Comments for Independence Institute: Patient Power

Comment on Colorado House Bill 1008: Why women pay higher insurance premiums by Dallashealthinsurance

Dallashealthinsurance — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:09:58 +0000

I love how they put out press releases like this one, which is a nice hit job on the insurance industry, yet the White House solution is to effectively remove the one real choice consumers have that actually does provide some measure of cost competition. By opting out of insurance and saving their money, people would be free to negotiate with doctors and hospitals for cash payment, or to seek treatment overseas.

Comment on Obama vs. reconciliation & an update by wakalix

wakalix — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:21:44 +0000

Yes, maybe reconciliation is a smokescreen, as you suggest. David Catron at HealthCareBS is more optimistic on how this will go down:
http://www.healthcarebs.com/2010/03/04/the-late...

I hope he's right. Looks like pretty thin ice to me.

Comment on Obama vs. reconciliation & an update by fichtnerbass

fichtnerbass — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:18:59 +0000

is reconciliation a smokescreen? house passes senate bill w/ promise of change that doesn't happen. Prez signs bill. Voila!

Comment on Colorado House Bill 1008: force men to pay higher insurance premiums by wakalix

wakalix — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:25:12 +0000

Jackie, as I note in a post from earlier this week, men pay higher premiums than women for life insurance. Do you think politicians should prohibit this practice?

I do not think insurers charge women more "simply because they are women." I think they charge more because insures anticipate, based on actuarial data, that women make more expensive claims, or more claims total.

You say the legislation is not about charging men more. OK. How do you expect insurers to respond by politicians prohibit them from charging market rates to women? Sure, they could charge men more to cover the lost revenue. But they might not. They could start skimping on the benefits of women's plans, deny more claims, etc.

Regardless, this is wrong because people have the right to voluntarily associate with one another. You do not have the right to force a someone to sell a product at a price he or she does not want to sell it at.

Comment on Liberty vs. Newt’s “Top 10 GOP” health care ideas by Dallashealthinsurance

Dallashealthinsurance — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:49:06 +0000

In spite the odds, health care is very important. It's one consolation for life's hard work especially to the lowly workers.

Comment on Michael Bennet’s lame support for “public option” via reconciliation by Michael Bennet Gets Some Small Redemption from SEIU Endorsement : Peoples Press Collective

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:56:44 +0000

[...] While rival Andrew Romanoff has won backing from the Teamsters and UFCW, Bennet at least finally has gained something for putting his neck out to try to ram Obama Care through Congress. [...]

Comment on Colorado House Bill 1008: force men to pay higher insurance premiums by Jackie

Jackie — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:16:58 +0000

I think you are missing the point of this bill. The object is not to charge men more, but to outlaw charging women more simply because they are women. The bill says gender rating will be considered discriminatory and illegal, that's all, nothing about charging men more. No offense, but it's pretty typical of a man who may not be aware of his own privilege to turn this around and make it be about hurting men instead of helping women. Even if it means men paying more (which is not a definite because there appears to be no data on similar laws in different states at this time), so what? Boo hoo, they'll have to pay the same amount as women. How is that wrong, exactly? Right now a nonsmoking woman pays more than a smoking man of the same age in CO. One excuse is that maternity care is expensive, but private CO insurance does not cover maternity care. Figure that one out…

Comment on How health-status insurance addresses pre-existing conditions problem by Dean

Dean — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0000

http://civilsocietytrust.org/blog/2010/02/21/he... describes some similar themes.

Comment on Buying insurance across state lines not a “race to the bottom” by links for 2010-02-22 « Overton’s Arrow

links for 2010-02-22 « Overton’s Arrow — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:06:27 +0000

[...] Buying insurance across state lines not a “race to the bottom” | Independence Institute: Patient… (tags: Colorado CO healthcare insurance regulation government states US) [...]

Comment on Obama Care kills competition by Michael Bennet’s lame support for “public option” via reconciliation | Independence Institute: Patient Power

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:40:02 +0000

[...] should start their own insurance company instead of one backed by the guns of government that would compete unfairly with existing ones. As for reconciliation, Michael Tanner of Cato explains it this way: The last, [...]