Here is the link to Kaiser HIPAA rates for California. Subscriber only, age 50-54, $446/mo. I would guess that these rates are subsidized somehow as Virginia's is much higher.
You misread the document. The California rate, $50 co-pay, subscriber,spouse & 1 child, 50-54, is $1300 month. Again compare that to the rate in Virginia (as of 2005) of $2253 per month.
If you want to get a better understanding of the differences between Virginia and – say California - here are two guides from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.
healthinsuranceinfo.net
healthinsuranceinfo.net
They will provide all the info you need but here are the operative quotes:
If you are HIPAA eligible, California law limits the premium you can be charged. Even so, you may find that your premiums are quite expensive….
If you are not HIPAA eligible, California does not limit what you can be charged. If you have a serious health condition, your individual health policy premiums may be very high.
As compared to Virginia:
The law does not prohibit Virginia health insurers from charging you more because of your health status. regardless of whether you qualify for HIPAA status (my comnent)
I gather that insurance companies don't like being forced to insure people who are uninsurable.
You need to remove the word, "uninsurable" from your vocabulary. Everyone is insurable if they can afford to pay.
I guess that's why states are creating their own risk pools.
The reason why rates differ by state is because the insurance industry is essentially exempt from Federal Antitrust Law. (see McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011 et seq., in 1945.) Here is an excellent report on the history of Insurance regulation in the US. As a lawyer, you will appreciate that it focuses predominately on the development of statutory and case law.
gao.gov
Here are a couple of choice quotes:
…The availability of the antitrust exemption does not depend on the quality of a state’s regulatory scheme, or its effective enforcement. Rather, a court is only to determine “whether the State . . . has regulated the business of . . . insurance, and not to determine whether this regulation could be better and more effectively done.”…
As noted above, in Royal Drug, the Supreme Court concluded that, “ecause . . . it is very difficult to underwrite risks in an informed and responsible way without intra-industry cooperation, the primary concern of both representatives of the insurance industry and the Congress was that cooperative ratemaking efforts be exempt from the antitrust laws.” Royal Drug, 440 U.S. at 221; see also SEC v. Nat’l Securities, 393 U.S. at 460 (“[c]ertainly the fixing of rates is part of this business [of insurance].”).
Thus, in the absence of state regulation, insurers may cooperate to set rates. California regulates rate, Virginia does not.
As a free market capitalist, you may feel that regulation of rates is bad. However, without the counterbalancing prohibition against rate fixing, you are guaranteed artificially high, colluded and price-fixed rates.
ww
postscript....
I am really curious as to why you did not buy your own insurance policy before you became uninsurable. Would that not have been the rational thing to do?
You are confused. I am quite adequately insured. Since I am adequately insured, you may wonder why it’s an issue for me. In addition to recognizing how perilous it is for all of us, perhaps the following will provide more illumination. I would submit to you that many – even some who post on this thread have forged a chain which would put Jacob Marley’s to shame.
…At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''
``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
``Both very busy, sir.''
``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.'' …..
``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. ….'
literature.org
Of course if Dickens is not good enough one could try, Luke 24-25: …But woe to you that are rich: for you have your consolation. Woe to you that are filled: for you shall hunger. Woe to you that now laugh: for you shall mourn and weep…. |
