AFL-CIO on mandated benefits
May 26th, 2008 | by Brian T. Schwartz |Continuation of: Dude, what free market?.
In their Denver Post commentary, AFL-CIO executives John Sweeney and Mike Cerbo also address benefits mandates (I assume) when they write that under McCain’s health care reform plan:
existing regulations would also be eliminated. For example, state laws that mandate coverage for mammograms or hospital stays after childbirth could be ignored at will.
Colorado’s Chief Medical Officer states that for everyone one-percent increase in insurance costs, 2,500 Coloradans lose coverage. As I’ve written before, the Congressional Budget Office reports that such mandated benefits increase premiums by at least six percent [p. 16, 20], and possibly more than ten. Are Sweeny and Cerbo concerned with how many Coloradans cannot afford insurance because of these mandates?
And why do Sweeny and Cerbo think certain coverages will be “ignored at will” if government does not mandate them? Insurance companies lose revenue by ignoring the what customers want. Sure, in today’s market, patients’ demand for insurance is mediated through employers, but demand for certain policy options still reflects what consumers want.
According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, all fifty states mandate the benefits they mention for small-group policies. Do Sweeny and Cerbo know that companies would not offer them if government didn’t force them to? And what about companies who self-insure? They are not subject to state-level mandated benefits. Are Sweeny and Cerbo implying that policies at such self-insuring companies do not offer such benefits? (I should look into this. …)
You might also like:
