Yes, Let’s Trust The Insurance Industry’s Numbers
I’ve been following the stories today about that “study” (pdf) by the insurance industry and while I understand why it’s getting so much play, I have a hard time believing why anybody would believe what they have to say about their own products becoming more expensive.
Let’s run down some reasons…
- First, if the insurance companies want insurance to become more expensive, guess what? They can make it more expensive. For any reason.
- Second, the idea that covering more people and injecting competition into the marketplace will somehow drive up prices is frankly ludicrous on its face. Especially by the totals they’re claiming ($4,000 for families and $1,500 for individuals in 10 years).
- Third, the study claims that new levies will be passed right along to consumers without taking into account the idea that behavior changes along with new fees. Or, as economist Len Nichols of New America Foundation says, “[The study] assumed the tax would have no behavioral effect, contrary to every other tax in the history of civilization.”
- Last, the AARP, hardly a partisan organization, is speaking out (from the AP): AARP Executive Vice President John Rother told reporters Monday that he doesn’t think the report is “worth the paper it’s written on.” He said if anyone believes it, that’s a problem.
So what to make of all this?
Well, today the insurance industry made the case for government run health care better than any Democrat could have.
And perhaps not in response to this report, but others are making similar observations.
Here’s the question: How scared are the insurance companies if they’re throwing nonsense like this out there?
(Photo: Getty via Daylife)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Previously logged in with Facebook?
Log in to True/Slant with Facebook
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mr. Meta. Mr. Meta said: TRUE/SLANT: Yes, Lets Trust The Insurance Industrys Numbers http://ow.ly/15UxnL [...]
Mr. Gardner,
The 26 page document that you linked is not so much a study as a billboard. There is no data and analysis leading to a conclusion, there is just a series of assertions. It simply says “If the Federal Government does X, we will raise our rates by Y amount but if it does A, then we will raise our rates by B amount”. It is fine for waving about but has nothing inside.
[...] I said it yesterday, as if we were really going to believe this study anyway? [...]
“I have a hard time believing why anybody would believe what they have to say about their own products becoming more expensive”
Using your logic. I have a hard time believing obama when he says he will ower costs, and provide services for more people with the same number of providers. Really?
How well has the government run anything? And did they ever run ANYTHING economically? I guess you like going to the DMV and waiting in line forever; well get used it to it, because that’s how your healthcare is going to be with obama.
Also healthcare single payer supporters frequently make the argument that competition is required to make healthcare more affordable-couldn’t agree more- but they think having a single payer system is how youcreate more compettion. Confused so am I.
One last comment. Obam was in such a rush to pass healthcare, he literally wanted (and still) wants a vote without allowing Congress to read the bill. But when it comes to Afghanistan we need to slow down and analyze it. Confused again?
Hurry up on healthcare, slow way-way down on the war.It’s not like people are dieing or anything. (P.S this was the ‘good war’, the one he campaigned that was being ignored. Looks like nothings changed.
To answer…
First, the government has to run at about 100% all of the time or private business, the real engine of the economy, can’t run. So things are inefficient because they have to be nearly bullet proof.
Second, anybody who has spent any time in corporate America can tell you how grossly inefficient things are. Case in point, Medicare has 5% overhead. Insurance industry? 20%+
Third, some people may prefer single payer, but that’s not what we’re talking about. A public option is not single payer. Still, is their private insurance in Canada? The UK? Yes and yes. Some people would still want to buy insurance even if they have government to cover the necessities.
Fourth, the notion that Obama doesn’t want people to read the bill is a incorrect. Sorry, but I’m not going to let you get away with that.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Anybody who has spent any time in corporate America can tell you how grossly inefficient things are.”
I’ve spent time in both, and there is no comparison–govt wastes much more. Mainly because there is no accountability. Secondly they actually reward waste. If you don’t spend your entire budget in government you have failed. there is no mechanism to reward fiscal responsibility, you are literally punished.
Case in point, Medicare has 5% overhead. Insurance industry? 20%+
Source?
“some people may prefer single payer, but that’s not what we’re talking about. A public option is not single payer.’
It isn’t initially but it will all off the competition, or do you not understand economics?
“Still, is their private insurance in Canada? The UK? Yes and yes. Some people would still want to buy insurance even if they have government to cover the necessities.”
Both of those systems are miserable failures, do you really want that?
“the notion that Obama doesn’t want people to read the bill is a incorrect. Sorry, but I’m not going to let you get away with that”
What other conclusion would you reach? Because you assert that to be the case?
Look at his actions. There still is no final bill and they still want to rush a vote. Obama campaigned on transparancy. He is fighting the legislation that would require publishing the final version for 72 hours!
In response to another comment. See in context »