Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers Rate Increases (Give Fed Gov New Power To Block Excessive Rates)

[kpete]

Source: New York Times

Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers’ Rate Increases

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
Published: February 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nation’s health care system, White House officials said.

The president’s legislation aims to bridge differences between the bills adopted by the House and Senate late last year, and to frame his debate with Republicans over health policy at a televised “summit” meeting on Thursday.

By focusing on the effort to tighten regulation of insurance costs, a new element not included in either the House or Senate bills, Mr. Obama is seizing on outrage over recent premium increases of up to 39 percent announced by Anthem Blue Cross of California and moving to portray the Democrats’ health overhaul as a way to protect Americans from predatory insurers.

Congressional Republicans have long denounced the Democrats’ legislation as a “government takeover” of health care. And while they will likely resist any expansion of federal authority over existing state regulators, they will face a tough balancing act at the meeting with the president to avoid appearing as if they are willing to allow steep premium hikes like those by Anthem.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/health/policy/22health.html?hp

[MannyGoldstein]

1. In Other Words: "No Public Option"

Which would take care of the issue.

Run, Barack, run! Flee from your campaign promises, like they were last-night's ill-advised drunken hookup. Together, we'll watch some Scott Brown-esque kook take the WH in 2012: Yes We Can!

[havocmom]

11. Not only that, but great future job options for the 'regulators'

Nothing like being well enough off to be able to dangle golden carrots in front of those charged with regulating you. The Insurance Industry just creates a few more overpaid executive posts, and mission accomplished... AGAIN

[still_one]

17. 2012 is far from determined, at least right now. The republicans are not in such

great shape either. much to the dismay of the republican party ron paul won the cpac straw poll. The republican party agenda would never allow a ron paul or a teabagger to get the nomination. Both are against their corporate agenda, and though things haven't looked particularly good for the Democrats as of late, the republicans have an even more divided constiuent that is not being reported

[martymar64]

36. That's part of what gives me hope

As divided as the Democrats are right now, the Republicans are in utter disarray. This teabag insurgency has thrown them into total chaos as the seek to develop their post-Bush face and agenda.
I don't think that they will accomplish that much in 10 or 12, the Teabaggers are totally over-publicized and will not have that big of an effect come election time. As much as people in this country are pissed, the majority have not forgotten that it was the Republicans that got us into this mess. I don't think they'll forget this November either.

[PSPS]

2. I don't think this is possible

Insurance companies are regulated at the state level, not the federal level. And, frankly, I don't think this is the way to go even if congress can pass such a law stripping regulatory authority from the states.

First, it would make it easier and less expensive for insurance companies to buy favorable legislation. Today, at least they have fifty state commissioners and legislatures to pay off/bribe.

Second, with our corporate-friendly and, now, corporate-financed (bribed) Washington, I'd rather complain to my state employee who might still be clean instead of a compromised Washington political appointee who, more than likely, was picked from the insurance industry itself to fill the post.

[Igel]

35. A couple of comments.

Feinstein, I think it was, complained about the Anthem rate hike. Something like 25 states have regulatory authorities to handle such matters, California doesn't, so she says it has to be a federal agency.

I think of that as a non sequitur.

The second thing is to observe that NY State issued requirements years ago mandating that certain things be included and you couldn't turn down (I think it was) applicants for some preexisting conditions. Both require greater outlays for patient care, which requires greater income. Which had the "unintended" consequence of higher rates. So they recently complained about having some of the highest insurance rates in the country, even after accounting for regional cost differences.

Now, price controls 'lite' have the same problems as other price controls. As costs go up either you make the product for less or you stop selling it. Both are "bad", because in the one case fewer conditions are covered and in the second more people aren't covered.

Oddly, you'd think that Anthem's situation would be used for HCR-related PR instead of Dem politicking, because Anthem, in a nutshell, is what the "mandate" is about. You need to think of having healthy, low-risk people paying what amounts to a tax in order to subsidize those who are less healthy and high risk. You can quibble about the role of profit, but the underlying business model is the same.

