WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats threatened Tuesday to filibuster Republican-backed legislation they said would scale back health insurance for millions. Republicans said the measure would allow small businesses to offer coverage to more workers.
The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., would enable businesses to join across state lines to buy health insurance. The pooling would give them enough clout to negotiate better rates, Enzi said.
"This is something that the small businesses have been asking for for almost 15 years," said Enzi, R-Wyo.
Democrats said the resulting plans would not meet people's needs because the legislation would pre-empt state requirements for certain coverage, such as mammograms or diabetes supplies. Enzi's aides said he would support some mandated coverage if a majority of the states require it. . . .
The White House Office of Management and Budget released a statement saying that
President Bush supports the bill.
"By providing coverage for thousands of employees at a time, association members would be able to provide their employees better health care coverage at lower premiums," OMB said.
Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., said insurance policies for large employers already are exempt from state coverage requirements. He said it's time to do the same for small group coverage.
"The small business people are paying more to get the same benefits because they have higher administrative costs and higher overhead costs," Talent said.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said he fears the insurance industry would offer plans that exclude childhood immunizations and other important services. They would also be allowed to increase premiums beyond what individuals states now allow.
"What we're doing here is shrinking the amount of benefits offered to people," Dodd said.
In recent decades, it has become common for states to require that insurance companies offer coverage for certain types of cancer screenings, such as mammograms, which are covered in 49 states; cervical cancer screenings, covered in 29 states; and colorectal examinations, covered in 22 states.
"If you find cancer early and detect it early, you're not only going to save costs, you're going to save a life," said Daniel Smith of the American Cancer Society. "One of the barriers to going to get screened is if your insurance company won't cover it."
Insurers say state mandates are driving up the cost of policies and the ranks of the uninsured. States have approved more than 1,800 coverage requirements, says the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.
"Although one mandate may only increase the cost of a policy by 1 percent, 40 such mandates will price many people out of the market," the council said in a recent report.
What is being talked about here is insurance mandates. I've posted about them before.
The mandates focused on in the article are, predictably, those that are most likely to evoke an emotional response. Like cancer screenings. Who doesn't think that a cancer screening should be part of comprehensive health insurance coverage?
But what they don't tell you is that most state insurance mandates are for some pretty non-sensical things that most citizens aren't really going to be all that interested in. Like coverage for pseudo-medicine specialists like accupuncturists and coverage for wigs.
Now, maybe you're a big believe in the powers of acupuncture and want that to be part of your insurance coverage. That's great. But why should it be mandated coverage so that people like me end up paying for it as well? All it does is make insurance coverage more expensive for everyone while adding benefits for a minor segment of the population.
For instance: I am not a woman. I don't have breasts and am not likely to get breast cancer. Why, then, should I have to pay for insurance for breast exams? I don't have a cervix either, yet I am also forced to pay for coverage for cervical exams.
It doesn't make sense.
This is yet another failing of this country's collectivist thinking on health care. By mandating one-size-fits-all health coverage we force people to may more for insurance in order to have coverage for things their neighbors want but they aren't likely to ever want or need. Just as when we force everyone to carry insurance coverage (as they are now doing in Mass.) we make them responsible for the consequences of the personal health decisions of their neighbors.
These are the reasons why health care should be the personal responsibility of the individual. We should all be responsible for purchasing the health coverage and care that we want and will actually use while simultaneously being responsible for the health choices that we make.
Sadly, though, Democrats don't want this. They don't want personal responsibility. They adhere to the collectivist mentality that tries to make us all fit into cookie-cutter molds. They want less personal responsibility because it makes them look like the "good guys." The "caring guys." That it is a terribly inefficient way to run a health care system, let alone a country, is neither here nor there.