Posted: 06/11/09 04:30
by Dave Mindeman
Republicans are ramping up their opposition to Democratic Health Care proposals. And once again, it is, or will be, the government's fault that health care is out of control. The single payer bogeyman is a great target. You can always get a good scare campaign going about something you never give a chance to work.
But the GOP messages often conflict.
John Kline offers this quote:
"If Democrats are serious about including a so-called government-run 'option' in their plan ? and if a government-run 'option' is designed to crowd out the private sector ? then the reality is that we are only a few steps away from a single payer system."
Kline says that a government option "could drive private insurers out of business". Now, if the government option is going to drive insurers out of business, don't we have to assume that it is a better and more cost effective plan? That is the rule of the market place is it not?
Yet, here in Minnesota the local GOP talking points are latching onto the "mandate problem". Conservative blogger Gary Gross, at Let Freedom Ring, had the opportunity to ask some questions of Rep. Paul Ryan....the lead guy on the US House version of their health care "alternative".
The Minnesota mandates came up:
Q: Here in Minnesota, there are 65 separate mandates on health insurers, all of which drive up the cost of a health insurance premium. With Ted Kennedy & Co. writing health care ?reform?, isn?t it likely that their legislation will contain lots of expensive mandates? Wouldn?t that necessarily drive up health care costs?
A: Yes. That is one of the major problems with a public plan. Insurance shouldn?t be one-size-fits-all. The public plans being proposed by Ted Kennedy and others will likely mandate a lot of coverage that not everyone needs, making it more expensive for everyone. We?ve seen this problem at a state level where a state mandates coverage for something like hair regrowth formula ? that only a small percentage of the population even wants access to ? but ultimately, those mandates drive up the cost of insurance for everyone, even those who don?t use much coverage at all. The Patients? Choice Act addresses this problem by allowing insurance plans that sell health insurance through state exchanges to be exempt from these mandates. These plans only need to meet the minimum benefit standard prescribed by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. People need to be able to purchase health insurance that isn?t heavily loaded with mandates.
Which increased my curiousity. What is involved with those 65 mandates? Although I am still tracking some of them down, I did find a partial list at the Kaiser Family Foundation site regarding State Health Facts.
I am assuming the definition of mandates is that the state requires insurance companies to cover specific procedures that they would otherwise have an option to NOT cover.
The Kaiser list of mandates in Minnesota include:
Cancer Screening for Women--breast cancer
--cervical cancer
--ovarian cancer
Reconstructive Surgury after a Mastectomy
Direct Access to OB/GYN's (I assume that means without a necessary referral procedure)
Cover treatment for eating disorders.
Mandated coverage for maternity care (Yes, believe it or not Minnesota had to require insurers to cover that)
As you can see, a lot of these mandates refer to coverage specific to women. Did private insurers discriminate against women's health? Oh, yes. And they still do in many areas.
So, there you are. Single payer is dangerous because it is too "competitive" for the private insurers. While at the same time it costs too much because it mandates coverages.
I guess we need to stay with the current system. You know, the system that depends on private insurers with 30 and 40% administrative costs and which only cover things that won't cost them too much money....especially if they can get rid of those pesky mandates outlined above.
You know, that system.
P.S. -- I am sure you will be relieved to know that Minnesota does not mandate "hair regrowth formulas"....whew!