is required by law to maintain a certain level of money in reserve to pay for future claims) makes more money than it pays out, why is that a bad thing? If the insurance company uses some of that profit to create wellness programs or invest in their company or moderinze their claims paying systems, for example, isn’t that a good thing? I strongly object to the Obama administration suggesting (actually doing more than suggesting) that being profitable is grounds for annihilation

By: David Harlow

David Harlow — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:16:30 +0000

Evan –

I don’t disagree with your bottom line, but: The current HDHP rules you describe are those which allow a plan to be paired with an HSA. I gotta believe that Biden’s talking about those operators out there selling HDHPs with even higher deductibles, catastrophic care policies – not aiming at the HSA market, which is generally the well-to-do consumer using the HDHP/HSA combo as both a health expense budgeting mechanism and a tax planning vehicle, but at Young Invincibles, or low-wage-earners and their families, who are betting that they can pay a lower premium, and cross their fingers that they don’t get socked with medical expenses. Such a plan might not meet minimum criteria under Massachusetts’ Thou Shalt Be Insured rules but, as you know, most places don’t have such rules.