Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: Health reform bills pass House, Senate’

This changes nothing. In the next 10 years, your healthcare coverage will go up 110%. Health insurance has told us as much.
My example? Aetna tried to raise the cost's to have their insurance by over 30%. That is on top of a raise in premiums from last year by 18%.

Stay classy Utah.

Too little, too late. The legislature is making a deal with the devil. I don't see anything about eliminating the pre-existing condition clause that keeps many people without insurance.

The pre-existing condition element needs to be reviewed. It seems Utahans have no idea how many people are without insurance because they have a "pre-existing" condition. All I hear is that should be up to the insurance company. What is a valid "condition" to not insure someone? What ever they want? How about psoriasis? Or because some fell down a staircase and went to an InstaCare while an application for coverage was open? Both have been used as reasons for denial based on "pre-existing conditions".

'How about psoriasis? Or because some fell down a staircase and went to an InstaCare while an application for coverage was open?' - 2:44 p.m.

Don't forget Adam Lange. The 3 month old child who was denied health insurance because he was in the 99th percentile for size. No, not obese, not fat, just very, very large for his age.
Health insurance has too much leway to decide who is covered and who is not. As such, they are not fair and balanced as only one thing motivates business...

and that is, money.

We pay health insurance, they look for reasons not to cover us. It's very simple.

This will continue until we do something about it.

Sorry, Adam Lange? The 3 month old child who was denied health insurance?

This happened 10/10/09 through Rocky Mountain insurance.

I thought the point of having insurance was to have insurance before something bad happens to you.

Maybe we should add a "pre-existing condition" regulation to car insurance.

That way you can buy insurance a week after you car gets totaled in an accident. Just pass a law requiring it, just like Congress does everyone else.

You get reimbursed, you buy another car, and don't get insurance until you need it again.

Why not require car insurance companies to cover oil changes and tire rotations too? Just like health insurance companies cover routine checkups.
It's not unreasonable, I know doctors that charge considerably less for office visits than the garage charges me for an oil change and a tire rotation. Maybe I should get an MD to change my oil?

Everybody should be aware that the pre-existing clause only applies to individuals who have been uninsured for 63 days or more. The rules are specified in a federal law known as HIPAA (it originally had nothing to do with privacy). As G noted above, this law is what prevents people from opting to be totally uninsured until they need to file a claim, and then entering the market through their employer at open enrollment.

I will agree that at the end of the day Insurance companies are the ones corrupting the system. Even so, the pre-existing conditions clause actually restrict adverse selection, promoting both the solvency and viability of the "would-be" health insurance market.

A "firm hand in the back".

Beware what the hand in the back is holding. Remember, political power is fundamentally forceful in nature. Their hand will be holding a knife. Economic power, unlike political power, is fundamentally peaceful, i.e. it is based on voluntary trade--no force.

Which brings us to this sinister assurance from Mr. Clark of making sure "everybody is playing by the same rules". Gov't regulation of free trade in ANY GOOD OR SERVICE has exactly the opposite effect than "playing by the same rules". It stacks the deck in favor of one party or the other. In this case the gov't looks to stack the deck in favor of the heroic underdog, "the uninsured". There is only one policy that ensures a level playing field: LIBERTY. Liberty for owners of insurance companies and freedom for buyers of their wares.

Risk pools are not a public good to be shared equally. They are opportunities that smart men have utilized by their honest effort to provide a desirable product: insurance.

The government's only proper role is to ensure that contractual agreements are lived up to... not to dictate those contracts' terms.

I suggest you take a closer look at the economic history of free trade. While I agree that a system which tends to free trade is better than total government control (per history). Make no mistake that the inequities and favoritism inherent in free market capitalism can also be quite "violent", using your knife analogy. Ironically, modern health insurance companies serve as the best example to that fact. I suggest you search "unfettered capitalism" and see if you still agree.

The insurance companies are too clever by half. They have brought us all within a whisker of socialized medicine and if they don't wise up and change some of their practices the time will come when they are all out of business.

To 9:08

I searched and I read, and I stand on what I said.

What this legislation and your literature promote is economic fascism. The government benevolently allows private citizens private ownership of property and business but under heavy regulation.

But this philosophy relies on this false premise: all property is owned by the collective society and it is by the benevolence of a government that you own it. This utterly destroys the concept of inalienable, individual rights including the right to property.

Mr. Clark's insistence that risk pools be shared equally is a perfect example of this collective mindset... and this is precisely the mindset that will ensure government healthcare whether via the state or via the feds.

And the frightening aspect then is this: the collective property won't be a "risk pool"... it will be men, specifically doctors and nurses.

I see that our Utah legislature is not smart enough to see how people feel about government interfering with health care. Leave it alone. It is not great, but your interference will only make it worse. Work on ethics reform instead.

Fascism would be at the extreme end of the spectrum. First, you should bear in mind that the current health care crisis (health insurance pricing for example) is the product of unfettered capitalism run amok. Fettered capitalism doesn't imply government takeover, it's just smarter than to allow survival of the fittest mentality devour the world in a hope that big business will hold the requisite ethics necessary for classical equilibrium. You should also hold in mind that economics is a social science, not a hard science. The underlying assumption behind the Adam Smith self interest Labor/Capital equilibrium, is the that ethics and morals still exist at some level. Pay attention to health insurance, healthcare has been hijacked by these companies. Annually the rake in record profits, refuse legitimate claims, and dictate patient treatment by what they will pay for, and what they won't. They get away with benefit packages where premiums increase annually by double digits. According to unfettered free market theory, demand should have dried up 15 years ago. Why hasn't it? Because they control the access, and we can't go without seeing doctors. You might next look into elasticities.

Asking the industry to "follow through on its commitment not to play the system for its own financial gain" will show them who's boss. Way to get tough Utah!

"They get away with benefit packages where premiums increase annually by double digits. According to unfettered free market theory, demand should have dried up 15 years ago. Why hasn't it? Because they control the access, and we can't go without seeing doctors."

Good point. So what do you think is going to happen to the cost when the law requires everyone to own health insurance? Increasing demand doesn't reduce price.

Increasing demand and allowing for true competitive pricing has a better chance of reducing price than the road we are on.
The examples of denial I gave were from people currently insured but forced to switch from a group (employer) plan to an individual plan. Try it sometime and see if your tune changes because one of your dependents actually used your insurance before you had to look for yourself. These people are not uninsured. There is a problem but so many people just want to ignore it because it doesn't affect them... yet!