A new scheme for buying health insurance

Posted by Carolyn Bigda

If there's one regulatory trend that may define 2009, it could be the creation of exchanges. The U.S. Treasury wants to start a type of exchange, or clearinghouse, for the buying and selling of over-the-counter derivatives, those obscure asset-backed contracts that helped bring the financial system to its knees.

Now, Congress is dabbling with the idea of creating a health insurance exchange.Health Insurance

Legislation with more details isn't likely to become available until later this summer. But the House Committee on Ways and Means introduced an outline this week. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), has also put forward a bill, (though at the moment the bill does not come up online, only the press release). At any rate, the Senate's proposal also calls for a "gateway" through which individuals can shop for insurance.

What's the point of an exchange? Well, it would set some ground rules for how insurance is bought and sold, just as there are rules for how stocks are traded in the market. For example, insurers wouldn't be allowed to sell policies that exclude pre-existing conditions. Individuals could choose between a newly formed public health insurance option and private plans, encouraging competition among insurers. Furthermore, the exchange would make it easier for consumers to comparison-shop policies.

In other words, the exchange would help create a more equitable, controlled health insurance market. At least that's the theory–but one perhaps worth gambling on. Because we've seen what happens when an opaque market, such as OTC derivatives, is allowed to run wild. I certainly don't want to take as much risk with my, your and future generations' health. (Click here to see the White House report, "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform.")

A percentage of our unemployment payment could go to pay for health insurance. New Jersey govt. is taking out a percentage of our salary for family time off when a family member is sick. The N.J. House and Senate did not ask the public if they can afford it. The Government is fully cover. Why not the public. If we do not have health care we the public should use our vote and vote out both Democrats and Republicans and put new members who will give us health care.The money we spend on Medicare and Medicaid could be put under one umbrella to make the cost much improved. Japan has a great system , no paper work, and this is our downfall.

Posted By L. C., Hackensack, New Jersey: June 24, 2009 11:05 pm

Why not forget health insurance and all the "plans" and just lower health care costs?

Posted By caroline h., ft. lauderdale, fl.: June 16, 2009 10:03 am

Why not do something simple- regulate health care cost. the government regulates how much utility compnaies can charge, the same should hold true for health insurance and malpractice insurance. I am self employeed and pay for my families health insurance and have seen my rates go up every year. Each year I recieve a letter that states it has been to cover cost increases. At the same time, the insurance companies were reporting RECORD PROFITS!!! IF the past two years has taught us anything, it is that people in general are greedy and will take as much as they can, whether they deserve it or not.
Also, I have a problem with government giving health care to people. People with free insurance from the government, including drug addicts on welfare, have much better coverage than my family – lower copays and better access to care and prescriptions. I pay over $700 a month for my family's HMO policy, I think I am entitled to better care than people who pay absolutely nothing!! I work alot of hours to have less than someone who does not work at all. It is ridiculous!!

Posted By Joe, Philadelphia PA: June 14, 2009 3:22 pm

While i can understand Bruce from Fernandinas concerns, let him understand that some diseases such as diabetes are often genetic in nature and strike no matter what one does, as it did me and several relatives. One can find oneself with a chronic disease no matter how much one works out or eats wisely. The number of uninsured in this nation is over 40 million, with job losses mounting many have lost any possibility of employer based health insurance. And you just try finding affordable health insurance out of your own pocket when you are unhirable as I now am, its tough. America is the ONLY developed nation that pays so much yet gets so little quality care in return. It is a major factor in limiting our economic health as well; with our aging population there are fewer and fewer workers to support this population. We need to fix this now or the costs may soon make employer based health insurance a thing of the past.

Posted By Scott, Covington, Georgia: June 12, 2009 5:10 pm

Totally agree with Stu. Why isn't somebody saying we could curtail half the run away cost if healthcare if everybody would just get off the couch and put down the doughnuts. Obesity is an epidemic. I'd rather see the government hand out treadmills than overhaul a system for the sake of establishing a legacy. I think we have bigger problems than healthcare, but the administration needs a big win and is going to force this issue. Once they "fix" the system, do you think anybody will admit a mistake? Fix social security or put in a national sales tax if you want to do something radical. Don't break up a system that most people are satisfied with. By the way, a large number of the "uninsured" are voluntarily uninsured, because the risk/reward is not in their favor. I am youn and healthy and don't want to be forced to subsidize a fat, drunk, smoker with a had liver, diabetes, and lung cancer.