[nightrain]

3. let's tinker some more at the edges...

[katandmoon]

4. Keepers of the Obama Accompllishments List: Please add this proposal!

[No Elephants]

38. Or, wait and see what actually happens, if anything.

A news article saying what Obama will propose the following week is an accomplishment of Obama?

Obama used to propose a strong public option. These days, I think I'll wait and see what actually happens, if anything.

[postulater]

5. How about corporate profit regulation.

Profits in excess of a fixed return on investment get distributed among employees.

[No Elephants]

39. How about distributing it among customers? That's where it came from.

[razorman]

6. This could be a first step toward interstate competition between insurance companies,

which is one of the main things conservatives are demanding for their version of health care reform. That and tort reform.

[PSPS]

7. Yes, that giant canard - 'interstate competition'

All the insurance companies already have state subsidiaries. That's how they work. They aren't little state companies, after all. They're national companies. They certainly can't compete with themselves, but 'conservatives' and republicans don't bother to mention that.

[No Elephants]

40. Interstate competition = all insurers will meet Texas requirements and only Texas

requirements, Texas being the state with laws and regulations most favorable to insurers (and least favorable to patients).

[razorman]

42. I'm not sure I understand. If there is official "interstate competition"

between the insurance companies, wouldn't that require national standards of some sort? Seems like that would sort of inhibit the purposes that the conservatives claim to want?

[No Elephants]

44. A federal standard may come at some point, but it would not have to.

But, it's all kabuki anyway. The same few companies are already "competing" with each other in 50 states.

[Walk away]

8. Politics as usual. This is not Health Care Reform.

While it is true that cost is what is driving this country's Health Care off a cliff, regulating health insurance cost is useless unless the cost of care is reduced. The Health insurance corporations are masters at side stepping regulation and turning tragedy and illness into obscene profits.

With the spot light of public opinion full on them, the top health care insurance companies are posting a 56% increase in profits while 2.7 million Americans have lost their insurance due to the floundering economy.

Real health care cost will not be reduced until we join the rest of the civilized world and create a single payer system that works. Until we get these corporate vampires off off our backs we will continue down the road of unnecessary illness and death for millions and financial ruination for everyone else.

[w4rma]

9. If there isn't a public option in it, he shouldn't even bother. It's dead without it. (nt)

[No Elephants]

41. It may well pass with mandate, no public option, no repeal of the monopoly exemption,

tax on "cadillac" plans with which file clerk in a law firm or dental office may be blessed, denial of compensation to victims of medical malpractice, interstate "competition," cuts to medicare (elderly and disabled) and other abominations.

[bvar22]

10. I have a better idea:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

[John Q. Citizen]

12. i prefer single payer, by a lot. This is just more smoke and mirrors.

[Zoeisright]

13. Not. Good. Enough.

And repukes WANT steep rate increases, because they hate everyone who isn't rich and white and want them to die.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. It depends on the definition of "excessive"

38%?

[taught_me_patience]

15. Fed gov power to limit "excessive" banker pay

worked out so well... wait... wut?

Hard to tell what the Federal government considers "excessive" these days.

[leftstreet]

16. FFS, at this point maybe we should just ask him to lower our heat bills

This is pointless

[pundaint]

18. If there is no public option the bill is not acceptable.

Does the president only act when public option becomes a possibility? We are being sold out to our face.

[coyote]

19. Oh wow....he is urging....what's next?

really urging? a strongly worded statement?

Not that I had high hopes to start with, but this entire administration has been a total let down

I suggest create a tarp like fund for the health insurance companies, give them loads of money, and maybe the insurance companies will play nicey and lower their rates. Faith based capitalism.

[JDPriestly]

20. This is a boondoggle waste of time.

The insurance companies will use all kinds of accounting tricks to overcome attempts to regulate them. They will simply falsify their records and falsify the amounts of their costs -- the insurance equivalent of what the banks did with derivatives.

