Anthem of Maine requests 23% rate increase, state regulators tell them to shove it

[samclem]

[MOD EDIT]
For those interested, here's a link to the Kaiser Foundation's coverage of the proposal and a link to the (219 page) amendment itself.

From the WSJ:

Republican congressional leaders are finally offering a clear alternative to the health-reform plans being developed by the White House and Democrats in Congress. The goals and the rhetoric of both sides are remarkably similar: cover the uninsured, allow people to keep the coverage they have, provide more choices of affordable health insurance, and rein in health costs. But their policy prescriptions are remarkably different.
. . .
Four Republicans in Congress -- Sens. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Reps. Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) and Devin Nunes (California) -- will today introduce a bill that moves away from federal centralization. Aptly called the Patients' Choice Act, it provides a path to universal coverage by redirecting current subsidies for health insurance to individuals. It also provides a new safety net that guarantees access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.
The nexus of their plan is redirecting the $300 billion annual tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance to individuals in the form of refundable, advanceable tax credits. Families would get $5,700 a year and individuals $2,300 to buy insurance and invest in Health Savings Accounts.
Low-income Americans would get a supplemental debit card of up to $5,000 to help them purchase insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs. They would have an incentive to spend wisely since up to one-fourth of any unspent money in the accounts could be rolled over to the next year. The combination of the refundable tax credit and debit card gives lower-income Americans a way out of the Medicaid ghetto so they can have the dignity of private insurance.
The great majority of Americans with job-based health insurance would see little more than a bookkeeping change with the Patients' Choice plan. But implicit in the policy is the acknowledgment that our system of tying health insurance to the workplace is not working for upwards of 45 million uninsured Americans.

In my view, it was far from perfect, but it did represent an alternative approach that could have served as a useful starting point. Maybe it still can--rumor has it that the present legislation might run into some unexpected trouble in the coming weeks.

 

[dgoldenz]

For those interested, here's a link to the Kaiser Foundation's coverage of the proposal and a link to the (219 page) amendment itself.

From the WSJ:
In my view, it was far from perfect, but it did represent an alternative approach that could have served as a useful starting point. Maybe it still can--rumor has it that the present legislation might run into some unexpected trouble in the coming weeks.

[MOD EDIT]

Let's take an example from a union with a "Cadillac" plan that costs $30,000 per year for a family. Let's say that same union could get an HSA plan with a $5,000 deductible for the family at a cost of $10,000 per year. Let's say the employer contributed that full $5,000 into an HSA for the employee - no tax to the employee for the benefit. Now the employee has a health plan that costs $20,000 per year less than the current one, and has the entire out-of-pocket expense in an HSA to be used in case of a claim. The out-of-pocket expense to the employee for the whole year is $0. That's less than the Cadillac plan with co-pays for everything. If they have a $5,000 claim, they just saved $15,000. If they don't have any claims, they just saved $20,000.
Now the employee has a reason to reduce their cost of care - they get to keep more of the money!

Since HSA money rolls over every year, a 30-year-old employee who never had a claim would have $175,000 in their HSA account that can be taken out freely at age 65 with no penalty. That money also could have grown well over $500k with interest by age 65. They also saved the employer over $700,000 based on current rates. That's close to a $1 million difference, and that's just for one employee, not taking into account the even larger difference as premiums rise over time. Multiply that by a million employees. Obviously, things change over 35 years, but you get the idea. It's stupidity at its finest.

 

[Gone4Good]

[MOD EDIT]
For those interested, here's a link to the Kaiser Foundation's coverage of the proposal and a link to the (219 page) amendment itself.

So if I understand this plan correctly, unhealthy people will be insured by the tax payer (high risk pool) while profitable healthy people will get insurance from an insurance company, or not at all. That is at least as long as they stay healthy, after which they can be dumped on the state high risk pool.

Sounds like a great plan. For the insurance companies.

Oh, and apparently expanding the high risk pools to cover the 30MM+ uninsured can be accomplished without raising any taxes. Is that an unfunded state mandate or are they assuming that the high risk pool premium will be high enough to cover its costs? In which case, no one will be able to afford it.