Insurance Mandates

• March 27, 2006

Here is an interesting report from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. It concerns insurance mandates which are defined in the report as:

…a requirement that an insurance company or health plan cover (or offer coverage for) common
— but sometimes not so common — health care providers, benefits and patient populations.

Mandates are required by the individual states. While they do make insurance coverage more comprehensive – generally a good thing – they also, as the report states, make it more expense. For instance, consider this list of services and treatments that are mandated by one state or another:

Port-wine stain elimination
Acupuncturists
Naturopaths
Pastoral Counselors
Drug Abuse Treatment
Hair Prostheses

Now, no doubt some people have need of services likes the ones listed above (which are just a few examples I culled from the full list which is included in the report), but do they really need to be included in health coverage for all citizens of a state? I’d say that there are very few people in any state who have need of insurance coverage for hair prostheses or accupuncturists, yet in certain states all citizens (and their employers) end up paying for coverage for those sorts of things. Things that, frankly, most citizens wold probably rather pay out-of-pocket for when the need arises rather than pay for coverage for them their entire lives.
Think I’m making a mountain out of a molehill? The expense these mandates create in terms increased coverage costs are no small matter according to the same report:

Based on our analysis presented in this paper, mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to more than 50%, depending on the state. Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Lexus would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist.

An cost increase of 30% is significant.
This is the problem when government starts inserting itself into something that should be a private transaction between an individual and his/her health care provider. Politicians are susceptible to the demands of special interests. If some group like “Bald Men Of America” gets some influence in a state legislature all the people of that state could find themselves paying for wigs. Now, maybe coverage for hair pieces is a good thing for cancer patients, but should all the people of a state have to pay for that coverage? Shouldn’t it be each person’s choice?
I think so. Which is why state-run health care is a joke. We’d get the sort of coverage our politicians think is best.
Read the whole report. It is very interesting.

Tags: Cultural Marxism, Doug Goehring, Merle Boucher, Tracy Potter

http://Array Robert Perry

Don’s assertion that a corporate source is inherently flawed is, as Rob notes, an example of the "genetic fallacy," where the primary argument is against the source and not the evidence.  It is, again, a logical fallacy, and proves nothing other than Don’s own bias–not that of any corporation.  And in fact, corporations can and do tell the truth–not always, but we cannot ignore evidence solely based on its origins.

Moreover, a quick look at one’s own benefits statement (for those of us in cubicles) quickly reveals that there are an awful lot of things covered that really don’t fit into what is historically seen as medicine.  A look at news stories (remember forcing Catholic Charities to cover contraception?) reveals that this is a real phenomenon.  And yes, when you cover more, it costs more.
Bat One

Rob,

You seem to have hit upon one of the fundamental differences between those on the Left and those of us in/on the Right.

To conservatives, the principles matter more than the personalities.  Any unbiased review of the criticism of the Bush presidency will show that there has been as much criticism from conservatives as from liberals, from steel tariffs to prescription drug benefits, to Harriet Miers, including Mr. Buckley’s recent criticism of our endeavors in Iraq.  Likewise with Trent Lott’s intemperate remarks, Newt Gingrich’s fits of pique, and "Duke" Cunningham’s illicit sale of his office and his integrity.  In each case, conservatives were first in line to voice their displeasure.  And in each case, those criticisms were based on principles.

When Bill Clinton got caught in his various scandals, however, the left circled the wagons, cranked up the "spin machine" attacked the critics, and treated us all to a Cabinet pep rally in the White House Rose Garden, complete with AlGore declaring that Clinton was "the greatest president in US history."

In other words, to those on the left, partisan advantage trumps all other considerations… including the truth of the subject matter.

Similarly here, "Don" arbitrarily dismisses the subject report, presumably without having read or considered its contents, merely because the source is one with which he has partisan differences.  No doubt if the same report had been published by People for the American Way or United for Peace and Justice, "Don" would be positively fulsome in his praises… again without having read or understood its contents.
http://www.captainnormal.org/ Don Myers

Calling someone a leftard is attacking the person. Pointing out real bias in a corporate press release is neither an attack (it’s an assertion) nor is it directed at a person (it’s a press release).

Cut-and-pasting a definition doesn’t prove you understand it.
http://www.captainnormal.org/ Don Myers

Dude, a corporate press release is INHERENTLY biased in favor os said corporate entity. I assumed you could understand that but sadly you’ve proved me wrong.
http://www.captainnormal.org/ Don Myers

From the organization’s web site (http://www.cahi.org/): The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) is a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers active in the individual, small group, MSA and senior markets. CAHI’s membership includes insurance companies, small businesses, providers, nonprofit associations, actuaries, insurance brokers and individuals.

source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Affordable_Health_Insurance

Do you understand that an "advocacy association" is a lobbying firm? And it’s relevant, chief, because it calls into question the truth/bias of the press release.
http://www.captainnormal.org/ Don Myers

Why do you believe every word of a press release put out by an insurance industry lobbying group?

As someone who is so paranoid about a non-existant ‘liberal bias,’ it seems strange that you swallow a very real corporate bias hook, line, and sinker.
http://www.captainnormal.org/ Don Myers

I’m just saying it’s strange you study every word from the AP with Taldumic intensity searching for the liberal bias, but you assume that a lobbying firm is telling the 100% unbiased truth.