It's the public option or nothing.

Not because I am rigid or unwilling to compromise but because the public option is the only thing that will keep insurance rates under control and realistic. There really is no workable alternative to the public option unless it is single payer (my real preference).

[brooklynite]

21. Obama wants federal power to block excessive health insurance rate hikes

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration will propose legislation that would allow the government to block excessive rate hikes by health insurance companies, a senior administration official told CNN Sunday.

...snip...

The legislation on insurance rates "would grant the federal health and human services secretary new authority to review, and to block, premium increases by private insurers, potentially superseding state insurance regulators," The New York Times reported Sunday night, citing administration officials.

"The bill would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, made up of health industry experts that would issue an annual report setting the parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in the market."

The officials said they believe such legislation would take effect immediately after a health care reform bill is signed into law.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/22/obama.health.care/index.html?hpt=T1

---

I wonder if this is seen as 1) a substitute for the Public OPtion to control costs, or 2) a trap to get Republicans to come out in support of Private Sector profits?

[secondwind]

22. Your questions are interesting......this will be one heckuva week, for sure!

[DrDan]

23. the authority is made up of "health industry experts"

that "chickens guarding the henhouse" strategy ALWAYS works in our favor, doesn't it.

[Mari333]

24. uh oh. smoke and mirrors. nt

[JDPriestly]

25. This is useless.

The insurance companies will use accounting tricks to justify exorbitant charges.

The only thing that will work to keep prices realistic is a public option.

[DrDan]

26. absolutely - competition through the PO is the ONLY way to keep the insurers in line

[Dinger]

27. Doesn't Mean Shit Without A Public Option (nt)

[harun]

34. NO MANDATES WITHOUT AN OPEN PUBLIC OPTION!

[nightrain]

37. oh for f*$k's sake, get rid of these thuggish corporations! They serve NO functional

purpose and provide not one whit of clinical service! Tinker, tinker...

[OKNancy]

28. kick n/t

[FreakinDJ]

29. New Obama health proposal would limit rate hikes

Source: RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Write

New Obama health proposal would limit rate hikes

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is making a fresh attempt to rescue his health care overhaul by proposing a measure that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriate consumers.

Coming just days before a White House health care summit with congressional leaders of both parties, Obama's legislative proposal, which will be unveiled later Monday, likely represents the president's last chance to salvage his signature issue.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity because details have not yet been officially released, said the insurance rate proposal would give the federal Health and Human Services Department — in conjunction with state authorities — the power to deny substantial premium increases, limit them, or demand rebates for consumers.

In this initiative, the administration seemingly is playing directly to the same kind of public skepticism that has endangered the medical care system remake all along. Health care reform was a front-burner issue for Obama and majority Democrats in Congress until a little known Republican, Scott Brown, shocked the political establishment last month by defeating Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to choose a successor for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

---

This writer must have missed the memo forbidding any positive stories for the President

[lamp_shade]

30. Pile-on coming... 3.... 2.... 1....

Oh... K&R

[FreakinDJ]

31. LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[high density]

32. So I guess the question is...

...are the corporatists in the senate any more warm on price controls than the public option. I'd guess no, but this provision seems to be very hard to argue against.

[Change Happens]

33. Amazing how specifically this ONE ISSUE was not talked about, only in general terms that

we want to bend the cost curve...etc.

There is only one single way to lower costs:

FORCE PRICE CONTROL ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY!!!


It is that simple!

[MadMaddie]

43. If you are not aware of the Power/Electric industry history

in America you should go do some research on how the industry came into being, how it became monopolized and then how it came to be regulated.

Step by step the insurance industry is the same kind of animal as the electric industry was in the 1920's. They are allowed to run amok with very little oversight. The power industry was exactly the same.

This is a smart move and the insurance industry is going to fight it tooth and nail and at the same time continue to raise premiums so only a few Americans can afford it.