What happened next was predictable to anybody except a liberal. As a direct result of the denial for rate increases, the health insurance companies all posted losses in the first quarter of this year.
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/05/health_insurers_3.html
The state's four biggest health insurers today posted first-quarter losses totaling more than $150 million, with three of the carriers blaming the bulk of their deficit on the Patrick administration's decision to cap rate increases for individuals and small businesses.
It should be obvious to anybody, even liberals, that companies can only operate at a loss for so long before going out of business. That's a pretty self-evident fact, isn't it?
Well, the appeals board thought so, and reversed the Commissioner's earlier decision. In light of the losses, they decided that the requested premium hikes were reasonable after all... thus proving to anybody with a brain that price controls don't work worth a hill of beans.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GICMQ80.htm
The Massachusetts Division of Insurance appeals board, in a blow to Gov. Deval Patrick, sided Thursday with a leading state insurer that has been locked in a premium dispute with his administration.
Harvard Pilgrim, the state's second-largest private insurer, had appealed an April decision by the Division of Insurance that denied 235 of 274 business premium increases proposed by the company and some of its leading competitors.
The board concluded Thursday that given the market conditions, Harvard Pilgrim "has illustrated and proved that there are valid reasons that explain and justify its differential reimbursements to providers."
Other companies, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state's largest private insurer, are still awaiting decisions on their appeals.
The Commissioner, relying on these artificial price controls to make his state's health care system look better than it is, expressed his disappointment with the decision.
"We strongly disagree with the hearing officers' decision," said Anthony. "They've substituted their judgment for the judgment of the commissioner."
You know, that statement is completely asinine. Isn't the purpose of a review board to evaluate the decision being appealed and, if necessary, substituting their judgment for that of the Commissioner? Yeah, I thought so, too.
But here we have a clear and vibrant lesson to all you health care liberals out there. Simply declaring that premiums must remain low, as Massachusetts did and as Obama has already begun doing, accomplishes nothing other than forcing insurance companies to operate at a loss and, eventually, go out of business.
But then, wouldn't most of the liberals just love that outcome, anyway?
If ObamaCare goes the direction of Massachusetts' program, which is entirely probable because the programs are so similar, this is what we can look forward to on a national basis.
I am reminded of a Air Force mentality that I began to see around the late 1990s. We called it the "change-the-change-to-the-change-to-the-change" concept.
ReplyDeleteYou basically changed things...just to be different. You left for another office or squadron 12-18 months later...and then the next crew started a vast new change.
After a couple of these, you realized that nothing was getting accomplished except some change for change-sake.
I have this feeling over the finance bill and the universal health care bill...that we are getting change for change-sake....and not much else. In the next decade, we will likely alter the universal health care bill over one hundred times...and I doubt if any change ever fixes it.
yeah, that does sound similar, doesn't it? And the ObamaCare law can't be "fixed", because it's based upon the flawed premise that our healthcare system MUST be controlled by the government.
ReplyDelete