Posted By Bruce, Fernandina Beach, FL: June 12, 2009 1:40 pm

The government plans to offer richer benefits to everyone under a single payer system, insuring 50 million more Americans. Tell me how this will lower cost? 50 million American will rush to obtain medical care overwhelming our system and costing trillions. Furthermore, the govt will be paying a far richer benefit. How will Mr. Obama deliver the "savings"? Simple answer, he will not. He is lying. The only way lower cost will be achieved is by limiting procedures, rationing care, paying providers less. This is not a scenario the American people will accept. Mr. Obama over simplifies and dumbs down the issue…who can deny that health care for all sounds wonderful? Better solutions: get to the root of out of control healthcare. For one, have the govt pay their fair share of the cost of Medicare. They currently pay well below cost, and the private sector subsidizes. Implement electronic medical records. Force PCPs and specialists to talk to each other and coordinate care. Encourage and reward wellness.

There are better solutions than a govt run system, which will become an entitlement we will never get rid of, burdening future generations with the debt of such a system. When has the govt ever done something that we have been proud of, except defend our country?

Posted By Roger Higgins, Charlottesville, VA: June 12, 2009 7:14 am

We cannot equate heath insurance with home insurance. Life is precious and without health insurance, ones life can be cut short solely because the individual doesn't have enough money. Is this the type of society we want to be? A place where the rich can live longer and the poor should just roll over and die? Give all Americans a chance to live and be healthy. Rich OR poor.

Posted By The Good Samartian, Ames, Iowa: June 11, 2009 12:28 am

Look,
I for one am not looking for anything for free. I believe in democracy and I believe in capitalism.
That being said,it is absolutely crucial that Americans have access to quality health insurance. How many people 45 and up don't have some sort of pre-existing condition? I dare say it is a very small percentage. We need affordable,quality healthcare that is available to everyone.
There are many billions to be saved by enacting tort reform,modernizing the billing systems,cracking down on the massive fraud in todays healthcare industry including Medicare and Medicaid. There are so many Seniors who abuse the system as they go to doctors like it is a free lunch. There are millions of people and many providers who game the system. Lastly,we must deal with end of life issues. This is the most costly of care. To extend life artificially is something we just cannot afford. I am talking about adding a few days or weeks to a life whose time has come. Those who can afford such care fine. It is those who take billions a year from people who can't afford even rudimentary care.

Posted By Peter Atlanta Ga: June 11, 2009 12:03 am

There are tons of problems but two major ones must be fixed to bring down costs. The first is that ins companies take approx 30% of healthcare dollars with very little value added. And that number is increasing! The second is that the amount of paperwork/regulation is tremendous. No human being in the world could even remotely grasp the complexities within even just one insurance company. Patient's should see what provides have to deal with, it is insane. This complexity costs approx another 10-20% of healthcare dollars to support the system on the patient/provider side with time spent, staffing, computer/paper resources. So ~50% of your cost of care has nothing to do with your actual care. That is what must be solved!

Posted By Medical Professional, Davie, FL: June 10, 2009 11:55 pm

Can you get home insurance today for the damage caused by the flood yesterday? Covering pre-existing conditions by the 'insurance' takes away the credibility of the text of the bill. Call it benefit, welfare but not insurance. We need to treat health care like defense. Half baked solutions will not reduce the suffering.

By the way, there are already a few health insurance exchanges. Here are a few examples.

Posted By John Day, Richardson, TX: June 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Totally agree with the single payer system with subsidies for those you are below a certain level of income. This is the system adopted by most, if not all major industrialized countries. Single payer for all with negotiated prices for medical procedures and medication will greatly help in ensuring cost containment. We must keep in mind that administrative costs of providers amount to 15-20% of premiums we pay.

Posted By MPL, Los Angeles CA: June 10, 2009 9:47 pm

A single payer government controlled health care program WILL NOT control costs UNLESS it RATIONS benefits and eliminates investments in technology and new drugs – all three of which would be a DISASTER.

The federal government is taking over private industry one industry at a time. First the banks, insurance companies, now the health care industry.

The government CANNOT run ANYTHING and control costs. They only care about the politics, not the costs.

TAXES will go through the roof. IF you think Health Care is expensive now wait until the government supplies it for "FREE".

Unfortunately, our government has spent all the money from Social Security and Medicare. In reality, we are broke and we can NEVER repay the money once Obama gets through.

