Boxed in: Mandates upping uninsured count
Boxed in: Mandates upping uninsured count
Comments
7
Published: July 6, 2008
FIRST thing you should know about health insurance mandates: They do nothing for the uninsured. Second thing you should know: They increase the number of the uninsured.
So in helping the insured get better coverage, mandates throw more people out of coverage. This is a true the-rich-get-richer, the-poor-get-poorer story. Supporters of an autism mandate in Oklahoma are strategizing about how they'll cross the goal line next year. That line eluded them last year as Republican lawmakers refused to hear their pleas — even as Democratic lawmakers refused to consider a mandate cost/benefit law. So much emotion surrounds mandates that it's easy to forget that they're increasing the number of uninsured citizens in a state recently identified as having the nation's worst uninsured rate. Why, then, would we even consider passing what would be Oklahoma's 37th mandate and a particularly expensive one at that? Why are we not considering bills to require that proposed mandates be subject to a cost/benefit analysis and allowing health care policies to be sold without mandates? The Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma, which joins us in opposing mandates in principle, said 17 mandates were proposed in Oklahoma this year. None made it through and few were even noticed. But, as sports fans say, wait until next year! Most mandates up the cost of policies by less than 1 percent. Some, such as mental heath services, increase premiums by 5 percent or more. The money goes to the providers who lobby for mandated coverage. Isn't income protection the real motive behind insurance industry opposition to mandates? Hardly. Risk firms don't gain from mandates. They merely pass on increased costs. And insurance agents would actually make more money if mandates were increased — the higher the policy premium, the higher their commissions. In at least 30 states, a proposed mandate's cost must be assessed before it's implemented. Not here. In at least 10 states, but not here, policies can be purchased under the "mandate-lite” plan, reducing premiums as well as benefits. Mandates range from the sublimely sensible (mammograms) to the weirdly ridiculous (one state mandates coverage for athletic trainers). Ten states mandate coverage of hair prostheses (cancer wigs), while only two mandate coverage for smoking cessation. Mandates happen because pressure groups make it difficult for lawmakers to resist. This is why the autism coverage debate this year degenerated into an irrational, subjective melee over a mandate for a controversial and expensive treatment modality. Last thing you should know about mandates: They don't necessarily achieve the greater good of covering the most people for the most basic health care services. Mandates are an exclusive boutique solution to a box store problem.
Prev

Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
All session long, we respected the legislative process, addressing each legislator by their proper name, made no noise, sent letters to ask for information and responses. When Rep Peterson's actions in his own committee meetings violated his own rules, by not allowing members of the committee not to discuss the material of the bill, he crossed a line of protocal that is unexcusable. Rep Peterson could have allowed a vote in his committee that he controls with an iron fist and defeated Nick's Law right there. Another poor decision.
The Speaker then followed suit. We had correspondence from many of the members to support the bill from both sides of the aisle that Nick's Law made it to the floor, then they would vote for it. Last count was around 80. Then the Speaker would not allow Nick's Law to be heard on the floor.
The House Leadership displayed some very poor political tactics. Bad advice or consulting. What they should have done is have the vote. If they thought it was going to be in their favor, then so be it. But they knew it would pass and pass with a large bipartisan vote.
By the way, Steven, your constitutional right to have your elected official represent you was denied. My was also, and he would have voted against it.
So quit holding the water for Rep Peterson, he is done and moving on. maybe you should look at the reason why Oklahoma is at the bottom of the list of health care condition of it's citizens. It's not because of mandates, we have not passed one since 2001. Yet your insurance costs keeping increasing each year and the cost to the taxpayers to provide care for all sorts of medical conditions that the insurance companies are shedding their coverage for keeps rising. You might be so scared of that penny that you are saving in insurance costs, that you do not notice that YOUR TAXES will be increasing at a much higher rate.
Wayne Rohde, Edmond, OK
"Mandates happen because pressure groups make it difficult for lawmakers to resist." Does it also follow, IIAO and the Oklahoman, that 17 mandates did not pass because pressure groups make it easy for lawmakers to resist?