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