Depression on the way if Obama quits spending. Hyperinflation and then Depression if he doesn't. The 2nd one is MUCH WORSE.

Hopefully, foreigners will SOON STOP LENDING US MONEY!

Posted By Art Winston Salem NC: June 10, 2009 9:34 pm

Until we address the true nature of why healthcare costs are rising, we're never going to solve the problem.

Someone (Obama) needs to stand up and say that we're fat and unhealthy, which leads to more visits to the doctor and more required surgery/treatment. These interactions with doctors lead to increased changes of malpractice suits. The visits are also "sponsored" by drug companies that make money off peddling a drug for ANY AND ALL situations, when eating better, stopping smoking, getting exercise, and losing weight would be as helpful.

People expect health insurance to cover them 100%, but it doesn't – and neither should the government. Until these issues are addressed, we're stuck rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and will be further putting our children in a financial chokehold.

Posted By Stu, Chicago, IL: June 10, 2009 8:18 pm

Anything short of a single-payer government run system fails to fix the problem. A continuance of the for-profit health care industry will continue to see increases in rates that exceed wages and any fix short of a single-payer system will only be a small patch in dam that has cracks running throughout it. How much of our current tax dollars go to provide healthcare to people other than ourselves, Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, the VA hospitals and clinics, state and local programs, the cost of covering federal, state, and local employees. How much more do medical providers charge people who can pay to recoup money that they lost from providing care to people who couldn't afford to pay their bill. How much of your car and homeowners insurance premiums go to cover medical costs from accidents. The cost of medical care is in almost everything we buy, including cars. Businesses can't compete because they are burdened with skyrocketing healthcare costs. How much money do companies and loan issuers lose each year because of bankruptcy filings caused by enormous medical costs, which I believe is the leading cause of bankruptcy. How much does that drive up the costs you and I pay? Would that lower the spread that companies need to charge in interest rates? Maybe. How much money do charities spend paying off people's medical bills? Think of how that money could go to benefit research on diseases or go to some other good cause. The fact is we pay a large amount of money for our insurance (those that have it) to cover ourselves, we pay taxes to cover those that can't cover themselves and qualify under our current standards, and we cover all service connected medical claims for veterans and all claims by needy veterans. If you think a single payer system is expensive, look at the things I just mentioned, healthcare is currently costing you more than you realize, there is a hidden cost that people don't factor in.

Posted By Addam, Hurricane WV: June 10, 2009 6:47 pm

A known future cost is not a risk, and hence is not insurable. Therefore, to the extent that policies cannot exclude (or charge more for) pre-existing conditions, they are not just insurance policies; they are a combination of insurance and welfare. This may be good or bad, but it is a distinction that should be recognized and discussed.

Posted By William Hansen, Deerfield, IL: June 10, 2009 6:04 pm

Hey, look, another fraud scheme for fat cats with alot of money. Sell insurance to unsuspecting victims, promising total care. Get a tax break from Uncle Sam, file for bankruptcy when they've made enough money to turn a nice profit, dump the the unsuspecting victims. Yet another loophole we spent our tax dollars for an idiotic goverment to come up with. What a waste, get rid of all of them.

Posted By MMJ, Minneapolis, MN: June 10, 2009 5:59 pm
CNNMoney.com Comment Policy: CNNMoney.com encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNNMoney.com may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNNMoney.com the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNNMoney.com Privacy Statement.
Carolyn Bigda
Carolyn Bigda
Carolyn Bigda is a writer at MONEY. She joined the magazine in 2004 and today writes about investing, taxes and how to find luxury that's a good value. Originally from Massachusetts, she holds a bachelor's degree in political science from Northwestern University and a master's degree in journalism from New York University. She lives in Manhattan.
Subscribe to this blog: RSS feed
© 2009 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2009 BigCharts.com Inc. All rights reserved. Please see our Terms of Use.
MarketWatch, the MarketWatch logo, and BigCharts are registered trademarks of MarketWatch, Inc.
Intraday data provided by Interactive Data Real-Time Services and subject to the Terms of Use.
Intraday data is at least 20-minutes delayed. All times are ET.
Historical, current end-of-day data, and splits data provided by Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data.
Fundamental data provided by Morningstar, Inc..
SEC Filings data provided by Edgar Online Inc..
Earnings data provided by FactSet CallStreet, LLC.
Powered by WordPress.com VIP.