CNS News is reporting a major flaw in the health care reform bills being touted by President Obama. Matt Cover's article, "Insurance-Premium Regulation in Health Care Bill Rewards Bad Behavior, Penalizes Good", published on Friday, August 21, 2009, reveals that all of the bills now in Congress will actually drive up health care costs instead reducing them as the President is telling us.
Cover reports: "Provisions in both the House and Senate versions of Democrats' health care proposals bar insurance companies from tying health insurance premiums to unhealthy behavior, and that could drive up health care costs and reward unhealthy behavior such as smoking and drug abuse.
Bills in both the House and Senate limit insurance companies’ ability to adjust their premiums based on three criteria: age, geographic location, and family structure."
What this means is that those of us who have healthy lifestyles will be paying for the increased health care needs of drug users, smokers, and 300 lb. couch potatoes. As Cover puts it, "Both the House and Senate provisions mean that insurance companies cannot take any health-related factors into account when setting premium rates, meaning that someone in excellent health would pay the same rate as a life-long smoker or drug user for the same health coverage.
High-cost diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes cannot be used to determine premiums, if Congress passes either version of health reform. This means that the costs of treating these diseases would be born largely by healthy American taxpayers, because the government will be subsidizing health insurance for those who cannot afford it."
Welcome to Obamacare, where things are never as advertised. Do you need any more proof that President Obama and Congress are incapable of managing our health care?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
Question: how does the right-wing feel about hefty taxes on tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and junk food? High taxes has been shown to reduce the incidence of use of these items.
Speaking of "if it's true", the Obama administration has an abysmal record in its statements about health care reform. If I hear "If you like your plan you can keep it" one more time, after actually reading what the bills say, I think I'll barf.
And, speaking for the right wing, I feel that hefty taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and junk food are terribly regressive. If you want to hurt low income people that's one way to do it.
Since I am a conservative and don't feel the need to run other people's lives like those on the left, I think it is a terrible idea.
Second, would you prefer that these irresponsible people not receive medical treatment?
I do think, though, that there should be incentives for our "very healthy lifestyle(s)", which could be done through premium differentials. I also think that there should be disincentives for irresponsible behavior, e.g., high taxes on "unhealthy products".
To change our behavior meaningfully we need to change the context, the circumstances, the situations in which we find ourselves. All the premium difference would do is make people angry or uninsured.
Actually, the taxes may "work" better than premium differentials, but I only know of data re: taxes. I don't know if premium differentials would work or not. Do you have any data suggesting they wouldn't work? Do higher insurance premiums reduce speeding, for example?
As you said, it (your system) changes the context - which makes all the difference in the world. Like mathematics before and after Mandelbrot's fractal discoveries.
I still like the quote from Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
While I agree that insurance companies have done a poor job with health lifestyle incentives, they sure won't improve if these bills pass. It irks me that they have Safeway and others who have data on how to cut health care costs testifying before their committees, and then they draft bills to do what is politically popular instead of what works.
That's why I don't want the White House of the Congress any where near my health care.
I have a group policy through my employer. To add my dependents to that policy costs the same regardless of whether those dependents smoke or not.
Who said that there would be better incentives if these bills pass?
Whatever made you suspect that Congress might do what was best for the public if there was big money behind some other course of action?
I guess one saving grace is those anti healthy people just won't live very long, so that could reduce our burden
Hmmm, that doesn't sound very nice does it? !!!
It makes sense to me. No one is forced to do anything like they are in the proposed health care reform bills.
What a novel idea! : )
The ones that currently exist are junk, and insurance companies seem to need a gun to their head to modernize.
The red tape involved in the cash for clunkers program, is not a good sign...
I gave you facts about the bills in Congress and the fact that they will drive up the cost of health care, despite the claims of the President that health care reform will reduce health care costs. You responded by calling my comments nit-picking and talking about an e-records scheme and "cash for clunkers".
I'm not sure you are on my planet.
My comment was a nit-pick of your statement. All elements of the bill will increase costs? No. Even the worst bill ever made in Congress has some merit.
Good intentions, combined with a bad example, like the cash for clunkers program, is exactly how I learned to improve, back when I actually had a job anyway.
I think that both major parties are exactly right, about 10% of the time. So, I still believe they can learn from their mistakes. My glass is 10% full.
If the costs of healthcare delivery are increased, the quality should be, too. At this point, I have very little confidence in that likelihood.
On the other hand, you are penalizing a lot of insurance premium payers if you make them pay for people who are already sick. That's why NY and NJ rates are so high. They have "guaranteed issue" regulations that force insurance companies to issue policies to sick people.
So people wait until they are sick to get insurance, and the other people in the plan have to pay a share of the cost of insuring sick people. It is paying for a government regulated scam!
Health is not exactly a matter of "luck". There is some degree of caring, discipline, and commitment.
Jan: "Would you suggest penalizing persons with addictions or poor diet and unhealthy lifestyles?"
Is it a "penalty" for these folks to accept, to a significant extent, some measure of responsibility for their own health? There are treatments for addicts, nutritionists for poor diets, and gyms for unhealthy lifestyles. I will guarantee you, people who do not care about their own health will eventually require others to care. How "fair" is that? How "desirable" is that?
We've all heard of fitness experts who drop dead of heart attacks. I know of many people who do not bother with an annual physical exam, but live to a ripe old age. One of these men died from a very treatable prostate cancer because he waited too long to see a doctor.
Yes, I think we have a responsibility to maintain our health as best we can.
We cannot change genetic predispositions for diseases such as arthritis, Reynaud's Disease, Parkinson's, heart disease and cancer.
A healthy lifestyle may help prevent some conditions, but not all. I really don't feel comfortable penalizing people who are stricken with diseases for which there are no cures.
Maybe a good compromise would be to offer discounts to those who see their physicians regularly and who follow his/her advice.
"Addictions and poverty can be almost impossible to recover from, despite the best treatments and job training."
I was a mental health professional for 30 years. I know addictions. They are difficult to recover from, but not "nearly impossible". Many alcoholics and addicts have told me that nicotine addiction is among the most difficult addictions to quit, and yet thousands quit annually - mostly without benefit of expensive treatment programs.
Jan: "We cannot change genetic predispositions for diseases such as arthritis, Reynaud's Disease, Parkinson's, heart disease and cancer."
Genetic predisposition is only one "risk factor" for most diseases. The chance of developing most diseases (not all, but those are the exceptions - not the rule) can be mitigated by taking good care of oneself.
I am all for healthcare reform, which includes incentives for taking care of oneself.
Jan: "Maybe a good compromise would be to offer discounts to those who see their physicians regularly and who follow his/her advice."
Do you think physicians should have to submit results of annual physicals to insurance companies?
I think a better approach might be to tax the hell out of tobacco products, alcohol (drugs, if they're legalized), firearms and ammunition (except perhaps for those weapons/shells clearly used for hunting), and junk food. I also think there should be a surcharge on traffic tickets and auto accidents. Revenue from such taxes should be excusively targeted for healthcare (I know - good luck with that).
My point, however, is that healthcare reform simply cannot work if people do not take their own health seriously.
Can you see that line of thought extending to families who consume alcohol and prepare cholesterol rich foods? Will we all be limited to one egg per week? Big brother may be checking.
I think a good report from one's annual physical - HDL, LDL, Tri-glycerides, etc., at normal levels should be sufficient. Policing people's diet and exercise sounds ridiculous.
Do we really want or need more taxes? I don't think so. To date, "sin taxes" have not improved the economy in any noticeable way. I think a good, brief report with the necessary lab values should be sufficient.