BTW, you demonstrate once again that conservatives don’t know what ‘ad hominem’ means. Here is an example of a real ad hominem attack:

"You’re a delusional shithead."

Questioning the corporate bias of a press release is not ad hominem. Do you see the difference now?
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Rob-  A similar situation developed about ten years ago in New Jersey.  Their legislature mandated that the automobile insurance companies insure everyone who walked in the door for virtually the same price, even those with multiple convictions for felonies.  After a few months, most of the major underwriters paid a huge fine, and left the state.  You can not make a person or a company loose money.  This situation will continue until the real cost of doing business is greater than income produced. 
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

Where this report came from is not really pertinent.  This would be another example of a state mandating to an independent company how to do business.  That would be wrong, tantamount to nationalization.
Puzzlefeet

I have a friend who has a daughter who has a very rare genetic disorder, in which one of the symptoms it no hair grows at all and will never grow.  Can you imagine being a young female child with no hair. So I can understand the Hair Prostheses. But policies are not written for individuals they are based on group rates so an individual couldn’t negotiate a separate "rider" for specific coverage.  Sort of defeats the "spread the risk" concept of insurance. 
Bat One

"… someone who is so paranoid about a non-existant ‘liberal bias,’…"

Don,

Don’t you think that calling an individual paranoid consitutes an ad hominem attack, or does your description merely apply when its a lefty whose poiint of view is being challenged?
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Don Myers says, As someone who is so paranoid…
Projection.

Pointing out real bias in a corporate press release is neither an attack (it’s an assertion) nor is it directed at a person (it’s a press release).

You haven’t pointed out any such alleged bias. You’re just asserting that it is there and attacking the legitimacy of the report, otherwise known as an ad hominem.

Cut-and-pasting a definition doesn’t prove you understand it.

You’re backed into a hole and you keep on digging deeper. Funny.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I’m just saying it’s strange you study every word from the AP with Taldumic intensity searching for the liberal bias, but you assume that a lobbying firm is telling the 100% unbiased truth.

I don’t see where I’ve done anything like that.  I pointed to a study, indciated who it was by, and posted some of my thoughts on its findings.  Now, if you want to suggest that some of its findings are inaccurate go right ahead…but you’re going to have to do better than you’ve done so far, which has enlightened us to nothing other than the fact that you are a shallow partisan more interested in attacking sources than discussing ideas. 

BTW, you demonstrate once again that conservatives don’t know what ‘ad hominem’ means.

Here is the definition of "ad hominem:"

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

Are you attacking the argument put forth in this study, on, or the people putting forth the argument?  Clearly you are doing the latter, which means that you are engaging in ad hominem arguments.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Dude, a corporate press release is INHERENTLY biased in favor os said corporate entity.

Don, I am not in the habit of condemning information based on nothing more than its source.  The whole "don’t judge a book by its cover" thing.

Because you won’t call into question any of the facts put forth by this report I’ll assume that you can’t and are, as you usually do, wasting everybody’s time.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Ok, we’ve established that this is a study from an advocacy group that represents insurance companies focused on providing insurance for individuals and small businesses.

Great.  Now that you’ve gotten your usual ad hominem attack out of the way, do you have anything to say about the study itself?  Are you denying that some states require insurance carriers to cover things like wigs and accupuncture?  Do you have any evidence to suggest that this study is misleading?

I’m just trying to start a discussion about this issue Don.  It would be helpful if you weighed in with an opinion rather than just registering a knee-jerk, partisan attack. 
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Don, why would you assume that this is an insurance industry lobby group?  Wouldn’t a group lobbying for the insurance company avoid putting out reports suggesting that Americans are paying too much for health insurance?

I think maybe you didn’t read the post too carefully. 
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Bat, I suspect that you’re right.

I have to laugh at Don and people like him.  He comes onto a comment thread like this one and just goes beserk, tossing around accusations and claims of bias.  When he is greeted with calm requests for facts or evidence to back up his assertions he continues the attack until everybody is tired of the conversation then runs away.

I wonder if it has ever dawned on him just how foolish this makes him look?  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe this report is way off-base. But regardless, other readers of this discussion are going to get the impression that I am right (and I do think I am right) because a) I was more reasonable than Don and b) Don couldn’t provide anything more in the way of criticism of this report than a lame suggestion that it is biased because it comes from an insurance lobby group.

This is why I never ban people like Don and some of his cohorts here.  By comparison, they make me look good. 
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Pointing out real bias in a corporate press release is neither an attack (it’s an assertion) nor is it directed at a person (it’s a press release).

Don, where have you pointed out real bias?  You pointed out that the study was done by an insurance lobby group.  Great.  Now where is the bias and inaccuracy?  If you want to convince me that it exists you’re going to have to put forth an argument that actually challenges the numbers and stated facts in the report.

Maybe you can’t, and that’s why you’re not doing it.

Also, who said ad hominems had to be directed at a person?  You’re refuting the study by attacking the source rather than the contents.  That’s ad hominem, bub, so don’t tell me I don’t understand the definition.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Insurance Mandates

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments