Wednesday, August 12, 2009

The truth about Obamacare's "guarenteed issue" and "community rating" provisions

The proposed revisions will clearly drive the up costsof private insurance, and further grease the skids for the elimination of this market in favor of universal health care.

"But if insurers are forced to sell coverage to everyone at any time, many people will buy insurance only when they need medical care. This raises the cost of insurance for everyone else, in particular those who are responsible enough to buy insurance before they need it; they end up paying even higher premiums. And the more expensive the insurance, the less likely people will buy it before they need it.

......Another proposed reform known as 'community rating' imposes uniform premiums regardless of health condition. This also blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all. And if the healthy don't join risk pools, then premiums go up for everyone and insurers have little choice but to reduce their risk by refusing to cover those who have a high chance of getting sick, such as people with a history of cancer.

.....ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as '[reform.' "
The consequences of these things being implemented are many, and significant. I am pretty sure the Usual Suspect Obamacare shills don't have a clue about these ramifications.

In fact, based on past experience, I can almost predict I'll get at least one comment that clearly establishes ignorance on these matters.


  1. The anonymous writer of the WSJ piece neglects to mention a MAJOR part of the draft health care legislation now before Congress. To make guaranteed issue and community rating work, an individual mandate, requiring everyone to have health insurance, is necessary. Even the leading Republican proposal recognizes this. That's what will keep costs down.

    The bill also has sliding scale affordability provisions for people who cannot afford the premiums.

    As Matt Quinn pointed out on The Health Care Blog:

    Mandating both guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to cover all comers) and community rating (prohibiting insurers from factoring in age, sex, previous medical conditions, or other factors in setting rates) sets a level playing field for insurers to compete on delivering value to their customers. Guaranteed issue and community rating require each other and are both necessary for reform efforts to work. Since the managed care backlash in the 1990s, insurers have largely given up on holding down health care costs and today compete primarily on underwriting -- skimming healthy people and shedding sick or otherwise unprofitable ones. Some have even been caught underwriting retroactively or canceling coverage for members who incur medical bills. Mandating both guaranteed issue and community rating forces insurers to compete on their ability to deliver quality, cost-effective care for a population -- and not on their skill in underwriting.

  2. And there's your ignorance! Right on Bubba!

  3. You might stoop to explain what is "ignorant" about the statement. I just heard a former Republican Congressman, George Nethercutt, say that we all need to approach discussions of health care reform with a sense of humility, because it's a complicated subject.

  4. "And there's your ignorance!"

    It never takes very long, does it?

    Here's the tiup-off, anon:

    "Mandating both guaranteed issue and community rating forces insurers to compete on their ability to deliver quality, cost-effective care for a population -- and not on their skill in underwriting."

    Utterly clueless.

    It goes along with the "high administrative costs in health insurance" meme the Usual Suspects talk about, without actually understanding what it means.

    They continue to use a bogus number for Medicare admin expense efficiency, as compared to private insurance.

  5. Er, America's private health insurance companies disagree with you, Bub. They support "guaranteed issue," elimination of pre-existing conditions, "premium stability for highest-risk individuals," and an individual mandate on citizens to carry health insurance:


    But I guess in your mind these professionals are "utterly clueless" and "showing their ignorance," eh?

  6. If the support those issues why don't they just implement them in their policies? Being private companies they do not have to wait on a vote, just do it at the next board meeting.

    The only reason they support this is because they will be the ones getting the payoff until they are bankrupt, the executives paid off, and thier customers forced into the government option.

    The evidence of ignorance is overwhelming.

  7. So your assertion is that Karen Ignanani and the good folks at AHIP (American Health Insurance Plans) know far less than you do, "Mr. Anonymous," and are willfully committing professional suicide.

    Ok, if you say so. Your credibility is on the line, though.