Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10539)	10/19/2009 12:24:55 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

Colorado insurers say health care bill would lead to "system collapse" Executives, who critics say are using scare tactics, contend proposed penalties for opting out are too low. By Jennifer Brown The Denver Post Posted: 10/19/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT Updated: 10/19/2009 07:33:32 AM MDT Colorado insurance executives, cautious supporters of health care reform throughout the past year, are now warning that current proposals could cause a "system collapse." At issue are what insurance companies consider absurdly low penalties for people who choose not to buy health insurance. Their concern: People will buy insurance only when they desperately need it, such as after they're diagnosed with cancer or heart disease. Healthy people might choose to pay the penalty, now proposed at a few hundred dollars per year, because it is far less expensive than buying insurance. Insurance companies, under that scenario, would end up spending more to treat patients than they would receive in premiums. Rates would rise even faster than they do now. "People would come in, pay premiums for a few months while they were getting their cancer treatments," said John Martie, president and general manager of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado. "If enough people did that, the whole system would collapse. "I would hope it wouldn't get that far. Ultimately, it would lead to rationing of care." In the health care bill passed Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, adults who do not purchase health insurance would face an excise-tax penalty of $200 a year starting in 2014 and rising gradually to $750 in 2017. The tax would be prorated if an individual has health insurance for part of a year. The insurance industry incited an immediate and passionate backlash after saying the Senate bill would cause insurance premiums to increase. Critics accused the industry of using scare tactics to derail reform. Gov. Bill Ritter slammed insurance companies in a campaign e-mail last week, calling on America's Health Insurance Plans to retract its statement that said premiums would rise. "The same folks who successfully derailed health care take over last time around are once again up to no good," Ritter said. Reform advocates say it is farfetched to assume people who can't afford insurance — and might qualify for government subsidies — would opt to pay a penalty instead. "They are assuming that people would game the system," said Denise de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. "They are looking at the worst-case scenario. People aren't stupid — they are not going to pay a penalty and get nothing," de Percin said. Supporters of the legislation from the Senate Finance Committee also point out that the proposed penalty is only a proposal. Congress likely will refine the legislation, aiming to strike the right balance between government subsidies and penalties for violating the insurance mandate. But Ben Price, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans, said the proposed penalty is way off the mark. It is so low, "we can't really call it a mandate," he said. "Without a mechanism for enforcement, people will wait until they are sick to get coverage," Price said. Premiums, he said, would "go up for individuals, small business, everyone. Congress needs to create a strong mandate in order to make an 'all-in' system work." Executives still back reform Colorado insurance executives said they still support reform and point out that they offered a year ago to stop rejecting patients with pre-existing health conditions if the government would require everyone to purchase insurance. "We've been adamant all along that those penalties have to be higher than what premiums would cost," said Martie, who was in Washington two weeks ago lobbying Colorado lawmakers. "We deal with the two most sensitive areas in people's lives — their health and their finances," he said. "Unfortunately, in the very beginning, President Obama claimed that we were the villains and they needed to keep us honest." Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com denverpost.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (10539)	10/19/2009 6:42:47 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Max Baucus’s Magic? Posted by Michael F. Cannon Max Baucus says every single Democratic senator will vote for all the taxes, all the private-sector mandates, all the inter-governmental mandates, all the Medicare spending cuts, and all the new private-insurance subsidies that he and Harry Reid are cobbling together. What’s left to discuss? Baucus may know something I don’t. But here’s what I do know. 1. To subsidize Paul, Democrats need to rob Peter. And Peter ain’t gonna like that, whether “Peter” is union members, small businesses, insurance companies, medical-device manufacturers, sick people, or the middle class broadly. 2. Of course, the government already does a lot of Peter-robbing and Paul-paying in health care. Democrats could subsidize Paul #2 by cutting subsidies to Paul #1. But again, Paul #1 — whether “he” be seniors, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical-device manufacturers, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, etc. — ain’t gonna like that. 3. Members of Congress, including Democratic senators, tend to listen to those Peters and Paul #1s. 4. Democrats could try to rob future generations, but they (particularly President Obama) have painted themselves into a corner on that one by promising not to add to the deficit. And with regard to deficit spending, the public appears to be in no mood. Heck, I’m sure that Baucus knows a lot of things I don’t know. But I doubt he knows any magical incantations that’ll make those challenges go away. (Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.) cato-at-liberty.org