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.
Featured Gallery
Advertisement
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.
Mandates happen because pressure groups make it difficult for lawmakers to resist.
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.
It is interesting that the Oklahman's editors referred to those advocating for Nick's Law, the insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism as an "irrational, subjective melee over a mandate for a controversial and expensive treatment modality". This kind of nonsense only adds fuel to the fire and is indicative to how very little the editorial staff understand this topic. These kinds of statements only make those advocating for Nick's Law work even harder and shows the ignorance of the editorial staff. Treatments for autism is far from controversial. Behavioral therapies for children with autism is backed by the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Education, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Expensive, yes..but so are mamograms, treatments for prostate cancer, diabetes ($3000/month for an insulin pump), AIDS, and a host of other mandates that I pay for but will never use. Should we call the people who lobbied for the diagnosis and treatment for these diseases as irrational? The Oklahoman's editors are bowing to the big insurance once again and believe the taxpayers should be footing the bill for these children. Regardless of whether one believes in mandates or not, the truth of the matter is every 1 in 94 boys in our state and new figures now say every 1 in 67, but regardless of the figures..the number of children with this disease is increasing and parents, or those who can will continue to pay what they can so these children will not become wards of the state when they turn 18. The vast majority of parents cannot afford to pay $200-$5000/month, so without insurance coverage, the taxpayers will be footing the bill for these children for the lifetime care of $3.2 million. I'm all for debating mandates, but has anyone, let me say this again, has ANYONE offered a valid alternative? Institutionalizing these children is not the answer, as Speaker Benge would like us to do. The vast majority of these children, if given the appropriate therapies can become productive, taxpaying citizens, otherwise, without treatment, every taxpayer in this state will be paying for these children. Why don't the collective editorial heads at the Oklahoman come up with a valid alternative to insurance mandates? Could it be because they have no idea what it takes to educate and care for a child with autism? Robyne Rohde, Mommy to Nicholas (Nick's Law)
Do away with the concept of insurance and embrace tge concept of providing "Health Care". Seems like fire and police protection are provided without having to be insured for these services. The cost would go down dramatically as there would be an elimination of all the different administrative mandates that each and every insurance company now mandates.
The black and white situation is Peterson was voted in to represent his district. He represented the insurance companies instead. He basically played a game of chess to insure he won a cushy job when people exposed him for the corrupt politician he was. How can anyone represent Oklahoma when they shut you out and lock the door? We the people who need help were not even given a chance. The bottom line is mandates are placed into law to protect people. Insurance helps protect people to help them be healthier. At this point this information of people are uninsured d/t mandates is just a bunch of insurance people meeting at the city dump trying pick a phrase of words to give to the people. I am uninsured d/t autism not d/t mandates!!!!! I would be insured if mandates were in place. These insurance people have said that quote standing in the mirror so now they are brain washed individuals. The reality people need help and can't reach it.......
Steven, nice try. However you are so far off the mark. You forgot to tell the crowd that Rep Peterson is against all mandates PERIOD. And then he is congratulated at the end of the session with all these courage awards from extreme special interest groups. What is so courageous about turning your back on the most vulnerable members of our society, children and adults with special needs. Rep Peterson rides into town in 2000 calling himself a compassionate conservative like so many of the others up at the capitol. What is so conservative about forcing thousands of families to see taxpayer paid services. He is just advocating for higher taxes under the guise of protecting insurance lobby.
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.
Percy if you followed the emotion that came from the autism push you would know that it is not easy to resist. Rep. Peterson who stood his ground against the special interest group is not running because of the toll that group took on him. You need to pay attention during session and you will see that Jay Paul Gumm and his crowd use attacks on earnest lawmakers that paint them as hate/fear/bigot mongers. Not an easy job to face unrelenting pressure from people looking for entitlements who think their situation somehow gives them the moral high ground.
Just as it is true that all of the people who support abortion have already been born, so, too, we may someday find that those who object most vehemently to expanding coverage for "illness X" already have coverage for "illness X," either by virtue of a policy they possess or the money they possess.
"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?
7
Featured Gallery
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?